Ah yes, the election. It seems I can’t ignore it after all. The news is all about the decline of the old frontrunners (Clinton, Giuliani) and the rise of the new challengers to frontrunner status (Obama, Huckabee), the candidates de jour.
What’s it all about? I think it’s about the incredible length of the campaign these days. This means there’s plenty of time for the following principles to be played out:
(1) the electorate is fickle and easily bored
(2) the press hones in on candidates’ flaws, concentrating especially on the frontrunners
(3) the other candidates hone in on the frontrunners’ flaws
(4) frontrunners get tired more easily than the others, like the pacers in a bike race or a marathon
(5) give frontrunners world enough and time, and they will make errors and expose their clay feet
(6) situations change, emphasis on issues changes (for example, from foreign to domestic), and different candidates are better at some than others
(7) people like a spoiler; people like a contest
And so we have a change of positions—or the appearance of a change of positions, or a near-change of positions, or a prospective change of positions. It’s a bit like jazz—the musicians taking their turns in the spotlight for a solo riff, and then stepping back. Only, of course, it’s a lot less cooperative than that—these candidates will not go gentle into that good night.
We’ve certainly not seen the end of it. But the danger of the season being so long and the primaries being front-loaded is that the candidate of the moment can get locked in and be unstoppable, even if later on that candidate no longer seems to be the best choice.
That was the advantage—perhaps the only one—of those “smoke-filled rooms,” the conventions of long ago. The candidates were chosen very close to the election itself. But things have changed—and it’s not just the fact that, if such conventions were held today, the smokers would have to leave not just the room but the building to light up.
If you look at the history of Presidential primaries in this country, you’ll note that they didn’t even start till the twentieth century, and didn’t really get going until that watershed year, 1968. Since then they’ve only gotten earlier in the season.
So, although primaries were intended to be a populist reform, the risk is that the people will be being saddled with a candidate who’s fallen out of favor by the time the election rolls around. Or that they’ll be bored to tears by the time the election rolls around. Or both of the above.
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely
December 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Here in Connecticut the Ned Lamont/Joe Lieberman race shows it well. The primary was commandeered (for lack of a better word) by the Netroots. So the Democrats got very left wing nominees for Senator and Governor. Both lost badly in an election that should have favored democrats. So what happened was most Dems lost their votes.
The progressives intent in pushing primaries early last century was to ultimately obtain a European like two-round election system (again Louisiana is the only state with this unique system here). But since you are only nominating a party candidate it is not a true two round system.
Unsuprisingly, the old system that required cultivation of party members around the country produced a pretty good set of choices (Lincoln in his second term for example).
December 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
S M O K E and M I R R O R S — “those “smoke-filled rooms,” the conventions of long ago. The candidates were chosen very close to the election itself. ”
With all smoke-filled rooms now banned perhaps it is the case that candidates are chosen very far from the election itself.
But I’m just paranoid.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Dear Neo,
Actually, the first election decided by primaries was 1960 when JFK made his splash in West Virginia. He was the first major party candidate nominated against the wishes of the party pros. TV made it possible. TV won him the election. Remember Nixon’s “five o’clock shadow”? I do.
Here’s to the old way. Which, by the way, is still prevalent in most most elections for offices other than the presidency. It is almost impossible for people to accurately assess the character and capabilities of candidates through the sound bites and gotcha’s we see today.
In the good old days the candidates were selected by people who had risen to leadership positions in party politics who knew the candidates long and personally. They put forward the person who they judged to be most capable of implementing the party’s platform.
Platforms are now extinct. They were wonderful documents which spelled out in detail the positions on all of the relevant issues. We now know the candidates’ positions on only those issues that You-Tube or the Des Moines Register deigns to discuss. It’s more entertaining - like in Hollywood. I don’t think it is an improvement.
Regards,
Roy
December 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
What gets lost in the media frenzy is that the candidates are competing for delegates to the conventions. That may seem arcane these days but that’s still how the nomination process works. It’s very possible for a candidate to do badly in the first contests but still pick up a majority or big chunk of the delegates.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Two observations: (1) when you are the lead dog, everybody wants to take a bite out of you. (2) Just because your ass is bleeding, doesn’t make you the lead dog.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I watch this process with an extreme amount of frustration. The Media seems to pick a few canidates on either side and gives them tons of free press while mostly ignoring the other guys. This happens to both sides. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have been getting free press for years. I would love to see a debate where the “frontrunners” were not invited. Who would I not invite? On the Dem side: Senators Clinton and Obama and maybe Edwards. On the Republican Side: Guiliani, McCain, Huckabee, Romney and Thompson. Then maybe we could here from Kuichinic(Sp?) , Biden (Isn’t he running?) Richardson (Still in?) Paul, Hunter and Tancredo. Is there a green party this time? Invite them. Does the Constitution party have a national canidate yet? Invite them. Do the libertarians have someone? (Besides R. Paul who is running as a Republican) Invite them. etc.
The media picks. I am sick of it.
Just to show you how out of hand this thing is, do you realize that the moderator of the Republican debate on Univision was not even an American Citizen? His name was Jorge Ramos. He is a white, blue eyed Mexican National. Is this a job we cannot find an American Citizen to do?
I guess with the NAU on the way, we will just get more and more of this.
See this link about the univision debate: http://www.vdare.com/awall/071210_memo.htm
December 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
The Democratic debate on Univision was also moderated by that same Mexican National.
See here:
http://www.vdare.com/awall/070910_memo.htm
December 19th, 2007 at 3:51 am
I’m still a “Fredhead”…