It wouldn't be so bad if all the coverage wasn't so focused on the horse race and the winners of the first two states weren't declared the inevitable nominees. A national primary would help, which IA and NH would never allow- I don't know if all the other states moving up to just after NH will help or not. It may diminish the role of IA and NH because you can immediately blow away the small number of delegates from the first two states; but it may hurt because momentum from NH may influence even more later results than it currently does.
It wouldn't be so bad if all the coverage wasn't so focused on the horse race
Every other factor is minimal compared to that.
If the coverage wasn't so focused on the horse race, nobody would want to read about the horse race. It's not interesting to read about. The reason it exists is that the reporters covering "politics" are not people who are able to distinguish between policies or candidates, so they are given the job of following the candidates around through their inhumanly boring travels, even though nothing newsworthy has ever happened in the vicinity of an actual candidate's physical presence.
In order to actually write something about the campaigns, given that they don't know enough to write about how the candidates differ philosophically, or about what the candidates would do once in office, or about which sectors of society would actually benefit from a given candidate being elected and therefore would support that candidate in an objective reality, they have to go find poll results, which give them a slightly-different-from-yesterday context to write the same nonsense they always write. But even that doesn't make it easy to write the same content-free "dispatch from the trail" day after day, so for actual content they find it more interesting to go for the aspects of the campaign which actually change from day to day, which means not the candidate's policies, which are old news, but the campaign's shifting strategies for television advertising.
Also, for some reason they think it's important not to write important stories, but to write unimportant stories one day or hour ahead of their competitors. Nobody ever notices that a reporter has accomplished this so-called "scoop" except other reporters, but that competitive spirit is what gives them the inspiration to get up in the morning.
I don't know if all the other states moving up to just after NH will help or not. It may diminish the role of IA and NH
I think it will help and it's a good thing. Why should states where 98% (or whatever it is) of Americans don't live be so influential?
But there's another reason those states' roles are diminished. The longer campaign season. When campaigns started after Labor Day, those two states were part of the campaign ramp up and could serve as indicators. Now, the campaigns have been national for so long, the follow-up states will hardly be influenced by by IA and NH.
Also, it's easy to write about. With reporters drawn from the ranks of those who have no experience in any other job, it's one of the easiest things to learn to write about. Much more so than anything relevant or interesting.
A national primary would help
Only if by "help" you mean "hand the nomination to whoever has the most money and name recognition." We don't need a more compressed primary schedule; we need a much more drawn-out primary schedule. Back when primary fights took up the bulk of an election year, Iowa and New Hampshire had a fraction of the influence they do now. It's only been relatively recently that a candidate can be crowned after Iowa, since the process moves so fucking fast.
which means not the candidate's policies, which are old news, but the campaign's shifting strategies for television advertising.
Exactly. Increasingly, media coverage of the candidates' campaigns is about media coverage of the candidates' campaigns. Many reporters seem to inhabit an almost entirely self-referential universe.
Is there any evidence that the political opinions held by those living in Iowa or New Hampshire are significantly out of step with the U.S. overall? Or that whoever wins Iowa/NH always gets the nomination? My recollection is that going back to 1976, the only time Iowa picked a winner of the overall primary for either party that wasn't an incumbent or sitting Veep was Carter in 76 and Kerry in 04, otherwise it's been wrong.
It's only been relatively recently that a candidate can be crowned after Iowa, since the process moves so fucking fast.
I don't really understand this, though. Is this just because everyone gets on a bandwagon and there's no time to convince them to get off? If so, that would seem to be our (the voters') fault.
But there's another reason those states' roles are diminished. The longer campaign season.
I think this gets it completely backwards. Yes, the campaign season is much longer, but the primary season is much, much shorter. So whoever wins Iowa goes into New Hampshire, South Carolina and the trainwreck of the super-super-tuesday primaries with all the momentum and all the press. Think back to 2004, when only a single week separated Iowa and NH on a supercompressed primary calendar. Yes, the candidates had been running for months previously, but the only story on CNN for those five days was the Kerry comeback (and the Dean Scream). New Hampshire polling changed drastically over that period of time, and Kerry picked up NH fairly handily, and from then on was more or less the presumptive nominee.
