Success of New Hampshire Primary Leads to Scheduling of Secondary and Tertiary

Melvin Schwarzengoggle

After the media coverage of New Hampshire’s primary, state officials began pondering an interesting question: Why stop at just one?

“New Hampshire’s pretty boring,” said Irene Jarvis, a New Hampshire citizen. “Other than the presidential primary every four years and the fact that Concord makes the best grape juice ever, we don’t have much going for us.”

Many presidential hopefuls weighed in on the decision with mixed reactions.

“Why should we stop at just three?” asked former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, who had a disappointing finish in the New Hampshire primary. “New Hampshire should have a quaternary and a quinternary, or whatever you would call it, I have no idea. Everybody deserves a chance to rebound, like the American people did after 9/11.”

“The people of New Hampshire are ready to make changes in America. The American identity is a melting pot of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities,” said Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who always sounds very inspiring but often doesn’t get to the point.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager told The Flipside that Hillary was unable to comment due to the fact that she still had tears of joy after hearing the news.

Even Congressman Ron Paul had something to say.

“The Constitution of our land doesn’t authorize the planning of secondaries and tertiaries,” he pointed out. “I’ve never voted for legislation that supports either one. The only solution to this problem is to get rid of the IRS.”

Iowa officials have expressed interest in having a second caucus but nobody knows what to call it yet.

December 15, 2008

Share This Post