The Candidates
Featured Archives
Regional primaries! New early states! National primary days! How about Russian Roulette (bullets = n-1, n being the number of candidates)? Nobody seems to be too satisfied with the way that the current primary calendar is situated, and, hey, why should they be? It didn’t produce the results that they wanted. But nothing’s wrong with the primary calendar. In fact, it’s rather brilliant, especially with the addition of Mega Tuesday in 2008.
Let’s say that you’re the Republican Party poobahs, starting from scratch, and you’re faced with the task of constructing a way to produce a nominating system that’s fair to upstarts without purposely harming frontrunners, produces the sort of candidate that can appeal to swing voters and independents but gives the base a significant say, and tests organization but also tests popular support? And for the cherry on top: none of these factors should be allowed to dominate the other.
Well, that’s what we have right now, actually.
It’s Fair to Upstarts
Iowa and New Hampshire are both small enough, population-wise and by land mass, that retail politicking is practical and efficient. Name ID means far less in a small state like New Hampshire or Iowa when a candidate can bring his message directly to the people. Try to imagine a Mike Huckabee succeeding were we to have a “regional primary day.” How would he ever have convinced anyone that he was a legitimate contender? How would Mitt Romney have ever overtaken Rudy Giuliani had he not created buzz out of Iowa? Without being able to use Iowa and New Hampshire as a microcosm of the Republican base, the nominations would be the frontrunners’ for the taking every time. Such is the folly of shifting to a “regional primary” sceheme or demanding that a different state — like the massive Pennsylvania or Texas or somesuch — go first.
It’s Fair to Frontrunners
While the upstarts get a greater chance of success, the frontrunners still have the ball in their court. If they’re deserving of the nomination, they will get to prove it in front of people who are going to analyze what they have to say in greater detail than the rest of the nation. They get the typical frontrunner advantages anyway, in that people are going to be more attracted to their events in the short-run: as long as they can sustain their advantages, then everything should be fine for them. Iowa and New Hampshire let the frontrunner fall — but also stand — on his own merits. Iowa got to see more than just Hillary Clinton’s name ID and compared her side-by-side to Barack Obama. New Hampshire came to the opposite conclusion.
Independents Get a Say
New Hampshire is famous for its independent involvement in the primary. Since, in the fall, the Republican Party is going to have to attract a swarth of swing voters in order to win the general election, it only makes sense to let them have a say. The Republican base in New Hampshire — which is more pragmatic and moderate, anyway — still gives its input, but ultimately, New Hampshire produces candidates that can better appeal to independents. This is an obvious point that’s brought up by most defenders of the primary calendar.
And as commenter Big S points out: “[An] advantage to holding some open primaries is that it allows Republican-leaning Independents to participate, keeping them closer to the party and providing a route by which it may be grown.” Exactly. The primary calendar lets Independents know that the GOP is not a Secret Club, while at the same time not diminishing the base’s say to the point where it doesn’t count for anything significant.
The Base Gets a Say
But the base gets a say, too. South Carolina’s primary is closed and usually produces the victor, anyway. New Hampshire picked John McCain and South Carolina OK’d him. (If no consensus is met after that, then it would all be thrown out the window and, with everyone fairly in the spotlight by then, Mega Primary Day would decide the probable winner.) Iowa and South Carolina are home to the social conservative base of the Republican Party, and they dominate its electorate at the polls. No one in the current primary calendar gets through without the consent of the Republican Party base. (And yes, John McCain was approved by the base. Activists and the base are not the same thing. John McCain was not approved by activists, but he was indeed approved by the base.)
Organization is Tested
Iowa is a crucial test of who’s got his act together and who’s gliding by on name ID and TV ads. Iowa showed that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were putting together solid ground games while Rudy Giuliani was crossing his fingers and hoping that he wouldn’t implode (eventually leading him to all but give up on the state, since Iowa wouldn’t OK his cosmopolitan brand of Republicanism). On caucus day, we see not only which candidates have amassed support, but what they can do with that support. It’s not enough to just have the raw numbers if a solid year-long campaign organization is to be put together.
Raw Support is Tested
But caucuses are not how Election Day in the fall operates. So raw support is tested too, through New Hampshire and South Carolina. Organization counts for plenty there, just like raw support does in Iowa, but one is emphasized over the other in each case. And both matter a lot.
