To Harry Enten, who teaches WaPo's Richard Cohen a bit about Republican primary and caucus electorates. Uh, yeah, New Hampshire Republicans are sharply less, not more, conservative than typical GOP primary-goers.
I do wonder about Iowa, however. As Enten details it, caucus attendees are quite a bit more likely to call themselves "very conservative" than primary voters in Ohio. I should know more about this than I do, but presumably some of that is about caucuses compared with primaries (caucuses get only the most intense voters, who are most likely not only to be strongly ideological but also more likely to think of themselves that way). The part I'm curious about is whether Iowa's first-in-the-nation status also plays in, with Iowa's voters getting the most partisan "education" of any.
At any rate: the more important point here is that everyone tends to overestimate the effects of going first. Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire do still perform some winnowing, but for the most part they simply implement choices made by the party as a whole. Candidates who are rejected by party actors nationally but take advantage of favorable local circumstances to run well in these early contests -- and Rick Santorum is a fine example -- generally tend to fizzle.
This also is the legitimate basis for the much derided "expectations" game. Some of that derision is deserved, but some of it is simply noting that context matters: a conservative candidate doing well in moderate New Hampshire should be treated as having accomplished more (all else equal) than that same candidate doing well in Iowa or South Carolina. And smart party actors react accordingly.
In other words, the whole complaint about Iowa/New Hampshire has been massively overblown, at least since the mid-1980s when the parties learned how to deal with the reformed process.
Also: nice catch!
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Plum Line: New Hampshire Wrap
My New Hampshire wrap is up over at Plum Line.
I should repeat the most important part of it here: I was totally wrong about Rick Santorum in New Hampshire. Right after Iowa, I said Santorum would finish third or better in New Hampshire; as of now, he's looking like he'll be edged out of fourth place, a good eight points behind Jon Huntsman for third. I also over at the Post predicted that Buddy Roemer would beat Rick Perry for sixth, but I'll give myself a mulligan on that one; he came close! And I had Romney's win right (solid, but not 20 points).
What I said then is that the three big questions were: were there really a lot of Republicans eager to find an alternative to Romney; if so, were they okay with Santorum; and, meanwhile, how good a job would Santorum do in scaling up his campaign. So far, the answers seems to be: don't know, don't know, and not very well at all. Santorum somehow or another managed to spend a big chunk of last week arguing about contraception and gays...it definitely wasn't a way to keep his bounce alive.
Still, I agree with Jonathan Chait: it's not at all impossible to imagine Santorum winning in South Carolina next Saturday, and if he does that then even if he loses in Florida he'll most likely be alive until Super Tuesday in March. At which point he would probably -- but not certainly -- lose. The odds for Santorum are certainly worse than they were a week ago, but I'm not ready to call this thing over quite yet.
I should repeat the most important part of it here: I was totally wrong about Rick Santorum in New Hampshire. Right after Iowa, I said Santorum would finish third or better in New Hampshire; as of now, he's looking like he'll be edged out of fourth place, a good eight points behind Jon Huntsman for third. I also over at the Post predicted that Buddy Roemer would beat Rick Perry for sixth, but I'll give myself a mulligan on that one; he came close! And I had Romney's win right (solid, but not 20 points).
What I said then is that the three big questions were: were there really a lot of Republicans eager to find an alternative to Romney; if so, were they okay with Santorum; and, meanwhile, how good a job would Santorum do in scaling up his campaign. So far, the answers seems to be: don't know, don't know, and not very well at all. Santorum somehow or another managed to spend a big chunk of last week arguing about contraception and gays...it definitely wasn't a way to keep his bounce alive.
Still, I agree with Jonathan Chait: it's not at all impossible to imagine Santorum winning in South Carolina next Saturday, and if he does that then even if he loses in Florida he'll most likely be alive until Super Tuesday in March. At which point he would probably -- but not certainly -- lose. The odds for Santorum are certainly worse than they were a week ago, but I'm not ready to call this thing over quite yet.
Spin, Spin, Spin
John Podhoretz tweets:
So the truth is that if you really want to know the effects of what happens in New Hampshire tonight, you want to see not just the numbers, but also how Fox News and other conservative outlets play the news. Because that, and not what CNN says, is going to be what South Carolina Republican primary voters are watching.
Meanwhile, I've never tried this, but I'll declare this a discussion thread for talking about the primary results as they come in. If anyone is interested. I'll be over on the twitter machine I guess, but I'll check in, and then I'll be writing something up for Greg's place later.
My prediction for NH: Whatever number Huntsman gets, the media will pronounce him the winner.What's funny about this is that while I strongly suspect he's correct about the "neutral" press, it's also the case that what CNN or the NYT says is a whole lot less important than how the partisan press reacts. And the fun part is that they, too, are likely a lot less influenced by whatever the specific results might turn out to be, and a lot more influenced by which candidate(s) they are trying to support and attack. It's not that the raw results are irrelevant (obviously no one tried to spin Iowa as a win for Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann!), but that there's a lot of interaction between the results, the preferences of party actors, and perhaps also some of the same biases (for the unexpected, for example) that drive the neutral press.
So the truth is that if you really want to know the effects of what happens in New Hampshire tonight, you want to see not just the numbers, but also how Fox News and other conservative outlets play the news. Because that, and not what CNN says, is going to be what South Carolina Republican primary voters are watching.
Meanwhile, I've never tried this, but I'll declare this a discussion thread for talking about the primary results as they come in. If anyone is interested. I'll be over on the twitter machine I guess, but I'll check in, and then I'll be writing something up for Greg's place later.
