---

THE FIGHT TO BE FIRST Primary Politics: Candidates, States Scramble for Position in ’08 Presidential Race By Rhodes Cook Editor, The Rhodes Cook Letter As originally published in the "The Rhodes Cook Letter". W For additional analysis, check out The Rhodes Cook Letter! Subscribe Now! hile the identities of next year’s presidential nominees are a long way from being decided, reviews of the nominating process that will select them are pouring in… and they are not good. The presidential campaign is too long, too expensive, and the primary voting too truncated in the opening weeks of 2008, critics say. And who’s to argue. In a process that is constantly evolving, this marks the latest stage in its evolution, something that many view as the direct opposite of Darwinian advancement. A quarter century or so ago, when the proliferation of presidential primaries took hold, the calendar was neatly arranged with Iowa and New Hampshire voting in the winter months, followed by a steady stream of states casting their ballots in the spring, culminating with the often decisive California primary in early June. Candidates did not need to launch their campaigns until late in the pre-election year. With the early primaries and caucuses spread out like steppingstones, a large amount of money was not needed at the start as is the case now. Funds could be raised by the successful candidates as the primaries unfolded. Nominations were not settled before late spring, if then. And the summertime conventions often mattered. In short, the election year was filled with meaningful events, with a natural progression from the nominating stage to the general election. An Evolving Process Back then, the period before the primaries was a stage of the process known as the “invisible primary” – a time when candidates, out of the glare of the TV lights, could begin to raise some money, build organizations in the early states, and hone the messages that would be the heart of their outreach to primary voters. Nowadays, the pre-primary stage is long and highly visible. It is not the political equivalent of “tryouts in New Haven” anymore, but an increasingly critical part of the process. Success means survival and mistakes can mean quick extinction. These days, candidates are constantly evaluated through this pre-primary period on their skill at handling the media, their success at raising large amounts of money, and their standing in the public opinion polls – nationally and in key early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Those that weather this gauntlet can proceed to the glut of primaries and caucus contests that await shortly after New Year’s of 2008. Those that slip in even one of these categories can find their candidacy forced to the sidelines before a single primary vote has been cast. Already, Iowa’s Democratic former governor, Tom Vilsack, has pulled the plug on his candidacy, citing an inability to raise the massive amount of money that is considered necessary to compete in early 2008. And there probably will be more candidates heading to the sidelines before this year is out. In the Republicans’ last nominating fight eight years ago, the campaigns of a half dozen candidates expired before the calendar flipped from 1999 to 2000 – including those of two former Cabinet members, Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole, as well as former Vice President Dan Quayle. The 2008 Primary Calendar: A Work in Progress Not only are the candidates visibly fighting for position… so too are the states, as the order in which they vote next year could have a significant effect on the outcome. Two small, overwhelmingly white states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are guaranteed importance by their traditional positions at the front of the calendar. Democratic officials have added Nevada and South Carolina to the January mix to add geographic and demographic diversity. But many other states, including a number of huge, racially diverse ones, are not waiting patiently in line for their turn to vote as they have done in the past. Already, roughly a dozen states have moved forward their presidential primary to a date in the first six weeks of 2008 in a bid to enhance their status in the nominating process. California and New York has led the charge, moving up their primaries to the first Tuesday in February, a month earlier than they voted last time. But recently Florida has made an even bolder move, to Jan. 29, a date that Democratic leaders had assigned to South Carolina alone. The 2008 primary/caucus calendar is a long way from being set, as many state legislatures do not wrap up their sessions until late spring or early summer. But one thing is already quite evident --- more states will be voting earlier in the nominating process than ever before, with the likelihood that one or both nominees will be chosen next year in the shadow of Groundhog’s Day. The pile up of states voting in the first few weeks of the election year is not a new development. Rather, it is the culmination of a trend that has been gaining momentum over the last two decades, with state after state concluding that their only way to relevance is to stake a position as early as they can on the primary calendar. For a few it has worked; for many it has not. But with the competitive stage of the last two presidential nominating cycles effectively ending in early March, it is hard to argue with the logic of states choosing an even earlier primary or caucus date. 2008: The End of an Era? Still, the prospect of 30 or more states voting by the close of voting Feb. 5 has left many observers predicting the political equivalent of a train wreck in 2008. Both party nominations could easily be decided just a few weeks after the primary voting has started, with a numbingly long nine months left before the general election. For some, that outcome is less a fear than a hope - a situation so glaringly unacceptable that it would force the parties to make common cause to create a more rational, elongated nominating process for 2012. Yet whether 2008 is the end of an era in the ongoing evolution of the presidential nominating process may well depend on the answer to two questions: 1) How many states will ultimately join the Feb. 5 votefest? According to a mid-June tally by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), the number is 12 and counting. 