Would a different primary schedule have affected the outcome?

[Dookus]

Howard Dean fell from frontrunner and ended up third with 18% of the vote. That was before "The Scream".

If the New Hampshire primary were held two or three or four weeks later, would Dean have recovered?

I think not. Discuss.

[arcos]

1. I think it would have affected the outcome...

that doesn't mean it would have helped Dean necessarily, but other candidates (namely Edwards and/or Clark) could have benefited too...

[Dookus]

2. well

Kerry was pulling ahead in the polls. I believe a different schedule would've only consolidated Kerry's support.

Clark, to my dismay, was pretty stagnant in the NH polls.

[arcos]

3. yes, but remember this year everything was unpredictable...

Just a week before the Iowa caucus no one expected Kerry to gain enough support to win it... the same goes for Edwards and his strong second place showing.

[Dookus]

4. well

it's unpredictable every election year.

But Kerry was surging at exactly the right time. Dean was in free-fall. Clark was stagnating. An extra week or two wouldn't have made much difference.

I agree that the only potential benificiary might've been Edwards.

[JI7]

6. Kerry did plan things according to the dates or times

he assumed people would really start to pay attention and make their final decisions during a certain period. and that's when he intesified his campaigning also. if we changed the election date by a week or two it would just mean he would have changed his schedule based on that also .it wasn't as if people just did what they always did and kerry just happened to get lucky on the day of the election. the planning of the campaign was based on the election being on that day.

[Dookus]

10. correct...

Kerry is a very skilled politician, and to pretend he just "got lucky" is delusional.

[Nicholas_J]

31. Dean announced that he was running for the Presidency

thinking of running in late summer of 2001.He announced that he was running in the mid spring of 2002 He was travelling to Iowa campaigning even prior to that, prompting the Vermont media to sue for his schedual. Dean actually spent almost half of all of the days of the last year of open legislative sessions outside of the state of Vermont, almost all of it in Iowa. He visited Iowa more than all of the other candidates put together. Dean was better known than any other of the candidates in Iowa. Front loading the primary season , thus favored Dean more than any other candidate, as all of the others had far less time to get their message out and become known to the people of the states that moved their primaries and caucuses up to earlier dates.

to an early start
On September 5, 2001, Dean announced he would step down at the conclusion of his term. The following May he announced plans to seek the Democratic presidential nomination, beating other potential candidates to the punch by more than six months.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/dean.html

Howard Dean had already made his 16th trip to Iowa by the day that John Kerry finally stated that he was going to run for President in December of 2002:

talks about 2004 bid in Iowa
December 18, 2002


By AMY LORENTZEN The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa — Presidential hopeful Howard Dean of Vermont says Democrats have to stick to their ideals in order to usher in a better era for the United States.

“Democrats have to stop pretending they’re like Republicans if they’re going to change things,” the Vermont governor told a group of about 20 supporters over Christmas cookies and coffee on Tuesday.

“My problem with the Democratic Party is that folks in the Beltway have concluded that the way to win the presidency is to be Bush light,” he said, referring to President Bush.

Dean, 54, a doctor, spoke during his 16th trip to Iowa, where precinct caucuses launch the presidential nominating season. He also attended a reception at a private residence in Cedar Rapids on Monday.

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/57820


This was within a few days of John Kerry setting up his esxploratory comittee to decide whether he was going to run or not:

ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE: Senator John Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination when he knocked John Edwards -- his last major rival -- out of the race by sweeping Super Tuesday. Kerry initially filed federal paperwork formally launching his Presidential exploratoraty committee in December 2002.

http://www.politics1.com/kerry.htm


Kerry didnt make his decision to run until after he found that Gore decided he was not going to run, whhich was something he comitted to, not competing against Gore:

e says he won't run in 2004
Monday, December 16, 2002 Posted: 1:18 PM EST (1818 GMT)


Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry has an exploratory committee and is actively campaigning for support and money.

"I know this was a very difficult and personal decision for Al Gore and his family and I respect the choice he has made. We all owe Al enormous gratitude for years of dedicated and exemplary public service and for his significant contributions to our party and country," Kerry said in a statement Sunday.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/gore/

If anything favored Dean, it was the front loading of the primaries and conventions. Dean's extremely early announcement of his run for the presidency, and the large number of visits he made to Iowa before even the first of the other democrats who decided to run for office threw their hadts in the ring (John Kerry was the second person to throw their hat in the ring, eight months after Dean announced his intention to run).

