WHO TV, IA
07-02-06
Who's Number One?
Iowa has come before New Hampshire for years in the process to pick a new
president, but now a New Hampshire politician is threatening to cut in line.
Our mostly white state of Iowa traditionally holds the nation's first caucus. Eight
days later, the mostly white state of New Hampshire hosts the country's first
primary.
Some Democratic activists want more diversity earlier in the process, so they
want to insert a state in between Iowa and New Hampshire that has a higher and
much more diverse population.
New Hampshire leaders hate the idea. New Hampshire Democrat Jim Splaine
sent out a web warning on his blog this week to the Democratic National
Committee. Splaine wrote, "Don't force us to do what we'd rather not do. Please
join us in celebrating the traditional roles of New Hampshire and Iowa. Stop
before you mess up the process any more."
Splaine does not want to see the tradition changed of Iowa being first in the
nation. But he also doesn't want to see another state come before New
Hampshire. Splaine says if the DNC doesn't keep the process the way it is, he'll
push to change state law in New Hampshire, putting that state's primary before
Iowa's caucuses.
Democratic activists in Iowa and New Hampshire fear that could cause chaos in
the process and hurt both Iowa and New Hampshire's chances in the future to
remain early-in-the-process states.
Channel 13 asked prominent Iowa political scientists about the plan.
Dr. Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, wrote:
"I suspect that any effort to move the New Hampshire primary in front of the Iowa
caucuses would only start an endless game of leapfrog between the two states.
Clearly, the current Democratic plan hurts New Hampshire and doesn't really
touch Iowa's status. In the end, I think the national Democratic party will have to
adopt a schedule that protects both Iowa and New Hampshire. Otherwise, the
process might be chaotic. The current uncertainty about the schedule makes it
difficult for potential candidates to make plans and also invites other states to
play around with the dates of their primaries.
If Iowa is first in 2008, having open contests in both parties would be a boon to
the state's economy. Right now we have had regular visits from many of the
potential candidates and some are already assembling organizations. At this
point in time, however, the big money winners are the two state parties and
candidates for statewide office and the legislature, all of which are getting
contributions and fundraising assistance from the potential presidential
candidates."
Dr. Dianne Bystrom, the director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for
Women and Politics at Iowa State University, wrote:
"My guess is that some political leaders in New Hampshire do not want the state
to move to third on the presidential preference event list, so now some moves to
make New Hampshire first. Iowa and New Hampshire have had a somewhat
mutual agreement for "first in the nation" status for first caucus and first primary-caucuses and primaries are different political events, and both states can call
themselves "first" and receive somewhat equal attention. While NH still would be
first presidential primary, and should continue to get attention because of that,
the DNC's move to put in an extra caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire
would possibly dilute the pot for both Iowa and NH as media would divide their
attention between three, instead of two, early events. The impact of the extra
caucus would have even more of an impact if it is in a larger, more populous (and
thus more expensive to cover) state.
If New Hampshire would move to first, that also could have an economic impact
on Iowa, but perhaps not as much of an impact as having a second caucus,
particularly in a populous state, so close to the Iowa caucus. However, you can't
discount the history that the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary have with
the media, so that may come into play as well.
As far as the economic impact of Iowa caucuses, I don't know who has firm
figures. I have seen estimates from party leaders that the caucuses brought in
$70 to $90 million in 2000--a "double" caucus year."
For more information about this story contact Dave Price at
dave.price@whotv.com.