| For most of this period of time, here are the things that mattered in presidential primary politics:
-Iowa
-New Hampshire
-money
-national media coverage
-labor
A few words about those five things. Although arguing which factor is more important than the other can get to be a pretty metaphysical exercise, I believe the order I listed them in is the approximate order of their influence. Money is obviously a big deal, but the best-funded candidate in the early going has only won the primary half the time since the McGovern commission rules ushered up the modern primary process in the 1972 campaign. The other sign of the IA and NH influence is how many Democratic frontrunners have bitten the dust: since 1972, the early leader in the polls has been the nominee only 3 times- a non-contested primary for Clinton's re-election in 1996, Mondale in 1984, and Gore in 2000. And Gore was the sitting VP, contested by only one other candidate, while Mondale- in spite of a huge advantage in money, name ID, endorsements, labor support- came within an eyelash of going down to a candidate with none of the above who came out of nowhere.
National media coverage is on the list because of (a) the (modest) impact it has on IA and NH (b) the (big) impact it has on money, and (c) the (overwhelming) impact it has on momentum once the early states have made their decision. It is important to note, though, that if they don't like someone- Hart and Dean being the two best examples- they can certainly mess them up.
The labor movement is the only organized constituency that has ever had any impact on the presidential primary, and I would rank its influence much higher if it had more often unified in support around a candidate. In 1984 and 2000, the only contested primaries where labor was ever unified in their endorsement of a candidate (Mondale and Gore), they essentially carried their candidates to victory; in both cases in Iowa, in Gore's case in NH and in Mondale's case through the bruising primary process after Hart almost destroyed him.
You'll notice one group of people that is nowhere on this list, and that is the grassroots activists (outside of IA and NH) that are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party all across the country. One thing that has not changed through all these years is that once the early states have had their say, presidential primaries become a race from airport tarmac to airport tarmac, and in the old days, that meant activists had no say.
But one big change has now occurred to change all that, and that is the emergence of internet activism. In fundraising alone, online donations have dramatically changed the game. Even in the 2000 primaries, Bill Bradley and John McCain were able to stay competitive because of internet fundraising. In 2004, Howard Dean went from being an obscure outsider that no one in the party establishment took seriously to being the heavily favored frontrunner for one simple reason: internet fundraising. In the 2008 race, if you aren't raising serious money on the internet, something's wrong with your campaign, and the person raising the most (so far, Obama) gets a major boost, not just in the money received but in credibility with activists, big donors, and the media.
With the emergence of the blogosphere, the netroots movement in the 2008 cycle has gone far beyond being a money machine. The blogosphere is shaping and driving the primary debate in a way no traditional institution could, and campaigns are doing everything they can to monitor and engage and respond to what is going on in the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the ability of internet-based organizations like MoveOn.org to mobilize activists and organize house parties and rallies all over the country on a single day, and to raise money rapidly to do hard-hitting ads, is a big and constant factor that presidential campaigns have to be aware of and plan for every day.
The netroots have changed the game. Presidential candidates have to pay attention to grassroots activists all over the country, not just in Iowa and New Hampshire. While I still believe that the most important single group of people in Democratic presidential primary politics are potential precinct captains in Iowa, the activists of the netroots are moving up on that list of influentials. And it's worth noting that a lot of those precinct captain types read the blogs themselves.
So what are the implications for the 2008 race? Unlike in 2004 with Dean, there is no clear Open Left favorite, but that is more a reflection of the power of the movement rather than its weakness: unlike the 2004 cycle, most of the candidates are avidly cultivating netroots activists and paying a lot of attention to what's being said on the blogs. And again, unlike 2004, most candidates have begun their campaigns consciously working to appeal to the left side of the party, rather than being pushed in that direction kicking and screaming as Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt were throughout 2003. What happens in the future is impossible to know, except that I can guarantee one thing: rank and file activists from around the country will never be ignored again in Democratic presidential politics. |
STATE BLOGS
