 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Winning “the Invisible Primary”
By Rhodes Cook
Editor, The Rhodes Cook Letter
As originally published in the April 2003 issue of "The Rhodes Cook Letter".The vast remainder of this imaginary berg, largely submerged from sight, is “the invisible primary” stage of the nominating process. It is where we are now and will be for the rest of 2003 - the long prelude to the primary season where vital decisions are made that shape everything that follows. In spite of its importance, it is a stage where few voters are actually involved and not that many more are really tuned in to what is going on.
Some calculate the beginning of the invisible primary as the day after the previous presidential election. But the heart of this long opening round – fully a year long – starts immediately after the midterm elections. It is when the field of candidates forms (and sometimes contracts), and those that survive jockey for position in a way that will largely determine their success or failure in the presidential primaries to come.
A Time for Bucks, Not Ballots
In assessing the strength of the candidates during the invisible primary, the focus is often on two quantifiable yardsticks – polls and money. Until primary ballots start being cast, though, the public opinion surveys are often simply a reflection of name identification. Candidates that are already nationally known frequently rank highest in the early polling.
At the beginning of 1976, for instance, the front-runner among Democratic voters in the Gallup Poll was Hubert Humphrey, even though he was not running that year for his party’s nomination. The Democratic favorite at the beginning of 1988 was Gary Hart, who had run a surprisingly strong race for the party’s nomination four years earlier but had already self-immolated in 1987 when caught in an adulterous affair. And the Democratic leader in January 1992 was Jerry Brown, the former California governor who was in the process of making a quixotic third bid for the White House. None of the three came close to winning the Democratic nomination in the year in question, nor for that matter, did Hart or Brown in any year.
A Gallup Poll of registered Democrats and Democratic leaners this March found the front-runner for the party’s nomination in 2004 to be Rep. Richard Gephardt, the former House minority leader and a Democratic presidential aspirant in 1988. He had the support of 20% of the 420 respondents. A close second with 16% was Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the former Vietnam War medal winner, followed closely by Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000, with 15%. No other candidates were in double digits.
But underscoring the ephemeral nature of these early polls was the fact that when the former first lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was included in the list of Democratic choices, she placed first with 28%.
In a real sense, though, it is money that drives the modern nominating process. For the candidates taking federal funds, all individual contributions collected from the beginning of the year prior to the election are matchable. And with contributions collectable only in small chunks, that forces candidates to enter the race and start raising money fully a year before the primary voting begins.
In recent years, campaign fund-raising totals at the end of the year preceding the presidential election have proved to be the most reliable harbinger of eventual success - even more reliable than the polls, or for that matter, victory in the closely watched kickoff events in Iowa or New Hampshire.
With the compression of more and more primaries into a brief period near the beginning of the presidential election year, the candidates need larger and larger quantities of money on hand at the outset of the primary season. And since 1980, the candidates who have raised the most money in the year prior to the primaries have gone on to win their party’s nomination.
Less reliable an indicator, though, have been the fund-raising totals at the end of March of the pre-election year. This year, the first quarter Democratic leader was Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who raised $7.4 million, $400,000 more than Kerry.
But as often as not, the leader at the end of this first filing period does not go on to win the nomination. A case in point is former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who raised more than $13 million in the first quarter of 1995, only to be knocked out of the Republican presidential race before the first-in-the nation New Hampshire primary the following February.
Shortly after launching their campaigns, every candidate faces a critical decision as to whether or not to accept public financing in the form of matching federal funds. Either way, there is a $2,000 limit on individual contributions (increased from $1,000 by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) and a $5,000 limit on political action committee (PAC) contributions, although the latter are of minimal value in the nominating process because they are not matchable.
Over the last quarter century, winning “the invisible primary” has been a better gauge of eventual success in the presidential nominating process than victory in either Iowa or New Hampshire. In the 10 contested nominating contests since 1980, the fund-raising leader in the year prior to the election has gone on to win the nomination nine times, while candidates who have been the leading preference of their party’s voters in the first Gallup Poll of the presidential election year have captured the nomination eight times. By comparison, Iowa and New Hampshire are hothouses of unpredictability. The New Hampshire primary winner has captured his party’s nomination six times since 1980, while the victor in the Iowa caucuses has prevailed just five times. In the chart below, nominees are listed in bold red type.