—
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Mega Primary Day. It works out fine, really. If we dig long enough, I think that we’ll find that the key complaint that most critics of the primary calendar have is that their candidate wasn’t able to get through it.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Independents should be left out. I’m not interested in the opinions of peoplewho won’t vote for us in November.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
NOPE–at the end of the day it seems that voting is against someone instead of for someone i.e. Voting against Obama and not for McCain. Change the primary system to get the more polar candidates and then let rich people run as Independents
November 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
#1: Republicans make up something like 1/3 of the electorate.
That’s less than half, ya know.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The only thing I would like to say is that all states should either be winner take all or proportional. It’s not such a good system where wins in some states mean nothing and other mean a lot.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
4. I mean that all should be winner take all or all should be proportional, not a mix.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Assuming Thomas wants to win elections, I don’t think he meant what he said…
I don’t mind NH, but I mind Iowa. Their corn politics is getting in the way of national interest. Subsidies, etc. Why can’t we have another, similarly small state? Rotation among small states, I say.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I agree with Jason. I do think that democrats shouldn’t be allowed to crossover. We can have a semi-open primary without Dems. This would allow R leaning indies to participate without diluting the mix too much. Even though we McCain this time around, Independents will go to the dem side if we push them out. And voters who actually had a say in the Dem side would be more likely to vote for the Dem.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
#1, you do realize that is a myth. Most indy’s that vote in the GOP primary end up voting for the winning candidate on election day, not the Dem.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I just want this nonsense about regional primary days or abolishing Iowa and New Hampshire’s early roles to end. And about shutting out Independents. The GOP cannot be perceived to be a Secret Club if we hope to become a majority party again.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
#7, but we need democratic voters to win the Presidency. There are not enough Republicans and right leaning indy’s to win.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Plus. Iowa means very little for the GOP. NH and SC are whats important.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
10 – OK, now, I don’t know about that.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Organization is tested in Iowa, but Iowa-style organization is also overrated. What’s the use in organizing for a process so fundamentally different from a general election if winning the general election is the goal? There’s nothing stopping a candidate from out-organizing others in the larger, more representative states where the election looks more like the general election, if organization is going to be a determining factor of who wins and loses.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
#3
All the same, I don’t want liberal independents choosing my candidate.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Organization is tested in Iowa, but Iowa-style organization is also overrated. What’s the use in organizing for a process so fundamentally different from a general election if winning the general election is the goal?
Because it says something about how the candidate is going to perform in putting together his campaign team over the next year, which will ultimately lead to superior November results.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Jason, what about all being like California, winner take all by district.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
#16, love that idea.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I just have a problem with the Republican party not getting to choose who they run on the Republican ticket. Part of the problem with it being open, as we saw it so vividly this time around, is that the independents, and Democrats where they were allowed to, crossed over with the express intention of voting for someone other than our strongest candidate to beat. Somehow, someway, we can’t let them be crossing over with the intention of voting in our weakest candidate. That’s the problem I see. Some of you may disagree, because you may expect to have a weak candidate, but if we look at this objectively, it makes no sense.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Can you point to a specific “campaign team” related advantage for the winner of the Iowa caucuses this past year – Mike Huckabee – besides the church tie-in turning out the 30% of die-hards who vote for the God candidate? Huck had little to no organization aside from that, and that’s not going to win him a general election. For all of Romney’s organization, he managed to get the support of a quarter of caucusgoers, alhough it was a crowded field. That’s not going to help either.
As I said before, there’s nothing stopping a candidate with a great organization and tons of money from showing their stuff in a real primary election. To pick candidates who can compete in a general election, it’s a good idea to put them to the test in a primary that best approximates the general election’s mechanics. Caucuses and state conventions don’t do the trick.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I just have a problem with the Republican party not getting to choose who they run on the Republican ticket. Part of the problem with it being open, as we saw it so vividly this time around, is that the independents, and Democrats where they were allowed to, crossed over with the express intention of voting for someone other than our strongest candidate to beat.
TRANSLATOR:
ILLINOISGUYSPEAK:
“Independents…crossed over with the express intention of voting for someone other than our strongest candidate”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVERTING TO ENGLISH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ENGLISH:
“They wanted to vote for someone other than Mitt Romney!”
