Standing Fast

It's been hinted at for a while, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger officially moved up California's primary date from June to February 5. For the first time since before this blogger was even born, primary voters in our biggest state will have a real say in the outcome of the Democratic and Republican party primaries. Being that California is bigger than many European nations, candidates will likely skip the coffee shops and pancake breakfasts common to our smaller and whiter states and go straight to media saturation.

I've mentioned before why the primary calendar compression is a bad thing for grassroots politics. Today George Will made a good point that in addition to coming closer to creating a national one-day primary, this will end up only making Iowa and New Hampshire, in addition to Nevada and South Carolina, more important than they already are.

"Every campaign is shaped by two scarcities -- the candidate's time and money. No candidate will have enough of either to campaign intensely, in person or even on television, in perhaps 24 states across the continent in the 22 days from Iowa (Jan. 14) to Feb. 5. As political analyst Charlie Cook says, this will raise the stakes -- the free media attention and the momentum it imparts -- that will accrue to the winner or winners of the first four states (South Carolina Democrats and Republicans vote on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2, respectively). Indeed, if one person wins three or all four of those, the Feb. 5 primaries might be mere ratifying echoes rather than deciding events."


The whole thing had me depressed about the potential of John Edwards to make it this year, but then I noticed how the even higher stakes now in place could help Edwards push past Obama and Clinton very quickly. Edwards polls the strongest in Iowa. He has been in the lead there in many polls for a while now, but most importantly he is the only candidate to have competed there before and done well. He knows what it takes to succeed in Iowa, as opposed to say Howard Dean who polled well but had little on the ground operation in the 2004 caucus. Plus as seen by the self-destruction by both Dean and Richard Gephardt on the Iowa plains, the phenomenon of two front runners beating on each other turns Iowa voters off.

A Edwards victory will throw off both Clinton and Obama and bring a lot of media coverage(not to mention money) Edwards way. Then there is Nevada. So far Edwards has not polled well there, but it is very possible that the strong Hotel and Restaurant Employees union will back Edwards giving him ground troops in Clark county. Endorsements of a candidate that members are not enthusiastic about or feel don't have a chance in hell never make a victory in itself, but an endorsement and real mobilization around his candidacy coming off a victory in Iowa could be just what Edwards needs to get a real momentum going. I think Clinton will win New Hampshire, but an Edwards victory in Iowa and Nevada will guarantee him at least 2nd place.

South Carolina is up in the air, but I think an Edwards victory in 2 of previous primary match ups will put South Carolina into his column. If Edwards can pull that off, the race will be narrowed down to two candidates for the 2nd round of primaries. Obama will likely bow out, but Clinton will stay in. She still would have an enormous amount of cash and soldiers at her disposal and the likelihood of strong showing by her in California and New York would be enough of an incentive to keep fighting. But at this point a lot of Democratic money, not to mention grassroots support would start coming Edwards way as he would be the now only viable alternative to Clinton. Then get ready for a lot of TV commericals.

Beware of what you ask for. California wanted to get attention from the candiates; you'll be sure to get so much you all will be sick to death of it.