Now imagine the same scenario in 2008, but with an even shorter primary calendar that moves events out of the way even faster. How does this not put even more influence in the hands of Iowa caucus-goers? Contrast this to the long primary seasons of '68, '72, '76, and '84, where the nominee didn't emerge until well into the year. If other states want to have more of a say in choosing a candidate, that's what they need to be going for.
Or that whoever wins Iowa/NH always gets the nomination?
The winning presidential candidate (since the parties more or less went to a true primary system in '52) has always won his party's primary in NH, with one exception. The exception, of course, is El Jefe Bush in 2000.
max
['But he won NH in 2004.']
9: That's an intriguing idea: break "big mo" by separating the primaries. What was the first year for "Super Tuesday?" '88 sticks in my mind, but it might have been '84. We may have been going in the wrong direction all this time.
National primary, proportional delegates by state. No momentum (voting for someone because more other people voted for them than were expected to), less retail politics, less ability to tailor your message to individual state interests.
I've been really disheartened watching Iowa and NH basically extort from the candidates their "first in the nation" primaries. Selfish fucks.
Increasingly, media coverage of the candidates' campaigns is about media coverage of the candidates' campaigns.
They sound like high school girls wanting to be in on the latest fashion. I like my Skechers shoes, but I love my Prada backpack. And ugh, Hillary shows too much cleavage.
They sound like they all want a wonk's job: commentary on the mechanics of the campaign rather than its content.
12: Once again, I don't see how a national primary does anything but throw the nomination to whoever has the most money and name recognition. In general that tends to be the establishment candidate, so a system like that would crowd out anyone, for example, to the left of the Democratic Party's center of gravity. That's not a system I want to see. I want an unpredictable system, one that encourages insurgents and one the party can't game to put whoever it wants in charge - which, again, is what a long, drawn-out primary calendar has historically been good for... and which is what the national parties have typically tried to squelch over the past several years.
They sound like high school girls wanting to be in on the latest fashion. I like my Skechers shoes, but I love my Prada backpack. And ugh, Hillary shows too much cleavage.
I am disheartened when I hear the same things from the people in my office or from acquaintances.
"I hate Hillary!"
Why?
"She is just a bitch! God! I cannot stand her!"
Do you know anything about her positions?
"No, but she is a bitch!"
ARRAAAGHGGG
15: I could easily be missing something, but I don't see why most money/biggest name are more important in a one-shot national primary than they are under the status quo. Right now, one of the way's candidates get money/name recognition is by doing well in the earliest primaries, and the candidates with money and name recognition have advantages going into the earliest primaries.
15: a system like that would crowd out anyone, for example, to the left of the Democratic Party's center of gravity
And that's different from the current system because...
I'm proud to live in a state that has made no futile attempts to make its primary relevant. April 23 1996, April 4 2000, April 27 2004, April 22 2008. Always way, way too late to matter. And we're a swing state that actually had a strong primary challenger to a 24-year-incumbent senator three years ago!
Am not, however, enjoying the spectacle of there being neither any primary nor general election opposition to a mayor whom nobody likes and who was never elected in the first place.
They sound like they all want a wonk's job: commentary on the mechanics of the campaign rather than its content.
If by "wonk" you mean "hack", which is generally understood to be the exact opposite of a wonk.
I'm imagining a long, drawn-out primary process with the order of states determined by lottery. This year, first up: Alaska and Tennessee!
No, hacks are dishonest and unethical partisans or mercenaries. They can be wonky.
14: commentary on the mechanics of the campaign rather than its content
20: If by "wonk" you mean "hack"
In my idiolect, the quote from 14 describes neither a wonk (someone into the nitty-gritty details of whatever it is they're a wonk about) nor a hack (someone who makes statements without any concern for their correspondence with truth and does so out of partisan motivation).
I'm going with the dichotomy here. Wonks are policy people. Hacks are political strategy people.
How does this not put even more influence in the hands of Iowa caucus-goers? Contrast this to the long primary seasons of '68, '72, '76, and '84, where the nominee didn't emerge until well into the year. If other states want to have more of a say in choosing a candidate, that's what they need to be going for.
