Race for the White House 2024

It's money, money, money!

Not ideas, not principles that reigns supreme in American politics. Heard that one? Or how about, we have the best government money can buy? Or, money is the mother's milk of American politics? No? Possibly, and this is one of the favourites of one of my colleagues, the greenback always rules! (Hat tip to Simmo!)

One doesn't have to study the American political process for very long before the pervasive, and potentially pernicious, importance of money becomes a topic for discussion.

So, as we look ahead to the 2024 presidential election, the potential contest between Donald Trump and incumbent, Joe Biden, could be significant for a number of firsts.

While the favourite for the Republican nomination, Trump, might not become the first ever holder of the office of the presidency to ease back into the West Wing having been re-elected for a second non-consecutive term (that was accomplished by Grover Cleveland back in 1892), the mere fact that he could be on the ballot will be unique in history because Trump is the first ever president, or former president, to have been indicted. Keep track of the Trump cases here, by the way.

Plus, there is the age old issue of, well, age. The combined age of the two candidates likely to head the Democrat and Republican tickets will nudge 160. And either on assuming office in January 2025 would become the oldest POTUS ever. Beating the record held by. You guessed it, Joe Biden.

But if we return to the issue of campaign finance, new territory will open in terms of the amount of money involved. 2020 was a record breaking electoral cycle. And the sums of money involved are staggering. It has been reported that over $10B was spent across all elections that time round, with the presidential election costing in excess of $3B. Many pundits expect 2024 to beat those numbers, based on the fact that spending on advertising is already greater at this stage than four years ago. See here for more.

Unsurprisingly, much of this spending is on TV ads, and in terms of the race for the presidency, these have been heavily concentrated in states that feature early in the primaries process, principally Iowa ad New Hampshire. See here for more.

Yet again, questions have to be asked about the virtues of the primaries process.

Presidential primaries: the case for

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Primaries are expensive but when we bear in mind that McDonalds spend well over half a billion dollars per year on advertising in the USA then the figures seem much more reasonable.
4. 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 the likes of Clinton, GW Bush, etc.
5. Money does not necessarily buy success anyway. Most egregiously, Steve Forbes in 2000 spent $40m and failed to win a single state.
6. Primary campaigns prepare candidates for the general election battle - eg the Hillary v Obama battle arguably sharpened up the Obama campaign and made him as the eventual Democrat nominee more battle hardened.
7. Primaries can project relatively unknown candidates onto the national stage: Jimmy Carter, it is said, started in Iowa with just a suitcase.
8. Complaints about low turnout are exaggerated, eg turnout in the 2008 campaign cycle hit record levels, driven by the competitive nature of the Democrat campaign.

Presidential primaries: the case against

1. 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.
2. The need to campaign for the primaries makes the race for the presidency into a marathon, thus inducing voter fatigue and depressing voter turnout.
3. The traditionally early state contests in Iowa and New Hampshire are unrepresentative of the wider US voting public. Iowa and NH 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!
4. 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.
5. States often squabble about when their primary can be held, and this detracts from the substance of the issues, with the media turning its attention to the battle for state prominence rather than policy analysis.
6. Contests can be bitter and divisive, e.g. McCain v. Bush 2000. Hardly the best springboard for a successful GE campaign.
7. Many apparently well qualified candidates drop out due to their inability to raise pots of cash, e.g. Libby Dole in October 1999.
8. 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.
9. Turnout rates are usually low, with the examples like the 2008 contest being the exception due to a confluence of factors. More common figures are those like the Democrat primary in Connecticut in 2004, for example, attracted just 5% of voters.

To be fair, when it comes to the cost of US elections, we have to bear in mind a coupe of points. The US is a big, and rich country. As such, a lot of money is spent on advertising and marketing all sorts of things. For example, it is estimated that more is spent by fast food companies on promoting their products every single year than what the outlay is each quadrennial contest for the American presidency. And what's more important, burgers, or democracy?

Besides, money doesn't always guarantee success. As someone once said: "Politics has become so expensive, that it takes a lot of money, even to be defeated."