New Hampshire Primary Day
I don't think I want to run my standard election day post every time there's a primary or caucus over the next several months, plus I don't feel like writing an ode to rituals of democracy after unfortunately missing the voting in Dixville Notch late last night (I assume CSPAN had it as usual) so how about instead a quick tribute to the people who have been working so hard in the days and weeks leading up to the voting today: the politicians, the campaign professionals, and the volunteers.
I've said this before, but without meaning any disrespect, I'm always a little miffed when I see those bumper stickers telling me that if I like freedom I should thank a veteran. It's true that the US owes a debt of gratitude towards those who serve as troops. But when we say that the US is a "free" nation, we don't mean that it's not dominated by some foreign power; the contrast is to nations that are not free because they don't have liberty and democracy.
We mean it because the US has a democratic government. To have such a government, however, requires a lot of people choosing to devote a fair amount of time to democracy. Granted, many who do so are motivated by much less exalted things: people are in it for power, or for money, or for other self-interest. But that, in the end, doesn't matter; the system is set up to exploit all of that to make democracy work in a world in which most of us are self-interested much of the time.
Moreover,the particular kind of democracy that the US has always had is, at least in my view, based on the belief that it's not just about getting policies that match popular preference. It's based on the belief that participation and self-determination is inherently a good thing -- that part of true liberty is to be involved in public affairs. And the truth is that one cannot do that alone. I've talked before about the notion of "public happiness" and the ambiguity in Jefferson's peculiar turn of phrase. The "pursuit of happiness" may mean private happiness -- the ability to fully enjoy our individual lives and exploit the opportunities that a non-oppressive government makes available. But it also may mean public happiness, which is a concept the revolutionary generation had for the particular pleasure they found when they entered the public sphere and took political action together (and here I'm leaning as usual on Hannah Arendt, especially in On Revolution). The thing is that public happiness is only even potentially available (okay, I guess with the exception of starting your own revolution) if there's already a public sphere in which to operate. Now, we could talk at some length about the extent to which door-to-door campaigning for a presidential candidate really matches what they were talking about in 1776. One might argue, for example, that the civil rights movement -- which produced, by the way, similar reflections on public happiness -- is a better fit. But there's a lot to be said for non-movement politics in normal times, too.
So let's hear it today for everyone who has been been up there in New Hampshire hard at work getting the voters to the polls; for everyone who has been working in the campaign headquarters in Washington or wherever they're found; for the volunteers who drove to New Hampshire or Iowa, sacrificing their own time to work for what they see as a better nation; and especially for the candidates, whatever their motivations. You don't get any democracy -- you don't get liberty -- without them.
I wish everyone a happy New Hampshire primary day. Good luck to all the candidates, and if you have the good fortune to be a citizen of the Granite State: vote early, vote often.
I've said this before, but without meaning any disrespect, I'm always a little miffed when I see those bumper stickers telling me that if I like freedom I should thank a veteran. It's true that the US owes a debt of gratitude towards those who serve as troops. But when we say that the US is a "free" nation, we don't mean that it's not dominated by some foreign power; the contrast is to nations that are not free because they don't have liberty and democracy.
We mean it because the US has a democratic government. To have such a government, however, requires a lot of people choosing to devote a fair amount of time to democracy. Granted, many who do so are motivated by much less exalted things: people are in it for power, or for money, or for other self-interest. But that, in the end, doesn't matter; the system is set up to exploit all of that to make democracy work in a world in which most of us are self-interested much of the time.
Moreover,the particular kind of democracy that the US has always had is, at least in my view, based on the belief that it's not just about getting policies that match popular preference. It's based on the belief that participation and self-determination is inherently a good thing -- that part of true liberty is to be involved in public affairs. And the truth is that one cannot do that alone. I've talked before about the notion of "public happiness" and the ambiguity in Jefferson's peculiar turn of phrase. The "pursuit of happiness" may mean private happiness -- the ability to fully enjoy our individual lives and exploit the opportunities that a non-oppressive government makes available. But it also may mean public happiness, which is a concept the revolutionary generation had for the particular pleasure they found when they entered the public sphere and took political action together (and here I'm leaning as usual on Hannah Arendt, especially in On Revolution). The thing is that public happiness is only even potentially available (okay, I guess with the exception of starting your own revolution) if there's already a public sphere in which to operate. Now, we could talk at some length about the extent to which door-to-door campaigning for a presidential candidate really matches what they were talking about in 1776. One might argue, for example, that the civil rights movement -- which produced, by the way, similar reflections on public happiness -- is a better fit. But there's a lot to be said for non-movement politics in normal times, too.
So let's hear it today for everyone who has been been up there in New Hampshire hard at work getting the voters to the polls; for everyone who has been working in the campaign headquarters in Washington or wherever they're found; for the volunteers who drove to New Hampshire or Iowa, sacrificing their own time to work for what they see as a better nation; and especially for the candidates, whatever their motivations. You don't get any democracy -- you don't get liberty -- without them.
I wish everyone a happy New Hampshire primary day. Good luck to all the candidates, and if you have the good fortune to be a citizen of the Granite State: vote early, vote often.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Plum Line: What To Look For in New Hampshire
Over at Greg's place, I have a post up about what to look for in the New Hampshire results. Meanwhile, a new Suffolk tracking poll has come out showing Mitt Romney continuing to slip a bit...he's down to 33% in their sounding, although while it was released last that poll wasn't taken later than a couple of others, and it might be a bit of an outlier on Romney (just as PPP seems to be a bit of an outlier, on the high side, on Jon Huntsman). I have three main points over there; the third one is:
By the way, if you don't click through to my post, do be sure to read Brendan Nyhan on expectations, which I link to there. Really good.
