: Risky indeed…
In contested presidential primary races for both major parties since 1980, the leader of the last national (Gallup) poll before the Iowa caucuses wins the nomination (re: my essay on the press-politics of primary campaigns). These data clearly demonstrate that the choice is made prior to the primaries, which merely rubber-stamp that choice. So the crucial time for campaign strategy, and in-depth coverage of the issues (not the horse race) by the press, is right now.
On Howard Dean’s blog, campaign manager Joe Trippi says the decision to run early TV ads in Iowa is “risky.” The $300,000 price tag represents a big chunk of Dean’s on-hand cash.
Is this a smart move? Not it Prof. William Mayer’s predictive model continues its remarkable streak of accuracy. Contrary to popular wisdom, the early primary states are nowhere near as important as once thought to winning the nomination. Dean might be far better off risking money on a national ad campaign because his national poll numbers remain in single digits.
UPDATE (7:48 a.m.): Joe Lieberman downplays his chances in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he continues to lead in the national polls, as he has done since January, Iowa and New Hampshire do not matter.
UPDATE (7:55 a.m.): Here’s the latest on the ad buy from USA Today (via PoliticalWire)
UPDATE (9:20 a.m.): Here’s what Dean said about Bob Graham yesterday:
“Bob Graham is a wonderful, decent human being, but at this time he
The Dean TV ads are scheduled to begin showing in my area today, so not only is there “still plenty of time left until the real end of the nomination campaign”, there is also a LONG time left until the end of the nomination campaign!!
Rebecca: Yes…but now is the important time.
Please do your fellow Rhetorica readers a favor and report what you see!
Also, re: the article you sent yesterday. Thanks…and I found it interesting…although I’m not sure the web is really the place for the next great newspaper.
I’m not sure I’d put quite as much stock in Mayer’s research as Dr. Cline does for the Democratic primary process this year. Looking at the primaries from 1980 through 2000 on both sides, the only situations that look comparable to this one are the 1988 and 1992 Democratic primaries. In those years, like this one, there was no clear front-runner and a variety of credible contenders.
Most of the other primaries involved either an incumbent (Democratic 1980, 1996; Republican 1984, 1992) or a clear establishment front-runner (Republican 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000; Democratic 1984, 2000). In those later situations, it is completely unsurprising that the establishment front-runner both led the national polls before the first contest and won the nomination.
But applying Mayer’s rule to this primary process means essentially extrapolating from a data set of 2 (Democratic 1988, 1992), which is a risky proposition indeed. Although Mayer may not have had the data to be able to do so, if you carried his analysis back in time, I think you’d find a number of situations that would violate his rule if the data were available. The Democratic primaries in 1968, 1972 and 1976 leap to mind, as do the Republican primaries of 1964.
Mayer’s contention involves a critique of the Frazer-McGovern reforms. He is pointing out that the frontrunner has the edge, always has the edge, and the current primary system is only making that edge more powerful despite the reforms.
I’m taking the data in a different direction by asking what the implications are for the pre-primary period.
I think the data set–1980 to 2000–represents a very wide range of situations. While Shermaclay is quite correct in his analysis of the situations of the various contests, I disagree that these situations represent a low order of variety. That the model continues to predict over that time is a powerful argument for its utility.
Further, there’s a lot of time between now and January for a clear frontrunner to emerge, which plays a large role in the point I’m making with the data. Now, what happens if the Democrats stay bunched up in the poll numbers? I have no idea. But that would present an interesting challenge to Mayer’s model.
My use of it, then, becomes my guess that a clear frontrunner will emerge.
Now, will it predict for 2004? Who knows? But the track record of the model is good enough to take it very seriously.
I saw the Dean ad today for the first time. He’s standing in front of a red barn - I can’t tell if it’s an Iowa Barn or a Vermont barn. ;-). This is his message: Bush - BAD; other Democrats - WEENIES; Vote for me - free health care for EVERYONE! My son’s reaction: Mom! Is it elections AGAIN??? Is this anyway to treat the future electorate?
Sounds like Dean is staying on message.