One of the best political junkie writers around is Chuck Todd, who currently writes
On The Trail for the NationalJournal.com I wrote a few days ago, that the race was going to coming up to a defining moment in Wisconsin, on February 17th. Chuck Todd wrote that this would occur on
June 18, 2003:
This state [Wisconsin], more than any other following Iowa and New Hampshire, is set up to become the decisive contest for the Democratic nomination. Each presidential cycle, there's a state that follows Iowa and New Hampshire that becomes the decisive state, where a nomination is won or lost. For the Republicans, that state has been South Carolina. In 1988, 1996 and again in 2000, the state's GOP primary proved to be the firewall for the eventual nominees (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and George W. Bush).
For the Democrats, the decisive post-Iowa/New Hampshire state has fluctuated. In '84, it was California, believe it or not. That's where Walter Mondale secured enough delegates to hold off Gary Hart (although Mondale lost the California primary). In '88, there really was no one state that did it, but Super Tuesday probably ended up being the most decisive day for Michael Dukakis. Just by surviving, Dukakis essentially won. In '92, Georgia became Bill Clinton's firewall...
Feb. 17: And then there's this date with destiny. Wisconsin is the lone primary on this Tuesday and, more important, the last big test going into Super Tuesday. The state has a very unpredictable electorate. Sure, there are the Madison liberals, but independents could mess with this primary big time. There's no party registration in the state, meaning the primary will be as open as they come. This could become a great state for, say, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, or either of the two Southerners (should they still be in the game).
But it's not just the independents that make this contest interesting; the Wisconsin electorate has a little bit to offer every major candidate in the field. There will be no excuse to skip -- there's no one with a regional advantage, although one could argue the winner of Iowa should have at least a tiny leg up. But regional candidates haven't succeeded in Wisconsin in the past, so what's to say a Gephardt couldn't walk in with a big advantage?
This will be the state that will either sink the front-runner or solidify him; there's no two ways about it. And winning Wisconsin, since it is a swing state for the general election, will trigger the media into declaring the winner the most electable Dem.
And I'm going to include the rest of the archived article in the extended format, because, I'm sitting here wondering... if Chuck got Wisconsin right on in this flash of brilliance (well, except the part about Joementum & Gep...), what if he's right about the rest of the Democratic nomination path? Like him, I wanna dream of a different ending.
March 2: Considering that by the end of this day, 27 states and the District of Columbia will have distributed their delegates, one would have to assume the race will be over (if Wisconsin hasn't already sealed it). In all likelihood, Super Tuesday will be, at best, a two-person race. Unless the two candidates split California, New York and Texas evenly, we can't imagine the person trailing in delegates surviving; the media is too fickle. Maybe that's not fair to the trailing candidate at the time, but that's what the media does. They'll declare a winner after March 2.
And now for our BIG "unintended consequences" caveat: It's possible this calendar does nothing but distribute delegates so evenly that no candidate will want to get out of the race. We can imagine a scenario after March 2 where three candidates are holding approximately the same number of delegates, broken down regionally. Imagine Gephardt doing well in the Midwest, Kerry on the coasts and Edwards in the South.
Do we think it's far-fetched? Yes, because of what we believe the media ends up doing to this race; they love to declare winners. But if there really are three candidates standing after March 2, not two, then the media might have a change of heart. A true three-way race late in the calendar (yes, anything post-March 2 is late in the calendar for our purposes) might entice the press to draw this thing out all the way to the convention.
In some ways, it would only be fitting to have a contested convention. What haven't we seen in American politics the last 10 years? From a dramatic three-way presidential race in 1992 to an actual change in party control of the House in 1994, to an impeachment, to the election of a pro-wrestling governor, to the election of a first lady to the U.S. Senate, to a tied presidential election in 2000...
We've seen it all this last decade. Well, almost all. A contested convention would certainly be the icing on political junkies' cakes. Dare to dream.