Do the Republicans have a New Hampshire problem? If Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul combine to take 80% or more of the vote, will conservatives seek to reform the nominating process by attempting to punish that state? The biggest complaint about Iowa and New Hampshire as the kick-off states in recent cycles has come from Democrats who object to the lack of ethnic diversity in those states, but a far greater problem could be that on the GOP side, moderates are overrepresented.Especially in an open primary, and especially with nothing doing on the Democratic side.
By the way, if you don't click through to my post, do be sure to read Brendan Nyhan on expectations, which I link to there. Really good.
Monday, January 2, 2012
No, You Can't Skip New Hampshire Either
Rick Perry is apparently telling reporters that he'll skip New Hampshire and make a last stand in South Carolina.
Two things. First, presidential candidates always say that they're going to stay in the race no matter what. Everyone should ignore those claims; they are necessary to make (more or less), but they aren't binding. Unless Perry finishes a strong fourth or better, I expect him to end his campaign. There's a certain amount of individual preference on these types of decisions (that is, about ending campaigns), but not all that much...it wouldn't be shocking if Perry insisted on getting clobbered in South Carolina, but it's not very likely. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't wind up doing better than the polling predicts.
Unless of course he does better than current polling shows in Iowa. Which is still possible, although less and less likely.
The second thing is that skipping New Hampshire is as much of an implausible strategy as skipping Iowa. Neither make any sense. That doesn't mean candidates have to go all-in on these early states, but they really do have to compete there.
The Santorum/Huntsman situation is a good example of that. Santorum may or may not wind up coming close to the nomination, but if he finishes in the top three in Iowa (as currently looks very likely), he's going to get a bump elsewhere. What about Huntsman, however? He's totally off the radar this week. He's been totally off the radar for the last month. He won't get a mention tomorrow night when TV and the rest of the press cover Iowa. He's unlikely to be subject to very much media attention over the next few days, either. And so it wouldn't be at all surprising if someone who has done little in New Hampshire so far overtakes him with a post-Iowa surge.
Consider what would be happening if Huntsman had focused on Iowa and Santorum skipped it and gone to New Hampshire. We'll never know whether Huntsman would have rallied, but certainly Santorum would not have. You just can't skip the key early states if you want to have any hope of being the nominee.
Two things. First, presidential candidates always say that they're going to stay in the race no matter what. Everyone should ignore those claims; they are necessary to make (more or less), but they aren't binding. Unless Perry finishes a strong fourth or better, I expect him to end his campaign. There's a certain amount of individual preference on these types of decisions (that is, about ending campaigns), but not all that much...it wouldn't be shocking if Perry insisted on getting clobbered in South Carolina, but it's not very likely. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't wind up doing better than the polling predicts.
Unless of course he does better than current polling shows in Iowa. Which is still possible, although less and less likely.
The second thing is that skipping New Hampshire is as much of an implausible strategy as skipping Iowa. Neither make any sense. That doesn't mean candidates have to go all-in on these early states, but they really do have to compete there.
The Santorum/Huntsman situation is a good example of that. Santorum may or may not wind up coming close to the nomination, but if he finishes in the top three in Iowa (as currently looks very likely), he's going to get a bump elsewhere. What about Huntsman, however? He's totally off the radar this week. He's been totally off the radar for the last month. He won't get a mention tomorrow night when TV and the rest of the press cover Iowa. He's unlikely to be subject to very much media attention over the next few days, either. And so it wouldn't be at all surprising if someone who has done little in New Hampshire so far overtakes him with a post-Iowa surge.
Consider what would be happening if Huntsman had focused on Iowa and Santorum skipped it and gone to New Hampshire. We'll never know whether Huntsman would have rallied, but certainly Santorum would not have. You just can't skip the key early states if you want to have any hope of being the nominee.
Friday, December 30, 2011
New Hampshire and Beyond Notes
Just a few quick things, notes style, while waiting for tomorrow's DMR poll and then, well, finally, the Iowa Caucuses.
1. Remember about New Hampshire: very sudden swings are possible. Gary Hart went from nowhere to a New Hampshire win in eight days, and that was off of a relatively unimpressive second place finish. Nor should you assume that New Hampshire Republicans won't go for a social conservative; there are plenty of Republicans everywhere who support (national) mainstream conservatives.
2. On the other hand, assuming we're talking about Rick Santorum, we have no idea how he'll handle scaling up his campaign to a national level. Might go well; might not.
3. Santorum won't have ads up right away. Not a big deal; free media can swamp paid over the short term.
4. Although as I said earlier, there's still no guarantee that it's Santorum, not Rick Perry, who bounces. Outside possibility: they both do well enough in Iowa to survive. Even more outside possibility: Gingrich or Bachmann winds up surviving Iowa. Although, of course, they could stay in anyway, and they were never viable, so I'm not quite sure the right wording for that one.
5. Romney hasn't yet had to deal with a real blizzard of attacks against him. Could happen in South Carolina. It's possible it won't.
6. Beware anyone who trots out "never happened" claims -- such as the two reported here that winner in South Carolina is always the nominee and that no one has won South Carolina without first winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. Some of those rules of thumb are useful, but most aren't. Remember that there have only been a handful of GOP open-seat nomination contests since reform (1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008), only a couple of those without a standout obvious candidate, and none all that similar to the structure of this one.
7. I'll repeat what I said over at Plum Line earlier...it's possible that this thing is really over, and that the large number of Republican leaders who have held back are really in the bag for Romney and will declare after Iowa. It's also possible that they're hanging back because they're waiting until they know who the conservative alternative is. We don't know, but that's the biggest factor in whether we're heading for a Romney coronation or a tough fight that would start with a solid advantage for Romney, but would still be competitive.
