by Matt Barr

Dem nominee quality control unlikely to improve

Democrats are shaking up the primary schedule for 2008. As with most superficially good ideas Democrats have -- combating poverty, nominating ostensibly moderate southerners for President, Vietnam -- the execution is a little deflating.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee leaves Iowa as the nation's first presidential caucus and New Hampshire as the first primary, but wedges Nevada's caucuses before New Hampshire and South Carolina's primary soon afterward.

The move also packs all four state contests into a politically saturated two weeks in January. The change means a potentially huge cast of Democratic presidential candidates could winnow quickly by the beginning of February.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are darn fine, if completely politically irrelevant, states. Why turn inspiration into such a letdown? Kind of dumb of me to ask, right?

Democrats shook up tradition on Saturday by vaulting Nevada and South Carolina into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests along with Iowa and New Hampshire - a move intended to add racial and geographic diversity to the early voting.

Far be it from me to question the wisdom of making your Democratic presidential aspirants test their mettle with minority voters, possibly to see if they're likely to get 87 or 92 percent of the African American vote in November. I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your primary schedule frightens and confuses me!

If though you would like your primaries to determine who the candidate is who is most likely to win the general election, wouldn't you identify as best you could the most pivotal 2008 states? I don't know what they are, but I know that they're not Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina.

If I'm running a party, I want my nominee to test best with voters in larger, battleground states. Which states are those? I suppose it's hard to guess as far in advance as you need to put together a primary schedule, but you could start by making a list of the larger battleground states in the 2004 presidential election.

Colorado - 9 EV
Florida - 27
Michigan - 17
Minnesota - 9
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Wisconsin - 10

These are the largest states in which there was a margin of five points or less in the popular vote between Bush and Kerry in 2004. I don't think you need both Michigan and Ohio, nor both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Eliminate Minnesota and Michigan, the smaller of each pair. (Ohio and Pennsylvania, while contiguous, don't have an awful lot in common except Steelers fans.)

I don't buy that you want smaller states up front so candidates don't have to cover as much ground and spend as much money. I consider the ability of a candidate to spend money and reach a lot of people an opportunity, not a problem.

If a candidate emerged with a healthy lead in delegates after caucus or primary votes in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Colorado, I'd be pretty confident in his ability to show well in a general election. Wouldn't you?

Instead, Democrats shake up their primary schedule to get better "racial" representation at the early polls. To get better "geographic" diversity, they go to two dinky states in solidly red geographical areas. I won't pretend Republicans are any better at this sort of thing, but this is the kind of initiative you've come to expect from Democrats: the kernel of a good idea, run through a bunch of committees and interests until the only charitable thing you can say about it is at least they know what they've been doing isn't working.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
presidential+primaries elections