Why the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries Matter (at Least For Democrats)
This year the major parties held firm on the tradition that Iowa and New Hampshire should kick off the presidential campaigns. Last week, for example, the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of its votes at the national convention because, in violation of Party rules, Michigan is holding a primary before February 1. The Party has also done the same to Florida. Under party rules, only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are allowed to hold primaries before February 1.
Losing both New Hampshire and Iowa can destroy a candidacy. Winning both is almost a sure path to the nomination.
Many party activists complain - perhaps correctly - that these four states do not represent America or the Democratic Party. With the exception of South Carolina, none of them have a very substantial black population. Indeed, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada are very white states. Nor, for that matter are there very many Hispanics or Jews in these states. All three groups are very loyal Democratic constituencies. In addition, with the exception of Iowa, there is not much of a labor movement in these states. While organized labor is not what it once was, it is still an important part of the Democratic Party. These states also do not have large urban centers - again an important component of the Party. Nor are they home to very many ethnic Americans - Irish-, Italian-, Polish-, Greek-, Japanese-, Chinese-, Armenian- or Arab-Americans - who are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. These are not even "big" states, with lots of electoral votes. This again makes them seem less like Democratic states. In the last few elections, with the exception of Texas and sometimes Florida, the Democrats have swept all of the large states.
Indeed, these are not obviously Democratic states. New Hampshire is the most Republican state in New England, and only rarely goes for Democratic candidate for President. South Carolina has not voted for a Democrat at the national level since the Party made war on segregation - something the white majority in South Carolina still cannot come to terms with. Iowa and Nevada are swing states that are as likely to vote Republican as they are to vote Democratic. They are not like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or California, which these days are almost automatic Democratic states in a presidential election.
Thus Party activists complain that the nomination is being controlled by states that are not in the mainstream of the Party. They are right in their analysis, but instead of opposing this process, all Democrats should embrace it.
The demographics of these states - their swing vote character - is precisely why Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada ought to be the first primary states. They are swing states that have narrowly gone Democratic or Republican for the last twenty years. If a Democrat is to retake the White House the Party must nominate someone who can appeal to moderate, middle of the road voters. The Party must be able to attract those who are not hard core, "yellow dog" Democrats. The kind of voters you find in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
This year the process is particularly well suited to this goal. All three of the major candidates - Clinton, Edwards, and Obama - are probably acceptable to almost everyone in the Party. This is not like 1968 when Vietnam split the Party (and put Nixon in the White House). It is not like 1980 when Carter's mean-spirited incompetence split the Party and ultimately sent millions of Democrats and independents looking elsewhere - to Anderson or Reagan. This year almost everyone talks about who can win, not who is her or his favorite. All three of the leaders have great skills, experience, and qualities. All have liabilities. Some are their immutable characteristics - will America elect a woman or a black man with a funny name? Others involve their life experiences. Is the nation ready for a trial lawyer, a one term Senator, or the wife of an ex-president? Democrats will debate their styles and their ideologies. Is Edwards too focused on the poor?; is Clinton too wishy-washy on the War?; is Obama too much of a foreign policy light weight?
All of these are real questions (not necessarily legitimate ones) that will impact on the election. But, let's face it, if any of these three (or any of the others in the second tier of the pack such as Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) get the nomination, most Democrats will vote for that person. But, getting most - or even all - Democratic votes is not the key to success in November 2008. The key is getting moderates, independents, Republicans who are sick of the war, Bush's deep hypocrisy and corruption, and an economy that is sinking faster every month. A key may also be bringing back to the Party evangelical Christians who may disagree with the candidates on abortion rights or gay rights, but have come to realize that the Republican Party has truly sold its soul for lower tax rates for the rich and a war that no one wants.
