WASHINGTON—The Democrats, bless ‘em, have done it to the country again. Just when you think we have reached the limit on early-starting, endless presidential campaigns, they have tinkered with their rules again to assure that the next round in 2004 will be even longer.
With virtually no public debate, the nominating calendar was changed to guarantee that even more states will hold delegate primaries even earlier in the winter of ‘04 than in ‘00. Every party official and campaign strategist I talked to agrees that the race to choose the next Democratic nominee will begin in earnest less than a year from now, as soon as the midterm election is out of the way.
The change was engineered by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose goal, he told me, is to get the intraparty fighting over early and settle on an opponent for President Bush fast enough to mobilize money and manpower for "what we have to assume will be a tough fight against an incumbent with unlimited finances."
Under the new calendar, already unanimously approved by the DNC rules and bylaws committee and due to be ratified by the full DNC in January, the Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 19, 2004, and the New Hampshire primary for Jan. 27.
By moving each of them almost a week closer to Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s than they were last year, the Democrats will force most of the campaigning in those states into the summer of 2003 and the pre-holiday autumn season.
Moreover, instead of mandating a five-week pause between New Hampshire and the next contests, as the old rules did, the new ones invite any and all states to move up their primaries to as early as Feb. 3, 2004 — a deliberate front-loading of the calendar.
"My speculation," Massachusetts National Committeeman James Roosevelt, the co-chairman of the rules committee, told me, "is that more and more states will move to the earliest date the parties allow. We are moving toward a de facto national primary."
McAuliffe said he is certain that South Carolina, Michigan and Arizona Democrats will move up into February, matching the early dates already in use by Republicans in those states. You can bet that other states will also join the rush, either to increase their influence or to bolster the chances of favorite candidates from their state or region.
Every campaign veteran I interviewed said the new calendar will require White House aspirants to hit the hustings, start their fund raising and assemble their staffs early in 2003. That may pose no problems for people out of office, such as Al Gore, or senators in midterm, such as Joe Lieberman, John Kerry or Joe Biden. But what about California Gov. Gray Davis? Can he go right from a re-election campaign into a presidential race requiring his presence on the other side of the continent? And what about Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle? Would they have to abandon their leadership roles in the House and Senate to pursue the nomination from the beginning of 2003?
All I know is that McAuliffe says he vetted the new calendar with 10 potential candidates and none had any objections.
Most of those I interviewed said the new calendar would not diminish — and might even increase — the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, given their ability to create momentum for their winners. Gore won both in 2000, but Kerry is well-known in New Hampshire thanks to Boston television. Gephardt took Iowa in 1988 and Daschle too is from a neighboring state, South Dakota.
Everyone agrees the financial demands on candidates will be even higher than in the past, given the breakneck pace at which the contests will unfold. Many say the name-brand, established candidates — Gore, Lieberman, Daschle, Gephardt — will have an advantage over "outsiders" such as North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. But the Iowa and New Hampshire electorates are small enough that a skillful face-to-face campaigner can woo enough people to make himself a contender. New Hampshire especially has a habit of dealing upsets to favorites. And a front-runner who stumbles will have less time to recover, under the new rules.
All that is certain is that the respite from presidential politics will be even shorter than usual this time and the campaign season even longer. It’s not even a sure thing that McAuliffe will achieve his principal goal of settling the nomination by early March. More and more Democratic presidential primaries are operating under proportional rules, which allocate delegates on the basis of the percentages won, rather than winner-take-all.
It is possible that a campaign that begins next January could go right into the convention hall 20 months later. Now there is a stomach-turning thought.
David Broder can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