November 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Can you point to a specific “campaign team” related advantage for the winner of the Iowa caucuses this past year – Mike Huckabee – besides the church tie-in turning out the 30% of die-hards who vote for the God candidate? Huck had little to no organization aside from that, and that’s not going to win him a general election. For all of Romney’s organization, he managed to get the support of a quarter of caucusgoers, alhough it was a crowded field. That’s not going to help either. As I said before, there’s nothing stopping a candidate with a great organization and tons of money from showing their stuff in a real primary election. To pick candidates who can compete in a general election, it’s a good idea to put them to the test in a primary that best approximates the general election’s mechanics. Caucuses and state conventions don’t do the trick.
It’s not a perfect system, but such is the nature of human systems. Perhaps a primary in Iowa would work just as well or better. Both make sense, to me, and both are vastly superior to any ghastly talk of switching away from the Iowa and New Hampshire system to some weird regional primary nonsense.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Personally,
I disagree with cross-over voting in any primary. Each state has the right to decide if they want to primary or caucus and how to do it (open or closed). Open primaries allow for very liberal Republicans and very conservative democrats.
I say let only the Democrats decide their nominee and let only Republicans choose theirs.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
22 – Wait, so do you want states to decide or completely closed systems or what?
And why?
I think that the system as is strikes a good compromise between ideological purity and appealing to crossover voters.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
23, I still want states to decide. It is their right to primary & caucus however they want. I would like to see all the states “choose” caucuses or closed primaries.
As far as crossover vote goes, your ideology should take care of that. If your ideology is appealing to the crossover vote, they’ll be come Republicans to vote in the closed primary or caucus. It takes care of itself.
What I dislike is the gerrymandering liberal Democrat crossover vote. That is almost like having non-residents vote in our general election. I don’t like either.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Nothing is going to be perfect. I understand that. However, I think you’re too negative on the idea of changing the schedule. My reasoning is based on observation of the Democratic primaries versus the Republican primaries this past election. The Republican primaries were over early, and while they ended up selecting a decent candidate for the environment this year (or so we thought at the time), they wound up being a series of fights over religion and social policy that alienated people in a lot of states that don’t care so much for that kind of argument. Super Tuesday was decisive, but the result wasn’t really in doubt. Organizations were put in place on an case-by case basis and were uprooted after the primaries in each state. On the other hand, the marathon Democratic primary wound up producing state organizations (with the exceptions of MI and FL) for both candidates that were in place by the time the general election was heating up. This is the great advantage to a national primary campaign. While I’m cool to the idea of “regional primaries”, I’m intrigued by the compression of the primaries into three or four mini Super Tuesdays with states selected randomly for each cycle after each election. For instance, the national party could select states out of a hat until a certain number of Electoral Votes is exceeded and make that the first group, and so on. People would complain about costs, but we’re already in an era of national campaign organizations and an insurgent could still gain some traction in the first round if they could appeal to voters in the larger, more representative states within the group.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
As far as crossover vote goes, your ideology should take care of that. If your ideology is appealing to the crossover vote, they’ll be come Republicans to vote in the closed primary or caucus. It takes care of itself.
Well, yes, I suppose, if you want to exclude less-active voters that aren’t as interested in changing their party ID for one candidate, but, well, look at what you said here:
What I dislike is the gerrymandering liberal Democrat crossover vote.
You do realize that they can just do the same thing that you suggest independents do?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“You do realize that they can just do the same thing that you suggest independents do?”
No, Independents can run their own candidate or have their own primary / caucus, or they can just stay home. Again, it is for each party in each state to decide for themselves.
Republicans should only vote in Republican primaries, Democrats should only vote in the Democrat primaries, third parties & independents can devise their primaries if they want, or do nothing.
American citizens should only vote in the general.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Alex, this really isn’t about Mitt Romney this time. I’m saying that people cross over purposely to help put someone on as our candidate that is perceived to be weak. Remember how so many of us were trying to figure out whether to vote for Hillary or Obama, depending on who we perceive to be the weaker. I’m assuming some on here actually did that. I don’t want them doing that to us. It’s simply not fair for that to be allowed.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Btw, something should be done about the last sentence in #27. In most states, it looks like it is far too easy for a non citizen to vote, which really ticks me off. It is also far too easy to cheat the system and vote more than once. My belief is that we need to put in place measures to never, ever allow these two things to happen.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
27 – How the hell would independents have their own primary? Run their own candidate? What on Earth? They’re not even unified by a single ideology! You’re just mad that you don’t always get an ideologically pure candidate. You’re mad that primaries produce people that are more electable rather than people that have 100% ratings from the ACU.
