I’m not a fan of giving certain states a sacrosanct role in the process. I’d preferother systems such as the California Plan which would start with smaller states holding primaries on a rotating basis, but quickly building up every week to combinations of states, including the larger ones. I’m done with ethanol, and smug Granite Staters expecting to personally meet with candidates.
Whichever flavor you like, the image of presidential candidates spending weeks hanging out in the landfills, diners, and county fairs of a select few states is an embarrassing way to pick a leader — especially when you do it over a year from the general election.
But this is the system at the moment, a system to which all interests agreed, before some idiots decided to bully their way to the front of the line. I would note that when Washington DC tried to jump the line in 2004, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt skipped the event and refused to have their names listed on the ballot.
You can’t have a primary without candidates, and the DC event received very little coverage in the press because the lack of big names made the victory hollow. That’s the dilemma the tantrum-throwers no have in front of them. Couldn’t happen to a lousier bunch.
laurel says
well, the top three are now huge advocates of states rights (see anything marriage-related link). isn’t this the ultimate display of states rights? /snark off/
<
p>
how are the top three republicans responding to this? (and who are the top three republicans anyway? is there a top three, or is it all blue skim, no cream?)
tblade says
I’m sure this is repetitive and if you don’t feel like answering, I don’t blame you. But is there a good argument for not having one national primary day, a “Super Tuesday” for all 50 states? I can think of a few good reasons for this, but not so many against other than “this is the way it has always been done” and politicians don’t like to rock the boat of “tradition”.
sabutai says
And that is that gradual primaries offer a chance for lower tier candidates to “break out” by competing in a low-budget exercise, and building momentum from there. Gene McCarthy and Bill Clinton used good showings in New Hampshire to that end, and Iowa has played a similar role for other candidates. If we were the have a national primary, it would come down to big travel and ad budgets from the gate.
<
p>
That’s why I like the California plan, as it preserves a role at the beginning for smaller states, but stops the enshrinement of Iowa and New Hampshire as special places in this regard.
<
p>
The rest of the arguments — that Iowans and New Hampshirites are somehow better qualified to make these judgments, or that they represent typical American populations — are facile.
tblade says
But I wonder how much good it actually does considering that many times, once NH, Iowa and SC have passed, the nominee is all but determined and the other State primaries is an exercise in going through the motions making later primaries irrelevant? I’m sure that nullifies some of the gained advantage from your example.
sabutai says
Going back to 1952, New Hampshire has picked the eventual Democratic nominee only 4 of the 10 primaries where there was serious opposition — including voting for Kefauver over incumbent President Truman. On the GOP side it was 7 for 10.
<
p>
Since 72, Iowa has picked the nominee from serious opposition 4 out of 8 times for the Democrats and 3 for 5 among Republicans. Between the two states and both parties, we’re looking at a combined record of 18 for 33.
<
p>
However, the game has changed in the 24 hour news cycle, and that’s where early states punch above their weight. The primaries end up shaping the race beyond reason, albeit with the compliance of voters who only will consider a “winner”, even if “winning” means doing the ethanol song-and-dance in a legion hall out in the middle of nowhere. Early winners will always get a momentum bonus, I just don’t see why the same people have to bestow it constantly. Something is messed up where the endorsement of the Des Moines Register is always the most valuable one in the primary process of the nation.
matt-locke says
I can’t see that the “best and brightest” are picked in primary elections. The present system is just a media event as is the Miss America Pageant. With all the reliance the candidates have on the local political bosses to get out the vote, I doubt if the old “Smoke Filled Room” method was any worse. At least in the SFR the party bosses could get rid of a candidate that would embarrass the party.
<
p>
Maybe we should bring back the SFR? It would save money and certainly “democracy” wouldn’t suffer.
raj says
…there were better candidates with SFRs.
<
p>
I got a kick out of your reference to Miss American Pageant, though. It would be funny to see the male contestants in their evening dresses and high heels.
jconway says
Id say several big regional primaries back to back, basically a national primary but split into regions so some local concerns can get addressed and tiered in a way that it starts with a region with inexpensive ad buys so that maverick candidate can break out.
<
p>
Either that or go back to a convention that actually matters, personally I see a 50/50 chance of this primary going to the convention which is why I want to be a delegate so bad.
sabutai says
It would be an interesting experience, but not quite as interesting as a lot of people presume.