Because how does the one or two-week effect of Iowa /NH results offset a year of national campaigning? I just can't see voters in states in states like Florida or California giving a shit about Iowa results after having thought through the issues for such a long time.
I've thought much about your point in 5. I think our differences are with the influence of the PRE-primary process. But that's where we might be able to agree on the influence of money.
In fact, 14 is level-one meta. "media coverage of the candidates' campaigns is about media coverage of the candidates' campaigns" is level two meta.
We are level three meta.
OT product bleg: does anyone have a suggestion for a good planner? I want something that has, like, a page for each day, but is also not giant. I have a Franklin-Covey one that my brother gave me, and the layout is really cool, but the case is giant. Leather, big and heavy. I just want something simple that has good space, without being huge. Also, don't tell me to keep an online/electronic calendar, which I've done before and liked, but I'm not about to whip out my computer in court to figure out which date I can come in. It needs to be portable!
17: the candidates with money and name recognition have advantages going into the earliest primaries
Not entirely. Iowa voters are far and away from a cross-section of the national vote, but I think there's a healthy skepticism of the politicians who seek to buy votes with ads and flybys. One of the primary reasons John Edwards is still in the national picture is because he has worked very hard in Iowa since 2004 to develop strong relationships here. Because he polls strongly here, the horserace media types can't write him off as easily as they would like. Similarly, Rudy Giuliani's weaknesses as a campaigner show up here where they wouldn't on TV.
No, you have electoral wonks. These are the guys who know county-by-county results for national elections.
weaknesses as a candidate. Horserace indeed.
Because how does the one or two-week effect of Iowa /NH results offset a year of national campaigning?
Because people read the news, and the Iowa/NH results are extremely likely to give one candidate (or possible two) the aura of inevitability, while making supporters of everyone else feel more panicked and hopeless.
I just can't see voters in states in states like Florida or California giving a shit about Iowa results after having thought through the issues for such a long time.
However, they do, every year.
but I'm not about to whip out my computer in court to figure out which date I can come in. It needs to be portable!
Keep your calendar on a blackberry
I have neither the funds not the inclination to purchase a blackberry.
28: I didn't claim that the only things that're valuable in Iowa are money and name recognition, I claimed they're advantages and that I don't see how they become any greater advantages than they presently are in a national primary.
Whenever I'm down about my isolation and lack of human contact during the day, the thought that at least I avoid contacts like will's s some consolation. I'm not seeing nor hearing the candidates on tv at all.
I've always actually liked Hillary as a personality on tv, the only way I've ever seen her. And I've been convinced by Paul Starr's piece in the Prospect that she gets a bad rap for Hillarycare when it's not at all her fault. I'm just aware that there's a vanishingly small chance she can be the most anti-war candidate, and that's who's going to get my vote. I think her position as Senator from NY ties her hands in this, whatever her actual feelings. I'm not aware her position can be distinguished from Schumer's or even much from Lieberman's.
The one thing she might do—but why should she?—would be take a strong and distinguishable position against domestic spying or detention or in favor of habeas. But if she's done that I haven't heard about it.
Brad DeLong really thinks Hillary messed up the healthcare plan, and he was a Clinton insider.
35: Hillary's public comments indicate that she favors the strongest executive branch of any candidate for the Democratic nomination.
20,23: Sorry I wasn't clear. They're not actually a wonk or a hack in either of the senses that you mean. But they write as if they want to be Josh on The West Wing or at least Josh's good buddy, hip and morrisette-ironically aware that voters don't always vote based on the policy. They write about the mechanics to show they're part of the in-group.
I've been really disheartened watching Iowa and NH basically extort from the candidates their "first in the nation" primaries. Selfish fucks.
Yeah, I have the same resentment. All that crap about heartland values and citizen activism. It ranks up there with those telling me my presidential vote matters (DC resident).
I know Moleskine makes a page-a-day book.
Re: 14, a lot of it is that they've got reporters covering the presidential election beat on a day-to-day basis. Not much is happening on a day-to-day basis, so you get these idiot stories being generated out of sheer boredom. (This pattern may also help explain some of the contempt reporters felt for Gore in 2000 -- he wasn't livening up their days or giving them fun tidbits they could write about.) And further, the people who are on the campaign beat aren't subject knowledgeable, so they're generally unqualified to write about health care plans, foreign policy with any real expertise, etc.
