The unearned Iowa/New Hampshire primary duopoly is utter horseshit. Two unrepresentative states think they have a right to winnow down the field (after reaping tens of millions of dollars) because what? Because they encourage “retail politics”? Because it gives “small candidates” a chance to emerge against the biggest names?
There is nothing “retail politics” about a presidential general election as candidates vie to win 65+ million votes. You know who wasn’t good at “retail politics”? Barack Obama. Donald Trump. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were, but Papa Bush wasn’t. There is nothing magical or powerful about the notion of “retail politics,” and as the world goes increasingly digital, it is even less important. And if you’re good? Who cares? A deep fake or dishonestly edited clip will define you anyway, as Facebook and Twitter shrug their shoulders and declare it “satire.”
As for the ability to give smaller candidates a boost, Pete Buttigieg has proven that he doesn’t need Iowa or New Hampshire to do that. And this way is far more democratic than the farce that is the Iowa caucuses.
You know what matters? The ability to navigate this brave new digital world, the ability to inspire, the ability to motivate people to deliver the small-dollar donations required to win an election.
Some people, still, cling to the the old ways. “Instead of the voters in the early states winnowing the Democratic field to manageable proportions, that making-of-the-president power may well end up vested in the hands of the TV networks that sponsor the debates,” complains Walter Shapiro of the Brennan Center for Justice. Except that it’s not the networks doing the winnowing, it’s criteria based on a candidate’s ability to generate actual, tangible, and real support.
Shapiro is distraught that Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet is likely to be excluded, but seriously, who gives a shit? Who asked him to run anyway? His run is no less a vanity project than Andrew Yang’s. Even more so, apparently! Yang looks good to qualify based on, again, real and tangible support.
If anything, the debates should be even more restrictive. What good is a “debate” that gives 20 candidates 3 minutes to say anything?
There are currently five “serious” candidates in the race—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg. The latter two have little name ID, and yet have proven to be impactful candidates. Warren had zero name ID four years ago. She’s built hers on substance. Bernie worked hard for his name ID last cycle. Of the five, only Biden has legacy name ID support. And you know what, that’s not even a bad thing! It’s not like he built that name ID on criminal acts or vapid celebrity nonsense.
The other candidates could do the same. But seriously, what has Bennet done to merit any consideration over the past however long he’s been in office? What about former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, hoping to ride what, his strong support for FRACKING into the nomination? California Rep. Eric Swalwell? Syrian loyalist Tulsi Gabbard? Bill de Blasio is among the least popular people in New York, and he thinks that’s a springboard to the White House?
There is nothing inherently more “serious” about a Bennet or a Rep. John Delaney, with their vanity runs, than Yang or Marianne Williamson. Sen. Cory Booker has name ID! He’s just being punished by primary voters for being too cozy with Wall Street. We don’t need Iowa or New Hampshire to decide that for us. Everyone gets a say.
This needs to be the last cycle in which Iowa and New Hampshire retain their duopoly. But if our digital world does some winnowing even before two rural white states start making decisions for the rest of us, so much the better. And the more restrictive the network debate access rules are, the better.