(at end of year prior to election)
(at start of election year)Candidates that accept the federal funds – and the vast majority of candidates have done so since 1976 – also agree to accept spending limits, which in 2004 are expected to be in excess of $40 million. Candidates that do not accept the federal funds can spend as much as they want.
Those in the past who have declined the public money have had a checkered history of success. When pursuing the Republican nomination in 1980, former Texas Gov. John Connally declined the federal funding, spent an estimated $12 million, and won one delegate. Wealthy publisher Steve Forbes also declined public funds in his bids for the GOP nomination in 1996 and 2000, spending in the vicinity of $40 million, largely out of his own pocket, each time. Forbes was knocked out of the race early both years, winning only two primaries in 1996 – Arizona and Delaware – and none at all in 2000.
The conspicuous exception to this litany of failure has been George W. Bush. He declined the public money in 2000, far outspent his rivals who took it, and ultimately won the Republican nomination.
Bush ostensibly rejected the public funds so he could match the deep-pocketed Forbes dollar for dollar. But his early fund-raising success served to “suck the oxygen” out of the Republican race, forcing potentially formidable but financially non-competitive candidates such as Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole and Dan Quayle to abandon their campaigns in the midst of the invisible primary season. Bush raised nearly $40 million by mid-1999, nearly $70 million by the end of 1999, and roughly $100 million by the time of the Republican convention in 2000.
Bush’s campaign took fundraising in the nominating process to Midas-like heights. Much of the money was raised by roughly 200 fund raisers within the Bush campaign called the “Pioneers,” who collected at least $100,000 apiece in individual contributions of $1,000 or less. With the new $2,000 limit for individual contributions, President Bush is widely expected to raise at least $200 million for the 2004 Republican primaries, even though he is likely to face no more than token opposition for renomination.
The absence of primary opposition in itself is a highly positive sign for Bush. Since the creation of presidential primaries in the early 20th century, the only incumbents to be defeated for reelection have been those who first met significant resistance in the primaries. On the other hand, presidents that have been easily renominated over the last century have invariably been reelected. And in Bush’s case, a large campaign treasury can help deter opposition and make success possible in the critical nominating stage.
Laying the Groundwork
The term “invisible primary” comes from a book of the same name written in 1976 by journalist Arthur Hadley. At the time, the nominating process was well along in its evolution toward its present form. A new system of public financing – with its strict contribution, spending and disclosure requirements – had just been installed. And for the first time in 1976, candidates were facing presidential primaries in a majority of states. “The race for the nomination had been made more complex, more tiring, and more costly,” Hadley wrote back then. And it has gotten more demanding ever since.
At present, there are nine Democratic presidential candidates, currently ranging in age from 48 (Al Sharpton) to 66 (Bob Graham). The majority are senators or former senators and lawyers by profession. By religion, they are closely divided: five are Protesants, three are Roman Catholic, one is Jewish. But only two have military service on their resume, with John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, by far the most famous. And only one of the Democrats (Richard Gephardt) comes from west of the Mississippi, with his home base of St. Louis barely across the river. REPUBLICANS (1)
(Age)
(56)DEMOCRATS (9)
(Age)
(54)
(49)
(62)
(66)
(59)
(56)
(61)
(55)
(48)Source: Politics in America (CQ Press), The Almanac of American Politics (National Journal) To Hadley, there were six tests to judge candidates during the invisible primary.
First, the psychological test. Does the candidate have the “fire in the belly” needed to navigate the long and consuming nominating process?
Second, the staff test. Does the candidate have managerial ability, reflected in his success or lack thereof in putting together a loyal, competent staff?
Third, the strategy test. Does the candidate enter the race with a plausible road map of how to win the nomination or is he or she largely winging it?
Fourth, the money test. Can the candidate raise the money needed to compete in an environment where a reliance on a few “fat cats” is replaced by the need to tap tens of thousands of smaller givers?
Fifth, the media test. Can the candidate make himself interesting and newsworthy enough to attract media attention?
