Among the conventional wisdoms two years ago was the conventional wisdom that, in order to win, the Democratic primaries must end as early as possible. This would give the frontrunner plenty of time to raise money, get ready for the big push for November, etc etc.
As part of this conventional wisdom and as a result of this conventional wisdom, states started leapfrogging over one another to get first in the primary line or closer to the front of the line, even, as in the cases of Michigan and Florida, at the risk of losing delegates.
While this argument for an early end to the primaries was going on, I argued that this was a crazy strategy. Here is why I was telling you so. And now that we have seen a long primary season come to a successful end - heck, an astoundingly successful end - it's worth considering again why the strategy argued for by the conventional wisdom was wrong.
First, and most basic, was my observation that once you had selected the candidate, this would make the job of the Republicans all that easier. Up until the time that there was a single candidate the Republicans would be unable to dedicate their attack teams to preparing swiftboat attacks, whispering campaigns, and the like. Even with a lot of resources it is very hard to prepare to defeat more than one candidate. The campaign you would run against a Clinton would be very different from that you would use against an Obama.
Once you have the presumptive nominee, that person has a target painted on his back.
But more important, once you have the presumptive nominee, the reporters turn their attention to other things. In Kerry's case, months went by while he was the presumptive nominee, and he only made the news when he went sailboarding.
Compare that situation to the lengthy campaign which saw continual focus on Obama almost to the eve of the Democratic Convention.
Second, while commentators argued that the campaign between Clinton and Obama left them bloodied and damaged, that turned out not to be much of a factor. It is true that there were occasional attacks that depended on something Clinton had said during the primary campaign and later even occasionally something Biden had said. But these attacks were fleeting and had almost no traction.
What the commentators missed was that by spending time in more states during the primary season, Obama became familiar to the voters. That primary campaign both laid the groundwork with voters and built up the campaign infrastructure within each state. Thus, Obama had the basic infrastructure he would need during the election campaign, which is a relatively short time in reality, even if seemed forever.
Third, by going with the conventional wisdom, states that crowded up for Super Tuesday and even earlier got totally lost in the shuffle. It was the latest states that got the most attention.
So let me suggest that it makes most sense in the future to spread the campaigns out. Do what can be done to make certain that there is no early victor. Let the candidates make their cases in state after state.
To do this, the states need to rethink where they want to be in this process so they can get the attention they want and also become a part of a victorious infrastructure.
Given this goal, I think it makes sense to rotate the order in which states hold their primaries. I suppose we could continue the Iowa / New Hampshire first thing as a matter of - sniff - tradition. But for the rest, let's mix it up.
Comments
Add Comment