<
p>
Basically, one enters the convention tied to a candidate, and breaking with that candidate at any time pretty much guarantees political death. So if one enters as a Biden delegate, and he cuts a deal to endorse Clinton in return for a VP slot, it is done with the expectation that you will vote Clinton for President. If you decide that you just can’t do that, and vote for Obama, your credentials can disappear and you can be kicked out of the convention, and/or any public involvement you have even on a town level is in jeopardy.
<
p>
Of course, a candidate can release their delegates to follow their consciences, but that is pretty rare.
<
p>
(I do agree though, and say a brokered convention is a 50-50 possibility, which is great news for Hillary.)
jimc says
I would put the chances of a brokered convention at well under 1%. Don’t forget what the early primaries do — make large amounts of money flow to the perceived winner(s). Once that occurs, the more marginal candidates disappear, and the winner widens the lead over the second and third candidates. Then pressure builds to support the nominee, and any deals to be cut (say, Cabinet posts) are done well before the convention.
<
p>
But, how do you guys see it differently? Why do you think it’s 50-50?
<
p>
sabutai says
I think mega-Tuesday is the big reason. As I noted elsewhere here, Iowa and New Hampshire have picked the eventual nominee just over 50% of the time, but that usually winnowed it down to three or four candidates. It was the following on primaries that knocked people out (if you remember from 2004, Super Tuesday finished off Clark, and Wisconsin did Dean in).
<
p>
With the variety in the first four, I can easily see two or three winners out of the early states. Even if it’s just Hillary and Obama, I imagine they’ll be close. As in two victories each. With Edwards and Richardson having strong seconds in at least one state.
<
p>
Without that consensus pick going into mega-Tuesday, I expect the states will split notably. Coming out of that day, the nomination would be very much withing the grasp of more than one candidate.
<
p>
Then all hell breaks loose. Maybe the elders can step in and convince Obama to wait a little (there’s no chance of getting Hillary to give up). If not, the leaders court the runners-up. I doubt Edwards would accept the VP…what do you offer him? Richardson is ready to be VP, but are the party elders ready for a ticket without a white man? Where do Biden and Dodd fit in?
<
p>
Any of these secondary candidates could easily carry on, saying “if you care about X vote for me, and I’ll make sure that the nominee cares about it”.
matt-locke says
… that sounds British.
they says
An early one, and then a second one a few months later, and all the votes are totaled up? Or maybe whichever one had higher turnout woudl be the one that counted, so that if residents liked the outcome of the first one just fine, they wouldn’t bother to go to the polls for the second one, and it wouldn’t count, but if something came up and they wanted a do-over, they’d have that chance?
raj says
Why the states’ governments should be involved in the process of how a political party selects its nominees is something of a mystery. If the political parties want to have a primary election, let them pay for it. If they are content with a smoke filled room, let that be. The voters can decide in the general election.
sabutai says
Raj, in the United States the political parties do determine the nomination process. That's why the Nevada and Wyoming dates — among many, many, many others, are different for the two parties. However, if you're looking to maximize publicity and visitor dollars, it makes sense to make the process an “event” which necessitates holding it on the same day. The state does have to pay for ancilliary expenses, but that doesn't give them a right to meddle. That's why the parties are the one trying to set a schedule, not the states. The DNC and RNC are the head organizations of the party, not a federal government agency.
The thing that your'e missing is that the parties are not content with a smoke-filled room because such a process pisses off the activists who do the work of getting the nominee elected. Given their druthers, I'm sure the inside boys would prefer an opqaue process. They attempted one in the 2005 campaign for Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and the process was derailed by activsts.
jconway says
The big reason MI and FL wanted to change their primaries, especially in MI, was not just for the media coverage and the glory but because the states are so big competitive primaries could only be won through big media buys which would enhance the states economy in a very artificial short term manner, much like a tax free weekend or casinos, but would do little in terms of benefitting voter turnout or increasing participation. Similarly the main reasons NH and IA want to keep their primaries are primarily economic ones, NH for the ad buys and because the state is so tiny that campaigns, their entourages, and the media actually increase tourism revenue significantly. Similar for IA, hotels and such, but also so that every candidate in every party whores themselves out to the ethanol and farm subsidy lobbies which are keeping IA economy afloat. Publicly financing campaigns would end a lot of problems and even have a big effect on these primary contests, and again I favor a tiered and rotated system of regional primaries every week starting with less densely populated ones so you have the retail aspects and the bonus to mavericks intact but not giving away enough delegates and not occuring so close to big primary days as to make that much of a difference.