PrintThe emerging CW seems to be that the despite all the handwringing in 2007 about our broken primary process, things have in fact turned out okay. Just look at the negligible importance of the early states, says Jeff Greenfield:
Remember all the lamentations, the rending of garments, the gnashing of teeth over the outsize power of two small, unrepresentative states over the presidential nomination process? Well, never mind. It turns out that the apparent pattern of 2000 and 2004, when Al Gore and John Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire and sailed to the Democratic nominations, was not a pattern but a two-off.
With different winners in Iowa and New Hampshire for both Republicans and Democrats, and not a hint of "momentum" to be had (the word may soon find itself on the ash heap of political nomenclature, along with "smoke-filled rooms," "party bosses," and "favorite sons"), all the remaining contenders now have to campaign in the Feb. 5 states.
And here is Mickey Kaus:
Let the record show that the Death of Momentum was entirely foretold at least eight long years ago by the application of the Feiler Faster Thesis (voters comfortably process information quickly) coupled with what turned out to be the Skurnik Two-Electorate Theory (voters who don't follow politics don't tune in until the very end). As outlined in 2000, late-focusing voters tune in to what the press is saying in, say, the two days before their state's election, which is usually something different from what the press says in the two days after the previous state's election. Four days = no mo' mo. Add in possible affirmative voter rebellion against what the press says--Huck's Hot! Barack Rock Star!--and it's overdetermined. ...
Yes, but it did not have to be this way. For instance, if Clinton had won Iowa, does anyone doubt that she would have coasted to the nomination and we would all be cursing the importance of a ridiculous midwestern caucus? And what if Romney instead of Huckabee had won the state on the GOP side? Moreover, Kaus appears to be arguing that Obama didn't get much momentum from his win. I would argue the opposite, as seen by his meteoric rise in national and New Hampshire polls in the four days after Iowa. Now, it's true that Hillary won NH, but only because of a bizarre set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated (it's also worth mentioning one of the reasons a "backlash" occured was that Obama was seen as having too much momentum). And the irony beneath the surface of Kaus' argument is that Hillary's New Hampshire victory has given her tremendous momentum! Finally, the most salient example here would be Rudy Giuliani's campaign, which is about to get humiliated by a third or fourth place finish in Florida, and which is dead because it got no momentum from the first few primaries.
It's true that this has been a strange year, but if the current primary format remains in place, it's safe to say that Iowa's and New Hampshire's importance will almost always loom very large.
--Isaac Chotiner
COMMENTS (6)
momentum is born out of shock to the system.
As happy as the media was that Obama won Iowa, it didn't surprise many people. It wasn't that shocking. And to the extent that it shocked people, it pushed Obama's national numbers up about 5 points.
Nevada would have been an easy win for Obama had NH not shocked people back towards Hillary.
Nevada was so close that the result could not produce shock.
Shock is directly correlated with momentum. In 2004, Kerry's win was a shock, and Dean's implosion was a shock. Hillary did not implode after Iowa. She made a competent gracious speech and moved on.
momentum is born out of shock to the system.
As happy as the media was that Obama won Iowa, it didn't surprise many people. It wasn't that shocking. And to the extent that it shocked people, it pushed Obama's national numbers up about 5 points.
Nevada would have been an easy win for Obama had NH not shocked people back towards Hillary.
Nevada was so close that the result could not produce shock.
Shock is directly correlated with momentum. In 2004, Kerry's win was a shock, and Dean's implosion was a shock. Hillary did not implode after Iowa. She made a competent gracious speech and moved on.
Um, have we forgotten Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson already? It seems the early states knocked them out pretty quickly, even though they, especially Biden, were credited with running pretty strong campaigns?
Um, have we forgotten Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson already? It seems the early states knocked them out pretty quickly, even though they, especially Biden, were credited with running pretty strong campaigns?
Ah, Republican blogger Mickey Kaus's Feiler Faster Thesis: The theory that explains all political outcomes, but predicts none.
