There?s much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth among politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire over the Democratic Party?s decision to intrude on their first-in-the-nation monopoly over the presidential primaries in 2008.
The Democratic National Committee recently voted to permit Nevada to hold its delegate-selecting caucuses five days after Iowa?s similar lead-off events on Jan. 14, and South Carolina to conduct its primary a week after the traditional first primary in New Hampshire on Jan. 22.
The decision disturbs, while not completely disrupting, the cozy arrangement between Iowa and New Hampshire. Each state has a law stipulating it will be the first in the country to conduct its distinct approach to selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention, which formally elects the party?s presidential nominee.
The caucus method in Iowa provides that voters hold many hundreds of meetings around the state on a single night for debate on the merits of the candidates, before voting in a first round of delegate selection. The more popular primary approach of New Hampshire dictates statewide voting as in a normal election for the candidates, or for citizens pledged to support them at the convention.
The deal between Iowa and New Hampshire provides that at least a week separate the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, presumably to assure the national spotlight to each. While the new Nevada caucuses won?t technically violate the arrangement, they will offer an additional magnet for news coverage, as will the South Carolina primary soon after the New Hampshire vote.
The new calendar is the culmination of a long-brewing sulk by many other states coveting not only the media spotlight but also a more influential voice in the selection of the presidential nominee. The rap against Iowa and New Hampshire is that each is too small and too racially, ethnically and perhaps too culturally atypical of the country to hold such a significant role in the choice.
The DNC added Nevada ostensibly to give its large Hispanic electorate a larger voice and South Carolina to boost the role of black voters and Southerners generally in the early measure of candidate strength, which often affects how later-voting states respond.
For many years, New Hampshire boasted that no presidential candidate had ever made it to the White House without winning its primary. But Bill Clinton did so in 1992, ironically with a lift from the Granite State by finishing second there and cleverly declaring himself “The Comeback Kid” after surviving early reports of womanizing.
Defenders of first-in-the-nation status for Iowa and New Hampshire have argued that their very smallness assures retail politicking in the two states and a concentrated group of voters committed to the critical job of picking a president, or at least “winnowing out” the field. Adding Nevada and South Carolina isn?t likely the first time around in 2008 to change that role substantially.
But it does further encourage the rush of other states to hold their caucuses and primaries earlier in the election year ? called “front-loading” ? behind the four states now allocated special status in the calendar. (While the DNC?s action commits only the Democrats, the Republicans usually fall in line rather than give the opposition the stage alone.)
Front-loading in recent presidential election cycles has produced party nominees in the first several weeks, at tremendous cost to the candidates who are not well-heeled. In 2000, Republican George W. Bush amassed so much campaign money that a field of about 10 challengers folded well before the GOP convention.
Also, states that wait as late as May or June to vote their presidential preferences find the door closed on them. And the early decision can lead to buyer?s remorse if the anointed one doesn?t measure up ? a rap against Sen. John Kerry among many Democrats in 2004.
With the nominations apparently wide-open in both parties for 2008, it?s anybody?s guess who will be helped or hurt by the latest calendar adjustments. That includes those Democratic pols in Iowa and New Hampshire wailing now.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