2) And will the firewall the party’s have constructed to keep states from voting earlier than that be breached, launching a chaotic tumble of states into the comparatively empty spaces of January? Both parties have tried to prevent such a situation by prohibiting states from voting before the first Tuesday in February. The Republicans allow no exceptions. Democrats have granted exemptions for four states to vote on specific dates in January 2008 – with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14, Nevada caucuses on Jan. 19, New Hampshire primary on Jan. 22, and South Carolina primary on Jan. 29. But the parties possess few carrots and sticks to keep the rest of the country in line or to force those four January states to vote on the dates they have been assigned. Democrats are offering bonus delegates to states that vote after March, an incentive Republicans tried a few years ago but quickly abandoned because it had little effect. On the other hand, both parties threaten a significant loss of delegates for any state that breaks ranks and votes before Feb. 5. However, such penalties have not been enforced in the past because nominations have been decided during the primary season, leaving the convention as a time for public displays of party harmony with all delegates seated. It is likely that such penalties would only be enforced this time if there were still a contest for the nomination when the convention opened, with every delegate key to deciding the outcome. Although such a scenario is possible, it is an unlikely outcome for either party in 2008. Over the last quarter century, the trend has been for nominating campaigns to be wrapped up earlier and earlier. Not since the Democratic contest in 1984 has a race still been open on the last day of the primary season in June. Not since the 1992 Democratic campaign has a nominating contest remained competitive beyond the ides of March. And in 2000 and 2004, both the Democratic and Republican nominations were secured even earlier. Super-Duper Tuesday … and Beyond? The Feb. 5 vote has already attracted some nicknames, ranging from “Super-Duper Tuesday,” from those who view it benignly, to “Super-Disaster Tuesday,” from those who see the rapidly expanding event with fear and loathing. According to a mid-June tally by the NASS, a dozen states have already signed up for the Feb. 5 date, including California, New York and New Jersey. The number could double before the 2008 primary/caucus calendar is finally set, creating the largest one-day vote in the history of presidential primaries. The current record is held by the Southern-dominated event that took place March 8, 1988, which encompassed 16 primaries – 12 in the South alone – plus a handful of caucuses, mainly in the West. But even if the cross-country vote next Feb. 5 does become the largest ever, there is no guarantee that it will be decisive. In both 2000 and 2004, Super Tuesday – then held on the first Tuesday in March – did mark the conclusion of the competitive stage of the primary season. In 2000, both Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush sent their last major opponent to the sidelines that day with sweeping victories, as did Democrat John Kerry in 2004. But the huge Super Tuesday vote in 1988 resulted essentially in a three-way tie on the Democratic side. Michael S. Dukakis, Al Gore (then a senator from Tennessee), and Jesse Jackson each won five primaries. The Massachusetts governor carried the contests in three Northeastern states (Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island), plus the two large states on the fringes of the South, Florida and Texas. Gore carried the mid-South – Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Jackson won the states of the Deep South with their large African-American populations – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, as well as Virginia. The Democratic race that year was not ultimately decided until six weeks later in New York, where Dukakis won, Gore was eliminated, and Jackson was forced into a one-on-one contest with Dukakis the rest of the way that the Massachusetts governor was able to dominate. If nominations next year are not decided on Feb. 5, the campaign may limp along even longer than in 1988, with the number of states left to vote after the ’08 version of Super Tuesday comparatively sparse and spread out. Critical stops could be Virginia on Feb. 12, Wisconsin Feb. 19, and Ohio and Texas March 4. Only Pennsylvania is currently scheduled to vote in April and it may move its primary date forward. Just a handful of states are booked for May. And the first Tuesday in June, which once was the climactic closing day of the primary season, now features just two states, Montana and South Dakota. Decisions, Decisions Even though the siren song of an early primary date these days is quite strong, it is still a move that states must carefully consider. The first consideration is cost. State primaries are traditionally held from March to September in an election year. Creating a free-standing presidential primary in January or February can cost a mid-sized state several million dollars. Second, moving a primary to Feb. 5 can result in a small or medium-sized state being lost in the shuffle as candidates focus on the day’s bigger delegate prizes. And third, 2008 is a year when staying late on the calendar may pay off in a big way, if at least one of the party nominating battles continues beyond early February. Nonetheless, the conventional wisdom is “early is good” and clearly benefits accrue to early-voting states long before the primary season begins. The first Democratic presidential debate, for instance, was held April 26 at South Carolina State University, a predominantly black college in Orangeburg, S.C. The first Republican presidential debate was held May 3 at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., in another early-voting primary state. Yet when it comes to voting next year, the only states that are guaranteed influence are Iowa and New Hampshire. Part of