With the first quarter presidential fund-raising completed and the astounding amount raked in by the candidates from both parties, the only thing raised, apart from eyebrows, are questions about the implications of this money chase, especially now that the pattern of US presidential elections is about to change. The Democratic and Republican nominations will begin in Iowa in January. But a fundamental change in the race has been caused by many states having switched dates or who are in the process of switching dates to hold a mega-primary on Feb. 5, dubbed “Super-Duper Tuesday.” And like the candidates, the campaign managers and other election observers, one is not sure what the consequences will be in terms of strategy, funding and policy.
According to observers, with more than 40 percent of delegates casting their votes on Feb. 5, the Democratic and Republican nominations could be decided that day. There have been Super Tuesdays in previous elections but these were small by comparison with what is taking shape next year. The 2004 Super Tuesday involved only seven states. This time more than 20 states are shifting from later in the year to Feb. 5. And what is significant is the size of the states like California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and New York opting for the switch or having already taken that option.
Two immediate consequences follow from this shift. One, the present frenzied search for funding will continue, putting a halt to the campaign reforms. The other is that the staging of this mega-primary will mean that smaller and poorly financed candidates will not be able to compete. This will also mean that the drive by candidates for fund-raising will continue with even more vigor and they will devote time and effort to raise money to fuel their campaign without revealing their stands on real issues, while making them more beholden to big money. Cash could also dictate the trend, and provide the decisive edge to the candidates with many states holding their primaries early and on a single day. Candidates relying on putting in time and organization in campaigning at different primaries rather than heavy advertising will find the odds stacked against them. The mega-primary could well mean that the largesse will have to be spent across the US on advertising in a concentrated period of time, in the hope of sewing up the nominations well ahead of time.
Candidates will also be hoping to make the right choice in spending their money, for they along with their strategists, will be facing a unique challenge of whether to continue to concentrate on the small early states or to focus instead now on the big ones. There are also policy consequences from the rush to Feb. 5: How to reconcile policy positions for so many different states. The mega-primary could also prove detrimental to some of these states, which will not be sure that the candidate they pick is the person who has heard their message.
The 2008 US election race could almost certainly be the first billion-dollar election, with the possibility of the nominations being decided early and thus providing a big break before elections. This would allow the Americans more time to pick Bush’s successor.
