Now that 2006 is over, 2008 begins. The fallout from Tuesday’s elections will better reveal itself in January, sure, but what happened at the polls two days ago sets the stage for what will happen in 2008. In the case of the adjacent column, the question looms: is the West and the nation now ready for a coordinated presidential primary — a "Super Tuesday" in the Rockies — based on a region comprised of eight states that are more land and less population?
The outcome of Tuesday’s elections might help shed some light on that question.
Leading up to the election, the West’s political races received perhaps more national media attention than they ever have. During election time, the coasts always gaze inward — that’s not new — but what may have changed are the level of attention and the focus of that attention from both the media and the political parties.
Not only were media giants like the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, and even the Economist sending reporters to the high country to report on the candidates, they were sticking around to cover the races. The Christian Science Monitor was all over the contest between New Mexico GOP Incumbent Rep. Heather Wilson and her Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid; the New York Times seemed to open an office in Colorado to cover several U.S. House races, the governor’s race and the changing demographics of the voters there, especially immigrants and Latinos; and it seemed as though every newsroom wanted to cover the battle between Montana’s incumbent GOP Sen. Conrad Burns and his folksy Democratic challenger Jon Tester. On election night, MSNBC flashed Tester’s signature trademark flattop and straight-faced gaze on the screen what felt like every ten minutes.
But the national media was here mostly because the national parties were here. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney did more than swing through. They visited and stumped like they’ve never done before, even going to Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, states that usually draw few such high-ranking officials. Both parties poured millions of dollars into ad campaigns for tight races, just as they did for races in places with cities whose populations rival the populations of most Rocky Mountain states.
And the national parties were here because they felt the races here mattered, just as they mattered in the South and Midwest. But did those races matter? A quick look at the results of the U.S. House and Senate races in the eight western states, and the governors' races in six of those states, shows that, assuming no recounts change anything, Democrat Harry Mitchell took Arizona’s 5th congressional district from incumbent Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Democrat Jon Tester beat Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, the Democrats won four open seats and the Republicans won five. Montana and Colorado are certainly “bluer” but otherwise, the incumbents won, and the “red-blue” ratio remains much the same.
That’s not a dramatic shift. And in these races, in Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah, there was no shift at all. But the Democrat’s gains in Colorado set that state up well for its bid to host the 2008 Democratic National Convention. And Jon Tester’s win in Montana will surely give that state more attention, as Tester aligns himself with the widely popular Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, another down-home-yet-also-progressive Democrat, who has himself been the focus of several national media stories, including a recent profile in the Sunday New York Times magazine.
With a bit more visibility after the races, maybe the efforts did matter, even for the Western Republicans, who may benefit from any attention paid this way. But will that be enough to convince the rest of the country that a coordinated Western presidential primary is a good thing?
That depends on how leaders from both parties position themselves and the issues unique to the region on the national stage. Certain issues will always be regional, and though worth campaigning for, won’t merit national attention. But leaders and lawmakers new and old will have to attract some attention for issues that do affect the nation as well as being unique to the region, such as domestic energy development on public lands, immigration reform and energy and water transmission.
Most of this responsibility will fall to the Democrats. They are now the party in power in Congress, and with the flip, will now assume leadership roles for committees that set agendas and introduce legislation on natural resources, public land management and energy development. And, really, they are the party that is attracting much of the media attention: the GOP in the region hasn’t changed much, but the new breed of “Western Democrat” remains a bit of a mystery to the rest of the country. If reporters keep showing up to try and figure out who these people are, inevitably, they’ll bring back the issues along with the stories.
Because Western states cumulatively have so few Electoral College votes (remember those things) voters in other places, such as Philadelphia and Omaha, are going to have be convinced they need to vote on these issues. If they are, then they, and the candidates, might see a need for a coordinated western presidential primary. It's up to leaders in the West, including in state Legislatures, where state agendas are set, to position the region for such a political event. But it's up to the rest of the country to make the call. And if that call is made, the big-time media would surely come back.
The saying goes that all politics are local. Who knows where the Washington Post might open its next local office.
|
