Despite calls every four years to shake up who gets to go first in presidential primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire won’t be losing their coveted spots any time soon.
It’s a presidential tradition like those Iowa corn boils and tracking the endorsements of obscure New Hampshire political activists. Every four years people start asking yet again why Iowa and New Hampshire get to always go first in the nation with their respective caucus and primary. This year it was brought up by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus who told the National Journal that Iowa and New Hampshire better not get too comfortable with their first in the nation status:
It’s a hot topic. These early states are very used to fighting this out every four years. It’s just something I think we ought to look at as a party…If you look at my history, I’ve been very supportive of the early states as general counsel and as chairman. But I don’t think anyone should get too comfortable.
But don’t hold your breath if you are waiting for actual change in the nominations schedule. As Aaron Blake pointed out in the Washington Post the reasons are pretty simple:
The problem with removing Iowa and New Hampshire from the front end of the primary process is that they are already there. Because they are so politically important right now—not to mention being swing states in the general election—nobody wants to run afoul of them. And nobody wants to try and then fail to unseat them. You come at the king, you best not miss, etc., etc.
So while Priebus is dipping his toe in the water of mixing up the nominating calendar, other big-name Republicans aren’t on-board—as in, basically any candidate who would very much like to win the votes of said Iowans and New Hampshireites in February and/or November.
In other words the benefits for Iowa and New Hampshire, in terms candidate attention to local issues and money spent in contested caucuses and primaries, are concentrated and very real, while the hypothetical benefits for other states in a different system are diffused and only potential. Thus it shouldn’t be a surprise that Iowa and New Hampshire won’t let the calendar be to changed to their detriment. And Blake is of course right that no sane person running for president is about to make all those local Iowa and New Hampshire big wigs mad by calling for a new primary system anytime soon.
But that’s only half of it, the other half of the story is very much a political party story. Party actors have a lot at stake when it comes to picking a presidential nominee after all. They want to settle on a consensus nominee that is both electable and likely to follow up on the party’s wishes if they make it to the White House. Thus a drawn out process that operates through winnowing is the best bet to make sure that unelectable and rouge candidates can be winnowed out of the process. Since the current Iowa and New Hampshire first system has done a great job at winnowing the field down to a mainstream nominee since 1980, party actors by and large really see no need to change it and risk chaos.
Would a different presidential primary system be better? Well possibly, but after all someone has to go first and it’s just not clear that having candidates beholden to Silicon Valley barons or activists Omaha would be any more “fair” than the current system. Meanwhile it’s not in candidates or party actors’ interests to overhaul the system, so Iowa and New Hampshire stay first in line.
Like The Good Men Project On Facebook
Photo by Jared and Corin/Flickr