Frontloading Frenzy Is Changing 2008 Race

One year from today, the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations for president will in all likelihood have been settled.

Indeed, while the 2008 contests for the two major-party nominations are shaping up to be as spirited as any since the crowded competition of 1988, all indications are that the Republican and Democratic candidates will be identified far earlier than ever before.

Why?

State officials have finally figured out what the American people cottoned onto a generation ago: Political party conventions are irrelevant. By the time the delegates arrive in the designated city for the quadrennial summer session, the nominee is certain and the party is focused on creating a good show to launch the general election campaign.

For years, the Democratic and Republican national committees were able to maintain a measure of order by threatening any state that proposed an early primary with convention-related sanctions – such as a reduction in the number of delegates accorded rule breakers.

But conventions are mere theater now, so who cares if Florida has fewer delegates at next year's Republican gathering in Minneapolis or the Democratic one in Denver?

That's the live question of the moment, and Florida legislators are answering it with a move to advance their primary date to the front of the calendar. "I think that having 67 less individuals attend five days in Minneapolis is a very, very small price to pay to increase Florida's relevance on the national stage," state Representative David Rivera, R-Miami, told the legislature the other day. And when Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean threatened to cut the size of the Florida delegation to his party's convention, state Representative Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, the House Democratic leader, explained that, "I don't have any constituents in the DNC. I only have constituents in my district. They would like to be more relevant."

If Sunshine State legislators approve a shift, as now seems likely, Florida will hold its presidential primaries just one week after New Hampshire's historic "first-in-the-nation" primary and barely two weeks after the process begins with the Iowa caucuses.

Smaller state primaries and caucuses, particularly those of South Carolina and Nevada, which were supposed to fill out the early schedule will pale in comparison with the Florida voting. After all, Florida is a major state that has been a competitive battleground in the past four November presidential elections. So candidates are not going to skip it in order to score points in South Carolina – a state that is all but certain to vote Republican in the fall of 2008.

If all goes as planned, Florida's primaries could be held as early as January 26.

That's the same day that South Carolina is supposed to be voting. Already, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who had been counting on a boost from the neighboring state, has begun shifting strategy. The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee spent the early part of this week campaigning in the party strongholds of south Florida.

There is now talk in some quarters about moving the South Carolina date up. But Florida is prepared to counter with its own move. And Alabama is getting into the game, with a plan to shift its primary date to February 2.

Already, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah have scheduled primaries for February 5. And the big-ticket states of California, Illinois, New Jersey and Texas are in the process of making similar moves.

At one point, February 5 was supposed to be the date at which the nominating process started gaining steam -- after the "boutique" caucuses and primaries had set the stage. Now, with the prospect that as many as 19 states will have voted by that day, there is every reason to believe that the all-but-certain nominees will have been identified by that first Tuesday in February.

And the schedule could speed up even more, as New Hampshire officials are, by state law, required to maintain their clear "first-primary state" status. If any state sets a primary date too close to the Granite State's planned January 19 primary, New Hampshire will move to January 12. That would push Iowa, which zealously maintains its "first-caucus state" status, to set a date in the first full week of 2008.

"It's pure chaos," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, says of the date shifting "If the job of scheduling the presidential nominating contests were assigned to an insane asylum, this is pretty much what the patients would come up with."

Chaotic it may be. But don't bet that there aren't some contenders who quietly relish the speed up. As the process becomes more frontloaded, and the early schedule gets busier, it will become harder for grassroots candidates to slowly build momentum by the old tactic of building a base state-by-state, week-by-week..

Thus, the chaos benefits well-funded candidates with high name recognition. They can afford dump millions into Iowa and New Hampshire and then turn around and pay the $1 million-a-week price tag to run television ad campaigns in a state such as Florida, and the even more expensive demands of California. And they are known quantities in the places they may not be able to reach in the hectic first few weeks of voting.

Politics in so volatile an election cycle as this offers no guarantees. But the changes that are taking place now are most likely to advantage heavyweights like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and perhaps Rudy Giuliani – the early frontrunners – rather than the candidates who might rise on the basis of hard work or bright ideas.

Comments (10)

1. "now are most likely to advantage heavyweights like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and perhaps Rudy Giuliani – the early frontrunners – rather than the candidates who might rise on the basis of hard work or bright ideas."

   Somebody cue Gomer Pyle..."Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

   It's what I was telling IBBLE last night discussing a potential Al Gore run....it's too late. Again, to paraphrase Tony "Scarface" Montana...first you get the money, then you get the primary, then you get the Presidency.