What candidate will get those voters? That gets us back to Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The Democrat who can win in those very non-Democratic states will be the best candidate for the Party. The results might be a surprise. It is, quite frankly, no big deal if Obama wins Michigan, where African Americans form a huge chunk of the Democratic vote. But, if he wins in mostly white Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada - or even does very well - he will be a much more viable candidate. We might be underwhelmed if Edwards won Florida; the headline might read, "a southern candidate wins a southern state." But if he runs well in Nevada or Iowa it will be different. Similarly, Clinton must prove she can win in the heartland, in states with few strong unions and lots of farmers. She did this twice in upstate New York, but that against an almost invisible and meaningless Republican opposition. Now she must do it on a different turf, against impressive opposition.
Thus, at least this year Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are the perfect states to hold the first Democratic primaries. The candidates who emerge from these contests are likely to be the best to carry the Party and the nation.
Paul Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School, in Albany, New York.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Primaries aught to be in the order of states that gave the most votes to democrats in the previous elections.
I just saw a poll that shows JRE killing the repug in North Carolina in a head-to-head poll. Obama and Hillary loses big time. Democrats better wake up and pick the most electable candidate which is John Edwards.
Iowa is a strange little place and the Democratic caucus is an odd political ritual, but it has one over-riding value in this electoral auction: ordinary people meet future presidents face-to-face, regardless what happens on TV.
Iowans may be too white, too rural, too conservative and too darn nice, but like ordinary folks everywhere, they can spot a phony when they meet one. That's what they're doing now for the rest of the country.
And that's why Joe Biden is pushing up into third place, despite the fact that the "top-tier" candidates are running multi-million dollar media campaigns.
Mr. Finkelman just recites a bunch of unproven hypotheses. "Anyone who wins both Iowa and New Hampshire is almost guaranteed the nomination
More important, why should we let moderates and deviating Repigs decide who OUR candidate should be just because Finkleman thinks we are going to need their votes?
I was going to look up Finkleman's profile to try to account for his deficit in reasoning in this post, but when I refreshed the page, this article wasn't even there anymore. Good.
.
Why do Iowa corn farmers and NH maple sap suckers matter? The sad, very sad fact is that most voters are sheep, who follow what they think (I use that term loosely) the "majority" wants - since they:
1. don't actually think for themselves - or at all
2. don't actually investigate the positions of the candidates, and
3. don't want to be in the "minority".
All this means that Iowa and NH are important well beyond anything that is reasonable.
It's just another of the sad facts of American "democracy".
Blame the total failure of the American educational system, which is the culprit behind the ever accelerating Dumbing-Down of America.
.
We have choices. vote for the most experienced candidate Joe Biden
Real News: Joe Biden Bill to End the War in Iraq passed the Senate in October with 75 votes (Obama was one of two Senators who didn't vote) and pass the House of Representatives this week. Biden's Resolution will go to Bush this week to sign or to veto.
Thank you Joe Biden for remaining a working Senator on Iraq, Pakistan, Iran - all in the news again, and Joe Biden has said, if stopping a war in Iran means losing the Presidency, then he is willing to do what he has to do to save and protect America first.
If you want words - Joe Biden is not your man - If you want ACTION - Joe Biden is the best one for President.
Unlike the top 3, Joe Biden has ran on public matching financing rather than Corporate money as Obama and Clinton as well as Edwards has done.
Biden doesn't take PAC money as Obama does. Joe Biden lives off his $165,000 Senate salary, owns no stock so he doesn't have a conflict of interest, has passed more laws related to protecting women and children than any person in Congress, and 95% of minorities in his state of Delaware have voted for him.
www.joebid
Actions speak louder than words.
Last night I learned that 13 times more African-Americans than "whites" are arrested in Iowa annually even though the proportion of African Americans in that state is far below 50%. Am I to understand that this ridiculous state which also has never in its history elected a woman to statewide, let alone national office is allowed to be the first to "vote" on presidential wannabes? If I were a rational foreign observer I would be forced to conclude that Americans are complete idiots when it comes to electing their president.
It would be more helpful if eligible voters from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are commenting on this topic. Outsiders can only guess what the results would be and an educated guess from the polls could be wrong at the end of the day.
