Primary Revolution

Coral Living, February 1st, 2008

For observers of the great game of presidential politics, the internecine fight between the national Democratic Party and its rebellious franchises in states holding early primaries seemed like a strange way to spend 2007. As usual, Florida was in the middle of the fray.
But don’t be fooled by the quiet after the storm. If it looks like party leaders have put away their gloves, it may be to better grasp bigger weapons. Still to be settled is how Florida will be treated in future primaries and how the skirmish will impact partisan appeal among the state’s voters.
As you may know, the Republican-controlled legislature in early 2007 voted (on a bipartisan bill) to move Florida’s primary date from March to Jan. 29, ignoring warning growls from both parties. Michigan did the same, while many other states moved their dates to Super Tuesday (Feb. 5). This set off a cascading effect, with Iowa then moving to Jan. 3 (the earliest primary ever) and New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Wyoming and Maine all setting pre-Feb. 5 primary dates for one or both of the two major parties.
In an effort to keep Iowa and New Hampshire happy, the Democratic National Committee revoked the rights of Florida to send any delegates to the upcoming national convention in August or count their votes. The Republican National Committee also penalized Florida (and some others) by removing half its delegates.
So now, where does this leave Florida voters? Where does it leave the eventual Democratic nominee? And what does it mean for the primary system itself?
When it comes to exposure, Republicans now would seem to have a slight early advantage over Democrats. As of mid-December, Republican campaign events in Florida for the year were triple that of Democrats. The main areas of concentration were the I-4 Tampa-Orlando corridor and South Florida.
Yet Democrats have enjoyed a slight fundraising advantage in the state despite the lack of presence by the candidates. That’s thanks in part to the intervention of candidate spouses. “Today I’m going to a Michelle Obama event at the Biltmore,” said Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party, when we spoke one day in December. “Tomorrow, there’s a Bill Clinton event. They’re all here, in one way or another.”
But Floridians won’t be satisfied with being courted by the candidates’ substitutes forever. Furthermore, the impasse reveals a bigger problem with the primary system. Traditionally Iowa and New Hampshire have played leading roles in selecting party nominees, as their early primaries have affected the momentum of many a campaign. But many states, Florida included, have become frustrated with a system that favors small states with fairly homogenous populations over larger, multi-ethnic states.
“To let a state the size of Iowa, where less than 120,000 show up to vote, that has little diversity, I think is a mistake, particularly for Democrats,” says Garcia. “This is not a smart way to elect our leader.”
Republican Party of Florida press secretary Erin VanSickle agrees. “If you look back, Florida has been the linchpin for the general election, but for the primary, the contest was for the most part already decided by March” when Florida used to have its primary, she says. “If you look now, the Republican candidates are coming to Florida day in and day out. Florida is the most influential state in the nation. Whichever candidate wins Florida will be seen as the presumptive nominee.”
The reason for protecting the primary system is simple, explains Justin Sayfie, an attorney and former aide to Gov. Jeb Bush. The idea is that in the small states, candidates can appeal to voters on a more personal basis. In big states – Florida, California, New York – the campaigns are all about money, which heavily favors the leading candidates. “At least these are competitive races,” Sayfie notes. “The voters can evaluate based on more than commercials and who has the best name identification.”
Sayfie points to Mike Huckabee, whose profile rose due to his popularity in places like Iowa. If he had to hit the season first in the big states, he might never have gained the momentum he did. “The sequence of states can yield a different result,” Sayfie argues.
Susan McManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida, says there’s another reason the parties and candidates like the current primary system and would be reluctant to change to something as radical as a national primary date. “They think it’s too expensive,” she says. “The cost is prohibitive because they would have to burn as much in the primary [to blanket every state with ads and events] as they would for the general election.”
Thus the parties found themselves in the position of trying to hold the line against states like Florida. The situation escalated when the leading Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in the preempting primary states, while Republican candidates happily continued jetting to campaign stops around the state, taking advantage of the confusion.
The imbalance could result in a long-term loss for the Democrats. Florida is, as ever, a battleground state, represented by the color purple on electoral maps. The 2000 election, in which George W. Bush won the White House based on less than 600 Florida votes, is the most famous example. There was a big tilt to the right beginning in the ’90s, but Florida’s independent-minded voters have a way of drifting between the political poles. This year, perhaps more than ever, Sunshine State drift will matter.
Voter trends increasingly point to a widening middle. For instance, the breakdown of Florida’s 10 million voters is roughly 40 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican and 22 percent Other. The “other” group is growing quickly, up from about 8 percent in 1994 (when 49 percent were for Democrats and 42 percent for Republicans). At the same time, participation in presidential primaries in Florida has steadily dropped off, from a high of 58 percent of registered voters in 1972 to 20 percent in 2004.
But after a decade in the shadows, 2008 seemed a good year for a narrow Democratic win. A new Democratic majority in Congress and dissatisfaction with President Bush, the Iraq war, and the sagging economy had all been hurting Republicans in 2007.
Why, then, would Democrats allow what was essentially an arcane insider’s fight about party rules to jeopardize its candidates’ chances in the general election? The decision to ditch Florida’s 210 delegates (plus Michigan’s delegation) seemed foolhardy, particularly when done simply to appease two small states with a combined total of 87 delegates. Further complicating matters was a lawsuit against the DNC by Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, claiming Florida Democrats were being illegally penalized. (The courts backed the DNC, saying political parties have every right under the First Amendment to set and enforce their own rules regarding the selection of their candidates for president and vice president. Thus, the state can hold a primary whenever it wants, but the parties don’t have to recognize the results.)
Derek Newton, a political consultant who has worked on numerous state campaigns (mostly for Democrats) believes the battle came down to a pissing match that could have been avoided. “I think the state Democrats are totally nuts [for suing],” he said. “What should have been done is to say, ‘OK, so we lose our delegates.’ Everybody knows it’s not about delegates. It’s about money and momentum.”
VanSickle agrees that the Democrats handicapped themselves with their draconian response to Florida’s early primary. “No doubt there will be long-term effects,” she says. “Their slogan that we’re the party of the people rings hollow.”
VanSickle also said that the prevailing wisdom is that by convention time, all sins will be forgotten and both parties will probably reinstate Florida’s delegates. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the party’s nominee would probably allow delegates from Florida and Michigan to be seated at next summer’s convention anyway. That is something that would probably occur at the request of the eventual nominee.
At the DNC, a spokesman, who would talk only on background, tried to couch the whole matter as a mere “spat between politicians.” He said the DNC didn’t want to keep commenting on the fight because it was over now.
Others believe the fight will go on, not so much with regard to the 2008 elections but with the bigger issue of the primary election process. While Garcia believes Florida will be key in 2008 the way it was in 2000, regardless of the primary fight, he also believes the next president will have to fix the primary calendar.
That is if the next president wants to take on his or her party to attempt a fix. “Winners are always reticent to tinker with the system” that got them elected, says McManus, who believes that the only fix is the most radical one – a national primary date. “We’ve already tried to fix this in small ways,” she says. “No state wants to be left out of the nominating process. No state is willing to be told to stand by.”
The horse is now definitely out of the barn, says Sayfie: “Since 2000 the election has emphasized red states and blue states. So the presidential campaign basically takes place in only 15-20 battleground states.” He thinks if the nominees allow the delegates in, other states will follow Florida’s lead in four years.
Republican state Rep. David Rivera doesn’t know if the parties can uproot the strong position of the small states in their political structure and make meaningful reform. But if they can’t, Florida is likely to continue with the early primary. “If the national parties don’t address this,” he says, “certainly I would vote for an early primary again in four years.”