Media and Momentum: Frontloading Frontloaded Primaries

Brian Smentkowski, Associate Professor of Political Science

______________________________________________________________________________

The title assumes a little of knowledge...

· First and foremost is the relationship between media and momentum in presidential primaries. Here it is useful to consider a race analogy --Beginning with the Iowa caucus, candidates begin a long distance obstacle course race, competing against their own teammates and, importantly, themselves. The finish line is the Party Convention and the obstacles are the caucuses and primary elections, plus personal performance.

· Momentum is the impetus of a moving object. The moving object is obviously the candidate, but recall that impetus means the force with which a body moves against resistance. In presidential primaries, this means that in order to get “mo” going, “...candidates have to beat people they were not expected to beat, collect margins above predictions, and --above all else-- never lose to people they were expected to trounce” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry, Government in America). Why do you think Gore keeps begging voters for more than just vocal support? To win, and win big. Why are we talking about Forbes and Keyes so much??? They both did better than expected and the media are reporting that and wondering why. When they turn to the candidates for the answers, that’s free advertising and an opportunity to try to build momentum. The “day after” news in NH is almost exclusively about Forbes, what his showing means to Bush in NH, and what McCain can do. Bradley’s camp wanted and expected no less than 30%, and barely got it. There’s no good spin on a 2:1 beating. He needs NY.

· What’s the role of the Media here? It is a necessary, but not sufficient, catalyst of support. It is the industry that generate headlines, the most prized of which simply reads “Candidate X Wins Big in State Y”. Importantly, the media do not really set the agenda or tell people what to think; rather, they prime information, salient issues. And all the candidates presently playing the futures market are hoping for positive priming as a means of attaining and enhancing momentum. But timing matters, and with caucuses, the media might not be as valuable as personal contact. For example, Bradley had more commercials, but Gore had organized support and the machinery working for him. Also, Bradley got the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, but too late to matter. McCain was written off in Iowa, and Iowa was written off by McCain. Is this conceding defeat? No --he has had about 100 town hall meetings in a state where he has an advantage, especially among important independents: NH.

·

· Frontloading here means two things: First, it pertains to the increasingly cramped schedule of primaries --the majority of the states-- that will occur between the now and mid-March. Second, it pertains to skewed attention of the media. Studies of news coverage by major media outlets report that greater than one-third of all coverage of all primaries and caucuses focuses on only two states, representing only about 2% of convention delegates --Iowa and NH. The idea of Frontloading has arguably changed things. By moving their caucuses/primary “up”, the campaign season is shortened, giving the illusion of a wind-sprint race rather than a long-distance contest. While the season per se is shorter, and the early elections therefore more valuable, the pre-season has made up for the difference. As far back as 1992, Dole and Gramm visited Iowa and New Hampshire in order to feel out their prospects in 1996. Despite that early start, by this time four years ago, Gramm --who was conservative before conservative was cool-- dropped out. In a similar fashion, Steve Forbes was the first to really throw his hat (and money) into the ring and, like Gramm last time, is now pandering to the most hard-core segments of the conservative bloc. The big difference is that Forbes picked up three times the support Gramm got in Iowa in 1996.

· In a nutshell, then, media and momentum pertains to the perceived reciprocal relationship between coverage and success --performance-based momentum earns media; media attention stimulates momentum. We are now observing the candidates’ attempt to earn and parlay “free” media. It’s about candidates being able to reply to reporters with answers like “You’re covering me because I’m winning/exceeding expectations. Listen to the voters.”

· Is the media and momentum theory fool proof? No.

· In 1980, Bush claimed to have “big mo” working for him when he prevailed over Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucus. Immediately after the results were announced, George W. said he would not say that “big mo” is working for him.

· In 1988, the eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis, placed third with only 22% of the vote.

· And in 1992, Bill Clinton went on the win the White House for the first of two terms after placing fourth, with only 2.8% of the vote in Iowa. He needed and got NY, then built momentum from there.

· In the last presidential election period, Pat Buchanan jumped from second in Iowa to first place in NH, then waned.

· So, what can we make of the Iowa Caucuses?

· Headlines: Gore beats Bradley 2:1; Bush wins, but Forbes is surprising close second; Among the fringe candidates, why Keyes, not Bauer or Hatch?

· Bush had that great photo op with religious leaders on p.1 of the Des Moines Register, and Bradley got the endorsement, but while neither hurt, neither helped. Too little too late; no play in NH.

· The important thing is what happens next. Prior to the Iowa caucus, NH was expected to be noticeably different --Whereas Bush went into Iowa with 43% support v. Forbes w/20%, McCain and Keyes w/8%, Bauer w/ 6% and Hatch w/ 1%; Bush was/is expected to have a harder time in NH. Outside of Iowa, The press in NH has focused on “McCain’s gain”: Where independent voters are both independent and voters, McCain leads Bush, but the margin has shrunk. Nationally, it still is Bush’s to lose (he leads 68-17), but NH can give McCain a jolt of adrenaline. But that probably wouldn’t be enough to matter. Four years ago, Buchanan got that shot of adrenaline, peaked, then faded.

· Similarly, Gore cleaned up in Iowa, but in NH, the race couldn’t be closer: Gore leads Bradley among professed Democrats likely to vote, while Bradley leads Gore among independents. Nationally, Gore leads 71-27.

· Putting this into perspective, what’s going on is this: There is one Democratic Primary, but two Republican primaries. On the Democratic side, it’s a 2-man race that Gore will probably win. On the Republican side, the big race is between Bush and McCain, and Bush will probably win. The side show is between Bauer, Hatch, and Keyes. Forbes is trying to get into the main ring. As always, the big show is getting the coverage, the side show is not, except for questioning by Keyes did better than his side-show opponents. Why? Is it because of a liberal bias in the media? No, although many are tempted to argue this because the side show candidates ARE more conservative and ARE working desperately to court the radical right. It’s about news that matters. When they get written off it is because fail to provide serious competition to the front-runners. Certainly, then, there is a bias --the media are covering (and, to be truthful, labeling) the likely winner(s). In the center ring, the media focus on Bush the front-runner; the guy who walks a fine-line between saying something disastrous, but doesn’t, versus McCain, the tenacious fighter who’s hanging in there. What does this scenario prime?

· On the Democratic front, both have about $18 million. Both spent about $2.2 million in Iowa. Both lack charisma. But that’s not the point; the point is that there are some serious differences here, and they come down to big-v. small picture visions. Despite his track record in the Senate, Bradley is campaigning as a socially liberal Democrat. He wants and offers major policy revisions. He also plays pretty clean, avoiding frontal attacks on Gore. Gore, on the other hand --and due to his professional proximity to White House politics-- is not promising large-scale change, but incremental modifications to public policy. Ironically, it is Gore who is showing a peculiar chameleon quality: He is stoic and flat, but somehow willing to mold himself to the immediate environment: Old-left labor anthems, Gospel participation, and sober policy analyses somehow rotate. However, anything approximating liberalism will be strategically cut from his NH visit and the balance of the primary season. He is not myopic --to win at the next level he cannot afford to be the one on record as the liberal. He is, and will campaign as, a pragmatic moderate. He will prime the economy. He will appeal to voters leaning toward --but not committed to-- Bradley on the basis of electability, not necessarily ideology.

· What’s at stake? The white house, obviously, but also the ideology. Is it going to be mainstream Democratic governance in the White House or Compassionate Conservatism? What’s better for America: Unified Government or Divided Government? Who’s going to appoint the next bunch of USSC Justices --somebody who supports abortion rights, or someone who opposes them? So, the Court’s future is, in many respects, in the hands of the election.