OK, that's enough for now, I guess.
1. Remember about New Hampshire: very sudden swings are possible. Gary Hart went from nowhere to a New Hampshire win in eight days, and that was off of a relatively unimpressive second place finish. Nor should you assume that New Hampshire Republicans won't go for a social conservative; there are plenty of Republicans everywhere who support (national) mainstream conservatives.
2. On the other hand, assuming we're talking about Rick Santorum, we have no idea how he'll handle scaling up his campaign to a national level. Might go well; might not.
3. Santorum won't have ads up right away. Not a big deal; free media can swamp paid over the short term.
4. Although as I said earlier, there's still no guarantee that it's Santorum, not Rick Perry, who bounces. Outside possibility: they both do well enough in Iowa to survive. Even more outside possibility: Gingrich or Bachmann winds up surviving Iowa. Although, of course, they could stay in anyway, and they were never viable, so I'm not quite sure the right wording for that one.
5. Romney hasn't yet had to deal with a real blizzard of attacks against him. Could happen in South Carolina. It's possible it won't.
6. Beware anyone who trots out "never happened" claims -- such as the two reported here that winner in South Carolina is always the nominee and that no one has won South Carolina without first winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. Some of those rules of thumb are useful, but most aren't. Remember that there have only been a handful of GOP open-seat nomination contests since reform (1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008), only a couple of those without a standout obvious candidate, and none all that similar to the structure of this one.
7. I'll repeat what I said over at Plum Line earlier...it's possible that this thing is really over, and that the large number of Republican leaders who have held back are really in the bag for Romney and will declare after Iowa. It's also possible that they're hanging back because they're waiting until they know who the conservative alternative is. We don't know, but that's the biggest factor in whether we're heading for a Romney coronation or a tough fight that would start with a solid advantage for Romney, but would still be competitive.
OK, that's enough for now, I guess.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Cranky Wednesday Blogging 2
I'm mostly still over at Plum Line still today, but I seem to be running across stuff that gets me annoyed...so I think it's time for some Cranky Blogging. Which I should have used for my earlier item about Ron Paul, but it's definitely appropriate for this one, about a bogus attempt by NRO's Jim Geraghty to place Iowa and New Hampshire in "perspective" by looking at the delegates up for grabs and how they are allocated.
Which misses the point entirely. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't important because of the delegates, because nomination politics is in many cases not about the delegates at all. Oh, sure: you wind up winning most of the delegates when you win. But Tim Pawlenty didn't drop out because he hadn't won any delegates. He dropped about because he believed he didn't have the resources needed to win the nomination. And doing well in the first contests remains an important factor in allocating resources. Not the only factor (the invisible primary is more crucial), but important nonetheless.
It's certainly possible to overstate the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. But it's not because they don't send a lot of delegates to the national convention, or because they're not winner-take-all. Geraghty isn't placing them in perspective; he's yanking them out of context.
Which misses the point entirely. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't important because of the delegates, because nomination politics is in many cases not about the delegates at all. Oh, sure: you wind up winning most of the delegates when you win. But Tim Pawlenty didn't drop out because he hadn't won any delegates. He dropped about because he believed he didn't have the resources needed to win the nomination. And doing well in the first contests remains an important factor in allocating resources. Not the only factor (the invisible primary is more crucial), but important nonetheless.
It's certainly possible to overstate the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. But it's not because they don't send a lot of delegates to the national convention, or because they're not winner-take-all. Geraghty isn't placing them in perspective; he's yanking them out of context.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Ignore Those Polls!
I'm no David S. Bernstein (although I am looking forward to seeing him tomorrow) but I've attempted to start a hashtag thingamabob over the last couple of days: #needmoreIowapolls. Basically, if you're a political junkie this time of the cycle, you really, really, really crave polling from the Hawkeye State.
On the other hand, the national and other state surveys? I've been saying to ignore them. And here's some nice evidence for it. Nate Silver has been crunching the numbers for a primary/caucus election forecaster, only to find, first, that a polling-based forecast more than thirty days out is hopeless, and then:
I should explain...that doesn't necessarily mean that pre-Iowa polling in New Hampshire doesn't predict NH primary results at all. It just means that if post-Iowa polling is different (which may or may not be the case) that at that point you want to toss the pre-Iowa numbers. Presumably, the pre-Iowa numbers predict the post-Iowa numbers, at least better than starting from scratch would. Got that?
What I'd love to see Silver plug into his equation is whether Iowa polling helps predict New Hampshire (and other states). I suspect it wouldn't work -- what matters is the spin from Iowa, not necessarily the results, and even then Iowa polls aren't really a reliable enough guide to Iowa results for it to (probably) work. But I think it would be worth it to try running it, anyway.
Anyway, back to the main point: if polls more than 30 days out are useless right now, then national polls, too, are useless as predictors. I want more Iowa polls, precisely because the chances that the ones from only a week ago could already be useless, and because Iowa affects what comes next. And I'll sort of at least glance at New Hampshire polls beginning about now. But the rest of them? Ignore those polls!
On the other hand, the national and other state surveys? I've been saying to ignore them. And here's some nice evidence for it. Nate Silver has been crunching the numbers for a primary/caucus election forecaster, only to find, first, that a polling-based forecast more than thirty days out is hopeless, and then:
The model also makes a special provision for Iowa and New Hampshire, which can have an especially large influence on the race. A New Hampshire poll conducted one day after the Iowa caucuses will receive considerably more weight than one conducted just one day before Iowa. In practice, this means that the first New Hampshire polls conducted after Iowa will all but eliminate those conducted just before it.There are usually eight days between Iowa and New Hampshire; this year they are a week apart. And post-Iowa polling will make pre-Iowa polling obsolete? Yikes!
