The decision by Sen. Joseph Lieberman and retired Gen. Wesley Clark to abandon Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses could be an early sign of a reordering of the presidential nominating process, raising again a question asked for more than a quarter-century: Why should Iowa be first?
With its nearly all-white population and an economic tether to agriculture, Iowa often is criticized as wholly unrepresentative of the nation. And its tedious caucus process yields a low turnout that gives a shockingly small number of voters a disproportionate influence.
At least that’s how caucus critics and many of the candidates who have lost in Iowa describe it.
To be sure, the pullout by Lieberman and Clark could be an equally clear indication of trouble for their campaigns, especially Lieberman’s, a sign they don’t believe they can compete in what has been the first important portal for candidates since that winter night of Jimmy Carter’s come-from-nowhere victory in 1976.
This year, there is new pressure on relevance and the survival of the caucuses because so many states are jockeying for greater influence in deciding who will challenge President Bush in next year’s election. Three months before Democrats begin selecting a nominee, the party’s presidential hopefuls are being tugged in a dizzying number of directions–far beyond Iowa and even New Hampshire.
Democrats in Florida, for example, are poised to buck their national leaders by holding a straw poll in December, with candidates suddenly rushing to the Sunshine State, even though voters won’t officially cast primary ballots there until March 9. The Democratic National Committee opposes the mock election, fearing it will force candidates to spend money needlessly and disrupt the campaign.
The Arizona and Oklahoma primaries on Feb. 3, typically little noticed, are among those that have been moved up on the calendar and are being billed as marquee events, with candidates spending more and more time in both states. Last weekend, one presidential hopeful, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, became the first candidate of this season to campaign in Hawaii, the site of a Feb. 24 caucus.
The Democratic presidential campaign trail, crowded with nine candidates, already has taken politicians to North Dakota and New Mexico, Michigan and Maine. Each of those states has scheduled elections in the opening days of February, contributing to an unprecedented crush of balloting that gives candidates an array of options to place their flags and claim at least a symbolic victory.
So, in light of the primary calendar, must the road to the White House still pass through the Hawkeye State?
“If Clark or Lieberman go on to win without doing Iowa, it’s going to make everyone stop and think all over again,” said Paulee Lipsman, a Democratic activist from Des Moines who supported Lieberman.
The conceit of the caucuses has been that Iowa affords little-known candidates the opportunity to build their campaigns through handshakes and face-to-face meetings in the living rooms and diners across the state. Last week alone, six contenders swept through the state, some holding court with audiences as small as a dozen voters.
Over the years, several candidates have tried unsuccessfully to win the nomination by sidestepping the Iowa caucuses. Democrat Al Gore tried it in 1988, but lost badly. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had much better luck in 2000, crushing George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, but losing the nomination nonetheless.
Next year, though, candidates have more choices than ever to decide where to devote their resources as more than a dozen states compete for a share of the Iowa-New Hampshire influence, long jealously guarded by both states.
“Somebody’s got to start the process,” Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, said in an interview Monday. “We get a chance to get to know these people as individuals. For candidates who are given little or no chance by the mainstream media, this is a place for dreams to come true.”
For 2004, the Democratic National Committee scheduled the most compressed primary calendar in the party’s history, hoping to crown Bush’s challenger as quickly as possible to avoid a prolonged nomination battle. The new calendar also is in response to an ever-growing chorus of critics, led by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who said no state permanently has “a God-given right to pick a president.”
Political observers insist there’s no question that the first serious test of the 2004 campaign will unfold with the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses, but seldom have so many states been breathing so closely down Iowa’s neck.
Already this year, the Democratic candidates have spent a combined 227 days campaigning in Iowa. The repeated visits are designed to convince the party faithful that a candidate is ready to be a serious contender.
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, has logged nearly 50 days in Iowa this year, while Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri has campaigned there more than 35 days. They, polls show, are locked in a tight race for first and second in the state.
Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, who are lagging behind the top two candidates in Iowa, said they have no plans to change their Iowa strategies. Both campaigns, though, have struggled raising money and also are counting on strong respective showings in New Hampshire, which holds a primary Jan. 27, and South Carolina, which holdsa Feb. 3 primary.
“When candidates pick and choose what states they are going to compete in, it doesn’t normally bode very well for them,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for Edwards. “There are more options on the table next year, but there is still a general sense that the big three are Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”
In the wake of Lieberman and Clark’s decision to focus resources in other states, Democratic officials in Iowa worked feverishly Monday to defend the caucuses and encourage other campaigns to keep their operations alive in the state. A new poll showed that the majority of voters are undecided or could switch their allegiances in the next 90 days.
“It’s very wide open. Why not compete here, when two-thirds of caucusgoers said they’d be willing to change their mind?” said Gordon Fischer, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. “I just don’t think the skip-Iowa-strategy is a wise strategy.”