their significance is due to their long history at the start of the nominating season, part to their ability to provide vital early momentum to the ultimate nominees. In all but two cases since the primary-dominated era of presidential nominations began in 1972, the standard-bearers of each party have won either Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. And the pair of candidates who won neither, Democrats George McGovern in 1972 and Bill Clinton in 1992, used solid second place showings in New Hampshire as a springboard to the nomination. It is hard to say, though, which of the states is better to win if a candidate is to carry only one of them – Iowa, which traditionally kicks off the voting with its precinct caucuses, or New Hampshire, which in recent years has held its primary eight days after Iowa. In contested nominating contests since 1972, there have been three major party nominees who have won Iowa but not New Hampshire, most recently Republican George W. Bush in 2000. Three other contested nominees have won New Hampshire but not Iowa, a trio that includes Republicans Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George Bush in 1988. Meanwhile, there have been five nominees over the last 35 years who have won both, most recently Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Measurements of Credibility in ‘07 In the year-long run up to the 2008 primaries, candidates will be judged on two quantifiable measurements – polls and money. Not so long ago, the early numbers in either category did not matter that much. In the first three months of 1991, for example, Bill Clinton did not raise a single dollar. And in a February Gallup Poll that year, he was the choice for the ’92 Democratic nomination of a microscopic 2% of respondents. For a Democratic candidate, that has not actually been a bad place to be. While Republicans over the years have traditionally nominated their early front-runners, the Democrats have often picked their nominees from the ranks of the long shots. Since 1972, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton have all won the party’s nomination after starting with a Gallup Poll standing of 5% or less in the first poll of prospective Democratic candidates in the pre-election year. Yet no dark horse has captured the Democratic nomination since 1992. One of the main reasons is the greater need now for early money and the fact that not all candidates are playing by the same ground rules in raising it. Virtually every major contender from the advent of the public financing system in 1976 until the end of the 20th century took matching federal funds. In doing so, candidates agreed to abide by spending limits for the nominating process that in 2004 were in the vicinity of $45 million. But as more and more states have moved their primary dates forward on the calendar, producing the need for larger sums of early money, candidates capable of raising large amounts have chosen to opt out of the public financing system and its restrictions on spending. George W. Bush was the first nominee to forego public financing, raising roughly $100 million (then a record) in pursuit of the Republican nomination in 2000. In 2004, both major party nominees skipped public financing and collected even more massive amounts, with Bush raising $270 million for the nominating stage and Kerry $235 million. As the incumbent, Bush was able to raise money at a quick pace. By the end of 2003, he had collected more than $130 million. Kerry, however, struggled early to gain traction against a crowded field of Democratic candidates and raised money much more slowly. By the end of 2003, he had collected only $25 million. By the end of February 2004, when his nomination was all but nailed down, he still had raised barely $40 million. It was during the next five months, between Super Tuesday and the Democratic convention in Boston in late July, that Kerry’s fund raising took off. And then he was running as the de facto nominee in what technically was still the nominating process but in reality a long, opening stage of the general election campaign. This year, top tier candidates such as Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain might be able to raise money in amounts that rival Bush’s total in 2003. It is a prospect that could make it difficult for their lesser known and not so well-heeled adversaries simply to weather the long, pre-election year. The Field of Candidates: Historic and Diverse It is already clear that the 2008 presidential campaign will be an unusual one. As often noted, it is the most open contest since at least 1952, with no incumbent running for reelection and no heir apparent in the form of a sitting vice president waiting in the wings. Even in 1952, there was the long shadow of a popular war hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, hanging over the presidential contests in both parties. Having yet to declare his partisan affiliation by early 1951, Ike was the front-runner for the ’52 nomination in both parties in the first Gallup Poll of the pre-election year. For much of 2007, polls have shown Clinton and Giuliani to be the front-runners for their party’s nomination. But this early in the campaign, support in the public opinion polls can reflect name familiarity as much as firm commitment. And the former first lady and New York City’s 9/11 mayor are almost universally known. There are really two tiers of candidates on each side. Among the Democrats, Sens. Clinton of New York, Obama of Illinois, and former Sen. Edwards of North Carolina are widely regarded as comprising the top tier, with Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, as well as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the prime dark horses. Among the Republicans, Giuliani and Sen. McCain of Arizona are often mentioned in the same breath at the top of the list with former Massachusetts Gov. Romney not too far behind. