Early Primary for single party? Not worth it...

So Texas didn't give itself a boost on the field of politics.

So what?

The Ledge decided not to move its primary elections up a month, a trend nationwide that places states in a more influential spot on the presidential campaign tour. In an interview with the Austin American Statesman Lt. Governor Dewhurst cited "a lack of consensus among Democrats or Republicans" as not being able to resolve the issue, but i have to wonder about that. yes, these days it seems both sides of the aisle are constantly at each others throats over every issue (save maybe their pay raises), but considering the dominance of the Republican party, especially in Texas, whats the big deal? are we that anxious to give the Republican candidate a boost?

Because of our single-party dominance in the state, early primaries seem a little, well, superfluous. Swing states benefit greatly from early primaries, by getting their candidates selected early they are placing themselves in a position to greatly effect the campaign outcome, which may not have any specific benefit to the state but it does gain political clout and bragging rights. Plus, the attention cant be bad. But with the presidential season starting copiously early this year, and with (yes, we say it every time, but maybe its true) the importance of the election growing as the global climate - political and literal - heats up, early primaries seem to be appropriate.

But Texas really shouldn't worry. even with a hotly contested race for the party nomination, Texas really doesn't seem to benefit greatly from early primaries. In November of 2008, the maps on network news will paint the state a deep crimson, whoever the candidate may be. Even Rudolph Giuliani would (almost) undoubtedly sweep the state.

Dewhurst may very well be correct when he says that the two sides of the aisle couldn't reach a consensus on the issue of the primaries, but (here's my bias coming out) i wouldn't be surprised if the republicans didn't feel it necessary to grant the concession of early primaries to the democrats, who would most likely benefit most from early primaries. Had the ledge moved the primaries up, the Dems in the presidential race would then give more attention to Texas Dems, for despite they're few numbers they would then have greater influence over the national race. So perhaps the Republicans, who don't really benefit from early primaries, didn't feel it necessary to give that clout to the Democrats.

This is Rove territory, after all.

More reading:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/09/30/0930dewhurstqa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_elections