Balkinization  

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Presidential Primaries: Why Iowa and New Hampshire Ought to Go First

Paul Finkelman

The Democratic Party has just stripped Michigan of its votes at the national convention because, in violation of Party rules, Michigan is holding a primary before February 1. The Party has also done the same to Florida. Under party rules, only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are allowed to hold primaries before February 1.

Losing both New Hampshire and Iowa can destroy a candidacy. Winning both is a sure path to the nomination.

Many party activists complain – perhaps correctly – that these four states do not represent America or the Democratic Party. With the exception of South Carolina, none of them have a very substantial black population. Nor, for that matter are there very many Hispanics or Jews in these states. All three groups are very loyal Democratic constituencies. In addition, with the exception of Iowa, there is not much of a labor movement in these states. While organized labor is not what it once was, it is still an important part of the Democratic Party. These states also do not have large urban centers – again an important component of the Party. Nor are they home to very many ethnic Americans – Irish, Italian, Polish, Greek, Japanese, Chinese, Armenian or Arab Americans – who are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican.

New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada are very white states that are not obviously Democratic. They are not like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or California, which are almost automatic Democratic states in a presidential election.

This is precisely why these three states ought to be the first primary states. They are swing states that have narrowly gone Democratic or Republican for the last twenty years. If a Democrat is to retake the White House the Party must nominate someone who can appeal to moderate, middle of the road voters. The Party must be able to attract those who are not hard core, “yellow dog” Democrats. The kind of voters you find in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

This year the process is particularly well suited to this goal. All three of the major candidates – Clinton, Edwards, and Obama – are probably acceptable to almost everyone in the Party. This is not like 1968 when Vietnam split the Party (and put Nixon in the White House). It is not like 1980 when Carter’s mean spirited incompetence split the Party and ultimately sent millions of Democrats and independents looking elsewhere – to Anderson or Reagan. This year almost everyone talks about who can win, not who is her or his favorite. All three of the leaders have great skills, experience, and qualities. All have liabilities. Some are their immutable characteristics – will America elect a woman or a black man with a funny name? Others involve their life experiences. Is the nation ready for a trial lawyer, a one term Senator, or the wife of an ex-president? Democrats will debate their styles and their ideologies. Is Edwards too focused on the poor?; is Clinton too wishy-washy on the War?; is Obama too much of a foreign policy light weight?

All of these are real questions (not necessarily legitimate ones) that will impact on the election. But, let’s face it, if any of these three (or any of the others in the second tier of the back such as Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) get the nomination, most Democrats will vote for that person. But, getting most – or even all – Democratic votes is not the key to success in November 2008. The key is getting moderates, independents, Republicans who are sick of the war, Bush’s deep hypocrisy and corruption, and an economy that is sinking faster every month. A key may also be bringing back to the Party evangelical Christians who may disagree with the candidates on abortion rights or gay rights, but have come to realize that the Republican Party has truly sold its soul for lower tax rates for the rich and a war that no one wants.

What candidate will get those voters? That gets us back to Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The Democrat who can win in those very non-Democratic states will be the best candidate for the Party. The results might be a surprise. It is, quite frankly, no big deal if Obama wins Michigan, where African Americans form a huge chunk of the Democratic vote. But, if he wins in mostly white Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada – or even does very well – he will be a much more viable candidate. We might be underwhelmed if Edwards won Florida – a southern candidate wins a southern state. But if he runs well in Nevada or Iowa it will be different. Similarly, Clinton must prove she can win in the heartland, in states with few strong unions and lots of farmers. She did this twice in upstate New York, but that against almost invisible Republican opposition. Now she must do it on a different turf, against impressive opposition.

Thus, at least this year Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to hold the first Democratic primaries. The candidates who emerge from these contests are likely to be the best to carry the Party and the nation.


Comments:

The biggest problem I see with this is that none of the people whose vote you listed as one we need will be voting in the Democratic primaries. You're only going to be getting the registered Democrats who would vote for whatever Democrat was actually picked anyways. The winner of the primary tells us nothing about the preferences of moderates, independents, or Republicans sick of the party as it is today, especially since New Hampshire and Nevada have closed primaries, so only registered Democrats can vote. You might get some of the moderates, but I've generally found most people passionate enough to vote in the primary are usually strongly to one side or the other.

So, if you're only going to be getting Democratic faithfuls voting in the primaries anyways, why not try for states that more closely represent the majority of the Democratic party?
 

Mark has it exactly right - the primary electorates (particularly in Iowa) are nothing like the general electorates in those states, so winning the primary does little to improve the party's chances in the general election.

