My Theory of Primaries

OK, Mommanator just commented that she wished that all of the primaries would be held on one day, so all of the states have a say in who they want as the main candidates. It is a commendable goal, and I understand the sentiment, but I can see why that may not be the best idea for several reasons.

Let me again preface this by saying that I used be really involved in politics and am speaking purely from my own experience and observations, so my views may be different from someone else who worked on a campaign. I think everyone should work on a campaign once or twice in their lives, to (a) get the experience and (b) be able to tell the BS from the truth in how things are reported. If you know anything about how campaigns are run, half the stuff you read in the newspaper about presidential electoral politics is overblown crap. Things that don’t mean anything or are normal kinds of campaign blips and errors get blown up way out of proportion to their importance. Just my $.02 . . .

Money: If you think that there is a ton of money being spent on campaigns already, just imagine how much would have to be spent by EACH primary candidate to campaign in each state SIMULTANEOUSLY. Some candidates count on good showings in early races to be able to generate enough support to be able to run in other states. That’s why Biden and Dodd dropped out - these early losses, coupled with a projection that they might not do so well in the next few races – they were not going to be able to generate enough support and funding for their campaigns to continue. Television, radio and newspaper ads cost money. Disseminating information (brochures, posters, bumper stickers, etc.) costs money. Travel costs money. Having enough staff to cover the country, costs money, even taking into account large numbers of volunteers – you still need someone to give them marching orders and be able to control what’s going on. Which leads to . . .

Staffing: During the general election, you notice that candidates don’t campaign in all of the states, they only campaign in key, battleground states. Why? Because there is only so much of one candidate to go around and a campaign wants to expend its resources most efficiently. The state parties can help, but a lot of times having the candidate there can make or break a state’s turnout. For example, in past years many Democratic candidates did not bother too much with Virginia because we were pretty much a pretty reliable red state, so it would have been silly to waste too many national election resources here. However, with the recent change in demographics here (growth in urban/suburban areas) making us a bit more purple, I think that the Democratic nominee would spend a lot more time here meeting and greeting and cultivating supporters. Now, think what would happen if all of the primary candidates had to cover all of the states at the same time. There will still be Wyoming situations where places get ignored for whatever reason . . .

Also, to effectively cover states, there has to be experienced, capable campaign staff stationed on the ground there. In a 50 state scenario, that staff would be spread pretty thin, whereas in the rolling primary scenario staff moves from state to state as a primary election is completed. You may not think it is a big deal, but you also have to think in terms of control – campaigns try to have as much control over information going in and out about a candidate as they can. You also notice that in general elections there lots of special interest groups sponsoring ads, hosting events, putting out negative information and otherwise running amok without the coordination or consent of the candidates or their campaigns. Just think if this was happening for 8 or 9 or 10 candidates, instead of just two! Oy!

Learning the ropes: Early primaries also serve as sort of “training wheels” for candidates. These allow the candidates to get their organizations up and running, get the volunteers and staff trained, and get the big mistakes out of the way early. It allows everyone to learn how to run an efficient and a responsive campaign, to learn how to interact with the public, and to learn which messages work and don’t work. Throwing all the candidates into a 50 state situation right off the bat would just be ugly and confusing.

OK, now that I’ve pooh-poohed the “one day – all states” primary idea, what would I be happy with?

I think that we should still have a few “warm up primaries,” with a mix of a few large and small states, and then maybe 4 regional “Super Tuesday” primaries, each held one week after another. This would allow campaigns time to ramp up and get their feet on the ground, allow candidates to cover a certain region prior to a primary, and allow most people to have their say. It may still suck to be one of the last primaries, but part of the race does have to do with viability, and if you can’t get people to vote for you when you’ve been practically living with them for months, staying in the race for an extended period of time is only going to hurt – both personally and financially.

That’s enough of my political ranting for today! See, that’s why I try not to discuss this stuff too much on this blog, since I get so overly passionate about it . . .

Please feel free to share your own ideas in the comments!