Changing for Change

Dave Barry provides the best report on the primary season so far: ” The voters of New Hampshire have made their decision,” he writes, “and the big winner is: Change. Here’s the final vote tally:

Change—43 percent;
Hope—28 percent;
Hope For Change—17 percent;
Hair—9 percent;
Experience—2 percent;
Dennis Kucinich—1 percent.”

Looking ahead to the coming primaries, he adds: “I would say that the issue most on the minds of voters there, at the moment, is: Change. Although, of course, that could change.”

Meanwhile,

let’s take a moment to look back on both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, and ask ourselves if these two non-representative states—which have, between them, roughly the same total minority population as Gladys Knight and the Pips—should play such a huge role in selecting our presidential nominees. This is a very complex issue, with many strong arguments on both sides.

No, sorry, correction: It’s actually a simple issue. The Iowa/New Hampshire system is insane. It’s like a 50-table restaurant with a big, varied menu, except that only two tables are allowed to order. If these two tables order clams, for example, or Michael Dukakis, that’s what gets served to all the other tables.

(Hat Tip: Matthew Continetti )