Sixth, the constituency test. Can the candidate develop a cadre of energetic supporters willing to contribute to and work for his candidacy?
Often, candidates will begin laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign years and years before the invisible primary begins. They frequently take a special interest in politics in the early states in the nominating process, appearing at party fund-raising dinners, campaigning for state and local candidates, and funneling contributions through PACs they have formed to help further their presidential ambitions.
When the invisible primary season opens, they attempt to harvest the fruit of their labors, often building their state and local organizations around politicians and party activists that they have already cultivated.
But the invisible primary is not a period where voters are engaged en masse. It is a time for candidates to build an organization, test their message, raise money, and find a niche for themselves, whether it is a distinct position on the ideological spectrum or the championing of a particular constituency group. The invisible primary is akin to tryouts in New Haven, before the candidates move to the political equivalent of Broadway - the presidential primaries.
To Run or Not to Run
For each potential candidate, the campaign begins with the elemental decision of whether or not to run for president. Two similarly ambitious politicians can reach two totally different decisions. In November 1974, for instance, Walter Mondale pulled the plug on a prospective presidential bid, subsequently explaining that he did not wish to spend the next year of his life “sleeping in Holiday Inns.”
Yet at the same time, Jimmy Carter was enthusiastically jumping into the presidential race. And he was not only willing to stay in Holidays Inns, but often spent nights in the homes of supporters, sometimes rising early in the morning to cook them breakfast. Day after day, Carter patiently practiced the art of “retail” politics, wooing voters one at a time or in small groups.
Every four years there are at least a few lineal descendants of Mondale, politicians who explore a presidential bid but shy away from taking the plunge. This year’s crop of Democratic “no goes” include Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Senate colleagues Evan Bayh of Indiana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, as well as former Vice President Al Gore, the party’s nearly victorious standard-bearer in 2000.
But there are even more political descendants of Jimmy Carter, self starters willing to endure the months and months on the campaign trail necessary to stand a chance at winning their party’s presidential nomination. So far, the Democratic field numbers nine, an eclectic group that includes four senators, three New Englanders, two African Americans, one woman, and no clear front-runner.
At this point, the large field could be divided into two tiers. In the top tier are a quartet of candidates – Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman. All of them rank in the top three in the March Gallup Poll, the first quarter fund-raising totals, or both. That leaves a second tier of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Of the latter group, Dean and Graham probably have the best potential to move up. A straight-talking, some might say pugnacious, former governor, Dean took a strong stance against the recent war with Iraq that helped him raise money and get on the map in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, Graham, whose start this year was slowed by heart surgery, boasts a long career in state and national politics and a base in vote-rich Florida. Like Dean, he is a former governor, the office that over the last generation has provided the prime launching pad to the White House. Four governors (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) or former governors (Carter and Ronald Reagan) have been elected to the presidency since the last sitting senator (John F. Kennedy in 1960) made it up Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Visible Primaries
Those Democrats that survive the invisible primary will face a “visible primary” season next year that could be shorter than ever before. To be sure, presidential primaries will extend across the calendar from late January to early June. But as in 2000, the truly meaningful ones are expected to take place in the first few weeks when the race is likely to be decided.
Last time, the Democratic race opened with the Iowa caucuses in late January followed by the New Hampshire primary eight days later. But the contest then went dark for five weeks before a glut of primaries was held from New England to California on the first Tuesday in March that convincingly decided the nomination in Gore’s favor.
In 2004, the Democratic calendar will be more similar to the one Republicans faced in 2000, when Bush and John McCain competed in a string of cross-country primaries throughout the month of February that focused attention on the GOP contest.
The Democrats, who for years permitted only Iowa and New Hampshire to hold delegate-selection contests before early March, changed their rules last year to allow other states to start voting in early February immediately after the two early birds. Although the 2004 primary calendar is unlikely to be finally settled until this fall, it is already clear that upwards of a dozen states will be holding their events in February – adding luster, if you will, to the visible tip of the iceberg.
Home | Analysis | Biography | Bookstore | Links | Subscribe!
Rhodes Cook
rhodescook@aol.com© Rhodes Cook 2001.
