On Sept. 29,
Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
joined more than 150 other officials and academics from
across the Intermountain West for the Western Presidential
Primary Symposium. The Symposium, hosted by the Center
for Public Policy and Administration at the University
of Utah, explored the benefits and challenges of implementing
a regional presidential primary in 2008.
So far, Utah, Arizona,
and New Mexico have committed to hold
their 2008 presidential primary on Feb. 5, 2008.
That date puts the Western Primary fifth in the presidential
campaign season, behind Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire,
and South Carolina.
The earlier Western primary is getting
the West noticed.
"The path to the presidency is still gonna be
through Iowa and New Hampshire. But what’s happened
now is the West has a voice and a real choice in the
selection of the next American president," said
Gov. Richardson. "The era when western states
like Montana in 2004 would not receive one single presidential
candidate visit, Democrat or Republican, is over. No
longer will the West be a flyover state for presidential
candidates. The presidential primary season, Western
states and Western issues, will be at center stage.
So those hosting these four early primaries in the 2008
election cycle is a victory for Western states. But
it’s good for the country as well."
"We're not only left out,
– Natalie Gochnour,
Vice President of the Salt Lake Chamber
In fact, "the West has become a battleground"
already, according to Democratic strategist Michael
Stratton. "There are probably five presidential
candidates who have full-time organizers in Nevada as
we speak actively working for the Democratic ticket
so that they have a leg up for January of 2008,"
said Stratton.
The Western Primary, for many of the symposium’s
panelists, is just one element of a broader strategy
to get Western issues noticed. Most panelists, both
Democrats and Republicans, agreed that Western issues
are simply ignored by presidential candidates.
Pam Inmann, Executive Director of the Western Governors’
Association, said a regional primary would force candidates
to discuss traditionally western issues.
And according to Natalie Gochnour, Vice President of
the Salt Lake Chamber, that’s something that hasn’t
been done in the past. "We’re not only left
out, we’re disenfranchised. We’re on the
outside looking in on the most important national election.
We have an obligation to use the primary as a strategic
building block to political relevancy," said Gochnour.
Gov. Huntsman included in his opening comments the importance
of Western issues "Now, therefore, not surprisingly,
we have some uniquely Western issues that sometimes
aren’t paid enough attention to by policy makers
and leaders in Washington, like water, like public lands,
like nuclear waste, like school trust lands, and issues
around energy development. When presidential contenders
are as familiar with the PILT Program (Payment in Lieu
of Taxes, if anybody is interested in that), as they
are with ethanol produced in Iowa, then we will have
accomplished our goal."
National political reporter, Martin Kasindorf of USA
Today, agreed that a Western primary would force presidential
candidates to learn about Western issues. "It
would be a new story to see the candidates come out
here to the Intermountain West and start talking about
some of these issues. Now, of course, they talk about
health care and education. But they would, I believe,
have to talk about [western issues] because the local
news media would ask them about western regional issues.
And if they want their time on TV, and if they want
to have their individual one-on-one interviews with
the local stations, they better know these local issues.
And the national press traveling with them who are watching
what they do and what they say, would pick up on that
as a news story. This is something new in American presidential
primaries, western issues."
And according to political strategist, Mike Gehrke,
when candidates visit a state, and talk with people,
it changes their outlook and perspective on issues.
Gochnour, who also served as former counselor to Secretary
Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and Associate Administrator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, argued that its not just getting
issues notice, but building relationships that will
really matter.
"I want to have you take away from my remarks
that rather than being about issues, the western presidential
primary is more about people. And I believe that sometimes
people are more important than ideas. I worked for two
years in the Bush administration as a political appointee
and got to know the 2,000 others trafficking around
Pennsylvania Avenue as political appointees. And I want
to tell you that in my experience, nine of the 10 political
appointees that I worked with worked on the campaign.
They had campaign experience. If you’re not relevant
before an election, it’s very difficult to be
relevant after an election. They all had war stories
of meeting on the campaign trail, about learning the
issues through campaigning. So it’s not so much
about issues as it is about building relationships.
And if we were fortunate enough to fulfill this aspiration
for a Western presidential primary that focused us on
issues and then had us build relationships with others,
we would be more politically relevant as a region."
Natalie’s thoughts were echoed by Dan Kemmis,
former Speaker of the House in Montana. "You have
to look to the primary, to the conversation, and have
a regional presence at the conversation," said
Kemmis. "Then you have to have a regional presence
in the transition to make sure that the people who are
being appointed to key positions in Interior and so
on are actually representing broadly and deeply understood
Western positions. So this kind of approach needs to
go beyond a primary, to the conversation, to the transition."
Several political consultants disagreed that a Western
Primary would have much affect on presidential elections.
Eddie Mahe, a political strategist from D.C., argued
that a large Western primary may not be beneficial.
"The more states you put in it, the less you’re
going to see of any of these candidates," said
Mahe. "They’ll pick a state or maybe two
states, and they’ll invest all of their resources
there."
Lance Tarrance, a senior strategist for Arizona U.S.
Sen. John McCain’s Straight Talk America agreed
with Mahe. "The northeastern United States is
very, very dominant in the American political system,"
said Tarrance. "And that’s not gonna change
for some time. The networks call a lot of the shots
for primaries, more than you think. And they obviously
have the cost factors, et cetera. Primaries are supposed
to be retail, not wholesale, but retail campaigning.
And the press, as well as candidates, like pressing
the flesh, going door-to-door, seeing communities up
close, et cetera."
Tarrance's solution to that problem: a three-state
primary: "I think if you did have a Colorado with
a dominant media center and a New Mexico and a Nevada
tied together, not in a regional eight-state, but three
that are fairly conterminously with each other, I think
you would get more interest from the press and maybe
more interest from the real politicians. It’s
hard to do that in a Western States Primary when you
take a trip from Las Cruses, N.M. and fly to Gillette,
Wyo.. Or you go from Aspen, Colo., to Puma, Ariz. It’s
not the same as campaigning in New Hampshire or Iowa.
And also, Texas and California overpower this region
whether we like or not."
Several members of the national media agreed that the
benefits of a Western Primary were limited.
Marc Ambinder, a reporter for The Hotline, noted two
main benefits for western states that participate in
the regional primary. "First, absolutely. Television
stations will make a lot of money. Voters in theses
states will be energized. There will be more, at least
nominally — and I use that word advisedly —
attention paid to the issues," said Ambidner.
"However, given the front loading of the process
and particularly the predilections of the national press
core to focus so much on momentum and expectations after
Iowa and New Hampshire, the role that the Western primary
actually play inventing the nominee, or in actually
influencing the selection of the nominee, I think is
far less than advertised."
Marc Ambinder continued his discussion
of the important role that the press plays in presidential
politics. "Television coverage of the primaries, I think,
is a remarkable example of how the decisions and interests
of a very few can impact and influence the votes of
many millions of people. And I think that fact accounts
for some significant distortions in the way television
tends to cover these races. Between now and the beginning
of 2008, I would say that pretty much 80 percent of
what we focus on, those of us who cover national politics,
presidential politics is driven by two very small sets
of elites. One is the Beltway insiders, the Beltway
class, and the reporters who cover them. And the other
is composed of the activist bases of the two parties
in Iowa and New Hampshire."
Jennifer Robinson is a Research Associate
at the Center for Public Policy and Administration at
the University of Utah.
|
