The Iowa caucuses and NH presidential primary.
Childhood memories are always a bit fuzzy, and kids tend not to interpret news all that well. So, maybe my recollection of a time when the first-in-the-nation, NH presidential primary was considered a joke, or at best irrelevant, is incorrect. It seemed to be accepted as a ritual of no importance that happened every four years. Suddenly in 1968, that primary was accorded a measure of respect because the results in the Democratic Party were deemed shocking. A sitting Democratic President won by only seven points!
Politically, 1968 was one of the more historically relevant election years. To appreciate some of why that was a quick look back at presidential primaries and the NH quadrennial ritual.
A major goal of the progressives in 1911 was a push for primaries. By July 12th, at least six states had passed legislation for delegates to the national convention to be chosen in primaries: North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oregon, New Jersey, and Florida.
There were thirteen Republican Party direct primaries in 2012 (NH wasn’t one of the thirteen), and it must have been wild with Roosevelt, Taft, and La Follette all in contention. Wilson won the nomination on the 46th ballot at the DNC convention that year.
There were seventeen presidential primaries in 1916 with NH and Minnesota being first on March 14th. The next time a presidential primary was held in Minnesota was in 1952; thus was born the tradition of NH as first. Unchallenged for the first thirty years because electors and not candidates appeared on the NH ballot until 1952 or perhaps inertia is the explanation. The second Tuesday in March for the NH primary remained the first-in-the-nation until 1996.
…the 1996 [NH] Legislature tightened the law once more by providing the primary would be held “on the Tuesday at least seven days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier.” In 1996, because some other states had moved their primaries up to February 27, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State set the date of February 20 for the election.
By then the NH primary was not only first but had come to play an outsized role in the nominating process. The reason for that had less to do with the shocking 1968 Democratic Party primary results and more to do with progressive changes in the Democratic Party that were promulgated by the 1968 presidential election.
WaPo on the Iowa caucus
So how did it get the enormous gift of kicking off the presidential primary process year after year after year?
David Redlawsk: By accident, is the answer. It’s sort of a funny story. In 1972, the revised Democratic rules coming out of the 1968 debacle required that notice be given of caucuses and primaries that would select party delegates. Prior to that, party bosses could schedule primaries without telling anyone. But the new rules required a 30-day requirement. Iowa’s system has four parts — the caucus, then the county convention, then the congressional district conventions, then the state conventions — so, to give a 30-day notice for all of them, Iowa had to start advertising early.
The second part, the state convention, is normally held in June. In 1972, they looked and found there were no available hotel rooms in Des Moines on the planned weekend. So they pushed the convention back. And that meant they had to push the caucuses back. And that’s how they ended up in January, in front of New Hampshire. It was not a plan, and in 1972, it made no difference. Edmund Muskie spent about a day there. But in 1976, Jimmy Carter’s campaign noticed Iowa was first and decided to invest some time. He ultimately came in second to uncommitted, but his win got him attention, and ultimately helped him get to the White House.
In the 1988 and 1992 elections for the Democratic Party nomination, it was NH and not Iowa that became important. Hence the 1996 move by the NH legislation. By then both of these small states had also seen the amount of money and national attention that flowed into their states by virtue of being “first-in-the-nation.” Claims were made that IA is an accurate microcosm of the nation and therefore, is perfect for being “first-in-the-nation.” But just in case anyone got the idea that that may not be true:
EK: And how has Iowa retained it? You would think that some other state, desirous of the same power Iowa has, would just leapfrog it.
DR: Iowa’s two parties realized very early on that this was advantageous, so they agreed to hold their caucuses on the same day. And then they wrote into Iowa law that the caucuses must be the first event.
Little tails wagging big dogs and the big dogs don’t mind this at all. Progressivism and democratic principles be damned.
Maybe it’s time for progressives to accept that “fix it and forget it” can’t work here. Power and wealth will always find a way to get back as close to the old status quo as possible.
