The opening volley
James Zogby* travels to Iowa and New Hampshire as the presidential primaries get underway
I have just completed a three-day visit to New Hampshire and Iowa, the states that feature the first Democratic presidential contests of the 2004 election. They are both small states. Iowa, with a population just under three million, ranks 30th out of the 50 US states. New Hampshire, on the other hand, with a population of 1.2 million, is 41st. Despite their relatively small populations these two states loom larger in presidential elections because the decision made by their voters will determine the direction of the entire contest.
On 19 January Iowa's voters will meet in hundreds of small caucuses. At these small meetings, in schoolrooms, firehouses and other public buildings, Iowans will cast their votes in an open public session for their preferred presidential candidates. Only about two per cent of Iowans usually participate -- but the candidate who wins and even those who do better than expected will get substantial national press coverage that can help launch their candidacies onto the national scene.
Then, on 27 January, New Hampshire voters go to the polls in a more traditional secret ballot. Again the winner of the New Hampshire primary and the candidates who do better than expected will get a big national press bounce.
Because of the exposure they will get and the momentum that this will give to their campaigns the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will have a significant advantage in the remaining states. The week after the New Hampshire Primary, nine states will hold their elections (Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma on 3 February and Michigan and Washington on 7 February). Because those states are diverse and spread out across the country and because their elections all happen in the same week the entire dynamic of the campaign shifts after New Hampshire.
In Iowa and New Hampshire the candidates engage in what is called "retail politics", i.e., they campaign personally, meeting with small groups, holding gatherings at supporters' homes and talking to voters one at a time. Since it will only take a few tens of thousands of votes to win in Iowa or New Hampshire the candidates have been spending a lot of time during the past year in these two states: building an organisation, seeking the endorsement of local elected officials and community leaders and meeting as many voters as possible.
That cannot happen after New Hampshire. Then the campaign shifts to "wholesale politics" -- where the election will consist of paid advertising, large campaign events and building statewide political organisations. Because this type of campaigning is so costly and because it happens so quickly (nine states holding their elections in the next week, and voters in 20 more states casting their ballots in the following three weeks), the campaigns need the momentum garnered from a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire to attract money to their efforts and to get the free national press coverage that will follow from early success. In short, they act as filters -- screening out the candidates who will be able to compete nationally. And they act as catapults, launching strong campaigns onto the national stage. Now it is not inevitable that the winners will go on to win it all -- but there is no doubt that they will have the edge.
Here are some of the calculations the campaigns are making at this point.
With Congressman Dick Gephardt slightly ahead of former Governor Howard Dean in Iowa and with Dean holding a sizable lead over Senator John Kerry in New Hampshire, it looks like Gephardt and Dean may get the early advantage. If Dean actually wins in both states, Gephardt's candidacy could be in real trouble. Kerry must significantly improve his performance in New Hampshire and do much better in Iowa if he is to remain a viable candidate.
Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards and General Wesley Clark never figured they would do well in liberal Iowa (Lieberman and Clark have, therefore, decided not to compete there), nor do they expect to win in New Hampshire -- but they are working to secure a strong third place finish to give their more centrist candidacies a lift as the campaign moves to south and southwest states where they hope the more conservative voters will give them victories.
In any case, with all of the calculations the different campaigns will present as to how they will fare in the later states, the real action is now in Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidates and the national press are there.
That is what drew me to my visit. I addressed six audiences of more than 1,000 voters with a simple message. "You are our interlocutors. You will decide for the rest of us. You will meet the candidates and ask them the questions that concern us all." And so I pressed those with whom I met to focus the attention of the candidates on critical issues, which I believe, must be addressed in this campaign -- peace in the Middle East and civil liberties in the United States.
Because there is a vibrant, established Arab American community in Iowa they play a very important role in our work. But in both states there are strong networks of civil libertarians, peace activists and concerned citizens who care about the erosion of constitutional rights and the lack of balance in US foreign policy in the Middle East. On just this one visit I found hundreds willing to work to raise these issues to insure that as Iowa and New Hampshire decide who will win they will also help to shape the national debate.
Our American political process has its critics, to be sure, but it is a remarkably open and ingenious process. It is a wonder to watch Iowa and New Hampshire town hall meetings at work. Ordinary citizens questioning candidates who seek to hold the highest office in the land. It can't be done in every state, but at least it's done in these two states. It's real democracy at work.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 13 - 19 November 2003 (Issue No. 664)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/664/op5.htm