Related Links • Campaign 2000 • Live: "Free Media" • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us

Thursday, January 20, 2000

The presidential hopefuls have been all over the TV in debates over the last month, but the Iowa Caucuses officially open the presidential nominating process. That nominating process has been shrinking over the past few election cycles, but this year's schedule of primaries and other nominating contests is particularly truncated. How does that affect how candidates raise and spend money? What does it do to the chances of non-front-runners to get the attention of the media and the electorate?

Political analyst Rhodes Cook has written a new book, "Race for the Presidency: Winning the 2000 Nomination," published by Congressional Quarterly Press. A former senior writer for CQ, he focused on political and voting analysis from 1975 to 1997. Rhodes has also written other books, including "America Votes 23" (1999) and "How Congress Gets Elected" (1999), which he co-wrote. He talked about Campaign 2000 and the presidential nominating process on Thursday, Jan. 20, at noon EST. The transcript follows:

Free Media: Good afternoon, Rhodes, and welcome. A lot has been made of this year's truncated presidential nominating schedule and how the front-loading favors the front-runners. When did states start this race to shorten the schedule, and why is this year's particularly so short? Has everyone just lost the will to sleep for a couple of months?

Rhodes Cook: This whole business of front-loading started in the 1980s and reached a critical mass with the advent of "Super Tuesday" in 1988, when all but one of the Southern states held their primaries on the second Tuesday in March.

Following that, other regions got into the act of voting early, to the point that this year, there will be a de facto national primary of sorts on March 7 - or at least something that could be called a national sampler, with primaries that day in New York and New England in the East, Ohio and Missouri in the Midwest, Georgia in the South, and California in the West.

It underscores the modern philosopy of primary scheduling - that early is best, and if a state schedules its primary (or caucus) later than mid-March, it is likely to be irrelevant.

Everyone should be able to sleep well after that...

Chicago, Ill. : What's been the biggest change to the presidential nominating process over the past few election cycles?

Rhodes Cook: The biggest change by far is the total reversal of the primary calendar in the last quarter century, from one where the big contests came in the spring to the current set up where the big states vote early (nearly all by the middle of March this year).

That change has made it extremely difficult for darkhorse candidates, since now they need the money up front, and it has made it more difficult for many states to have a voice, because they often vote now in big clusters.

Washington, D.C. : What's the real reason money has come to dominate the presidential nominating process? Some people say it's because of TV ads, and some say that assumption is a fallacy. So what's the reason?

Rhodes Cook: That is a good question. I think the cost of media ads is a starting point, but I would suggest two other factors: (1) having gobs and gobs of early money lends legitimacy to a candidacy in its early, pre-primary stage when it is struggling to gain supporters and media attention; and (2) money has been tough to raise since the system of public financing was instituted for the presidential primaries in 1976. If a candidate opts into the system - and most do - they are only allowed to raise money in small chuncks, and that takes a lot of their time.

Arlington, Va. : Arizona is experimenting with online primary voting this year. Do you think it will have any effect on voter turnout? What about mail-in primaries?

Rhodes Cook: The mail-in primary seemed to be a hit in the two states that tried it during the 1996 primaries - Oregon and Nevada. Turnout was much higher than the previous presidential primary in both states.

Online voting can't hurt turnout, but its use in Arizona may not be a great test since it will be employed only by the Democrats in their small party-run primary in March, and not the much bigger, state-run Republican primary in February. Still, it will be very interesting to see what proportion of the ballots cast in the Arizona Democratic contest will be cast via the Internet.

Washington, D.C.: How many Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary winners have gone on to lose the nomination? The general election? What about the California primary?

Rhodes Cook: Ah, the numbers are legion...
Since the Iowa caucuses went big time in 1976, 2 times the GOP winner was not the nominee - George Bush in 1980 and Bob Dole in 1988, and the 1976 and 1996 Iowa winners (Ford and Dole) won the Republican nomination but lost in November.

On the Demoratic side, only Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1996 went wire-to-wire, winning Iowa on the way that year to the White House, though it should be noted that Carter technically ran behind "Uncommitted" in 1976. As for Iowa winners who were not nominees, there was Gephardt in 1988 and Harkin in 1992.

As for New Hampshire, its track record is not quite as checkered. Candidates who have gone wire-to-wire since 1968, winning New Hampshire en route to winning the White House, were Nixon in '68 and '72, Carter in '76, Reagan in '80 and '84, Bush in 8'8 and Clinton in '96. Only Clinton in '92 lost New Hampshire but went on to win in November.

As for California, it has usually voted for the eventual nominees in recent years because it has voted so late in the process. The last time Califoria did not was in 1984, when the Democratic winner was Gary Hart.

Bethesda, Md.: Many futurists have pointed to the coming decade as a time of increased friction between the aging baby-boomers and younger Americans as both groups contend for what they see as their rightful share of the economic and political pie. Do you see young people - particularly young, working families who have been largely neglected by policymakers in recent years - becoming an increasingly important constituency in the years ahead? And is this group likely to have any impact on the 2000 presidential election?

Rhodes Cook: It's a fact that young voters participate in elections at a lower rate than older voters, but they are always worth watching because they will be voting longer than any other segment of the electorate.

Also, it was noted in the 1980s that young voters were moving to Reagan and the Republicans, and in the 1990s were moving back toward the Democrats. So, yes, they will be important in 2000 because they are a swing group in the electorate.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think we'll ever again see a convention that isn't simply a coronation, where everyone doesn't know the outcome and use it as an excuse to get together and throw parties?

Rhodes Cook: I wish, but not without a radical change in the primary calendar which removes the front-loading, and the resulting rush to judgment that takes place. Both parties, though, seem at least ready to consider a dramatic overhaul of the nominating process that would spread out the primaries in a way that would take longer to decide the nominees. And if that happens, maybe conventions would once again become important.

Free Media: It's no secret that a good showing in a caucus or primary helps a candidate with the press and gain support. But will a strong Iowa Caucus finish necessarily lead to "momentum" in New Hampshire? Historically, are the two connected?

Rhodes Cook: Not always - just look back to '96, when Dole won Iowa but lost New Hampshire to Pat Buchanan, albeit narrowly in both cases. Often, Iowa has been a place for the front-runners to survive and the challengers to gain momentum, like Gary Hart from his distant second-place finish in '84. On the other hand, if a front-runner wins Iowa by a landslide, as Carter did over Kennedy in 1980, that could be worth a few points for the front-runner in New Hampshire. So, while there is some connection between the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's not like an umbilical cord, and I think the connection was stronger a decade or so ago that it is now.

Free Media: That was our last question. Thank you Rhodes Cook for joining us today. Tune in tomorrow at 11 a.m. EST, for Holding Court with Joan Biskupic and at 1 p.m. EST, when Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball discusses Campaign 2000.

   |       |