I should explain...that doesn't necessarily mean that pre-Iowa polling in New Hampshire doesn't predict NH primary results at all. It just means that if post-Iowa polling is different (which may or may not be the case) that at that point you want to toss the pre-Iowa numbers. Presumably, the pre-Iowa numbers predict the post-Iowa numbers, at least better than starting from scratch would. Got that?
What I'd love to see Silver plug into his equation is whether Iowa polling helps predict New Hampshire (and other states). I suspect it wouldn't work -- what matters is the spin from Iowa, not necessarily the results, and even then Iowa polls aren't really a reliable enough guide to Iowa results for it to (probably) work. But I think it would be worth it to try running it, anyway.
Anyway, back to the main point: if polls more than 30 days out are useless right now, then national polls, too, are useless as predictors. I want more Iowa polls, precisely because the chances that the ones from only a week ago could already be useless, and because Iowa affects what comes next. And I'll sort of at least glance at New Hampshire polls beginning about now. But the rest of them? Ignore those polls!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Sequential Nomination System a Winner
Alec MacGillis has an interesting post yesterday arguing that the national nature of the GOP presidential campaign this cycle hint at a "declining legitimacy" of Iowa and New Hampshire.
That may be true if the justification for the current system is primarily based on the advantages of retail politicking. It's clearly in decline, for this cycle at least (and MacGillis quite properly is cautious about extrapolating out from current trends), or at least if we assume that there won't be a late Santorum surge in Iowa and a Huntsman surge in New Hampshire. Which could, of course, happen.
But I don't believe that retail politics is the real reason to have the current system. No, what is really important is having a sequential system of primaries and caucuses rather than a national primary. And the case for sequential is certainly a lot stronger after this year's clown show during the invisible primary. At least, that's the case if you believe (as I do) that what we've really seen is that practically any candidate can get a temporary bubble.
The problem, of course, is that if that bubble happened with just the correct timing for the national primary, a party might well be stuck with a Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or even Donald Trump. Indeed, that's basically what happened in last year's GOP primaries in Nevada and Delaware; a candidate who couldn't hold up to serious scrutiny peaked at the right time and wound up winning a one-shot primary.
Sequential primaries are a good way to prevent that. And if you're going to go sequential, then sticking with the traditional small states at the beginning of the process seems as good a plan as any, whether or not the supposed benefits of retail politics are real.
That may be true if the justification for the current system is primarily based on the advantages of retail politicking. It's clearly in decline, for this cycle at least (and MacGillis quite properly is cautious about extrapolating out from current trends), or at least if we assume that there won't be a late Santorum surge in Iowa and a Huntsman surge in New Hampshire. Which could, of course, happen.
But I don't believe that retail politics is the real reason to have the current system. No, what is really important is having a sequential system of primaries and caucuses rather than a national primary. And the case for sequential is certainly a lot stronger after this year's clown show during the invisible primary. At least, that's the case if you believe (as I do) that what we've really seen is that practically any candidate can get a temporary bubble.
The problem, of course, is that if that bubble happened with just the correct timing for the national primary, a party might well be stuck with a Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or even Donald Trump. Indeed, that's basically what happened in last year's GOP primaries in Nevada and Delaware; a candidate who couldn't hold up to serious scrutiny peaked at the right time and wound up winning a one-shot primary.
Sequential primaries are a good way to prevent that. And if you're going to go sequential, then sticking with the traditional small states at the beginning of the process seems as good a plan as any, whether or not the supposed benefits of retail politics are real.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
On Iowa and New Hampshire Surprises
Larry Sabato has an article out today emphasizing uncertainty in the early states, noting that “From 1976 to 2008, there has been a major surprise every time either in Iowa or New Hampshire.” That’s true, as far as it goes: he’s right that no one expected Pat Robertson to surge to second place in Iowa in 1988 ahead of a sitting Vice President, or John McCain to upset George W. Bush in New Hampshire in 2000.
The truth is, however, that what those examples reveal isn’t that Iowa and New Hampshire can be volatile (although they are), but that surprises there often don’t matter very much, at least not since the modern system was set firmly in place in the 1980s. After all, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 wound up cruising to their nominations, despite the hiccups along the way. In both cases, party leaders had pretty much settled on a winner, and looking back the day-to-day excitement of the primaries just wasn’t where the real action in those cycles was.
On the other hand, in contests in which party actors are unable to reach consensus on a nominee – most notably, in the last two Democratic nomination cycles – then the primaries and caucuses do have an important part to play. In 2004, Howard Dean’s miserable showing in the Iowa caucuses appeared (in my view) to have convinced party actors that Howard Dean’s popularity was hype, not reality, something that many of them were not at all certain of in fall 2003. And in 2008, Iowa had the opposite effect, confirming that Barack Obama would in fact appeal to rank-and-file voters – and setting up, as we all remember, a long contest with party actors and voters split, leaving the long sequence of primaries and caucuses to determine the nominee.
The problem for observers trying to figure out what will happen this time is that the “invisible primary” is, in fact, not very visible; it’s not always easy to figure out whether there is a winner or not. After all, we’re not just talking about a handful of party leaders in Washington; there are hundreds of party actors all around the nation, and it’s not always easy at all to know which are the most important ones or what they really think. The most tangible indications are high-profile endorsements and fundraising. Based on those it appears so far that Mitt Romney has a lead, but not nearly as solid as, say, George W. Bush in 2000. So we’ll see: Romney could add to that lead in the next few weeks, making Iowa and New Hampshire much less important, or party actors could stay on the fence, still hoping that they can support someone else. If that’s the case, the early states could indeed by critical.
