Search Results for ‘presidential primaries’
In an article for the New Republic online, Jonathan Cohn points out that one possible unintended consequence of the frontloaded primary system is that it increases the likelihood of a protracted primary and would elevate the importance of late primaries like those in Oregon and West Virginia. While almost every four years, political pundits salivate at that thought of a fierce primary that would last months or even a floor fight at the convention to determine the nomination, Cohn hints at a more disturbing historic truth in his article: the primaries that he mentions as the late primaries, Oregon, West Virginia and Indiana were once the early primaries. West Virginia was where John Kennedy effectively clinched the nomination in 1960 and Indiana and Oregon were decisive battlegrounds in the 1968 primary contest between Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. (The first time a Kennedy ever lost an election was when Bobby Kennedy finished second to Eugene McCarthy in Oregon.) The drift of the primary schedule has turned what were once early primaries into laggards.
We’ve expressed our concern about the frontloading of the primary process before. But this drift towards earlier primaries has the potential to end the Iowa Caucuses as we know them. The “Super-Duper Tuesday” on February 5th and Florida’s move to hold its primary on January 29 may force the Iowa Caucuses to be held, at latest, on January 7. If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the caucuses are held in 2007 in order to preserve their primacy. If that happens, then the Caucuses are finished. Holding a Presidential Primary or Caucus in 2007 would be so absurd that it would make wholesale reform of the Presidential nominating process inevitable. If there is top to bottom reform of the process, Iowa will not be first in the nation anymore. The interests opposed to Iowa are dramatically stronger than those that support Iowa and once the caucuses lose the advantage of stasis and institutional conservativism, the Iowa Caucuses will be not be first in the nation before. The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008 as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely, and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008, as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater, and as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
March 25th, 2007
While the tempest in a teapot has been raging about the comments that Obama backer David Geffen made about Hillary Clinton, it’s worth noting that Obama, who was in Iowa last night, has acquired some questionable supporters. Obama has freely accepted the support of someone with known links to transvestite prostitutes, of a person who’s publicly made anti-Semitic remarks and, most appallingly, of Ben Stiller.
It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.
Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.
February 22nd, 2007
A number of states, including California, Texas and New York are in the process of moving their Presidential Primaries to February 5. Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah already have primaries scheduled then. In addition, Florida might move up to January 26 and Alabama to February 2. It has the potential to create total chaos in the Presidential nominating process and to set up a chain reaction that pushes up the Iowa Caucuses to the first week in January, if not into 2007.
However, regardless of what happens with the actual timing of the Caucuses, what impact will a front-loaded primary schedule have on Iowa? The 2004 primary schedule was pretty frontloaded but by effectively ending the primary season before Lincoln’s birthday, the 2008 schedule will further elevate the importance of Iowa. Candidates will, at best, get four chances to prove themselves in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. There will be no opportunity to build firewalls at all or regain momentum after those four states and even if a candidate suffers one small slip or performs ever so slightly below expectations, they will be finished. Iowa will be the first and best chance for a candidate to distinguish themselves.
The frontloading will have a disproportionate impact on second tier candidates like Chris Dodd. Second tier candidates won’t have the opportunity to build momentum or develop a following if they do well in early states. This applies even to Tom Vilsack, who is considered the only second tier candidate who has a chance to win the Caucuses. Even if he takes advantage of his hometown appeal and wins the caucuses, he’ll have to translate his Iowa success into the millions of dollars necessary be competitive in California and New York in three weeks while simultaneously trying to do well in the other early primaries.
The frontloading makes Iowa more important but hurts the process as a whole. It is a move towards a national primary, which is one of the worst possible ways to nominate a President. Although it seems unlikely that any real reform can happen now, one would hope that after the 2008 election, both the DNC and the RNC can get together and actually set up a workable schedule to avoid this type of mess in the future.
February 18th, 2007
The rumors are going around, and Vilsack is set to appear with Hillary in DC this week at a Democratic Governors Association press conference. Here’s how the Register reports it:
Some pundits as well as Democratic activists have suggested Vilsack would be a good fit on a ticket with Clinton as presidential nominee. Both are active in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and both have insisted they will not demand a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A few days back, Hotline proposed some theories about the role Hillary could play in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination. Theory 1:
…unless she either doesn’t run or appears very vulnerable early on , one theory of the case holds that they will spend their time cozying up to her and tearing into each other. (Grover Norquist endorses that theory, too.) At least in part, they’ll try to use the primaries to audition for the general election.
To be clear: Bayh, Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack — they all want to be president, not vice president. But they will almost certainly hedge their bets. They will not run a true-blue, rouse-the-base primary campaign.
Theory 2, however, simply says that Hillary is too polarizing a figure and won’t get anywhere. In that case, though, candidates might still stick to centrist rhetoric in an effort to distinguish themselves from Clinton (if the voters aren’t convinced by Hillary’s current centrist bent).
Frank Luntz’s piece today doesn’t talk much about this, but Luntz does attempt to lay out a strategy for Hillary to get elected. I’m really not sure a short, public essay could possibly prove useful to a presidential campaign, but here’s his first recommendation:
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she’s a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they’d be Republicans.
Will she? And is she really the vicious liberal that Luntz thinks she is in the first place? Perhaps, but it’s not looking like it right now.
I should also note that our coverage of 2008 contenders has been spotty of late. Our schedules haven’t permitted us to attend the candidates’ appearances across the state (which isn’t to say we don’t like getting the invitations, so thanks to the staffers who have kept us on their mailing lists…), so we’ve been reading Chris’s coverage on PoliticalForecast. We hope to get better as our schedules permit, but we still plan to spend more time analyzing the political issues facing Iowa than we’ll spend on national political celebrity watch.
And check out MyDD’s presidential straw poll, now reinstated. Chris Bowers rightly discontinued it four months ago because of how repetitive the results were, but maybe things will be different now.
July 17th, 2006
As the Des Moines Register reports, the Democratic Party has kept the Iowa Caucuses as the first primary contest for its presidential nomination, but it has shifted others around. It seems that they want to compensate for Iowa’s ethnic homogeneity by moving other states up closer to Iowa: “Contenders include Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada and South Carolina.” And this is apparently good news to Vilsack:
The additional primaries and caucuses could assist Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack should he decide to run for president, by giving him a chance to demonstrate that he has appeal in similar-size states. Vilsack would be expected to win the Iowa caucuses. Vilsack is scheduled to headline the premier Democratic Party banquet in South Carolina next month.
I guess Paul Begala will have to drive his CNN RV out here again after all.
March 13th, 2006
