And they're off!
All eyes are on caucuses that are too early and too small
The Rocky
Published January 2, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
An early wish for 2008: that Thursday's Iowa caucuses will be little more than a footnote in the presidential campaign.
If neither the Democrat nor the Republican who wins becomes the eventual party nominee, maybe national political leaders will finally strip the Hawkeye State of its "first in the nation" status in presidential races. About time, too. Not only is Iowa an idiosyncratic state in terms of its demography and special interests, its determination to be first in line has resulted in an absurdly early primary season.
OK, Iowans may disappoint us and end up choosing what become the parties' November standard bearers. But any nominating process that has presidential hopefuls battling to produce the most effective Christmas ads - as at least nine of the current contenders did - needs an overhaul.
Although you might not know it from all of the attention the state receives, victory in Iowa has hardly been an assurance of success later on. Since 1972, when the Iowa caucuses first vaulted to prominence, four of the eight Democratic winners in contested races failed to secure the party's nomination; on the Republican side, only three of the five victors in Iowa have become the nominees.
In 1988, for instance, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis each finished third.
Win in Iowa and the chances of landing your party's nomination are not much better than flipping a coin.
In part, that's because Iowa politics is dominated by a few narrow interest groups - primarily labor unions for Democrats and evangelicals for Republicans, and the farm lobby for both. Those groups can boost candidates who lack widespread appeal elsewhere. A Dick Gephardt or a Pat Robertson can do well in Iowa and then flop on the national stage.
If turnout is as expected, 150,000 Iowa Democrats and 80,000 Republicans will gather in public libraries and church basements in 1,784 precincts to choose from the candidates to their party's nomination. The numbers are only a fraction of the Iowa electorate and an infinitesimal percentage of the national electorate, and, being disproportionately over 55 and female, unrepresentative of both.
To succeed in Iowa, candidates may take stances that appeal to ideologically minded caucus-goers but don't play well with a larger audience.
On the Republican side, for example, Gov. Mike Huckabee has tried to appeal to evangelicals by taking a number of unsubtle swipes at Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon faith and touting his own credentials as a "Christian leader." In many states, such a reckless strategy would be the kiss of death. But in Iowa, his political stock - at least until the past few days - rose steadily as a result.
To be sure, much of the political rhetoric in Iowa involves standard appeals to activists of one type or another. Sen. Hillary Clinton's Christmas ad, for instance, targeted liberal voters who envision the government as a sort of rich uncle. By wrapping presents marked "universal health care," "alternative energy" and "free pre-K," she suggests that government bestows benefits as gifts that cost the recipients and the larger society nothing.
At least one major candidate, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, seems to share our disdain for Iowa's preeminent role in the nominating process - although only because, of course, he concluded he couldn't do well there. As a result, he's basically avoiding Iowa, even though he's leading many national GOP polls.
Giuliani may finish sixth in the Hawkeye State and not care. In fact, Giuliani's not banking on a win until Florida, which holds its primary Jan. 29, after six other states have voted.
We have no declared favorites at the moment, but it would be healthy for the political process, in our view, if some of the candidates who do poorly in Iowa flourish in later contests. That's especially true because the compressed timetable of the 2008 campaign may have raised the stakes to win in Iowa.
Given the moves by other states to advance their primaries and caucuses, by the time midnight rolls around Feb. 5 - 48 hours after the Super Bowl, eight days before the first pitchers and catchers report to major league spring training camps, and nine months before Election Day - Americans will probably have been presented with two candidates for president that most still know little about. This is no way to run the world's greatest democracy.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
January 2, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
lj629 writes:
Your editorial is heavy on criticism but devoid of solutions. Do you favor a national primary? Regional primaries? A lottery system to determine which state goes first? Should the states vote in order of highest voter turnout in the last general election?
January 3, 2008
6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
If we have a national election, why not a national primary? It might have to be early enough to have a run off, but this crap way we are doing it now is for the birds. One of the biggest benifits would be fewer "SPECIAL REPORT" blasts we get from media.
January 3, 2008
10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Dan2
The process is open to all. The problem you see is that the eventual result is a winner from one of the two major parties. In history the parties have been changed from within but it took time and the changes have sometimes resulted in the death of that party and the rise of another. Our system makes it possible for a third party to run and win but not likely. With all the restrictions on donations they have locked in two parties and will continue to pretend the reason is to make politics free of influence.
But you may have come up with a human causality for Global Warming I can accept.