But most Iowa and New Hampshire surprises have nothing to do with who eventually wins the nomination. They're great for political junkies (myself definitely included), and they're certain to be pounced on by the press, which has a strong interest in portraying nomination battles as close fights for as long as it can. They can change the structure of the losers, keeping a Huckabee alive longer than otherwise would have been the case, or killing off a Glenn or Graham or Connally earlier than might have been. One Iowa surprise, George H.W. Bush's upset of Ronald Reagan in 1980, even eventually produced a president, by way of a VP selection. But while it's nice to be reminded that we could get something wildly unexpected out of an early state in January (where's that Roy Moore campaign, anyway?), it's more important to remember that those surprises usually don't mean very much.
The truth is, however, that what those examples reveal isn’t that Iowa and New Hampshire can be volatile (although they are), but that surprises there often don’t matter very much, at least not since the modern system was set firmly in place in the 1980s. After all, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 wound up cruising to their nominations, despite the hiccups along the way. In both cases, party leaders had pretty much settled on a winner, and looking back the day-to-day excitement of the primaries just wasn’t where the real action in those cycles was.
On the other hand, in contests in which party actors are unable to reach consensus on a nominee – most notably, in the last two Democratic nomination cycles – then the primaries and caucuses do have an important part to play. In 2004, Howard Dean’s miserable showing in the Iowa caucuses appeared (in my view) to have convinced party actors that Howard Dean’s popularity was hype, not reality, something that many of them were not at all certain of in fall 2003. And in 2008, Iowa had the opposite effect, confirming that Barack Obama would in fact appeal to rank-and-file voters – and setting up, as we all remember, a long contest with party actors and voters split, leaving the long sequence of primaries and caucuses to determine the nominee.
The problem for observers trying to figure out what will happen this time is that the “invisible primary” is, in fact, not very visible; it’s not always easy to figure out whether there is a winner or not. After all, we’re not just talking about a handful of party leaders in Washington; there are hundreds of party actors all around the nation, and it’s not always easy at all to know which are the most important ones or what they really think. The most tangible indications are high-profile endorsements and fundraising. Based on those it appears so far that Mitt Romney has a lead, but not nearly as solid as, say, George W. Bush in 2000. So we’ll see: Romney could add to that lead in the next few weeks, making Iowa and New Hampshire much less important, or party actors could stay on the fence, still hoping that they can support someone else. If that’s the case, the early states could indeed by critical.
But most Iowa and New Hampshire surprises have nothing to do with who eventually wins the nomination. They're great for political junkies (myself definitely included), and they're certain to be pounced on by the press, which has a strong interest in portraying nomination battles as close fights for as long as it can. They can change the structure of the losers, keeping a Huckabee alive longer than otherwise would have been the case, or killing off a Glenn or Graham or Connally earlier than might have been. One Iowa surprise, George H.W. Bush's upset of Ronald Reagan in 1980, even eventually produced a president, by way of a VP selection. But while it's nice to be reminded that we could get something wildly unexpected out of an early state in January (where's that Roy Moore campaign, anyway?), it's more important to remember that those surprises usually don't mean very much.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Calendar Set
New Hampshire formally set their primary day to January 10 today, thus basically ending the process of setting the calendar of primaries and caucuses for the 2012 presidential cycle, certainly for the early events.
I really haven't been talking about this much at all...I've long had an interest in it, but Josh Putnam is such a category-killer on the subject that I haven't found much else to say other than to remind everyone to go to him for information and analysis.
Basically, it looks to me that the GOP got what they wanted. Nothing in 2011, of course. They preserved the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina kickoff. They successfully moved Super Tuesday back to March (6th, from February 5 in 2008)) and ratcheted it down quite a bit from 2008. That seems to be what they wanted, and they got all of it.
Sure, it starts in January instead of February, but there's little harm done there (and in fact, I'd say it's a plus for the party, but who knows?). I'm happy with it because I've been against a de facto national primary, and the GOP appears to have seriously broken it up for now.
I don't know whether Josh made this point already, but what really helped the Republicans is that no one in that party actually cares at all about Nevada going early. That's not true on the Democratic side, where Latinos and African Americans care a lot about protecting the early scheduling of Nevada and South Carolina, and in fact have long objected to the lack of ethnic diversity in Iowa and New Hampshire. As it worked out, the Democratic schedule does in fact preserve both in front of Florida by decoupling them from the GOP versions in those two states (South Carolina has long -- always? -- been different for the two parties, but they both had Nevada on the same day in 2008).
Of course, there's no way of knowing what will happen next time around, but it's possible to see a bit of stability emerging, for a while at least, with the four exception states leading off (or three on the GOP side), and the parties perhaps next time around reaching an accommodation with Florida to make it the kickoff state for the rest of the campaign.
Not that the long-term reasons for states to try to frontload, or the lack of ability by the national parties to prevent it, have changed. My guess? The pressure away from frontloading will stay relatively minimal until the next time that Iowa and New Hampshire are perceived to have locked up the nomination by themselves. The more that happens, the more people find the sequential system unacceptable; when the results are spread out so that many or all states have meaningful contests, they're less likely to care about sequencing the next time around. Of course, in my view a whole lot of this is illusion, anyway, with party actors across the nation doing a lot to decide the nomination before the voters get involved. But that's certainly not how everyone sees it.
I really haven't been talking about this much at all...I've long had an interest in it, but Josh Putnam is such a category-killer on the subject that I haven't found much else to say other than to remind everyone to go to him for information and analysis.
