home

Some Inconsequential Thoughts on The Presidential Races

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:26:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008 matter, then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the clear favorites to win their respective nominations. Historically, national polling has not meant that much. The early primary results have been much more important. Look we know who is not going to win I think - anyone not named Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Fred Thompson. But which of these will?

The most important factor that can change where we are today is the results of the early primaries. Some candidates in the past have withstood losses in early primaries and cacuses. Ronald Reagan withstood losing Iowa in 1980. George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis also lost in Iowa in 1988. They needed to win in New Hampshire to win the nomination and they did. In 1992, Tom Harkin ran for President and took Iowa out of play. Bill Clinton finished second in New Hampshire but it was deemed a "win" for the Comeback Kid.

Here's the bottom line. In the modern era, other than the exceptional circumstances of Clinton in 92, no candidate who has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire has captured the nomination. I do not believe this year will be any different.

There are some reasons to believe that it could be different this year. The most important of these is the topsy turvy primary schedule. If Iowa and New Hampshire lose their "first" status or if the results and the Media aftermath are crowded with other primaries, it could have an effect. I think it won't. Iowa and New Hampshire will be first and the coverage they generate will create a domino effect in the contests that immediately follow. I believe, as has been almost always the case, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide who will be the nominees for President.

Taking that as a given, how do we rate the chances of the realistic candidates? Ummm, I have no idea. I don't think anyone really does. Sure John Edwards has a leg up in Iowa but such legs up are ephemeral. Dick Gephardt had a leg up in Iowa in 2004.

What's my point? Horserace blogging on the Presidential election may be fun, but it is completely nonserious and not based on anything. And it will continue to be so until about a couple of months before the Iowa caucuses.

Let me put it plainly. The debates now do not matter to the contest. The coverage does not matter. The blogging does not matter. To some extent, the CAMPAIGNING does not matter. Of course, the campaigns have to have the pieces ready in the field for when it does matter. That does matter. But the rest of it? Nope.

So everybody can have their fun now about national polls and whatnot so long as everyone keeps in mind that it is all pretty meaningless in terms of the horserace.

< Steven Spielberg Chooses Hillary Over Obama | Exhibit 2 of Why Campaign Staff Cannot Blog >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Some Inconsequential Thoughts on The Presidential Races | 8 comments (8 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thank you (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    Horserace blogging on the Presidential election may be fun, but it is completely nonserious and not based on anything.
    This is exactly the impression that I've gotten, and the rabid attention paid to the horse race by netroots leaders has made me slightly queasy. mydd, for example, is half-unreadable since January.

    So S. Spielberg's endors. won't (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    necessarily mean Clinton gets the nomination?

    It Ain't Over Until It's Over (none / 0) (#3)
    by talex on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 06:49:16 PM EST
    Let me put it plainly. The debates now do not matter to the contest. The coverage does not matter. The blogging does not matter. To some extent, the CAMPAIGNING does not matter.

    Definitely a view with in depth understanding of how marketing or the sub-conscious mind works. All one as to do is watch how Madison Ave releases products and ideas and one will see that debates, coverage, blogging and campaigning do matter a great deal.

    There are some reasons to believe that it could be different this year. The most important of these is the topsy turvy primary schedule. If Iowa and New Hampshire lose their "first" status or if the results and the Media aftermath are crowded with other primaries, it could have an effect. I think it won't. Iowa and New Hampshire will be first and the coverage they generate will create a domino effect in the contests that immediately follow. I believe, as has been almost always the case, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide who will be the nominees for President.

    Very debatable IMO. Iowa and NH have always had the domino effect because the other primaries and caucuses were scheduled so much later afterward and the MSM dominated the public perceptions in the lull period between Iowa, NH and the others. Now that dynamic has changed in many ways. And to think those dynamics won't make a difference is mistaken.

    We now have Nevada only 5 days after Iowa and only three days before NH. That alone puts Nevada in the same league as the other two. Add to that that nevada is a Western State and you have a new narrative that was not present in the past. It is now a midwest, eastern, western narrative.

    And then one just week after NH you have a southern narrative thrown in with S. Carolina. That gives the MSM four distinctive different regions to muse about. Now of course if one candidate dominates in these four it could be over but it will not be over until then at the earliest.

    But wait! Just one week after S. Carolina you have Super Duper Tuesday. Just one week after! And the MSM loves a horse race.

    Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado (caucuses), Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota (caucuses), Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah

    That's 21 more primary/caucuses in one day - just one week after S. Carolina and they represent a diverse cross section of the country. Every region of the country is represented on Super Duper Tuesday.

    And then within a week of that you have Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, and Virginia.

    That is 29 primary/caucuses in less that a month! Over half the states!

    So you have the MSM with the high probability of pushing a horse race - even if someone does dominate the first week and you have one other important dynamic and here it is:

    With 29 primary/caucuses so close together and the fact that they were scheduled that way for the primary reason that each state could feel that they were important and that they could have a "real" say in who gets nominated the likelihood of the domino effect from Iowa and new Hampshire is going to be greatly diluted in the minds of each states voters.

    Now we have the situation with the MSM exploiting the horse race narrative AND we have each state wanting to show it's importance and individuality. Not to mention a third dymamic that many of the 29 states have many more delegates to offer than do tiny Iowa and New Hampshire. So that too bolsters the importance and individuality and was not really in play in the past.

    Could someone run away with this in the first week or two and the narrative will be 'It's Over'? Sure. But it won't be over before two weeks and if the polls in the 21-25 states are close then it won't be be over until it is over.

    Think about it. And then get ready for a months worth of staying up late to see what the winning projections are.

    Grab you spreadsheets complete with States and the number of delegates and a calculator because anyone who thinks all they have to worry about is Iowa and NH is going to be playing catch-up with you.

    Let's be clear (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:49:14 PM EST
    If Hillary wins Iowa is is OVER.

    Heck,if Hillary wins NH, it is probably over.


    Parent

    Oh! so now it is if Hillary wins! (none / 0) (#5)
    by talex on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    The Qualifier comes out! Ha.

    In that case it still is not over unless the media and the other states  say it's over.

    There I used less words. Does that help?

    Parent

    Of for crissakes (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:56 AM EST
    What do you think the Media will say?

    This is the way with you, you believe in fairies.

    Parent

    What Are You Asking Me (none / 0) (#8)
    by talex on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    that for? I was very clear on what I thought the media would say and gave the parameters for it.

    Parent
    Fairies (none / 0) (#7)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:40:13 AM EST
    I guess I believe in fairies. At least, I hadn't quite given up hope that General Clark might come to our rescue... Until I read this.

    If you, who still believe in the possibility of not funding the Iraq debacle before George Bush leaves office, tell us that our Presidential choices are limited to what's already on the table, then I have to concede I'm a hopeless dreamer.

    It seems to me that the leading Democratic candidates all consider the actions of the Bush Administration as just another example of "politics as usual". I don't see anyone running on a platform of repudiating the disastrous precedents of the Bush Administration. Even if a Democrat is elected to the Presidency (as I think likely) there will be no mandate for serious change.

    Kagro X's front-pager at DailyKos articulates a lot of what I feel about this.

    Some Inconsequential Thoughts on The Presidential Races | 8 comments (8 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment