Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

I noticed that the “LeftyBlogs” news roll on the side bar here has been carrying a notice for a petition to have a “Western Super Tuesday” set of primaries and caucuses, hopefully to give more of a voice to Western States and thus, somehow, produce a candidate more pallatable to the Western States.

I signed the petition, but even if this were to be adopted by the Democratic National Committee (which is highly unlikely), I doubt it would have the effect that that they want. For one thing, the press and the political class are so wedded to the Iowa and New Hampshire results, that primaries that come afterward are starting not to matter at all.

Take a look at our experiences in Arizona. We pushed to have an early Presidential Primary here in the 2004 election. We got it. We were in the first group of states after Iowa and New Hampshire. I remember the Arizona Democratic Party’s then Executive Director, Paul Hegarty, said “We will not have a fly-over primary.”

It was quite nice in some ways. Both Gov. Howard Dean and Gen. Wesley Clark considered Arizona a “must win” made several appearances here, and had serious grassroots campaigns. On the other hand, Sen. John Kerry’s campaign largely abandoned the state to concentrate on Iowa, and only made one appearance here in the week before the primary.

And what happened? Kerry won, merely ratifying the Iowa and New Hampshire results.

There is so much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire that it has become impossible for other states to have any infulence whatsoever. The press amplifies the results from these two states (while at the same time complaining about their influence) and party leadership starts pressuring losing candidates to drop out the moment the polls close in Nashua and Manchester. I don’t think that their presence so early on the calendar makes for more conservative or liberal candidates, but it does make for a process that is certainly less democratic and inclusive.

The fact that it is these two states is problematic. The Iowa Caucuses, for example, are often noted for their byzantine nature. The reason for this is simple, they are designed to elect convention delegates, not necessarilly to create a definite winner. Unlike a standard primary (or even the way many other caucuses are run) there is no reported “hard count” of early candidate support on election night. The percentages you hear are from exit polling, those of us that were checking the results on the afternoon on election day 2004 know how well that works. For example, journalists that went back to look over the 1988 Iowa contest found that the winner may not have been Rep. Richard Gephardt after all, but Sen. Paul Simon. This probably did not change human history, but it shows how problematic using Iowa as anything approaching a definitive way to gauge support is.

(Before any Deaniac writes to me and says “See, we probably won after all…” you guys lost Iowa fair and square due to a problematic campaign there.)

Proponents of keeping the Iowa and New Hampshire contests first in line say that somehow Iowa and New Hampshire voters are better informed voters than folks in other states. First of all, this is highly insulting to the voters in the other 48 states. “You pedestrians just let us pick the candidate, it’s for your own good, really.” If presidential candidates parked themselves in another smaller state like Delaware, North Dakota or New Mexico for a year before a primary, I bet those state’s voters would be “well informed” as well.

The attention paid to these state’s contests is just ridiculous. Sen. Joe Lieberman, for example, went so far as to rent an apartment in New Hampshire and move his family there temporarily. Every town that has a fish fry one weekend will be innundated with presidential candidates. Not only that, it skews our politics as the contests often turn on local issues. Someone looking to run for president better not vote against ethanol subsidies or for closing the Portsmouth Naval Station. I spoke to a guy that worked at the White House once, he said that it was really funny: if a state official called needing something it would get directed to a lower level staffer, but a request from a New Hampshire official would be handled at higher levels, and often quicker.

For me, the most ludicrous moment of Pres. George Bush’s 1992 campaign (a campaign that was full of ludicrous moments) was watching him campaign in the New Hampshire primary. He was telling people that he knew all about their little league teams and high schools and that these other guys didn’t. His argument boiled down to, “I should be president because I know New Hampshire.” He was campaigning like a local candidate for congress, rather than a guy that was running for leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

Before anyone points out to me that Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton lost New Hampshire let me make two points. Republican primaries work very differently, in fact most don’t even select delegates. In Clinton’s case, his folks were able to spin his second place finish into a victory.

The folks at the Democratic National Committee will not be able to really reform the primary process unless they are willing to attack the privileged satus of these two states.