It perhaps goes without saying that primaries be looked at as good or bad in any number of ways. While attempting to make a simple pro and con list, it was sometimes difficult to decide if a certain effect was a strength or weakness of the primary system. The one obvious thing primaries do is select a single party candidate from a pool of contenders. So, is it good or bad to have candidate selection narrowed down early in the campaign? And how soon is too soon? I remember just this past spring after it became clear that McCain would be the Republican candidate, many in the Democratic Party were clamoring for either Obama or Clinton to step aside ASAP so their party's candidate could be in the spotlight too; then, of course, there was all the handwringing over the "superdelegates" (haven't heard that word in awhile, huh?) for months while they battled in the remaining primaries. For the party and voters, the Obama/Clinton matchup also brought up questions of "electability" of each candidate - do you just vote for the candidate you prefer, or do you have to be concerned over their hypothetical performance in the fall general election? Could (should?) the party subvert the will of the voters in the face of such a concern? Of course, in the Republican Party Mick Huckabee also stuck around a little too long for some people - since he was so far behind, why keep campaigning? Maybe to get McCain to pay attention to all the people voting for him, or to a certain issue that was important to him? Or just to push his 15 minutes of fame a little farther? And this was 7-8 months away from the general election.
While the primary season is always filled with much talk of policy and/or party platforms that the candidates are going to push, in order to change (or not change) policy they first must be elected. So primaries also force candidates to tell a whole bunch of lies, make promises they can't keep, say their position on a given issue is the opposite of the way they've voted for the past 20 years...okay maybe that's a bit facetious (I'll let you decide), but it does sometimes force them to alter or conform their positions on certain issues to something more moderate so they can get enough votes to win the election. In a primary against a member of the same party this is particularly important because even within the parties - as referenced in the Hetherington and Keefe text - there exists much heterogeneity. Going back to this year's presidential primary again, there was a time when there were open questions about whether McCain could attract enough votes from the Republican base, or whether he was truly conservative enough to get out the vote from the most conservative wings of the party.
The electoral college makes the election of a president different from congressional elections. With the winner-take-all nature of each state's electoral college votes, generally speaking not all states' votes are seen as competitive. Months before the actual election, journalists and political strategists are already able to determine what the "battleground" states are. Hetherington and Keefe mention the declining number of such states in recent years, albeit with similar win differentials in popluar vote totals (p 46). Obama came out this year pushing a "50 state strategy", and has perhaps put a couple of otherwise typically Republican states into play for himself. However there are simply states that either candidate knows they are not going to win, so candidates, their party, and their voters can expend less energy and spend less money there once the party nomination has been secured. This differs from election of a Representative or Senator because even after those candidates secure the primary, they are going to continue to campaign in a similar manner in competition for the same voters.
Primary contests have a variety of affects that differ depending on the size of the election, and I generally believe most of these effects can be seen or expressed in a positive or negative light. Setting up, in most cases, a two-candidate race can simplify the process for the voters and candidates to express the policies they would support if elected, but that doesn't mean the best candidate will always be chosen in the primary. Competition for votes in a primary can moderate the positions of candidates or party platforms in order to compete for independent voters, which is good because it can eliminate more extreme candidates, but that could also inhibit the ability of the government as a whole to move policy in the direction the voters are intending.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting post. I had heard that Obama was looking towards securing North Carolina and Virginia (typically Republican) if the African American voters come out in numbers like they did when Carter ran. Should be interesting to see what happens with the South. Another strategy is the McCain/Palin hope of securing the womens vote from the Democrats. Democrats have relied heavily on women in recent elections. Women have voted in greater proportion than men for almost three decades. The idea of an independent always throws a wrench into the results. It will also be interesting to see if Nader has the same impact on the 2008 election as he did in 2000. According to Hetherington/Keefe, minor parties do well if they field good candidates, partisanship is weak, and political dissatisfaction is high.
I think your post brought out a good point that primaries can affect a party in different ways. When you look at the battle between Clinton and Obama there seemed to be more separation then unity with in the Democratic party. When you compare the two candidates now versus during the period of the primaries you'll see two different situations. During the primaries Obama and Clinton were going at it back n forth in a battle of "he said she said". When you fast forward time a bit to the DNC you saw Clinton speaking about Obama like they were best friends. So, as much as primaries may seperate candidates within a party they eventually meet at common ground for the good of the party.
I think you are right on when you talk about the candidates doing anything to get your vote. It reminds me of the old saying "the ends justify the means". I also think that it will be very tough for Obama to take some very republican states just simply on the abortion issue alone. It is too bad that people focus on morality when choosing a president in this country when they should be looking for someone who will best help the country. I will say this though, I think Georgia may go Democrat in November.
Post a Comment