Which is to say, the Feiler Faster Thesis is to political commentary as intelligent design is to biological science. It's a bit disappointing to see it referenced here, even in quoted matter. If Kaus makes an argument, such that it is not possible to quote the argument without also including reference to the Feiler Faster Thesis, then the argument is crap. Substitute the phrase "fairy dust" for "Feiler Faster Thesis" in anything Kaus writes, and you do not affect the meaning or analytical usefulness his prose.
Ah, Republican blogger Mickey Kaus's Feiler Faster Thesis: The theory that explains all political outcomes, but predicts none.
Which is to say, the Feiler Faster Thesis is to political commentary as intelligent design is to biological science. It's a bit disappointing to see it referenced here, even in quoted matter. If Kaus makes an argument, such that it is not possible to quote the argument without also including reference to the Feiler Faster Thesis, then the argument is crap. Substitute the phrase "fairy dust" for "Feiler Faster Thesis" in anything Kaus writes, and you do not affect the meaning or analytical usefulness his prose.
Yes, this is a weak argument. If Hillary had gone on to lose New Hampshire (which she was supposed to do), wouldn't we be writing her obit? A loss in NH means a loss in Nevada (she did lose Nevada in an "electoral college" sense, but never mind) and certainly a loss in SC -- she would have lost all four of the first contests. But she won NH and is a co-front-runner. The reason the race isn't decided is because we have two very strong, very tough, very well-financed candidates on the Democratic side, and a sea of bad alternatives on the Republican side, and even then, the power of the early states to decide the whole thing was strong, and probably would have ... view full comment
Yes, this is a weak argument. If Hillary had gone on to lose New Hampshire (which she was supposed to do), wouldn't we be writing her obit? A loss in NH means a loss in Nevada (she did lose Nevada in an "electoral college" sense, but never mind) and certainly a loss in SC -- she would have lost all four of the first contests. But she won NH and is a co-front-runner. The reason the race isn't decided is because we have two very strong, very tough, very well-financed candidates on the Democratic side, and a sea of bad alternatives on the Republican side, and even then, the power of the early states to decide the whole thing was strong, and probably would have happened but for the very strange NH outcome. (Of course, don't forget Edwards, whose early and big losses mean that he's no longer in contention for the nomination.)
I think the circumstances of the 2004 election were different on the D side, because the party knew who the opponent would be and was thus focused mostly on second-guessing the kind of campaign the incumbent president would try to run against us, and picking a nominee who (we thought) wouldn't be vulnerable to it.
Since 2008 is an election without an incumbent, there are fewer certainties and thus more possibilities. A long campaign that gives us the chance to tease those out is precisely what we need, considering the challenges that will face the next president.
I think the circumstances of the 2004 election were different on the D side, because the party knew who the opponent would be and was thus focused mostly on second-guessing the kind of campaign the incumbent president would try to run against us, and picking a nominee who (we thought) wouldn't be vulnerable to it.
Since 2008 is an election without an incumbent, there are fewer certainties and thus more possibilities. A long campaign that gives us the chance to tease those out is precisely what we need, considering the challenges that will face the next president.
You could argue that Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, though they were finished in Iowa, actually got more of a look in Iowa because of the coattail effect caused by someone other than the pre-annoited winner, predicted to win. In other words, pundits such as EJ Dionne were suggesting that Biden was getting a second look because of his clarity on Pakistan for example. Because the prospect of an Obama win, the outsider, the effect was to make the race appear wide-open when maybe it wasn't so wide open.
On the other hand, if Hillary remained essentially unchallenged in Iowa, no one would have ever thought twice about Biden, Dodd, or Richardson.
You could argue that Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, though they were finished in Iowa, actually got more of a look in Iowa because of the coattail effect caused by someone other than the pre-annoited winner, predicted to win. In other words, pundits such as EJ Dionne were suggesting that Biden was getting a second look because of his clarity on Pakistan for example. Because the prospect of an Obama win, the outsider, the effect was to make the race appear wide-open when maybe it wasn't so wide open.
On the other hand, if Hillary remained essentially unchallenged in Iowa, no one would have ever thought twice about Biden, Dodd, or Richardson.