Presidential primaries: study note update

With the GOP contest dangerously close to descending into what can only be desribed as a slanging match - e.g. see this story from the CNN website if you have not being watching the goings on closely - I have taken the opportunity to fully update my arguments for and against the primaries process.

It is important to note that these points are predicated on considerations of both their existence compared to a process of party elder selection, and ways in which the system of primaries per se could be subject to improvement.

With that caveat emptor aside, here is my updated version…

Presidential primaries: the case for

Primaries are democratic and post 1968 have opened up selection to party supporters rather than party elders behind closed doors, in smoke filled rooms, as they did with Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Iowa and New Hampshire have relatively small populations therefore this gives voters the opportunity to meet candidates face to face and indulge in some old fashioned “retail politics”, a process that would not be possible if one of the bigger states was first or if there was a clutch of states voting on the same day.

Primaries are expensive but when we bear in mind that McDonalds spend over $600m per year on advertising in the US then the figures seem much more reasonable.

Those candidates deterred from entering the race due to inability to raise necessary funding most likely do not have what it takes. There is a strong argument to suggest that supporters are looking to back a winner, hence the flow of funding that went to Bill Clinton, George Bush Junior, and Barack Obama in 2008.

Money does not necessarily buy success anyway. Steve Forbes in 2000 spent $40m and failed to win a single state. In the 2008 campaign cycle Mitt Romney spent a record breaking $85,000 a day on TV ads but made little impact in Iowa and New Hampshire 2008.

Primary campaigns prepare candidates for the general election battle. Bush in 2000 had to battle to withstand the McCain insurgency and this made him a better candidate. The Hillary v Obama battle arguably sharpened up the Obama campaign and made him as the eventual Democrat nominee more battle hardened.

Primaries can project relatively unknown candidates onto the national stage. Jimmy Carter, it is said, started in Iowa with just a suitcase. Research suggests Mario Cuomo, not Bill Clinton, would have been chosen in 1992 had the Democratic hierarchy been allowed to choose. And back in early 2007, very few gave a young freshman Senator from Illinois any realistic hope of defeating what was seen as the Hillary juggernaut.

Complaints about low turnout are exaggerated. The Republican primary in California in 2004 attracted a 40% vote. Turnout in the 2008 campaign cycle hit record levels, driven by the competitive nature of the Democrat campaign, and the high level of motivation among supporters of Obama and Clinton, e.g. turnout rates in Iowa and New Hampshire broke records in 2008, with the latter attracting over 60% of registered voters.

Presidential primaries: the case against

Primary voters are not politically representative of the voting population and candidates are forced to court polar opposites of the political spectrum, thus potentially harming their attempt to attract centrist voters post-convention, e.g. Mitt Romney’s apparent changes on issues such as global warming might help him secure this year’s GOP nomination, but will leave him open to accusations of flip-flopping in the campaign against Obama.

The need to campaign for the primaries makes the race for the presidency into a marathon, thus inducing voter fatigue and depressing voter turnout. As an example, John McCain announced 2008 candidacy shortly after 2006 Midterms meaning that he was in campaign mode for a solid two year spell. Arguably, a shorter, and more intense campaign period would re-energise voters.

The traditionally early state contests in Iowa and New Hampshire are unrepresentative of the wider US voting public. Iowa and NH are over 95% white, versus approx. 2/3 for the rest of the population. Both states are rural, conservative, and above average wealth. Therefore the concerns of voters in these states is out of alignment with the rest if the union, e.g. Iowa’s obsession with ethanol subsidies!

Performance in early contests are unreliable indicators of who will secure the presidency, e.g. Bush defeated Reagan in 1980 in Iowa, and thus questions about their prominent place in the calendar remain.

States squabbling about when their primary can be held reached ridiculous proportions in 2008, and this year it appears the issue is unresolved. This detracts from the substance of the issues, with the media turning its attention to the battle for state prominence rather than policy analysis.

Contests can be bitter and divisive, e.g. McCain v. Bush 2000. Hardly the best springboard for a successful GE campaign. One wonders if the highly negative nature of the current GOP contest will do more harm than good to the party’s chances of unseating Obama next autumn.

Many apparently well qualified candidates drop out due to their inability to raise pots of cash, e.g. Libby Dole in October 1999. And the withdrawal of the former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (seriously considered as a McCain running mate last time round) in August serves as another such example.

The need for money. And lots of it. Primaries are enormously expensive. The need to campaign early, criss-crossing the US, hire campaign teams, and run expensive adverts necessitates huge funds. Clinton and Obama in the period up to June 2007 raised over $120million between them. This was a full 15 months before the GE.

Turnout rates are usually low, with the 2008 contest being the exception due to a confluence of factors (the appeal and rivalry of Clinton and Obama, the deep unpopularity of Bush Jr, etc). The Democrat primary in Connecticut in 2004, for example, attracted just 5% of voters.