Basically, it looks to me that the GOP got what they wanted. Nothing in 2011, of course. They preserved the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina kickoff. They successfully moved Super Tuesday back to March (6th, from February 5 in 2008)) and ratcheted it down quite a bit from 2008. That seems to be what they wanted, and they got all of it.
Sure, it starts in January instead of February, but there's little harm done there (and in fact, I'd say it's a plus for the party, but who knows?). I'm happy with it because I've been against a de facto national primary, and the GOP appears to have seriously broken it up for now.
I don't know whether Josh made this point already, but what really helped the Republicans is that no one in that party actually cares at all about Nevada going early. That's not true on the Democratic side, where Latinos and African Americans care a lot about protecting the early scheduling of Nevada and South Carolina, and in fact have long objected to the lack of ethnic diversity in Iowa and New Hampshire. As it worked out, the Democratic schedule does in fact preserve both in front of Florida by decoupling them from the GOP versions in those two states (South Carolina has long -- always? -- been different for the two parties, but they both had Nevada on the same day in 2008).
Of course, there's no way of knowing what will happen next time around, but it's possible to see a bit of stability emerging, for a while at least, with the four exception states leading off (or three on the GOP side), and the parties perhaps next time around reaching an accommodation with Florida to make it the kickoff state for the rest of the campaign.
Not that the long-term reasons for states to try to frontload, or the lack of ability by the national parties to prevent it, have changed. My guess? The pressure away from frontloading will stay relatively minimal until the next time that Iowa and New Hampshire are perceived to have locked up the nomination by themselves. The more that happens, the more people find the sequential system unacceptable; when the results are spread out so that many or all states have meaningful contests, they're less likely to care about sequencing the next time around. Of course, in my view a whole lot of this is illusion, anyway, with party actors across the nation doing a lot to decide the nomination before the voters get involved. But that's certainly not how everyone sees it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
First in the Nation
I thoroughly enjoyed Alec MacGillis's "defense" of the New Hampshire primary, which was mainly an excuse for him to tell some good stories about First in the Nation events past and the Granite State in general. Good fun!
As far as New Hampshire, and for that matter Iowa...the argument for them is pretty basic. First, if we're to have primaries and caucuses, then (I would argue) a sequential system is better than a national primary, because it maximizes the influence of party actors and reduces the risks of accidents; in Polsby's terms, it increases the incentives for coalition-style candidates and reduces the chances of factional candidates winning. Second, because the key players here are (national and local) party actors, it's not all that important which states go first. Third, a stable schedule from cycle to cycle helps party actors maximize their influence. Fourth, there's at least a reasonable argument for the one-on-one campaigning available in small and mid-sized states. Therefore, given that Iowa and New Hampshire have been first for a long time and that both are small or mid-sized, we should keep them in place.
Since the modern system solidified in the 1980s, I think it's unlikely that a different sequence would have yielded different nominees in either party. It's probably the case that it would have changed the story of the nomination battle...it's possible to imagine John Glenn instead of Gary Hart losing to Walter Mondale in 1984, or Phil Gramm winning early before losing to Bob Dole in 1996, or George W. Bush clobbering someone other than John McCain in 2000. Or some forgotten candidates, a Bruce Babbitt or Pete DuPont, doing what Hart did in 1984 or McCain did in 2000. Would Clinton/Obama/Edwards have turned out differently had, oh, West Virginia gone first? I suppose with a contest that close it's certainly possible, but I pretty much doubt it. I do think that 1976 and 1972 could have produced different nominees on the Democratic side had the sequence been different, but that's mainly because I think the results in both of those years was basically random.
And that would be my main concern about significant change; it has the downside risk of producing random nominees until everyone is equally adept at working the new system. Remember, by "everyone" I'm especially concerned here with party actors. Their coordination problems are serious, and with an unstable system (as we had in 1972 and 1976) I think the chances of either coordination failure or a decision to withdraw from attempting to coordinate are disturbingly high.
As far as New Hampshire, and for that matter Iowa...the argument for them is pretty basic. First, if we're to have primaries and caucuses, then (I would argue) a sequential system is better than a national primary, because it maximizes the influence of party actors and reduces the risks of accidents; in Polsby's terms, it increases the incentives for coalition-style candidates and reduces the chances of factional candidates winning. Second, because the key players here are (national and local) party actors, it's not all that important which states go first. Third, a stable schedule from cycle to cycle helps party actors maximize their influence. Fourth, there's at least a reasonable argument for the one-on-one campaigning available in small and mid-sized states. Therefore, given that Iowa and New Hampshire have been first for a long time and that both are small or mid-sized, we should keep them in place.
Since the modern system solidified in the 1980s, I think it's unlikely that a different sequence would have yielded different nominees in either party. It's probably the case that it would have changed the story of the nomination battle...it's possible to imagine John Glenn instead of Gary Hart losing to Walter Mondale in 1984, or Phil Gramm winning early before losing to Bob Dole in 1996, or George W. Bush clobbering someone other than John McCain in 2000. Or some forgotten candidates, a Bruce Babbitt or Pete DuPont, doing what Hart did in 1984 or McCain did in 2000. Would Clinton/Obama/Edwards have turned out differently had, oh, West Virginia gone first? I suppose with a contest that close it's certainly possible, but I pretty much doubt it. I do think that 1976 and 1972 could have produced different nominees on the Democratic side had the sequence been different, but that's mainly because I think the results in both of those years was basically random.
And that would be my main concern about significant change; it has the downside risk of producing random nominees until everyone is equally adept at working the new system. Remember, by "everyone" I'm especially concerned here with party actors. Their coordination problems are serious, and with an unstable system (as we had in 1972 and 1976) I think the chances of either coordination failure or a decision to withdraw from attempting to coordinate are disturbingly high.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Tinkerbell Primary (Don't Stop Clapping)
Josh Putnam has (as usual) an excellent roundup of the current Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada imbroglio on scheduling. As I read it, he thinks that it's not particularly likely that New Hampshire will wind up in December; that sounds right to me, but I defer to his expertise on that anyway.
What I'll add is that there are essentially two threats to New Hampshire (and Iowa, for that matter), or for any other state that wants to get or keep a high-profile primary or caucus date. The first, which Josh talks about in his post, is the possibility that the national parties can pursue effective sanctions against them if they don't keep to the authorized calendar. As he says, that's really tough to do.
The other thing, though, is that specific primaries and caucuses take on disproportionate influence if and only if everyone acts as if they have disproportionate influence. There's been some speculation that New Hampshire could lose its importance if it goes to December, but that will only happen if the candidates and the press stay away. Would that happen? Unlikely, I'd say. But I'd say more likely than effective sanctions from the national parties. Basically, New Hampshire and Iowa are important because everyone believes in them, like those flats build by Mystico and Janet -- perfectly safe as long as everyone believes in them.
What I'll add is that there are essentially two threats to New Hampshire (and Iowa, for that matter), or for any other state that wants to get or keep a high-profile primary or caucus date. The first, which Josh talks about in his post, is the possibility that the national parties can pursue effective sanctions against them if they don't keep to the authorized calendar. As he says, that's really tough to do.
The other thing, though, is that specific primaries and caucuses take on disproportionate influence if and only if everyone acts as if they have disproportionate influence. There's been some speculation that New Hampshire could lose its importance if it goes to December, but that will only happen if the candidates and the press stay away. Would that happen? Unlikely, I'd say. But I'd say more likely than effective sanctions from the national parties. Basically, New Hampshire and Iowa are important because everyone believes in them, like those flats build by Mystico and Janet -- perfectly safe as long as everyone believes in them.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Frontloading and Its Consequences
David Leonhardt goes after the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary in a column today, citing a new article by a couple of economists (which I'm afraid I haven't read yet) that emphasizes the importance of those two states in the nomination process. Jamelle Bouie makes the conventional argument about small states and the opportunity for voters to examine candidates on a human-sized scale; Matt Yglesias suggests solving the problem of anti-urban bias by substituting Massachusetts for New Hampshire.
Let's see...the first thing I'd emphasize is that as the nomination process has evolved, Iowa and New Hamsphire -- indeed, the primaries and caucuses as a whole -- are less important than they once were, and support from party actors more important. Endorsements, money, favorable publicity, and other resources that party actors bring are only minimally state-dependent. Technology has probably also made location less important, as it's a lot easier to be a Romney or Pawlenty volunteer these days even if you live in a state that doesn't vote early.
The second thing that I'd emphasize is that while the frontloaded presidential nomination system and the malapportioned Senate do have a small-state and rural bias, the presidential general election generally has a bias the other way, since the states receiving the most attention are the big, close states: in recent cycles, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, each of which has plenty of urban and suburban areas.
I'd also stress, with Bouie, that changes in the system should be made carefully. Parties work best -- coalition-building works best -- under conditions of stable, well-known rules and procedures. So I tend to be pretty conservative about major structural reforms. On the other hand, it is certainly true that minor changes to the system have been a constant over the last forty years, and given the limited powers of national formal party organizations, continued constant change is a certainty as well. On the whole, I'm mostly ambivalent about Iowa and New Hampshire...someone has to go first and reap the benefits (a national primary is a terrible idea, so don't start up with that), and I'm not really convinced that a rotation system for those spots changes the fairness of the situation at all. And I do like tradition (although we shouldn't overdo it; Iowa dates back to 1972, and even New Hampshire only goes back 60 years, to 1952, as a significant event). All in all, I don't think changing it is worth the fight. There are other, more pressing process changes worth spending energy on.
Let's see...the first thing I'd emphasize is that as the nomination process has evolved, Iowa and New Hamsphire -- indeed, the primaries and caucuses as a whole -- are less important than they once were, and support from party actors more important. Endorsements, money, favorable publicity, and other resources that party actors bring are only minimally state-dependent. Technology has probably also made location less important, as it's a lot easier to be a Romney or Pawlenty volunteer these days even if you live in a state that doesn't vote early.
The second thing that I'd emphasize is that while the frontloaded presidential nomination system and the malapportioned Senate do have a small-state and rural bias, the presidential general election generally has a bias the other way, since the states receiving the most attention are the big, close states: in recent cycles, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, each of which has plenty of urban and suburban areas.
I'd also stress, with Bouie, that changes in the system should be made carefully. Parties work best -- coalition-building works best -- under conditions of stable, well-known rules and procedures. So I tend to be pretty conservative about major structural reforms. On the other hand, it is certainly true that minor changes to the system have been a constant over the last forty years, and given the limited powers of national formal party organizations, continued constant change is a certainty as well. On the whole, I'm mostly ambivalent about Iowa and New Hampshire...someone has to go first and reap the benefits (a national primary is a terrible idea, so don't start up with that), and I'm not really convinced that a rotation system for those spots changes the fairness of the situation at all. And I do like tradition (although we shouldn't overdo it; Iowa dates back to 1972, and even New Hampshire only goes back 60 years, to 1952, as a significant event). All in all, I don't think changing it is worth the fight. There are other, more pressing process changes worth spending energy on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
