As you political observers know by now, Governor Schwarzenegger of California signed a law yesterday moving their 2008 Presidential primary up from June to February 5. Other states, including such highly populated ones as New York, Florida, and Texas, are likely to follow if they have not already. One might ask, "What difference does all this make, as it pertains to the nominating process?". Let me posit a conclusion.
Today is March 16, 2007, and in all likelihood a year from today we will already know (for all intents and purposes) who the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be, due directly to the acceleration of the primary schedule. With so many caucuses/primaries occurring in such a compacted fashion (January through February 15 or so, 2008), less importance will be placed on the one-on-one campaigning that has happened in the past in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and more importance will be placed on "retail" politics -- advertising, raising money, highly publicized mass events, etc.
Is this trend good or bad? I'll leave this as an intellectual exercise for the reader. Perhaps the most visible result is that so-called second- and third-tier candidates have an even less chance of being nominated than before. To illustrate, Jimmy Carter's Democratic primary nomination in 1976 would almost certainly not happen in 2008, and Howard Dean in 2008 would have been the Democratic party's nominee.
So, what does all this mean? I think it's fairly safe to say that the next President of the United States will be one of the following people (barring a miracle, and in no particular order):
1) Hillary Clinton
2) Barack Obama
3) John Edwards
4) Al Gore (if he runs)
5) Mitt Romney
6) Rudy Giuliani
7) John McCain
I can already hear my conservative Gatherer friends saying, "What about Newt Gingrich? Fred Thompson?" And, similarly, from my Democratic friends, "What about Bill Richardson?"
All fair questions. However the six/seven people mentioned above have gotten (or can get) the lion's share of credible $$, credible organization, credible endorsements, credible pollsters/consultants, etc. There's not enough oxygen left in the room, quite frankly.
Again, I'll leave the discussion to each of you whether this is good or bad. But, as always, I greatly value your comments, agree or disagree. What do you think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
As it is right now, I agree with you that this front-loading guarantees that the "big name" candidates are the only choices for both parties given the amount of money they have to have in the bank going into this.
I'll hold onto the hope that things can change. It's still too early to call, in my opinion, but it'll be interesting to check this list as we get closer to the election.
The entire primary cycle will shift earlier as well. Candidates will become more aggressive earlier in the cycle. Focused attacks on the front runner will start this year, instead of early next, with the field trying to narrow the gap in time to affect Feb 5. If undeclared candidates (e.g. Gore) want to run, they must decide that in the next couple of months to have an organization in the field in time for that date as well.
I agree with Rob's analysis, that having earlier primaries gives us a lot of time to get to know the general election candidates. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to dig into both philosophical and policy differences in a much deeper way with them.
The challenge, of course, is that the opposite is true with the shorter primaries. With so many candidates and a lot less time, the parties will have less time to select their standard bearer. If the broader population is caught off guard, will the party faithful play a bigger role, selecting those with stronger left (for the Dems) and right (for the Republicans) leanings as general election candidates? Or will the focused attention of a Mega Millions primary bring more people to the polls, allowing for the centrists to pull it out? It should be fun to watch.
The downside is that, I expect, the cost of campaigns will climb dramatically, bringing more money into politics. Primary candidates are raising more now than before. And with a possible stretch from February-November for the general, the candidates and the DNC and RNC will need to target far larger raises to pay for media over the long haul.
I tend to think there is an inverse ratio between the total amount raised by a winning candidate and their ability to serve the interests of all the American people. I expect we will be setting some significant records this year with both primary and general election spending.
Plus, in most modern democracies, primary elections are simple, first-run elections, and they all run on the same day nationally. It's becoming more and more obvious to the electorate here that their primary vote counts less than their vote on the actual election day in November if they aren't in a "key" state, so the effect of the California change is that "super-duper" Tuesday will serve as the default "national primary".
I actually think this is a good thing, but it's very different from what our process has been like, and may be hard for people to adjust their thinking to.
The next step, after a nationalizing the primary system, would be to strip the partisan primary idea -- yeah i know that's reaching, but we can hope. This would mean the top 2 (or 3) candidates would be eligible for the November election. It's an easier prayer than real proportional representation but this would challenge the major parties to think about finding real candidates not just party loyalists/puppets.
The purpose of the nominating process is for each political party to choose a person who best represents that party, giving the electorate clear choices between candidates on election day and ultimately electing a person who can govern a coalition of semi-organized Congresspeople under some sort of unified set of principles. It is not a pre-election. Voters who don't identify with a party should not even be allowed to vote in primaries.
The caucus system give candidates and voters a far more personal experience. In the early stages of the nominating process, only the most motivated people are involved and involvement is more than just casting an anonymous ballot--it involves discussing the candidates with your neighbors and casting your vote in public for a representative among your neighbors who is pledged to support a candidate. It can be a very empowering process for everyone involved. Now granted, I'm suspending some degree of cynicism here; I know nobody trusts "the party" but I just don"t believe these mass primary plebiscites are any better at electing good candidates. Worse, they change the process to be entirely money and media driven. Why should a candidate waste time talking to a few real people when they know they can/have to spend millions of dollars to run slickly produced ads that will be seen by millions?
Early primaries will always favor the known names. The current system allows one on one but only for a limited subset of the American population. The whims of a few in Iowa and New Hampshire can determine the fate of a nation. I strongly oppose early primaries for two reasons; the first is that there is simply not enough time to know the candidates and the second is that there is too much time between the point when the candidate is unofficially known and the actual convention to cause significant problems for the candidate.
Plus, in most modern democracies, primary elections are simple, first-run elections, and they all run on the same day nationally. It's becoming more and more obvious to the electorate here that their primary vote counts less than their vote on the actual election day in November if they aren't in a "key" state, so the effect of the California change is that "super-duper" Tuesday will serve as the default "national primary".
I actually think this is a good thing, but it's very different from what our process has been like, and may be hard for people to adjust their thinking to.
The next step, after a nationalizing the primary system, would be to strip the partisan primary idea -- yeah i know that's reaching, but we can hope. This would mean the top 2 (or 3) candidates would be eligible for the November election. It's an easier prayer than real proportional representation but this would challenge the major parties to think about finding real candidates not just party loyalists/puppets.
As I say, we have that chance, but not many take advantage of it. We hear the mantra, "Do not waste your vote". So most end up voting, if they vote, for the candidate we are told has a chance to make it. We bite ourselves in the foot by not taking this chance to vote. Remember the days when any child could dream about growing up to be president? This is not an option today.
It seems, by the above comments, that most people would like to cut out the primaries all together. I agree as long as people do not vote in primaries it does boil down to we vote for the ones who are chosen for us by the leadership. Or sometimes you hear, we vote for "the lessor of the evils". Is this the way Americans should choose their President?
The prime benefit of this extended cycle is that over this period of time it is far more likely that the foibles and lack of ethics of particular candidates will be revealed. The obverse of that is that it allows far more negative campaigning over a much longer period and may result in the exclusion of many good candidates who will decide, as Warner did, that they do not want to put their families through that. That is a bad thing that is always present but which is now magnified.
I agree Greg that this started with a few states, like Nevada, that wanted to increase their impact on the election but now that everyone is doing it, all that is happening is that the ultimate impact is lessened for all the early participants.
Any word on New Hampshire moving their primary to new Year's Eve?
...yet another reason not to start early
Personally, I am still going to be looking for the candidate.. either party... that doesn't engage in that garbage behavior, and doesn't affiliate him/herself with people who do it. Probably a pipe dream, but I'm looking!
I must say... here in MN, we NEVER used to see the major candidates here. Now that we have achieved that dubious status as a "battleground" state, they are here tying up traffic and driving us nuts every other weekend during the election season (not so much right now, thank goodness!). I liked it better when we were happily un-useful to them :)
However, we will be hosting the GOP convention here next year and I know that is going to be a media zoo. Hotels here are already booked solid as far as 60 miles away, and the whole issue of security cordons is beginning to make the downtown residents/businesses in St. Paul very nervous. I'm beginning to wonder if that week or two wouldn't be a good time to be anywhere else! :D
I agree for what its worth! Is it good? I have a great deal of difficulty with the amount of money it now takes to run for office and with the time invested in doing so. I certainly don't have an answer as to how, but if they could cut the entire election season the six weeks I think we'd all be better off. Ops, I forgot for a moment just how you make a living! That's the one thing good about the way it is done, it provides a lot of employment! But the candidate we elect has been packaged and sold like a side of bacon!
The problem with getting your ticket together too early is that it leaves greater time to have a total flame out for a candidate and too little relative time to get a new one on board and running!
The whole thing is one of the most fascinating processes in the ongoing American way of government!