Are We Moving Toward a National Primary?

In my 2018 Book, Reforming the Presidential Nominating Process: Front-Loading’s Consequences and National Primary Reform, I argue that from the perspective of party members, the only way to ensure the full, timely and meaningful participation of all voters is to reform the current sequential and front-loading presidential primary calendar. 

The national primary solution is one which has been long-resisted as politically impractical. However, in their effort to gain greater influence in the modern (post-1968) nominating process, the states routinely jockey for earlier or more advantageous calendar positions, hoping to maximize their voters’ voice in the selection of presidential nominees. This phenomenon has created a front-loaded calendar in which voters in the early-state contests exert outsized influence and more states schedule contests toward the beginning of the contest window. 

In his recent piece in the New York Times, Nate Cohn argues that the 2020 nominating calendar is moving ever-closer to a national primary. Relative to 2016, the 2020 calendar is more heavily front-loaded. There are fewer contest dates, fewer caucuses, an end-calendar line-up of relatively rural states, and an earlier close to the nominating phase. The earlier shift of key states, particularly California and Texas, additionally make the early primary electorate more representative than in past cycles. (Cohn looks specifically at the share of African-American voters by primary date relative to 2016). California and Texas will hold their 2020 presidential primaries on March 3, also known as Super-Tuesday (the earliest allowable date for most states to hold contests under the timing rules set by the national political party organization). (The other states scheduled for Super-Tuesday include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont. The South Carolina and Virginia Democratic party-primaries will also be held on that date). The number and geographic diversity of contests makes Super-Tuesday, with nearly 1/3 of both parties’ delegates at stake, a pseudo-national event. By contrast, the contests scheduled for April 28 (which include Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, along with the Virginia Republican primary) are a more-regionalized event. 

The net effect of the 2020 calendar, Cohn argues, is a nominating process that is more geographically balanced, faster, and demographically representative. A look at the weekly allocation of delegates in the figures below highlights Cohn’s point that the schedule has compressed more contests into fewer dates. For both parties, March 3 (Super-Tuesday), March 17, and April 28 stand out as high-stakes delegate caches in which several big and battle ground states are up for grabs. These 3 dates simulate mini-national primaries – forcing candidates to simultaneously compete in more (and large states) holding contests on the same day.  As Cohn notes, the compression of contests forces candidates to adapt strategies more akin to a general election campaign as opposed to the retail politics that takes place in small, or early contests where the extended focus is on much smaller slice of the electorate.  

Cohn also points out that the number of states holding primaries in 2020 is greater than in past cycles. As tracked in the gray-bar in the figure below, 45 states will hold primaries in 2020, 47% of which will be on or before March 15. 

Conventional wisdom holds that caucuses, which are meetings of party members, tend to favor outsider candidates. In the lower turnout caucuses retail (personalized) style politicking is more efficacious for candidates who may be lagging in name recognition or financial resources. By contrast, in primaries where the turnout is higher, candidates must adopt campaign strategies to reach wider swaths of party voters with greater reliance on costly media advertising.

Moreover, caucuses are comprised of a smaller-base of party faithful (i.e. more ideologically extreme) while primaries include a broader spectrum of party voters. Thus, the higher number of primaries rewards more moderate candidates who have higher name recognition and greater resources – again approximating and requiring candidates to adapt strategies more in line with what we would expect to see with a national primary (i.e., when competing in multiple contests simultaneously).

But while 2020 is more front-loaded relative to 2016, it is actually less so than in recent past cycles. A look at the number of states holding primaries on or before March 15 reveals greater front-loading in the 1996-2008 cycles. Charting the growth of Super-Tuesday similarly shows a peak of the front-loading phenomenon in the 1996-2008 nominations. In 2008, 51.42% of pledged Democratic delegates and 50.71% of Republican delegates were chosen on February 5 (Super-Tuesday). Super-Tuesday was also, notably in February – the earliest date on which the big-prize day ever has been held. The pace of front-loading in 2008 led to fears of a defacto national primary, thereby prompting the national parties to coordinate to push back the start and spread out the sequence of the 2012 contests by offering bonus delegates (Democrats) and winner-take all rules (Republicans) for states willing to schedule later contests.  

