By DHinMI
Democrats have many tasks ahead if we hope to win the Presidency in 2008. Most will require lots of resources or are largely in the hands of the candidates themselves. But one political task that the Democratic National Committee could complete would be to revamp the primary schedule. I've argued in the past that Democrats have had problems in part because of an early primary schedule heavily weighted toward heavily Republican states and states that are overwhelmingly white. In past election cycles states rushed willy-nilly into que in an attempt to influence the choice of candidate (and to attract the national press corps to empty hotel rooms in the slow travel months of January and February), but the schedule that resulted was not a good one for choosing a candidate who could win a national election while also appealing to the Democratic base, especially African-Americans, union members and urban and suburban progressives. Recent moves by states like Alabama would only exacerbate the problem. It's unlikely Iowa and New Hampshire will lose their first in the nation status for 2008, which is OK as long as the rest of the schedule makes more sense. Thus, it's encouraging to see David Yespin, the dean of Iowa political writers, urge Iowa Democrats to support schedule changes that will help Democrats pick the best candidate to win the Presidency:
The national Democratic Party should tinker with its 2008 presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats shouldn't get too parochial about it.
The goal of the party's nominating campaign isn't to fill hotel rooms in Des Moines. It isn't to give a relatively minor boost to the economies of small states, or increase civic participation or debate issues.
It's to elect a Democrat to the White House.
Period. If the party is doing anything that doesn't contribute to that goal, then it should quit doing it.
The good news for Iowa and New Hampshire is the party could keep the two states' leadoff positions but change the subsequent calendar of events by moving other battleground states up in the schedule of delegate contests. That would give more states a chance to play a more important role and force party candidates to organize early in those states, thereby enhancing the ability of the party to carry them in November.
In other words, how about having Ohio or New Mexico hold the No. 3 and 4 caucuses or primaries in 2008?That's one good idea that's been floating around a national party study commission formed to study the nominating process: The party could start the selection of its presidential candidate in the states that were the closest in the last presidential election.
Bunching the closest states from the previous election at the beginning of the primary season is an awful idea. In 2004,
the eight closest states (in order) were WI, IA, NM, NH, OH, PA, NV and
MI. That's not too bad an early eight, but it's completely absent any
southern states, and it quickly goes from relatively small states to
OH, PA and MI, three of the most expensive states for campaigning (and
television advertising) in the country. But look at what the schedule
would have been in 2000, after the Clinton electoral college landslide:
KY, NV, GA, CO, VA, AZ, TN and MT. Gore and Kerry lost all eight
states--even Clinton lost four of them in 1996--and the average loss in
these eight states for Gore was 10.24% and for Kerry it was 12.14%. A
mechanistic solution won't work. There's no perfect formula.
But discussing the problems with the order and time between the early
primaries is still important, so it's good that Yepsin is making his
argument, especially to the all-important Iowa delegation that will
help determine the DNC' position on the Presidential primary schedule.
Of course Iowa's status as first in the nation could be less relevant in 2008, at least on the Democratic side:
Vilsack: Gains are National Models
Governor's Efforts Suggest '08 White House Bid
Only three more years of speculation about who's running for President...
For this reason I truly hope Vilsack runs to take Iowa off the table. Would be an excellent development for the calendar. And Vilsack might even have some talent, who knows. He's a regular Midwestern family guy.
Posted by: Crab Nebula | May 31, 2005 at 14:16
One more reason we shouldn't have IA as a first-in-the-nation. It's caucus system disenfranchises anyone whose work (or childcare) situation prevents them from attending a 2-hour weeknight meeting. That a lot of people who should be voting democratic.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 31, 2005 at 17:35
I don't think there's any way IA and NH won't go 1-2 in the order in 2008. But by changing the order of the subsequent primaries and spreading them out, it will give other states more influence. This last time, they were the only two states that really mattered, because with Kerry beating Dean in IA and then the two guys from adjoining states going 1-2 in NH, pretty much everyone else was an afterthought. Had there not been seven states contesting just a week after NH, the field wouldn't have been winnowed down to John Kerry and the guy who lost to Wesley Clark in five of their first eight contests, with everyone else an afterthought. And as you know, because of the early schedule and the fact that there were seven states going on the same day right after NH, most of those states got almost no attention, and the ones right after "mini-Tuesday"--MI, WA and ME--were completely ignored until the last couple days, and even then Edwards and Clark didn't come to Michigan.
The nomination and VP slot were essentially decided by IA, NH and SC, with lesser influence from ND, AZ and NM. We can't have that happen ever again.
Posted by: DHinMI | May 31, 2005 at 18:20