How will changes in primaries affect presidential campaigns

5 thoughts on “How will changes in primaries affect presidential campaigns”

1. Commentary on WSJ.com op-ed page:

   http://online.wsj.co…

   Concluding graphs follow:

   It is impossible for anyone to campaign effectively before 126 million people in the one week available between the South Carolina primary and Super-Duper Tuesday. So candidates will rely heavily on media buys and campaigning by local proxies. All but the most well-funded campaigns will have to decide whether to play to their strengths by campaigning where their chances are best, or to try to pull off an upset by leaving their base unguarded and campaigning in the states they need the biggest boost.

   Either way, the result will be something like the opposite of the small-town-style politics that characterize Iowa and New Hampshire hustings. In their rush to emulate New Hampshire and steal a piece of its supposedly outsize influence, the states lining up to be “early” are simply stealing each other’s oxygen.

   It’s possible that Feb. 5 will become a winner-take-all affair. But given the huge number of voters and delegates in play on that one day, it’s equally likely that no decisive result emerges. If that proves true, two possibilities arise. On the one hand, the states that resisted the rush could find themselves as kingmakers, and being late might seem fashionable again. Alternatively, a fragmented result on Feb. 5 could well ensure a brokered convention in the summer. This would have the uncomfortable consequence for the candidates of forcing them to continue to court their base long after they would have hoped to start reaching out to the broader electorate.

   Aside from a tradition of political skepticism and manageable size, one of the chief virtues of New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary was that it was not only first, but it was also alone. This gave all the candidates a single destination on which to descend. A 20-state primary involving 40% of the country can’t come close to replicating that.

   It’s possible that one or two of the states that are elbowing their way into the first Tuesday in February will prove decisive in shaping the 2008 election. But having so many in play on a single day reduces the odds that your state will “matter” on Feb. 5. With so many states having decided that they want to be near the front of the line, we’ll probably never return to what in hindsight will be remembered as a leisurely primary schedule. But don’t be surprised if some of the Fab Feb Fivers decide in 2012 that being stuck in a crowded field is no more fun than being by yourself in March or April.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I’m guessing that the best financed candidates will have to fight it out into April before winners are determined.

      Iowa and NH will be seen as the aberrations they’ve always been, and they will have much less influence on the outcome of the primaries. If I were a campaign manager, I’d be de-emphasizing those states and concentrating on the Feb. 5 primaries, holding funds in reserve for later primaries.

      Log in to Reply

2. …It’s a huge advantage for Hillary.  She’s the only that has prooven she can raise the money to be competitive in that many media markets (especially California).  I think this makes NH, Iowan, NV, and SC pretty meaningless.  The top tier candidates won’t drop out if they do poorly there with so many delegates up for grabs on the 5th.  Most likely there’ll be two candidates from each party still alive after the 5th and it’ll be settled shortly after.

   Log in to Reply

3. First, I think we’re already seeing the consequences of Super-Duper Tuesday: earlier and earlier campaigning for the Presidency.  It’s the only way for most candidates to offset the massive push that they’d otherwise need to do going into the Feb. 5th contest.

   Second, I think that this early push and/or massive early campaigning is going to drive the lesser-known candidates out of the race before they even get started.  Two types of candidates will survive – those who can raise boatloads of cash, and those who can work up boatloads of grassroots activists.  The grassroots types will survive because, with enough advance planning, they can get the word out early and often; they’ll do especially well in caucus states, but they’ll have reasonable turnout in primary states, too.

   Third, if the candidate pool remains large up to Feb. 5th, I do think it could force a brokered convention – or a move to IRV/Condorcet voting within the conventions!  Having 40% of the voting bloc decided on a single day has a lot of potential for mischief.  Assuming a lot of candidates drop out early, this will tend to move both parties towards the most well-funded candidate.

   Log in to Reply

4. Since it is going to be hard to campaign in so many states early, states like Iowa and New Hampshire are going to have increased importance.  Winners in either or both states will head to the “Duper-Tuesday” with a HUGE amount of momentum. 

   Some lesser known candidates will target certain states to try and stage a win or two, but that is a defensive stragey, and defense doesn’t work in politics.  So some of the smaller names might pick up a state or two but the “front runner” at that point will just steam pass. 

   I would love and see a contested convention like they used to have (wouldn’t it be so exciting to see Kennedy’s or Ford/Reagan in ’76 convention?) but I don’t think it’ll happen.  The party will pressure everybody else out of the running and the world will be roses by the time the conventions get underway.  Either party has too much to loose.  Conventions have become too staged to allow for anything truely exciting to happen.

   Log in to Reply