WASHINGTON — With a Michigan senator threatening to move his state’s primary to whatever day New Hampshire chooses, and with New Hampshire threatening a pre-Christmas vote, the presidential nominating system faces potential demolition after 2008. This is the ultimate goal of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and other critics of New Hampshire and Iowa’s traditional first-in-line spots.
But for a vast majority of Americans, there are more urgent concerns than states’ political envy. The 2008 nominating process will be so early, the issues environment so fluid, that Americans lucky enough to have a say in nominating the next presidential candidates may very well make their choices on flawed presumptions of where the country will be a year from now.
Buyers’ remorse aside, a process that primarily benefits pundits, pollsters and political animals has crept so far ahead of the real decision day that it may very well amount to de facto disenfranchisement for millions of Americans. Premature nominations may not give Americans their best and most authentic choices for president in November of 2008.
These are not esoteric questions:
n Would Democrats or Republicans nominate different candidates if voters knew the country was headed to recession or in one already? The economy is not now in recession, but given the problems in the housing industry, trade imbalances, energy prices and a falling dollar, it may very well be sometime in 2008. Right now, it’s a total guessing game.
n What if the war in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn one way or another by next spring? This is not so unlikely given recent news of decreased violence in Anbar Province and other hotspots on the one hand versus cross-border fighting between Turkey and Kurdish rebels in the north on the other. Could John McCain, the Republican senator most supportive of the “surge,” be victimized by early primaries if relative peace comes and Iraq’s government has finally achieved a level of basic competence by next spring? Conversely, if the war devolves into cross-border conflicts atop civil war, would Democrats have second thoughts about nominating Hillary Clinton over louder opponents of the war — John Edwards or Barack Obama — or a more seasoned foreign policy hand like Joe Biden?
n What if George W. Bush decides to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the spring or summer? Given his history, Bush’s recent rhetoric and his administration’s decision to further freeze Iranian assets in this country must be seen as possible predicates for military action. Would either political party make different decisions if they knew the United States would be at war with Iran by the fall of 2008?
New Hampshire’s secretary of state, Bill Gardner, keeps threatening to hold the state’s primary in early to mid-December. In the last go-round, in mid-December of 2003, Howard Dean was decisively ahead in New Hampshire and national polls. He had just received the endorsement of Al Gore, and he was riding a wave of anti-war insurgency and calling for middle-class tax cuts. His most serious threat, in national polls and in New Hampshire, would soon become Wesley Clark. John Kerry was roughly in McCain’s current position — a one-time front-runner relegated to fighting for relevancy. Six weeks later, and in an issues environment that had morphed from tax cuts to electability, Kerry won in Iowa, New Hampshire and virtually everywhere else. Clark faded badly and Dean fell even further.
Had Dean won the nomination and been trounced by Bush in the general election, a possibility, what would that have happened to the Democratic Party leading into the 2006 elections and beyond?
Here’s a start: No primaries or caucuses before March 1 of an election year, and a nominating calendar that would lead into August or September national conventions. That in turn would compress the general election campaign into a window where most Americans sensibly pay attention anyway. The 2008 campaign for many Americans is nothing more than elevator music behind bigger things, like fighting wildfires, paying for college or praying for sons or daughters in uniform and in harm’s way. Elections belong to them, not the political professionals.
At a recent Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Levin said he doubts if Michigan will move from its planned Jan. 15 caucus perch, but he liked leaving open the threat of moving to whatever date New Hampshire ultimately chooses. Whether you agree with the tactics, Levin is correct in one aspect.
“There is a growing desire for change and a disgust with the current system,” he said.
Contact GNS Political Writer Chuck Raasch at craasch@gns.gannett.com.
Print this story
E-mail this story