34: Surely it's not difficult to imagine a candidate who puts the majority of his or her campaign funds on media buys in CA, NY, FL, MI and TX? (In fact, Romney's coming close to that kind of campaign now.) I can totally imagine that working in a national primary; it's more difficult in a system that encourages local (not necessarily just IA & NH) politicking.
However, they do, every year.
But, Ned, we simply haven't yet seen the effects of the heavy year-long campaign, have we?
So Iowa gets ethanol; what does New Hampshire get?
27 - You could look to see if Franklin Covey has something less huge. They have a bunch of different varieties of covers and page sizes. You might just have one of the bigger ones. And many of them are so cute it almost makes me wish I were a pen and paper girl.
27: Just go to a Staples and look at the shelves. I can't think of a particular brand, but there'll be cheap page-a-day diaries in all sorts of sizes. I like the 5x7 or so -- while it's too big for a pocket, it'll go in any kind of bag, and it's big enough for real notes.
As always, I will say that I don't believe bad political coverage is bottom-up. Someone at the high management level likes things the way they are. Nobody's ever been fired, to my knowledge, for stupid political coverage, and a lot of crappy journalists have been hired and promoted.
To avoid a lengthy discussion I'll bracket out the question of management motives. But something's rotten at the Times and the Post.
Because people read the news, and the Iowa/NH results are extremely likely to give one candidate (or possible two) the aura of inevitability, while making supporters of everyone else feel more panicked and hopeless.
This is already happening just with polls, and it's really annoying. If I have to read another article or see another Nightline segment (girlfriend's place doesn't have cable, so this usually end up on for "spot the mistakes and obvious omissions" fun) on how Hillary is now inevitable and Obama is slipping further and further behind, I'm gonna scream. I don't know if the media is unaware of its ability to produce self-fulfilling prophesies by doing this kind of unified-front support for the frontrunner, or if major editors just get some kind of sick pleasure out of deciding so much.
Brad DeLong really thinks Hillary messed up the healthcare plan, and he was a Clinton insider.
I think he believes she's vastly more skilled at the requisite tasks 16 years later, though.
And many of them are so cute it almost makes me wish I were a pen and paper girl.
WOMAN
OK, I've got one. The WaPo has a print column "The Fact Checker" where Edwards and Obama are today criticized for televized misstatements about demographic impact of black incarceration. The premise of this column is mistaken; laws matter much, much more than speeches. The speeches should be ignored, and the bullshit blameshifting and responsibility hiding which makes up daily life in the legislature should be subjected to merciless scrutiny. This legislative scrutiny, not a rehash of the blowdried mendacity that is campaigning, is the job of the press.
The insane incarceration rate, a consequence of harsh drug laws, is something I care about. For elected representatives to change this will take new laws, not campaign speeches. It would be nice to see who supported which amendments for relevant bills, theoretically possible through Thomas, but not at all easy.
To say something reasonable, I found helpful in sorting out who did what for various energy bills. Obama seems to have his heart in the right place for energy policy, but voted for ethanol subsidies in the 2005 energy bill, which are definitely a bad idea.
If you'll bracket it, so will I. But since I've been saying the same or similar things to you too much this morning [A need for more "new" content because of 24 hour cable news and the internet. A need for content that isn't just local in nature because the economics of the newspaper industry no longer support lots of local newspapers.].
shit, that long open tag is to grist.org, sorry.
50: That column both brings more attention to the problem of absurd incarceration rates and takes the factual claims of candidates, rather than their style of dress or the sound of their laugh or the cut of their jib, seriously. Let a thousand such columns bloom, and pray they don't feel into the "an equal and proportionate pox on both their houses" b.s.
OK, the good shouldn't be enemy to the best, but this is always the excuse for not doing well enough.
They're not just candidates, they have real power now. Assessing what they have done rather than what they have said is apparently too subtle.
This legislative scrutiny, not a rehash of the blowdried mendacity that is campaigning, is the job of the press.