In addition, none of the skills needed to win the general election are really on display in those first early states. The primary process routinely nominates candidates who are NOT the strongest candidates the party has to offer. Do you really think that McGovern was a better candidate than Muskie or Humphrey? Mondale better than Hart? Dukakis better than Gore?
 

Wouldn't the primary electorates in conservative states be more conservative than the primary electorates in more liberal states? My impression is this is one reason Kerry got the nod in Iowa and NH in 2004--he had a military background and seemed a safer bet than the "intemperate" Dean.

Some speculation: given that Clinton is widely viewed to be more liberal than her actual policy positions indicate, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire may pick Obama or Edwards, who are both generally more liberal on the issues, but perceived to be more moderate than Clinton. I think would be great, since I prefer a more progressive candidate. It would be ironic for these conservative states to give the party a more liberal candidate. But since misperceptions about Clinton are likely to persist into the general election, the perceived moderate/actual liberal (Obama or Edwards) might do better with moderates and independents in the general election than would Clinton.

Also, simply on grounds of fairness and representativeness, the lock that Iowa and NH have on the nomination process is unconscionable and needs to go. It's one of many reasons that American democracy works so poorly.
 

I don't see how this comment is relevant to Michigan, which is half of the story prompting this comment.

In 1980, for example, it was so-called 'Reagan Democrats' exemplified by auto workers in suburban Detroit (principally, Macomb County, if I recall correctly), who switched to Reagan over cultural issues and swung the election. Those same blue collar, union member Democrats exist today and they are probably represented more in Michigan than they are in Nevada, New Hampshire and/or Iowa.

Note that Michigan is the only one of those states whose primary industry is manufacturing, as opposed to farming (Iowa), gambling/tourism (Nevada), or who knows (New Hampshire).
 

Back a few years, my letter to the editor of a local (Boston) newspaper was published. In my letter, I suggested that New Hampshire change its license plate slogan to"

"VOTE FIRST OR DIE!"

Perhaps Michigan's plate could include the following message:

"NO WAY, IOWA!"

These precedents are silly and arbitrary. They are a form of adults playing "high school." Perhaps the only justification is that they provide full employment for public relations/spinners and pundits willing to play the game or game the play who otherwise might have their hands on our wallets. Add to this the Internet players.
 

This issue is much simpler. The entire argument that New Hampshire or Iowa has some sort of superior process or superior voters or voters more likely to produce winning candidates or whatever is illegitimate.

The reason? Because IT IS WRONG TO DILUTE OR ELIMINATE PEOPLE'S FRANCHISE ON THE BASIS THAT IF THEIR VOTE WERE FULLY COUNTED IT WOLD LEAD TO A "BAD" RESULT. Period.

I live in California. I don't care if we have the most superficial, uneducated voters and the costliest campaigns. It doesn't matter. We are the largest state in the union. We have more at stake, both in terms of money and population. It is immoral to take away OUR franchise and give it to someone else. Period.

This is a huge social engineering project gone awry. Why don't we just eliminate the elections altogether and appoint Platonic guardians?
 

The Secretary of State of New Hampshire, who has the power to unilaterally move the state's primaries in order to keep them ahead of all others (except Iowa) and thus cannot be out-manuvered by states where the primary must be moved by the legislature, often claims that New Hampshire is smaller and thus able to be more discerning (requiring more personal attention from candidates) as justification for its "first in the nation" status. What he fails to realize is... New Hampshire doesn't matter either.

In 2004, the people of NH believed that John Kerry was an asterisk in the polls and Howard Dean was the frontrunner. Remember, these men held office in neighboring states, so it's not exactly as if New Hampshire had never heard either name. And then a funny thing happened in Iowa. Suddenly you couldn't turn on the television without hearing that Kerry was a winner, John Edwards was a cute number 2, and Dean was bleeping nuts. (Dean's infamous scream clip was aired over 400 times in the week between Iowa and the NH primaries, on the major networks alone.) No amounts of handshaking, phone calls, stump speeches, advertising purchases, or general campaigning can do anything in the face of such overwhelming saturation coverage. Under the current system, the candidates were defined in NH by the results in Iowa, and by the time NH was done agreeing the impression was even stronger.

(Speaking of Iowa, remember that their "caucus" is NOT a secret ballot election. Caucus-goers have to be free to spend 2 hours - which one presumes would skew the demographics of people able to participate - debating their choices and being pressured by friends and neighbors to switch sides.)

I'm not sure what the answer is, and I'll be the first to admit that a simultaneous national primary (which is almost where we are today, with almost every state other than the privileged early ones voting at the first possible date in February) has significant disadvantages as well in terms of the funding and organization needed to compete at that level so early in the campaign. But the current system is broken, and saying that there exist alternatives that are even more broken is no excuse for inaction.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home