The Iowa and New Hampshire Juggernaut

Despite the acceleration and compression of the calendar, so long as the parties retain a sequential calendar in which a handful of states enjoy a privileged position of voting first and early, accompanied by crowding within first-part of the window, we  are still a long-way off from a truly national primary in which all contests would be held on the same day (a same-day national primary) or at the very least where all states have an equal chance of participating an early and influential date that affords their voters a meaningful choice – that is, the opportunity to vote on a full slate of candidates before earlier contests have winnowed the field, or worse, have already mathematically determined the nomination (i.e. some form of a rotating, regional primary).

The major impediment to a truly national primary is the lock enjoyed by the early, carve-out states, most notably Iowa and New Hampshire. The now-coveted status of holding the first-in-the-nation contests was the result of Iowa and New Hampshire having had traditionally early nominating dates that were granted waivers under the post-1968 rules. As early as 1976, candidates had adopted strategies that focused heavily on these early contests as means of building early-win momentum.

Reaping the advantage of the focused attention on their state’s contests (in the form of campaign visits, media coverage, policy concessions, and revenue), Iowa and New Hampshire have since fought bitterly to retain their privileged status. In 2008, acquiescing to demands to include states with more geographical and demographic diversity to the pre-primary window, the Democratic Party added the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina party-primary as two additional carve-out states exempted from the timing rules. The push by other states to move forward – most infamously challenges by Florida and Michigan in 2008 to leapfrog and crowd the early states – have been firmly rebuffed by the national party organization through the imposition of delegate penalties at the national conventions. 

Early State Strategies in 2020

In the 2016 cycle, there were some signs that the primacy of these early states was slipping as several candidates skipped the Iowa straw polls and associated campaigning opportunities to attend fundraising events in the upcoming Super-Tuesday states. Split-decisions in which the early state outcomes have gone for different candidates (as opposed to breaking in the same direction) have also arguably diluted the power of these first contests to shape the nomination. Where the early state contests are a wash, attention quickly moves on to Super-Tuesday.

As Cohn notes, the sequence of the contests matters. The sequence of contests varies with the dynamics of each nominating cycle, including state-scheduling decisions and candidate strategies. 2020 presents an opportunity in which the role of the early states may be significantly challenged.

The compression and acceleration of front-loading is drawing into question reliance on the momentum model in which candidates focus heavily on the first contests despite their small share of delegates. In this traditional, post-1968 momentum model, candidates try to springboard off early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire (and now) Nevada and South Carolina into Super-Tuesday with momentum and media coverage. Rivals who fare poorly, or who perform worse than expected, are forced to withdraw from the race. Obama’s claim to the nomination in 2008, for example, is traceable to his unexpected win in Iowa.  Such early successes (or failures) shape the media narrative with its traditional horse-race aspect of focusing on who is pulling ahead or falling behind, creating a feedback loop of voter excitement and enthusiasm. In 2020, candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders appear to be following this familiar strategy of trying to lock down early state wins to build momentum and solidify front-runner status going into Super-Tuesday.  

Joe Biden, the current leader in national polls, who is struggling to retain a lead in the these early contests appears to be taking on a different approach – building a so-called “firewall.” Here the goal is to get through the early contests without being knocked out of contention, and to bank on a big victory in a (still-early) but friendly state. Biden’s strategy appears to be to finish among the top 3 of Iowa and New Hampshire then to pull away in South Carolina where he enjoys substantially higher support from African-American voters who comprise a sizable share of the South Carolina primary electorate. A similar strategy was adopted by Rudy Giuliani in seeking the Republican nomination in 2008. Giuliani had hoped to survive the early contests and secure a big win in Florida (scheduled that year on January 29 – in a bid by the Sunshine State to challenge the primacy of the pre-primary states). With its large cache of delegates, the plan was to springboard off Florida into Super-Tuesday (February 5) with momentum. But for Giuliani it was both too late and too little (he only came in third) and he was forced to drop out of the race. 