So if anything, the front loading of the primariesfavored the person who started their campaign the earliest, if it favored anyone at all.

Not only thins, but Dean was endorsed by a number of high powered Iowans, Tom Harkin being the foremost. Iowa was Deans. Im the end it was not the caucus process that harmed Dean, as he was the best known of all the candidates in that state. The Caucus process also favors candidates who have a large activist base, as the caucus process requires people who are a lot more "enthusiatic and energized" to take part in them. People have to get up and actually spend a few hours discussing the process, rather than stopping on the way to work, or on the way home, getting into a booth and pulling a handle.

Up until two weeks before the caucuses, Dean was the undisputed winner of the Iowa caucus. What happened. Dean homself and his supporters in Iowa. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, waiting longer would more likely had caused Dean even a bigger loss, as Gephardts machine repeating Deans record of statements about Social Security, America and Saddam, and numerous other things would have further drug Deans grave. Exit polls from Iowa showed that among the reasons that many people changed over from Dean to other candidates was his draft record, and his past statemets about Social Security, and that his attempt to recover from those statements of the past were not beleiveable, more thought to be his attempt to say what people wanted because he wanted tobe president, than out of real conviction or change of heart.

One last thing that is going to hqve and immense effect on Deans future career in politics is the massive sour grapes atitude about front loading the primary process. Every other candidate had to face the same problems created by an early primary process. All of them had the same limitations of having to get out a message, and to get name recognition among people in a large number of states in a much shorter period of time. Dean had the longest period of time to be known. IN fact, Dean alone had the same amount of tims as candidates would have had in non-front loaded primaries because of his immensely early start. Only Dean was not burdened with the the shortened period of time for campaigning.

[BootinUp]

33. disagree

As I recall Clark was still rising in NH until one week before Iowa and that could be explained due to all the attention moving to Iowa and Clark not being there of course.

Clark very well would have been there had it not been for the compressed primary schedule.

Clark was only a few points below Dean in NH prior to Deans collapse. And the reason he did not benefit is simply because he wasn't being covered by the media which was focused on Iowa. The Iowa polls changed massively in that last week.

[fujiyama]

35. Clark may have ended up doing better

but I knew right after Kerry and Edwards did so well in IA that Clark would be the one hurt the most. I kinda figured that it would be difficult for him to do really well in NH considering Kerry and Dean were from neighboring states, and Edwards had a huge boost after IA. The reason being was that all three were going after moderate voters.

Edwards and Clark seemed to really be going after the same voters considering they hurt each other in various southern states as well. They really split the moderate vote.

[salonghorn70]

5. New Hampshire

If the NH primary had been held later. I still think that Dean qould have lost. Once the voters stopped dating him, they were not going back. Edwards is the one that it would have helped.

[Dookus]

7. I agree...

Edwards could've been helped, but not enough to win, imo.

He was polling VERY low in New Hampshire and ended up with 12% against Kerry's 38% and Dean's 26%.

Could he have improved? Yeah. Would he have won given an extra week or two? I don't think so.

[mzmolly]

8. If the campaign hadn't started in Iowa, who knows?

:shrug:

[Dookus]

9. but it did start in Iowa...

it always does. I'm pretty sure all the candidates were aware of that fact.

[mzmolly]

17. Well you asked the question "with a different primary schedule"

did you not?

I suggested the campaign schedule could have started in New Hampshire or Vermont, get it? I guess I expanded on your premise.

[Dookus]

26. ah, I see

I was referring to the "compressed" schedule, not scrambling the order.

I agree a different order altogether could've had a bigger effect.

[WI_DEM]

11. well Dean was recovering before NH

If you recall immediately after Iowa and the expectations were shattered and the media onslaught over "the scream" a non-issue about nothing as only the media can latch on--Dean had fallen to third place in some polls in NH behind Kerry and Gen. Clark. However, Dean charged ahead and campaigned his heart out in NH and while he lost he did make gains in that week and came in a solid second with 26% of the vote--with Clark and Edwards battling it out for third coming in well behind with about 12% each. If Dean had another week, who knows?