I wish that were true, but when you have actual legislation drawn up for media events, a newspaper ad and disc jockey comments, I'm not so sure.
but when you have actual legislation drawn up for media events, a newspaper ad and disc jockey comments
Ignore this too, or ridicule it. Pay attention only to where the money goes and to the most severe proximal causes of suffering.
the good shouldn't be enemy to the best
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. Thank you.
I could easily be missing something, but I don't see why most money/biggest name are more important in a one-shot national primary than they are under the status quo.
Look, the primary system is set up in such a way that individual candidates drop out or rise to prominence on the basis of their success within individual primary contests. The benefit to this over a national primary is that it allows for someone other than the frontrunner to become the nominee. If the media thinks Candidate X has the nomination in the bag, but Candidate Y actually has a better ground operation in Iowa and is better liked within the state, there's a chance of an upset, which throws the nomination into uncertainty. And uncertainty, like I said before, is good. A national primary, on the other hand, gives no time for anyone to adequately campaign on the ground, or even over the air, in more than a fraction of the country, so most primary voters would go into the voting booth just not knowing anyone but the party-designated frontrunner. This is a system that might please the DNC and RNC, but everyone else would lose out.
27: Franklin Covey has a ton of sizes, from leather binder/doorstop to wee little pocket size. I use this in the Pocket Slim size. I carry this month's and the yearly planner in my nice case (it's 4"x7"x3/4") and the previous and next month's as backup in the case that came with the calendar pages. They also have a week per 2 pages if 2 pages a day is too much.
There's a store finder on their site, so go in and poke around.
(I'm normally not a paper girl, but for reasons unclear to me, paper works better for me for this type of thing.)
59 may be right overall, but the "no time" point is not. When a campaign starts is not subject to the most precise measurement, but coverage of this campaign started in November or December of '06. If it had been a campaign for an explicitly national primary, that'd be plenty of time.
Shouldn't right-thinking people be boycotting Franklin Covey?
Although I reject stras' use of the term 'party designated' -- because one party, at least, lack sufficient consciousness to ever have verbs of intention ascribed to it -- he's right about the bigger point. National primary gives you Muskie in 1972, Cuomo in 1992, and I have no idea which candidate gets a plurality in 1988, or 1976, or 2004, for that matter -- but it ends up a weak plurality. This would compare very unfavorably to the Republican side which, this year excepted, is usually much more like a coronation. That means you have a Dem who got 38% in a national vote coming up against a Rep who got 58%. (Or 85% in cases of an incumbent or VP).
In 80, 84, 96, 00 no matter what system you design, we get the same nominee.
I'd be interested to hear ideas about systems that could give us nominees who would win elections. Ideas that would give us nominees who would do worse in elections, but would allow urbanites to feel better about themselves aren't interesting to me, but obviously ymmv. Complaints about how crappy campaign coverage is is (a) not relevant to the question of what system we ought to have and (b) subject to complete comity.
In 80, 84, 96, 00 no matter what system you design, we get the same nominee In '84 and '00 because a vice president gets one free nomination, either at the end of term or next election?
64 -- If you were trying to derive rules, you might say that. Get's you Humphrey in '68, but then Barkley in 52 and Marshall in 20. It's not what I meant, though, and it's not how the process actually works. A VP is going to be a presumptive front-runner just by dint of proximity, and through residual loyalty.
I'm not sure Marshall wouldn't have been a better candidate in 1920.
Is this the horse race thread? I'm still trying to figure what to make of these numbers out of Oklahoma.
Giuliani (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 44%
Thompson (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 44%
Clinton (D) 47%, Romney (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 54%, Obama (D) 33%
Thompson (R) 55%, Obama (D) 35%
Romney (R) 46%, Obama (D) 40%
Edwards (D) 49%, Giuliani (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 47%, Thompson (R) 41%
Edwards (D) 53%, Romney (R) 32%
MOE=+/-4.4%. Last time Oklahoma went Dem was LBJ over Goldwater.
I'd be interested to hear ideas about systems that could give us nominees who would win elections.
I'm interested too, but have no ideas. I hate that class of problem -- where something is clearly fucked up, but I have no idea what change would even be desirable.
A lot of stuff would work better if people just didn't suck so much.
