LOL: ""South Carolina will name a date ...It could be as early as Halloween, and our own version of trick-or-treat, if we have to."
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: Florida's primary decision sets dominoes teetering
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Columnist | May 8, 2007
boston.com
WASHINGTON -- Last week's decision by the Florida Legislature to defy both national parties and schedule its primary for Jan. 29 has left the presidential selection process in chaos.
The Republican chairman in South Carolina, which had been given the Jan. 29 date for itself alone, declared that the Palmetto State would almost certainly respond by jumping its primary ahead. "South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South," the GOP chairman, Katon Dawson , told The New York Times. "It could be as early as Halloween, and our own version of trick-or-treat, if we have to."
South Carolina's response to Florida would almost certainly have the domino effect of persuading New Hampshire to move forward its traditional first-in-the-nation primary, which the Democratic National Committee has scheduled for Jan. 22. The problem is, any move would require leapfrogging over both the Iowa caucuses and the new Nevada caucuses, which the DNC has penciled in for Jan. 14 and 19, respectively. Once those states respond in kind, the start of the nomination process could get pushed back into 2007.
The national parties have some leverage: They can refuse to seat delegates selected in unsanctioned primaries. But Florida, with its large number of delegates and special clout as the nation's millennial battleground, is willing to call the parties' bluff. If the parties can't push Florida into line, there would be no constraints on the process at all.
It's hard to assess the impact of such a situation because if Florida isn't stopped, additional states could try to horn in on the early action. But despite the doomsday talk coming out of some of the early voting states, it's still too early to predict a disaster.
Much of the grumbling has focused on the possibility of votes being cast in 2007, but an early start isn't a problem in itself. There are at least as many pros to an early start as cons.
Choosing nominees earlier gives the public a much longer time to get to know its potential presidents. If the Democratic nominee turns out to be a relative newcomer such as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the longer campaign could provide precious time to close the stature gap with a better-known GOP nominee such as Senator John McCain of Arizona. The benefit would be reversed if the GOP opted for relative newcomer Mitt Romney and the Democrats went for Hillary Clinton.
And even political veterans such as Clinton and McCain could use the extra time to persuade moderate voters to look beyond their well-worn positions on the Iraq war and consider them for other reasons.
In parliamentary governments, voters usually know the party leaders and prospective Cabinet members so early that there are few surprises when a new team takes office. The American system has been quite different. For most of American history, nominees were chosen at party conventions late in the summer, and then stayed home all fall. Voters usually went to the polls to support their local party rather than its national nominee.
The modern system emerged in the 1960s and '70s, as primaries supplanted smoke-filled rooms for choosing nominees. But the primary calendar was strung out enough that candidates often couldn't sew up the nomination until Californians went to the polls in June. That hasn't been the case in recent elections: Nominees have attained insurmountable leads by "Super Tuesday," within a few weeks of the New Hampshire primary.
Now, California and most other large states have moved their primaries to Feb. 5, the earliest date the two parties have allowed states to choose -- until Florida upset the apple cart.
The prospect of a "national primary" on Feb. 5 had raised fears that candidates would bypass the early states, which emphasize door-to-door contact with voters, house parties, and issues forums more than TV ads and sound bites. But so far, the threat hasn't emerged: The majority of the on-the-ground campaigning has been in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
That's why Florida's move is potentially damaging. With its now-routine ballot controversies, single-issue voting blocs, and big-money media markets saturated with campaign ads, Florida is the antithesis of old-fashioned retail politics: It's a political Wal-Mart.
Governor Charlie Crist of Florida has declared the early primary date would give his state its "rightful place near the front of the line."
But as the last two elections have shown, Florida doesn't need to move its primary to play a big role in presidential politics.
And the early voting states don't need Florida to help winnow the field.
Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company |
