What effect will it have on the nomination process?
My thought as to the second question is that it will provide a huge boost to Hillary Clinton.
Before this development, we had four states with early primaries/caucuses: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. One historical reason for letting the small states go first is that it allows unknown/underfunded candidates to compete. Even an unknown like Bill Clinton in '92 had a chance to meet enough voters to do well in a small state. You win a small state or two, and the campaign contributions come pouring in and your campaign develops momentum.
With a big state the dynamic is different. It’s hardly possible to personally meet enough voters to make a difference. This means you have to rely on advertising, and that gives well-funded candidates a HUGE advantage.
In the current election cycle, that would mean a HUGE advantage for Hillary Clinton. She has deep pockets, which would allow her to blanket the airwaves in California and Florida with political ads. The other candidates are unlikely to be able to match her.
I say this is ultimately anti-democratic. It gives too much advantage to big-money candidates. Since Schwarzenegger is pushing this, the conspiracy theorist in me suspects Republicans are trying to help Hillary get the nomination, because that’s who they want to face.
The first few primarys seem to be crucial to forming a string positive image in the minds of the target voters. If the candidate cannot win the first few primarys, he will be seen as unable to carry the general election or nomination. (Think Howard Dean in 2004. He was the media favorite up until the New Hampshire primary.)
Now, there are 50 states that want the candidates to show up, spend their campaign money, and talk to the folks about issues that concern them specifically. There may be a growing concern that the candidates are focusing on the first half dozen or so states (the earliest primaries), and the rest of the states become mere footnotes in the process.
So they move up the date to an earlier one to become relevant again.
Is there any Republican potential nominee who could win in a general election in California this cycle? If not, then California doesn’t matter. A “safe” state’s choice is irrelevant. (I realize that I’m assuming the answer instead of waiting for it. If I’m wrong, tell me!)
Isn’t it obvious? Those of us in states that hold later primaries are tired of having nine candidates on each party’s primary ballot, eight of whom dropped out of the race after the first five states.
The fact that a state is safe in the general election has no bearing whatsoever on its influence in the nominating process. California sends huge delegations to both party conventions. It has been “irrelevant” only when the nominations were decided before the California primary.
Granted, I don’t think the guy is a total right-wing asshat (it’s not that hard to look like a sane Republican given the level of your peers these days), but I’m having a hard time picturing him as the conservative equivalent of (pre-November 2006) Joe Lieberman.
Well, you’re right that it’s an advantage. I’m not sure it’s an unfair advantage because, to be honest, I can never really come to grips with what I think about election finances. Part of me wants a level playing field and may the best candidate win. Part of me thinks that part of being the best candidate is having people excited enough to send money. Part of me thinks that means the candidates are for sale.
I’m so far from having the answers that I’m not sure I even know the questions.
In fairness to Schwarzenegger, his thinking may be that an early California primary might produce a more moderate Republican nominee than is usually the case. But it would play hell with the Democratic nomination, in my opinion.
I think you’ll have an uphill fight convincing California Democrats that their representation at the Democratic National Convention should be reduced because there are too many of them.
I don’t know about “subverting”. I think expensive campaigns are inevitable, and even desirable, in a large, diverse democracy under presidential (as opposed to parliamentary) government.
I do agree that front-loading the primary calendar will increase the cost of the campaigns, but I’d rather have a $100 million campaign in which everybody gets to vote than a $50 million campaign in which only two states vote.
If we had everyone vote at the same time wouldn’t that pretty well put everyone on an even playing field? If someone does well in the first primary, wouldn’t increase their likelihood to do well in the 2nd one when they’re all spaced out like that? Following the heard and all? If you want the true ‘voice of the people’ wouldn’t it be more appropriate to let the candidates stand on their own merits, without interference from other primaries, and just have everyone vote on the same day?
But the idea is to pick four small states which are a microcosm of the country. That way, we get a chance to see how the candidates play with a cross-section of America, and because they’re small states, even an underfunded candidate (like Bill Clinton in '92) can compete.
I think the four early states chosen are pretty representative. With New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, you have one state from each region of the country. But what’s needed is a break after those four contests to give whomever emerges some time to bask in media attention and raise funds. If, instead, we head straight into a gauntlet of big-state elections, the big money candidate(s) can swamp emerging stars.
Hey, it would be great if my state went first and I personally had a voice in the nomination process. But I see the wisdom in letting a few small states go first.
The most important thing to me is that the best (not the richest) candidate wins, and I’m not sure that result will follow if the big states try to muscle their way to the front of the line.
No, you made mention of the percentage of Democrats in California, by saying that “it should” be “irrelevant” in the nominating process because it’s a safe state in the fall election. In other words, it should be irrelevant because it has too many Democrats (or too few Republicans) within its boundaries.
The only ways to make it irrelevant are to shove its primary to the back of the primary calendar or to reduce the size of its delegation to the National Convention. Again, good luck in convincing the citizens of California (or of any other state that’s safe for either party) that this is just or fair.
I couldn’t care less, since I’m neither a Democrat nor a Californian.
However, your assumption that Democrats in a swing state are more likely to pick an electable nominee than Democrats in a safe state is badly flawed. A state can be a swing state because it has 49% radicals, 49% reactionaries, and 2% in the middle–which is not far from being the case in Iowa. The primary voters in such a state are no more oriented toward moderation or electability than anyone else.