The 2020 calendar has made a third possible approach – one which would bypass the early contests almost entirely in favor of a big Super-Tuesday win – potentially more feasible. This strategy treats Super-Tuesday (March 3) like a pseudo national primary, magnifying the campaign’s focus on this one-day event. Such is the approach being adopted by late entrant in the Democratic nominating contest, Michael Bloomberg. In combination with the calendar, Bloomberg’s great wealth gives him a significant advantage in this multi-state, geographically diverse Super-Tuesday derby. Victories in the big prizes of California and Texas would build a delegate lead and create the momentum to propel him to instant front-runner status while also creating a narrative of demonstrated electability in a general election, national face-off with Donald Trump.  

If successful, this approach would potentially break the juggernaut of the early states and put us more firmly on the path toward a national primary that Cohn sees emerging. However, the chances of this strategy being successful does not seem likely – currently polling shows Bloomberg far behind in the current leader-board. Moreover, the fact that the Democratic party awards its delegates proportionately reduces the chance that a strong showing (or even sweep) of Super-Tuesday contests would create an insurmountable lead. (Republicans, on the other hand, use winner-take-most or winner-take all rules, which translates first place finishes into the lion’s share of delegates).

Why We Don’t Have a National Primary Yet

While the pace of the 2020 calendar is faster (at least relative to 2016) and the early contests within the window are arguably more geographically balanced and demographically diverse, as long as the parties retain a sequential series of nominating contests, we will not truly have a national primary. Under a sequential front-loaded calendar, the voters in later-voting states remain at a distinct disadvantage, weilding a diminished voice (and sometimes no voice at all) in the selection of their party’s nominee. The national party organizations and key states have an incentive in retaining the contemporary system which starts off small and early. From the perspective of the voters, however, any sequential, front-loaded process will always mean that some states’ voters matter more than others – and that being earlier in the process generally translates to greater choice and influence.

Between every presidential selection cycle the national political parties, states, and state party organizations contemplate rules changes in anticipation of the next presidential selection. The requisite political support for a same-day national primary currently does not exist. We are moving closer in some ways, but compression and acceleration still does not guarantee all party members a right to full, fair, and timely participation in the process.

Learn More About It

For those readers who are not familiar with the presidential selection process a brief primer (also written by Dr. Parshall) is provided below.

You may also want to follow our blog as Dr. Wendland will be taking 5 of our students to Iowa in January 2020 to observe first-hand the retail politics in the nation’s first caucus state (Iowa kicks off the 2020 nominations with its February 3 precinct caucuses).

Both Drs. Parshall and Wendland in the History and Political Science Department have expertise in presidential nominating politics, having each authored a book and articles on the subject.

Watch also for a panel-event in April 2020 (in advance of New York’s April 28^th primary) that will feature faculty of History and Political Science Department in collaboration with colleagues from the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw (as part of the Department’s ongoing faculty exchange through the Polish Studies Center at Daemen College). 

Overview of the Presidential Selection Process (Quick Primer)

The U.S. presidential selection process is a complex and lengthy process that starts even before the last election cycle as concluded. The process occurs in multiple stages, the first of which is the so-called “invisible primary” in which the media, political experts, and party members (i.e. voters) begin to identify prospective candidates and gauge their relative electability through public opinion polling, fund-raising, and political endorsements. No votes are being cast during this lengthy and informal stage. Rather, potential candidates test the political waters, form exploratory committees, participate in debates, and organize a campaign. Insufficient interest or support will lead many to abandon their presidential aspirations, winnowing the field of aspirants well before any binding votes are cast.

In the early months of presidential election years, states and state party organizations will hold presidential nominating contests in the form of caucuses (multi-stage meeting of party members) or primaries (intra-party elections). The contours of our contemporary nominating system were shaped by reforms enacted in 1968 in which the Democratic Party enacted rules to ensure the full, timely, and fair participation by all party members in the selection of their standard bearer.  The post-1968 reforms included the regulation of the timing of presidential nominating contests as well as the requirement that the results of the state presidential preference contests would be binding on the delegates at the national party convention. The result of these reforms was an increase in the number of states to hold primaries and increased regulation of the state delegate selection and timing rules by both national party organizations. These developments both nationalized (bringing state and state party electoral rules under national party supervision) and democratized the process (shifting control over the selection of the parties’ nominees to the party members through participation in state nominating contests).

Today, both political parties dictate timing rules by setting the date for the commencement of these state nominating contests. The Democratic National Party first set an opening of a contest window in 1980, allowing an exception for two states which historically had early nominating contests – Iowa and New Hampshire – to vote ahead of the other states. The advantage of being first and early soon became apparent and Iowa and New Hampshire have since staunchly defended their right to a waiver from the timing rules in order to protect their first-in-the-nation status. Other states, were jealous of the influence wielded by voters of these early contests pushed their nominating elections closer and closer to the front of the timing window, creating the phenomenon of Super-Tuesday – the clustering of state contests on the first Tuesday within the window. In 2012, the parties coordinated to push the start of the window back to March and adopted delegate selection rules to encourage states to spread out their contests within the window.  Every presidential cycle there is movement within the window as state legislatures and state party leaders adjusts their state’s contest date to try and secure maximum advantage (whether by joining the rush to the front of the calendar, or by identifying a calendar berth that will maximize focus on their state).   

The culmination of Stage II of the presidential selection process takes place in July/August when the parties hold their nominating conventions. Since the post-1968 reforms making the results of the primaries and caucuses binding on the state’s delegates, the national conventions are largely pro-forma affairs. That is, the winner of the nomination has already been mathematically determined and one candidate will enter the convention with majority support to clinch the nomination on the first ballot. It is also important to note that for years in which an incumbent president is running for reelection, the nominating process is largely a one-sided affair. Only rarely is a sitting president challenged for the party nomination – states still hold the nominating contests (although the president’s party may forego more expensive primaries in favor of caucuses and conventions) but the end result is rarely in question. Modern nominating conventions do serve a purpose, however, as a kick-off to the general election and as a chance for the nominee to shape the party’s platform for the upcoming general election (and  presidential term if he/she should win).

Stage III of the presidential selection process is the general election campaign in which the major party nominees compete for votes in the general election. The general election (held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November) is the day on which voters cast their presidential preference vote. 48 states employ the unit rule in which all of that state’s electoral college votes will be awarded to state-wide winner of the general election. 2 states (Maine and Nebraska award their electoral college votes corresponding to their Senators on the basis of the state-wide vote and their electoral college votes corresponding to their House of Representative members according to the results in that congressional district). Stage IV, the formal selection of the president (and vice-president), takes place roughly three-weeks later when the states’ electors convene in their respective state capitols. A majority of electors (270) is necessary to win the presidency. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral college votes, the presidency will be decided by the House of Representatives (with each state casting 1 vote).

The final stage of the process is reform in anticipation of the next presidential cycle. The Republican National Convention generally sets the nominating rules for the next presidential cycle at its nominating convention although they are increasingly following the Democratic National Committee’s example of tinkering with the rules at the annual national party meetings between presidential selection years.  It is during this stage of the process that the parties adjust their delegate selection and timing rules and that the state and state party organizations adjust their nominating contest rules and/or shift their primary dates. The relevant actors in both political parties generally react to the last presidential selection cycle and in anticipation of the next in order to maximize their state’s influence and/or their party’s (or incumbent president’s) chance of winning the presidency.