The US primary elections were not the brainchild of the Founding Fathers but an answer by 19th century Progressives to the exclusion of voters in choosing candidates for office. The federal measures were passed as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and prevented US senators being selected “by cigar-smoking men in back rooms.” However, other legislation required a tiring and determined state by state reforming process.
The intention behind primary elections is to weed out weak and ineffectual candidates and end up with the best of the bunch. I suspect we might all agree that the primary process in the 2016 Presidential contest has been a spectacular failure.
“Trump Triumphs in Nevada.” “Hillary Squeezes by in Nevada.” “Rubio the Real Winner in Iowa.” These are the kind of headlines that have greeted American newspaper readers for the past few weeks. The media coverage reminds me of the person whose role in life is to liven up a television audience before the programme goes on air. He makes a few jokes to get the audience attentive, then with a rising enthusiasm rouses people to fever pitch.
There is a symbiotic relationship between presidential candidates and the media; each needs the other. The candidates provide the headlines and stories to help sell newspapers and have people watch news live on television. In exchange, the media provides candidates with publicity, sometimes unwelcome, occasionally delivering a death blow. Remember the 2008 run of Senator John Edwards of South Carolina. Before his own state’s primary, the voters were told of Edwards’ love affair while his wife was dying from cancer. The press used the trees of a Brazilian rain forest to report the story. In Edwards’ political backyard, his political life was ended.
What exactly has the media been reporting about the primaries over the past weeks? Shakespeare put it best when he claimed “Much Ado About Nothing.” The states which have voted so far are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. In the aggregate, these states have 25 out of the 538 Electoral College votes. If I were to suggest the importance of these states in a Presidential election is minimal, I would be inflating the meaning of “minimal.”
An dispassionate observer might suggest that playing up the importance of the early primaries was the equivalent of suggesting the Durham Bulls could win baseball’s World Series. However, what should not be dismissed is the Americana of electioneering. The rules of the Iowa Caucus were put together in the mist of time and I doubt that fewer than six people fully understand them. In Nevada’s recent Republican caucus, there were reports of illegal vote-counting and voter registration mistakes in multiple caucus sites, not to mention disorganization leading to long lines at sites across the state. A ballot collector, someone meant to be impartial, was photographed wearing an “I support Donald Trump” baseball cap. At least there have been no charges of ballot-box stuffing but “vote early, vote often,” may well have been the day’s watchword.
The results so far, Republican and Democrat, are not much of a guide to the outcome of this year’s primaries. The real election starts on March 1st: “Super Tuesday.” Thirteen states and territories will hold primaries, including states with double digit Electoral College votes, such as Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. It is not until these states declare results that voters and observers alike will have an idea of who the Presidential nominee might be for each political party.
The Democratic race is straightforward enough. The choice is between the elderly so-called socialist, Bernie Sanders, who has had a long career in Congress and Hillary Clinton whose track record as First Lady, US Senator for New York and Secretary of State is extensive but tainted. I doubt that Sanders expected to get any traction in the race. His trump card seems to be the distrust in which Mrs Clinton is held. If she can overcome this perception and get the women voters to support her, I believe she will win.
The Republican race is anything but straightforward. Whilst The Donald has won three primaries, will he appeal to voters in industrial states? If he does, will the Republican Party base, not to mention its leadership, find Mr Trump an acceptable candidate or will the Party opt for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Don’t dismiss the possibility that the Republicans will disown Mr Trump, in which event I am sure he will run as an independent.
The wonder of politics the world around is variables. The number of variables in this American election year is massive. I am often asked who I think will win. I’m waiting for next Tuesday’s results before even considering the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment