One Surprise in the new Primary System

As I have thought about the primary system we may be going to a non-sequential system of primaries. For the past three or four elections we've lived in a sequential system - first came Iowa and New Hampshire and then a series of other primaries and caucuses. But they tended to build on each other. A candidate could falter in one of the early states but if they faltered more than once they would be knocked out. That gave disproportionate power to two states especially. In this election cycle that sequential nature of the selection process may no longer be true. Both candidates

In this cycle there was a determined effort by a couple of states to move forward the process, in my opinion, unreasonably. But here is the reality. Before the February 5 primary date (where more than 2000 delegates to the Democrat convention will be selected) there will be a total of about 170 delegates selected. While the early contests in the tiny states have generated a lot of blabber by pundits - the polls at the national level look pretty consistent. In the GOP polls, Giuliani holds a pretty consistent lead (by varying amounts). And while those numbers have floated a bit - they have not been as dicey as the ones in the tiny states. In the Democrat polling, Clinton seems to hold a consistent lead. Both candidates also have held strong leads (although Clinton's is much more commanding) in the Intrade political futures market. Both of the campaign leaders also have pretty good cash on hand balances. In the big states that vote on February 5 - there also has not been as much movement as there has been in Iowa. That could be based on proximity to the election (things will get dicier when the date gets closer) - or all the sound and fury from the tiny states may simply be that and not the beginning of a sequential trend.

So what does all this mean? I think one can discern two things from this data. First, the importance of small and unrepresentative states will be less than it was in prior elections. Hillary could get stunned in Iowa but were that to happen I believe she would be the strong favorite to be the nominee. Although there is a bit more uncertainty in the GOP contest, I think the same could be said for Giuliani. Second, we still seem to be spending a whole lot more time on nominating our president than I think we should - this long process may create a secondary dynamic - which the old system did not. I realize that a lot of people are hot to see the current president go. But I have also heard a lot of grumpiness about this long cycle. Perhaps the long cycle could reduce turnout in November - to uncertain effect. At the same time perhaps the long cycle could create a stronger opportunity for an unexpected event to change the game - for example, this long cycle might allow a non-traditional and independent candidate to have a better shot - with the simple (but subtle) message that I did not get into this mess until I discovered that the other alternatives were so absurd.