   After getting a whiff of Dean in 2004, Her Majesty and a few others from the old Clinton days started to work on ways to keep some "netroots" candidate from showing up and trying to take her rightful prize away from her. Well...they did.

   Mr Nichols also forgot to mention that the first DEBATE...is in two months....not a year and two months....but THIS April.

   Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 12:49pm

2. The problem with moving up all these primary and caucuses is the enviable burn out of the votes. The only ones that benefit from all this are the "Front runners" in their attempt to squelch other viable contenders and the states that want all the dollars brought into the states by the candidates and the MSM.

   The voters have to suffer from what in effect becomes the never ending campaign with the never ending talking heads of the evening news talking about what HC or BO or RG or JM or any of the other candidates said today. Enough is enough. It doesn't help the voters decide on whom to support. Most voters will either vote for the Dems or the Repubs and the endless droning on only irritates the middle Independent, or better called the could-give-a-shit-less voter, reason to turn off the news and drop out of the election process altogether.

   I can still remember the political conventions of the 60's and the 70's when there wasn't an clear winner going in. Yes, there were "Smoke filled back room deals" then, and there are today, most likely with out the smoke, but the voting population would be engaged by the convention and what each candidate had to say.

   I say, reduce the number of "Big state" primaries and allow each state to conduct their caucuses and not make a big deal of the outcome. By moving the primaries and caucuses to start in late spring/early summer, the candidates can keep the attention of the voters through to the conventions and on to the elections as well. We should use the primary and caucuses as an introduction to the conventions and not use them to turn the conventions into the meaningless spectacle they've become.

   "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" ... Plato

   Posted by COProgressive at 02/16/2007 @ 2:29pm

3. Just a guess on my part, but..

   Hillary is the Democratic candidate and nominee for president in 08. Period.

   Posted by john maasch at 02/16/2007 @ 3:04pm

4. To quote Gomer Pyle - by way of MASK - surprise! surprise! surprise! Big money has figured out how to "fix" elections, the next logical move is to "fix" the nominating process. Disgusting.

   Posted by felicity at 02/16/2007 @ 3:11pm

5. Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 02/16/2007 @ 2:29pm

   CO, I'm sure they'll get RIGHT on that....after all, look at all the problems with the nominating process, from 2000 and 2004 that have been fixed and aren't going to show up in 2008.....like....uh......well?....hmmmm

   Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 3:14pm

6. The irony here is that so many (in both parties) believe they are increasing the voice of their constituents by moving their state primaries forward. The reality is that they are increasing the prospects of big money front runners and eliminating the possibility that the voice of the voters might be heard in the nominating process.

   Posted by noparty at 02/16/2007 @ 3:48pm

7. Just a guess on my part, but..

   Hillary is the Democratic candidate and nominee for president in 08. Period.

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/16/2007 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

   not yet she ain't. would she be better than Bush? indubitably.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 9:36pm

8. "not yet she ain't. "

   Yes she is..you just don't know it yet..

   "would she be better than Bush?"

   Hell no...

   Posted by john maasch at 02/17/2007 @ 10:20am

9. I live in in one of those large states (California) looking to move its primary to February 08. Califorinia's Presidential primary has traditionally been held in June, long after the races have been decided. I have mixed feelings about moving the primary up. It would be nice that my primary vote would mean something, but it will have the effect of winnowing out the the field (if not deciding the nominee) very quickly, and it does magnify the importance of money and early fund raising. That is why the campaigns start so early now - have to start raising that money! As for the Democratic nominee, do NOT underestimate Sen. Barack Obama. The crowds and enthusiaism he generates are not the result of media hype or because of his "rock star" status. Not only is he charismatic and a gifted speaker and writer, he is a true political leader and people are responding to him. As time goes on look for his popularity to increase. He has my vote, February, June, November, whenever.

   Posted by rkhopkins at 02/17/2007 @ 12:04pm

10. Posted by NOPARTY 02/16/2007 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person

    Since when have "THE PARTIES" really cared what voters want. Witness the 2006 Election and apparent aftermath up to the 2008 election. The irony is that we don't have viable political parties as an alternative to the DEMS & REPS in our land of democracy. Ross Perot found out how it works and it scared the crap out of him.

    Follow the money...follow the money. Ms. Clinton is a done deal I am afraid. But hope springs eternal for some kind up monumental blunder.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/18/2007 @ 08:11am