Primary Schedule Finally Set – But At What Cost?

by Paul Hogarth, 2007-11-27

Last week, after months of speculation, the New Hampshire Secretary of State set a firm date for the Granite State’s presidential primary – on Tuesday, January 8th, following the Iowa caucus on January 3rd. Never in presidential election history have we had a primary season start this early. Never has the schedule been this chaotic, as each state played a selfish game of “me-first.” It’s a mystery how many voters will even come out so soon after New Years’ Day, and it could put a huge monkey wrench in the plans for Democrats who want the best candidate to take back the White House. For the scores of campaign workers toiling in New Hampshire for their candidate, finally knowing when the Election will happen must be a relief. But with 37 days left before Iowa, and 42 days before New Hampshire, it doesn’t give much time to pull off an upset and win the nomination.

It was all so predictable. In a feeble attempt to stop the front-loaded schedule of states leapfrogging over each other, the Democratic National Committee set up some ground rules about when states could having their primaries – or else get fewer delegates at the Convention. Iowa was supposed to kick things off in mid-January (plenty of time for voters to focus after the Holiday Season), followed by three more states in one-week intervals – and no one else could go before February 5th.

But then what happened? Twenty-five states (including all the big ones like California, New York, and Florida) scheduled their primaries on February 5th – creating a Super Duper National Mega-Tuesday on Steroids, where only the establishment candidates with resources could compete. Every state did this to get a piece of the action – but because they all did it, ironically none of them are going to have an impact.

Pretty soon, a few states decided to see what the real consequences would be if they openly defied the D.N.C. rules and scheduled a primary before February 5th. Florida went first, as the state legislature pushed up its primary to January 29th. Then came Michigan, which said it would hold its primary on January 15th – even if it preceded New Hampshire. So Iowa and New Hampshire went nuts, and threatened to go before Christmas if necessary.

That’s when the Party intervened to say they wouldn’t tolerate such chicanery. Florida and Michigan were told their delegates would not be seated at the National Convention, and all the Presidential candidates signed a pledge that they wouldn’t even campaign in those states. But that didn’t deter the two renegades, because an earlier primary means that their citizens have a louder voice. Florida Democrats set up a website where they defiantly declared their intent to hold an election, and the Governor of Michigan even went to the State Supreme Court.

Predictably, Iowa and New Hampshire simply moved up their primaries to early January. Just 48 hours after waking up with a bad New Years’ hangover, a pitiful minority of Iowa Democrats will convene at their local school gymnasiums or town halls to spend 3 hours publicly debating whether the next president should be Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards. Five days later, their counterparts in New Hampshire will do the same – but in the privacy of a voting booth.

It’s unclear how a January 3rd caucus will affect turnout. Normally, Obama should win Iowa – and not just because he has a slight lead in the polls. Like San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting, the Iowa caucus rewards candidates who (a) have a strong base of supporters, and (b) are the second choice of those who prefer another candidate. Outside of her main supporters, Clinton is not well liked among Iowa Democrats. But Obama enjoys second-choice support from voters who like John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich.

But this could be irrelevant if college students – who are a big part of Obama’s base – will be home for the Holidays, skewing the caucus turnout to Hillary.

As for New Hampshire, Hillary currently has a sizeable lead – but the gap has narrowed in recent weeks. If Obama wins Iowa, he could shift momentum and pull off an upset the way past presidential candidates have done. But on January 8th, will young people be back on campus to vote? Classes will be in session at Dartmouth, but Daniel Webster, Franklin Pierce and Keene Colleges (as well as the University of New Hampshire) will still be on vacation.

Obama could still win Iowa and New Hampshire, and unlike prior insurgents would have the resources to compete in a front-loaded schedule. But then how would Michigan’s primary on January 15th play out? All the candidates agreed not to campaign there, and all – except Hillary Clinton – removed their names from the ballot. With the primary schedule now finalized, some candidates may now want to put their names back on, but it’s uncertain if they’ll be able to.

If Hillary’s the only name on the Michigan ballot, would her lopsided victory mean anything? Don’t expect the corporate media to properly explain to voters that the Michigan primary is a meaningless beauty contest. They’re probably setting up Obama to win the Iowa caucus (and possibly New Hampshire), just to make Hillary the “Comeback Kid” once Michigan rolls around.

Nevada will vote on January 19th (96 hours after Michigan), followed one week later by South Carolina – where support for Obama and Hillary is currently racially polarized. South Carolina is notorious for its gutter politics – remember how it killed John McCain’s upstart challenge to George Bush in 2000? Three days later, we’ll have Florida – and the following week will be Super Duper Tuesday on Steroids.

The primary season should be a long drawn-out process, where Democratic voters from across the country can closely scrutinize the candidates and have a genuine conversation about what direction they want their party – and the country – to go. But with the front-loaded, accelerated calendar, it will all be over before we know it. And unless everything right happens to Obama, Democrats may all soon be campaigning for another Clinton.

And a lot of them may get a deep sense of buyer’s remorse as the nine-month general election campaign chugs along. Two British reporters from the Daily Telegraph recently finished a cross-country road trip throughout “Middle America,” and their verdict is harsh about Hillary Clinton’s chances. Republicans will gladly rally against her, whereas the Democratic Party’s base will have a tough time getting excited.

If we’d done the primary schedule any differently, things could have been different.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org