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, as well as Reps. Duncan Hunter of Colorado, Ron Paul of Texas and Tom Tancredo of Colorado are featured in the ranks of GOP long shots. The composition of each field could undergo changes as the year goes by. Some of the initial candidates could join Vilsack on the sidelines. But each party could also gain a late starter or two. On the Republican side, eyes are on former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who has stayed in the national limelight since leaving Congress by playing a district attorney on TV’s “Law and Order.” He is expected to enter the race in July. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has also indicated an interest in running if none of the current candidates takes charge of the GOP race by the fall. On the Democratic side, the focus is on former Vice President Al Gore, back in the news for his Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In many ways, though, the present group of candidates provides diversity enough. It is plausible that next November, voters could elect the first female president (Hillary Clinton), the first African American (Obama), the first Hispanic (Richardson), the first Mormon (Romney), or the first septuagenarian (McCain) to a first full term in the White House. In terms of religion, there are more Democratic and Republican candidates of the Roman Catholic faith than any other, although only Giuliani among the top-tier candidates on either side is Catholic. Democrats Clinton and Edwards are Methodists, while Obama attends the United Church of Christ. On the Republican side, McCain is Episcopalian. Of the most outspoken socially conservative candidates, Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism from Methodism, while Huckabee is a former head of the Arkansas Baptist convention. Over the last generation, gubernatorial experience has trumped senatorial lineage in presidential voting. Four of the last five presidents, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, had last served as a governor before advancing to the White House. But the voters’ preference for governors will be tested this time. Senators, current or former, dominate the Democratic top tier, not to mention the second tier that features Biden and Dodd. Republican candidates tend to offer a wider variety of political pedigrees, with a senator (McCain), a former mayor (Giuliani), and a former governor (Romney) leading the early GOP pack. Almost surely the pecking order will change as the year unfolds. It would not be surprising if one or more dark horses ascend into the top tier of their party’s candidates, as Democrat Howard Dean did in 2003. To score such a breakthrough, it often takes a distinctive agenda along with a creative way of reaching voters, as Dean managed with his strong stance against the Iraq war augmented by extensive use of the Internet. The opportunity for advancement is there again this time. The media likes colorful underdogs, and are almost certain to highlight the David versus Goliath storyline that this year’s fund-raising disparities are sure to create. The trick will be for any long shot candidate who gains the media spotlight to maximize their good fortune by raising some big bucks of their own. No doubt there will be plenty of twists and turns before the Democrats formally select their nominee in Denver late next summer and the Republicans choose theirs in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The months ahead should be fascinating, one that will surely test the candidates’ ability to raise money, build efficient organizations and articulate campaign themes. Yet just as important, the long nominating season ahead will also showcase the decency and common sense of the candidates in a closely watched, highly charged environment – one where mistakes are inevitable, but wise responses are not. 2007: Political “Iron Man” Competition This pre-election year is unfolding in three stages, the political equivalent of an “Iron Man” triathlon. But rather than competing in running, swimming, and biking, the candidates are being tested in fund raising, debates and straw votes. Up to now, the emphasis has been on money, with the first quarter results vividly defining the gulf between the “haves” and the “have nots.” While a half dozen candidates raised more than $10 million apiece in the first quarter of 2007 – Democrats Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and Republicans Romney, Giuliani and McCain – seven other candidates raised less than $1 million each. Five anchor the second tier of Republicans – Gilmore, Huckabee, Hunter, Paul and Tommy Thompson. The other two sub-$1 million fund raisers were Democratic long shots – Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Raising money will continue to be important as the year unfolds, as candidates marshal their resources for what could be a very truncated primary season. But the campaign now has already moved into a second stage, one that features ongoing debates among the candidates. The first Democratic debate April 26 included all eight contenders for the party’s nomination and was televised nationally on MSNBC, as was the first Republican debate the following week that showcased the 10 GOP entries. The money stage of the process claimed a casualty in Vilsack. Other candidates may decide to bow out during the debate season, a time not only for a lofty exchange of ideas, but for sharp jabs, zingers, gaffes and brutal assessment by the media. But a sure-fire winnower of late, particularly on the Republican side, is the third stage of the pre-election year, the straw votes, which reach their apex in August with a GOP event in Iowa. In the past, it has had all the trappings of a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza, replete with barbecues, balloons, and buses hired by the candidates to bring voters to an affair that involves a measure of old-fashioned vote-buying. Giuliani and McCain have already announced they will skip this year’s Iowa straw vote. Yet the results will still be critical for those who compete. George W. Bush won the event in 1999 and prospered. But several low-finishing candidates began exiting the race not long after the last rib was consumed. If such a scene develops again this year, it could lead to a revolving door – one where some candidates leave the race, while a few others presently on the sideline leap in. And that would mark a fourth stage of this unusually intense pre-election year.