28 – They can do that in your system, too.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
we picked John McCain, the system is flawed. Duh…
A primary should be between two finalists in the end. This last nomination wasn’t, most years it is. Something needs to change. The process was too long this time around which led to too much fragmentation in the party. I think the reform for primaries should be a uniform reform. All should be all or nothing or all proportional, I prefer all proportional.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Big S – 25 -
How would an upstart candidate ever possibly have a chance of success against a frontrunner in such a system? New Hampshire and Iowa are both small states that represent different blocs of the party, so the frontrunner has to prove himself and upstart candidates get a shot at the game.
I don’t see how mini-Super Tuesdays would do anything except rubberstamp the frontrunner during cycle after cycle.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
CERTAIN things need to change, yes. But I’m really starting to think that the calendar is fine. Yeah, maybe you split up super tuesday a little, but then again, that was fun.
Yeah, there was a flaw in 2008 that led to McCain’s selection, but I really don’t know how much of that can be blamed on the calender. Its worth pointing out that, in the first five or so states (IA,NH,WY,NV,MI), the eventual nominee only won one of them, and only came close in one other one.
Really, I blame the conservative leaders of the party – Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin – for McCain’s win. Had they gotten behind a single conservative, that person would have won.
The real question that has to be asked is “how likely are we to see another McCain?” The answer to that is, at least for the foreseeable future, is probably not very likely.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Also, a defense of caucuses – at least in smaller to moderate sized states, it is a good thing to have them. They keep the moderates in check, and give a voice to the base that is more porportional to the important role they play.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Also, a defense of caucuses – at least in smaller to moderate sized states, it is a good thing to have them. They keep the moderates in check, and give a voice to the base that is more porportional to the important role they play.
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH FROM ROMBOT SPEAK: I like caucuses because they help Romney.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Two things:
First – I don’t think the term “rubberstamp” is conducive to this argument. Whenever the front-runner wins, it could be viewed as a “rubberstamp” event.
Second – I don’t think the ideal insurgent campaign would be run to appeal to a given bloc within the GOP, since that’s likely to result in a lot more Mike Huckabees – regional candidates who appeal to certain demographics, but little else. The ideal insurgent campaign would appeal to broad coalitions of voters: imagine Mitt Romney’s campaign if he didn’t have to over-pander to religious Iowans and could have decided to battle in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or somewhere else first.
Remember, the goal is to pick a candidate who can win a national election. In a mini Super Tuesday system uncontaminated by the results from Iowas and New Hampshires, each bloc will still get its say, just at the same time as everyone else. Too much of the primary campaign process relies on “bounces” from one state to the next, and the appearance of momentum conferred by slim victories in small states. There’s no “bounce” in the general election.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
First – I don’t think the term “rubberstamp” is conducive to this argument. Whenever the front-runner wins, it could be viewed as a “rubberstamp” event.
Certainly less so if everyone gets months to retail politick in Iowa and New Hampshire. At least the Huckabees of the world have a chance in Iowa and New Hampshire. With mini-Super Tuesdays, they can’t spend their time building up a base of support through just one state, because, hey, even if they do — who cares?
Battled in Pennsylvania and Ohio? I actually addressed that in the original piece, using Pennsylvania as one of the specific examples of which state should not go first. It’s way too big. You can’t retail politick there, and you need a big operation to get off of the ground, unlike in Iowa or New Hampshire, where a candidate with a message but no name ID can make it far.
Iowa and New Hampshire can still choose the frontrunner, but it gives the underdogs a fighting chance.
Mini-Super Tuesdays don’t do that.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
#37
I guess I’m a bit cynical about the idea of retail politicking in states like New Hampshire and Iowa. I’m don’t think it advances the ball very far towards getting 270 Electoral Votes. It’s a quaint expression of a political ideal that does not actually happen in a general election. If primary candidates spent half as much time talking about policy as they did shaking hands and kissing babies, the parties, their candidates, and the American people would be better off. I have a hard time buying the idea that worthwhile national politics can only occur in small states.