I have been monitoring and evaluating personal sentiments and opinions among adults and senior high school pupils to college students in Iowa.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing more than their fellow presidential candidates, because I have seen 17 - 18 years old high school pupils networking in their schools for Obama and Clinton.
Clinton is still ahead of Obama in Iowa and South Carolina, but they tie in New Hampshire.
Clinton's rating improved after the last Iowa debate and she is more down to earth than her rivals. She has a plan and knows the stategy.
Obama has good ideas, but he has not told the electorate how he is going to transform America. He has no blue prints. He is just jiving.
America needs more than a political jive-turkey. He would be a good adviser on Public Affairs to the President.
At this time of global crisis with the war in Iraq and war on terror and the emergence of China as a world power in economy and gobal politics, what America needs urgently is not a naive leader who is just using moral persuasion to win public support.
I bet you that Senator Barack Obama is clueless about the politics of power between the West and the East in Africa.
If I ask him a question on how to checkmate the power of China in Sudan and the case of AFRICOM, I doubt if he would be able to give the right answers.
I recommend Senator Barack Obama as the next governor of Illinois.
The experience would be good for his political career.
The leadership of the greatest nation on earth is not for experiment.
If the leadership of America is an open contest of idealism and intellect, I doubt if Barack Obama would make top 10.
God bless America.
As an outsider it's interesting to see how the American democratic system consistently drags its population to the the far right.
To take a simple example most Americans, and certainly most Americans who would think about voting Democratic are against the war. However all the "electable" Democratic candidates are in favour of the war. How do you get into a situation where you can encourage so many people to vote so consistently against their principles and interests? And yet just as in 2004 it's a fair bet that the great majority of the most active Democrats, opposing war something like 90% of them I would guess, will refuse to vote for anti-war candidates.
Fascinating.
No, no, no... With all due respect to these four states, their citizens, and their rationalizations for why it's a good thing that they are always the first nominating contests, this nonsense has got to stop. It holds the whole campaign process hostage to a few regional special interests that become checkbox issues cycle after cycle. The corn ethanol joke is the product of the Iowa caususes.
We can't declare a few states to be somehow more representative than the others and therefore make them the perennial stewards of the first round of attrition. Every campaign cycle, put the names of the states in a hat, select them all in series, and schedule the primaries two states per week, every week, from February through July, in this random order.
This way the states that get to go in February and to a lesser extent those that get to go in July (leading up to the conventions) will change every cycle. Policians won't be able to pander consistently to issues that play well in specific states. They can only pander to the randomly-selected early states at the risk of contradicting their prior positions.
More importantly, candidates wouldn't be spending their massively disproportionate campaign funds in the same early states every cycle. Residents of all states will periodically be called upon to vote early in the primary season, furthering the notion that every voter matters equally.
It's either something like this, or we go with a single national primary election. The current system is unfair and distorts our democratic process.
Let's just hope the Dems are capable of understanding the logic of this. Last time around they gave us someone who was loved by the party faithful and who left the swing voters cold - and look where it got us. Our future is much too important to let the American people elect Huckabee or Romney because the Dems didn't pay attention.
Remember that Iowa is a caucus. Iowans get together and talk about it before selecting delegates. These caucuses are more than a popularity contest. They are also a test of organization and ability to connect with voters. The one problem with Iowa is that the Democratic base is very educated and is often attracted to intellect rather than emotional appeal.The
Should we mention Superdelegates? Of the Superdelegates that have committed, most have committed to voting for Hillary Clinton in August, 2008 in Denver, CO at the DNC Nomination Convention.
"This year the process is particularly well suited to this goal. All three of the major candidates - Clinton, Edwards, and Obama - are probably acceptable to almost everyone in the Party."
DON'T SPEAK FOR ME
Hillary is the new Nixon
I don't agree with the above comment that this blog is full of errors, but my question always remains: why must we conduct primaries this way at all? if we must have a primary, why can't they all be on one day, like the general election? why can't everyone who wants to run just be on the general election ballot and the person with the most votes wins? Oh wait, I forgot. "Democracy" is just a word, it's not actually a way of life.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
