Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

So there's a Democratic commission considering whether or not to redo the presidential primary process. In other words, people from other states are claiming a) it's unfair the same two states always get to go first, and b) there should be more diversity in the states that get to go early. The counter-argument is that Iowa and especially New Hampshire have been doing this for so long that their residents are really good at judging candidates, tossing out the frontrunners and making the prospective candidates answer hard questions instead of run TV ads. Also, the diverse states are usually big, and to win in small states you have to do person-to-person campaigning, which, they say, is how it should be.

These are fair points on both sides. My personal perspective is, as usual, that the two sides are talking past each other, and pretty much all of what they say is true. So we've got three situations here: what the New Hampshire primary protectionists want to do, what the primary progressives want to do, and what I want to do. Guess which one is best? More than which state goes first, my problem is with the frontloading of the primary process. Longtime observers will note that seriously contested primaries often continued until June of the election year, and those with shorter memories may recall that the 2004 Democratic nomination was probably decided on February 3rd and definitely by February 10th. For a November general election, that's pretty early. The argument in favor of frontloading is that an early nomination gives the party activists time to get going on the general election, but I honestly don't see it. I mean, the other party has just as much time to work against your nominee, right?

I believe stretching out the primary season is a much better idea. First off, no matter what there's going to be a segment of the campaign dedicated to the idea of a frontrunner and whether anyone can knock that frontrunner off. The question is whether it's going to take place the year before the primary (as it did the last time around, when the frontrunner was Howard Dean) or whether it's going to take place during the primary. Put another way, do you want the power to judge candidates going to the media and political establishment, or do you want it going to the voters? I'm not just being altruistic here; these guys have got to have the skills to win over voters if they're going to be any good in November.

So what's my solution? First, let's address when we want the primary resolved? I say late June, but my point here more broadly is that with a nominating convention in late July or August, we can afford to have the primary season extend several months past February. We could start the primary season with the Iowa caucuses in March, the New Hampshire primary two weeks later. Still with me? Then we can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that; I say Rhode Island for the sake of argument (and that it's small enough for personal campaigning, has mostly Democrats, and has an ethnically diverse population), though you could go with any number of other choices.* Then you can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that, like, say, New Mexico, which is still small, home to a lot of Hispanics, and a swing state to boot. (And lest we worry that there aren't enough small states to get the coveted after-NH positions, other states with as many or fewer congressional districts as Iowa include Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Mississippi, off the top of my head.) Once we've covered small-state and diverse primaries, then we can acknowledge the reality that we can't do 50 primaries every two weeks and still have time for an actual general election. I like the suggestion that we should go with regional primaries; I'd say four regions, each primary two weeks after the other. Every four years, the order of each region can vary, so every 16 years, say, the South will count as Super Tuesday, then four years after that it's the western states. Sound good?

First off, I should say my idea is a markedly improved version of the idea espoused by Salon Washington bureau chief Walter Shapiro, so, blame him. This is a massively complicated process, with lots of people wanting pieces of the pie, so it's understandable that, while we should usually absolutely take my ideas and implement them without question, the primary schedule is open for debate. But why can't we resolve the Iowa & NH vs. everyone else problem by spreading out the primary season with single-shot primaries in a few diverse states after the first two states, and then go by region? The small-state, person-to-person tradition is worth keeping: not because it's tradition, but because it's the best idea, for the party and the presidency.

* Seriously, would anyone oppose a Hawaii primary right after spending winter in New Hampshire?