Also, as I have said above, the “fighting chance” in small, relatively ideologically homogeneous states goes to candidates who have a hard time winning elsewhere. I’d rather see the primaries favor candidates who can appeal to broad coalitions and give them a better “fighting chance”. Most ideological types will oppose this because they want their slice of the coalition to be the one to determine the nominee – but that doesn’t help in a national election.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“I like caucuses because they help Romney.”
I like them because they help conservatives, because, without them, we would be more likely to be just another pro-gay, pro-aboriton, etc. party.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The answer is a combination of early states and rotating states after that.
The 2012 schedule should be like this:
- 1st week in March 2012 – Iowa
- 3rd week in March 2012 – NH
- 1st week in April 2012 – SC, NV-primary (we need a small Western state and NV the easiest to campaign in and most purple)
- 3rd week in April 2012 – Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado (This should be a rotating group of four, medium to large size, swing states from the last election. Other states could be MN, WI, AZ, NC, VA, PA, OR, NJ or MI)
- 1st week in May – 1/4 of remaining states geographically divided on a rotating schedule
- 3rd week in May – 1/4 of remaining states geographically divided on a rotating schedule
- 4th week in May – 1/4 of remaining states geographically divided on a rotating schedule
- 1st week in June – 1/4 of remaining states geographically divided on a rotating schedule
This gives you more than 2 months from the first vote in Iowa to the time when the nomination is decided. The Iowa to Feb. 5th schedule was too early and to short in 2008. This gives small lesser known people a shot without biasing the results too much for any wing of the party.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
There’s should be some changes:
1-Republicans have to compete in blues states.
What better way than begin the process in New Jersey, Pensilvania or Minnesota.
2-Caucus should be banned.
3-Another mega-super-tuesday should never happen again.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Well, as said, I’m not big on re-doing the schedule, but here is my idea:
Jan 31: Iowa
Feb 7: New Hampshire
Feb 11: South Carolina
Feb 14: AK, SD, AR, HI, ND, DE, WV
Feb 21: KY, VT, MS, NM, WY
Feb 28: no primaries
Mar 6: American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, D.C., Guam, N. Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Mar 13: AL, WI, MT, NV, RI
Mar 20: ID, LA, MN, ME, UT
Mar 27: MD, CT, NE, OR, TN
Apr 3: AZ, KS, IN, MA, VA
Apr 10: No Primaries
Apr 17: GA, MI, NJ, KO, WA
Apr 24: CO, OH, NC, PA, TX
May 1: CA, FL, IL, MS, NY
It is NOT a random system, see if you can spot the pattern.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“1-Republicans have to compete in blues states.
What better way than begin the process in New Jersey, Pensilvania or Minnesota.
2-Caucus should be banned.”
You’re asking for a leftist, anti-life, anti-family candidate that will NEVER win an election.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
#42… sorry i cant crack this code… whats the pattern? i’m from FL (a very important, growing GOP-leaning swing state the GOP needs to win in the general)… i hope to get a say early in the process.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Independents should stay out!!! In a state like New Hampshire where there are more independents than Republicans, the party faithful will have very little say in selecting their own representative nominee. Including independents is the silliest, suicidal, not to mention stupid, idea.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
It divides the country into five regions:
West: OR, WA, CA, NV, UT, AZ, NM, TX, AK, HI
Plains: ID, MT, WY, CO, NE, OK, KS, ND, SD, MO
Great Lakes: MN, IA, IL, WI, MI, IN, OH, KY, WV, MD
South: AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, GA, FL, CA, NC, VA
Northeast: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE
The traditional early states keep their places, voting during the first two weeks. The rest of the states then vote in groups of five – one from each region, moving from the smallest states to the largest. The first week of this rotation adds two additional states – one from each region that isn’t represented by an early state. There are also two weeks without primaries – one of which is Easter, and a week for non-state contests.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
I actually like something similar to what MatthewK presents. I like the idea of it being spread out enough that i gives the candidates a decent chance to campaign in the states immediately prior to the primary.caucu
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
Iowa and New Hampshire’s status as the first caucus and primary were not set down by God, or by the Founding Fathers, or even by the Republican National Committee. In fact, in 2008, the RNC stripped New Hampshire of half their delegates for holding their primary too early.
The goal should be to select a candidate who can win the general election. And if that means that we need to stop giving a privileged position to Iowa and New Hampshire, well, that’s what we need to do.
Incidentally, the RNC should ban caucuses held in the Iowa style altogether. Can any Iowans justify a process that effectively bans people who work the evening shift from participation?