The European Courier | Iowa and New Hampshire

Home	USA	Europe	World	Law	Security	Art & Diplomacy	Week in Review	About us

IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE – October 4, 2007

International observers who find the US presidential primary system incomprehensible can take solace in the fact that Americans do not understand it either. It has grown up by accretion and accident over generations, into a system of customs and institutions more akin to the Holy Roman Empire than to the crisp formalism of the American Constitution. This essay will seek to shine some small light into the mysteries of the presidential primary system.

The Constitution itself has not a word to say about presidential nominations – any more than it does about political parties. Its framers never imagined parties and disapproved of the very idea, which did not keep some of them from becoming party leaders within a few years of its enactment. Presidential candidates were initially chosen by the respective parties' members of Congress. This soon gave way to national party conventions at which delegates, themselves chosen by state or local party organizations, gathered to choose a nominee. Officially this was done by balloting on the convention floor – in practice often by backroom deals, adding horse-trading and smoke-filled rooms to the American political lexicon. The convention system lasted for more than a hundred years, and the Democratic and Republican parties still hold elaborately staged conventions as televised coronation extravaganzas.

In the early 20th century, agitation for a more democratic nomination procedure led some states to replace state-level conventions with primary elections. For decades only a handful of states held primaries, choosing only a small minority of the delegates. Primaries were important chiefly as tests of voter sentiment, which convention horse-traders could weigh alongside other factors. Tiny New Hampshire happened to hold its primary first, making its results especially interesting to party leaders, the press, and candidates who could tout a win there as proof of popularity.

By the 1960s and 1970s many more states changed over to primaries, until a majority of convention delegates were chosen that way. The date of each state's primary, however, remained – and still remains – primarily a matter of state law. Individual primaries were held throughout the spring and summer, with a state or handful of states holding primaries almost every week.

Primary elections rarely involve great differences of principle, and adherents of candidates who fare poorly in the early rounds readily shift their support to other candidates. By the 1970s the primary season thus became rather like World Cup competition – each successive round eliminating weaker candidates until one emerged as dominant in each party, leaving nothing for the conventions to decide. New Hampshire, as home of the season's first primary – a status written into state law, and tolerated by the national parties – became more important than ever. On the one hand it eliminated the weakest candidates. On the other hand, relatively little-known candidates could catapult themselves into prominence by doing well there, and instantly establish themselves as serious competitors.

Jimmy Carter introduced a further twist in 1976. Iowa does not have a primary, but rather a caucus system, relic of an earlier era. Party activists gather at local meetings – some held in private homes - to choose delegates to county conventions, which in turn chose delegates to a state convention, where Iowa's national convention delegates are finally chosen. Carter campaigned in Iowa as though its caucuses were a primary election, and when he placed ahead of his rivals in an informal straw poll of caucusgoers he trumpeted the results as an election victory. Carter went on to the White House, and the Iowa caucuses joined the New Hampshire primary as the first tests of how prospective nominees fared with party voters.

While Iowa and New Hampshire voters had disproportionate influence, through the 1970s and 1980s this jerry-built system still left a role to large, later-voting states like California – their voters sometimes making the final pick between two candidates who survived the earlier rounds. Over time, however, media attention on the early results amplified their importance. The field of candidates would be winnowed so quickly that a party's nominee was already established by the time most states voted. States accordingly began moving their primary dates up, singly or in groups, to regain a share of the spotlight and a meaningful choice for their voters.

"Frontloading," as this is called, has now become a musical comedy in its own right. No federal law governs the process, which is regulated in part by individual state laws and in part by party rules. Thus, Florida and Michigan recently enacted state laws moving their primaries up to within a few days of the New Hampshire primary – in violation of both Democratic and Republican national party rules. The national party organizations have retaliated by reducing or eliminating those states' representation at the nominating conventions.[1] These restrictions are likely to be relaxed before the conventions are actually held next summer. (On the Democratic side, ignoring votes cast in Florida touches a very raw nerve, due to its role in the contested 2000 general election.)

For candidates and their campaign strategists, the frontloaded campaign schedule poses challenges equivalent to playing chess under rules that have changed since the last game. Their only guides are what happened in recent contests, and their best guess as to what effects the new compressed calendar may have this time.

In 2000, two serious candidates emerged in each party: an "establishment" candidate favored by party regulars, and an "insurgent" challenger. On the Republican side these were George W. Bush and John McCain respectively; on the Democratic side Al Gore and former senator Bill Bradley.[2] On the Democratic side, Gore succeeded in holding off Bradley in New Hampshire; Bradley's challenge faded, and Gore subsequently cruised to the nomination. On the Republican side, McCain scored a New Hampshire upset, putting Bush's nomination prospects seriously in doubt. Two weeks later, Bush recovered by defeating McCain in an exceptionally hard-fought primary in South Carolina, whose Republican voters are more conservative.

In 2004 only Democrats had a real nomination contest. With no clear favorite, support in the fall of 2003, prior to the first contests, was divided roughly evenly among several candidates, including eventual nominee John Kerry, John Edwards, and the previously obscure governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. Dean drew support by opposing the Iraq war, then effectively tapped into the Internet to identify supporters and draw campaign contributions from them. By late 2003 Dean was pulling ahead of his better-known rivals in national polls, and in polls of early-voting states including New Hampshire. Polling for the Iowa caucuses is notoriously difficult, due to the low turnout for public caucuses that are much demanding of participants than voting in a primary, but polls showed Dean ahead there as well. With no other candidate emerging as a prime challenger, Dean's position began to look commanding.

When the Iowa caucuses were held on January 19, 2004, however, they delivered a surprise.[3] John Kerry – whose national campaign looked moribund just days before the caucuses – emerged as the surprise winner, while Dean ran a poor third. The nomination race was both upended and settled by this single contest, in which only 120,000 Iowa caucusgoers participated. Dean's early support, never solidified, swiftly evaporated, while Democrats flocked toward Kerry, who now looked like a winner. Kerry easily won the New Hampshire primary and swept on to the nomination.

The 2008 primary schedule is much more frontloaded even than in 2004.[4] The Iowa caucuses are now scheduled for January 14, and the New Hampshire primary for January 19 – dates that may yet be pushed forward. Following a few other early contests, 20 states will vote on February 5, a "Super Tuesday" that amounts nearly to a national primary. This compressed schedule gives little time for candidates who fall short in Iowa or New Hampshire to regain their footing, leading to widespread speculation that momentum from wins in those two opening rounds may be enough to carry a candidate to the nomination.

The truth is that no one knows what may happen. Next time we will look at how expectations and uncertainties about the new – and still not quite certain – primary schedule are influencing candidate strategies in the 2008 Democratic and Republican primary races.

Rick Robinson

--------------------

Author of the article holds B.A. degree in Economics from the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) and M.A. degree in English from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California . Mr. Robinson worked as a county-level campaigner in Dukakis (1988) and Clinton (1992) presidential campaigns. He presently works as a journalist and political commentator.

--------------------

Footnotes:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/opinion/27collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses%2C_2004

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses%2C_2004

4. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/calendars/republicanprimaries/index.html

Related articles:

Obama and America's Original Sin - April 7, 2008

My House Divided - March 24, 2008

Will Florida and Michigan Determine Next U.S. President? - March 12, 2008

The Continuing Democratic Race - March 10, 2008

Foreman vs. Ali 2 - February 15, 2008