I dont know much about Oklahoma, but those numbers surprise me.
66: I really wouldn't put much stock in state-level general election polling at this point, apo. How much do you think the average poll respondent knows about - or even thinks about - the candidates right now?
I'm just thinking that the 3x3 matrix makes me think of Rock Paper Scissors.
You could explain that result by saying that Oklahoma will go for, in order of importance, a white, trinitarian Christan, male, Democrat. Between two candidates of different races, the white guy wins, of the same race, the trinitarian Christian wins, of the same religion, the man wins, and if all else is equal, the Democrat. That's probably not a fair analysis of what's really going on, but it works for those results.
70: I don't put too much stock in them, but it's still pretty surprising that any Democrat is beating any Republican in OK at this point, especially given that folks (supposedly) aren't paying much attention yet.
71: The people who put James Inhofe and Tom Coburn in the Senate are an appropriate subject for rigorous analysis?
systems that could give us nominees who would win elections
I think this has been proposed and ridiculed before, but primary calendar ordered by lowest of margin of victory in either in previous presidential race or on some function of the results in the mid-term election, or both?
72: The GOP's approval ratings in general are incredibly shitty right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if that also held true in deep-red states like Oklahoma, at least to some degree. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that most of these less-than-familiar names are coming across as somewhat generic representatives of their parties, and that once they become more familiar to voters and the usual cross-party blows start getting exchanged, the numbers will change fairly quickly.
I'd be interested to hear ideas about systems that could give us nominees who would win elections.
I'm fascinated by this statement Getting Florida right gives us 3 of the last 4 presidential elections. We can win elections.
OT:
Paging CharleyCarp -- e-mail me to discuss that annoying DMV issue.
NcProsecutor!?!?!?!
Where were you yesterday to chastise LB for her utter lawlessness?
Stealing paper? I forgot what we were talking about yesterday: what'd I do?
Right, I got it, never mind. Assault.
Assault on a Juvenile.
I wonder if you have to register for that in NY. I always suspected the LB was a closet vicious assaulter.
I repeat, as I've said before, that in person I'm diffident and lamb-like. Harmless.
Sure, she appears all nice and do-gooder-like. But, just below the surface is a veritable cauldron of anger.
Seething at all times. A seething lamb.
A pissed off lamb can be a fierce opponent.
Damn. Here I am, down here working hard for the people of the great state of North Carolina, and LB is up there in Greater Sodom confessing to having assaulted some poor adolescent fifteen years ago!!!
I always miss the good stuff.
PS -- Just kidding about NYC. Best city on the planet, bar none.
Not only did I assault him, I gommorahmized him. We've moved beyond sodomy in the big city.
I suspect NCProsecutor would have added a couple counts of conspiracy of assault the other little kids. Just to make her plead.
66- Anyone know why Edwards would poll so well there?
92: I could say something uncharitable about how he's a white male, but I'll restrain myself instead.
Wait...
I could say something uncharitable about how he's a white male
That goes without saying, but he's still outpolling fellow white males Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, who have the Oklahoman advantage of being Republicans. That's what's puzzling to me.
92: Surely "cultural affinity" (i.e. his accent) has something to do with it.
I thank God every day George Allen is not in the running.
And before someone calls me on it, yes, obviously Thompson has some accent too.
I gommorahmized him
An even weirder move...
76 -- Oh, I wouldn't say that we can't win. I think, though, that there has to be a burden on those who propose different systems to show they'll be at least result-neutral. I don't think we've been particularly ill-served by the present situation -- of course it's not ideal, but most of the reasons why have more to do with press coverage than with the political mechanics, or the demographics of NH/IA.
You could explain that result by saying that Oklahoma will go for, in order of importance, a white, trinitarian Christan, male, Democrat.
Too complicated. Romney, Obama, Clinton and Guilani are Yankees (ranked by just how yankee they are), with a slight overall natural lean to the R's. Thompson and Edwards are not Yankees.
The only outlier there is Edwards over Thompson.
Geez, part of the reason Kerry did as well as he did (not well enough, granted) was because Edwards was on the ticket.
max
['Edward's problem is the primaries, not the general.']
When Bobby Kennedy won the California primary, it was in either June or July.