[Dookus]

14. that's a misreading of history

Dean was far and away in the lead in all polls leading up to the NH primary. Even I conceded here many times that Dean was a shoo-in to win NH. Then he collapsed.

According to the American Research Group (www.americanresearchgroup.com) he was at 45% on December 17th. 39% on January 3rd. 36% on January 11th. 28% on January 17th. 25% on January 26th.

[WI_DEM]

19. now hold on Dookus

I know Dean once had a solid lead in NH, but I'm talking aabout after Iowa and the steam went out of the campaign. I can think of at least two tracking polls which showed Dean falling to third place. One was the American Research Poll out of NH and a poll often cited here on DU.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/

Jan 16-18
Clark 20%
Dean 28%
Edwards 8%
Kerry 19%

Jan 17-19
Clark 19%
Dean 28%
Edwards 8%
Kerry 20%

Jan 18-20
Clark 18%
Dean 26%
Edwards 9%
Kerry 24%

Jan 20-22
Clark 20%
Dean 18%
Edwards 11%
Kerry 31%

Jan 21-23
Clark 19%
Dean 15%
Edwards 13%
Kerry 34%

Jan 22-24
Clark 17%
Dean 16%
Edwards 15%
Kerry 38%

So as you can see in the tracking polls by ARG Dean was losing ground in NH even prior to Iowa, but after the Iowa setback he actually fell to third place behind Kerry and Clark and on Jan 22-24 polling was in danger of falling to fourth place as Edwards was only a point behind him. So my point was that yes, Iowa was a set back for Dean because he lost a great deal of ground in NH and in some polls actually fell to third place (I believe the Suffolk University Poll also showed him falling to third temporarily as well) but that as he was campaiging hard that week he did regain ground and finished a solid second as some of his supporters eventually came back to him. Also, I said if there was another week in the campaign could he have gained back even more? maybe. I don't know and neither do you.

[Dookus]

24. You're right...

I worded my earlier post badly. I meant that Dean had a commanding lead through 2003.

He started to fall in January.

[madfloridian]

21. Because he lost Iowa in part.

That had a lot to do with it. The Iowa caucuses were January 19, and he did pretty well to be at 25% after that. He came in 2nd in NH on Jan. 27.

[fujiyama]

36. The reason Kerry

started focusing so heavilly on IA was because polls were showing him getting trounced by Dean in NH. For a while it looked like Kerry's campaign was dead.

Kerry had the good political sense though to decide to put all his resources in IA, something which made all the difference.

[JI7]

37. yes, but Kerry's favorables were always high in New Hampshire

it was the perception that his campaign was over which was hurting him in the polls. this is why he knew all he needed to do was be seen as a winner and that's where iowa came in.

also kerry did start gaining in new hampshire about a week before the iowa caucuses.

[Still_Loves_John]

15. Of course Dean did better in NH than Edwards

He's from Vermont! And, as Dookus said, Dean fell to 26%, he didn't gain it.

[Still_Loves_John]

12. I'm not sure how true this is

but someone said that John Kerry was New Hampshire's natural pick, but lots of people kind of gravitated toward Dean when it looked liked he was the inevitable nominee. Once he lost Iowa, the fair-weather Deaniacs in NH went back to Kerry.

[WI_DEM]

13. true

because Kerry was much better known in NH initially than Dean thanks to the Boston media market. I do think that many lukewarm Dean supporters did defect to go with who the media was building up as the new frontrunner--without giving him, imo, the same kind of scrutiny that Dean got when he was front runner. But that in part is due to the abbreviated schedule as well.

[Still_Loves_John]

16. That wasn't really my point

What I was saying was that John Kerry was already liked and well known by NH people, but when it looked like Dean was the nominee they supported him. Once the race opened up again, they went back to Kerry, who they were already familiar with. It has nothing to do with not giving Kerry the same amount of scrutiny.

[JI7]

18. Kerry also has experience with the primary process

having worked for many of those who ran from his home state in the primary throughout the years. and more recently he endorsed al gore in 2000 and campaigned very hard for him in the primary states. so you are right, they do know kerry and he knew all he had to do to win back support was to be seen as having a true campaign rather than a "dead campaign" as the media kept saying.

[WI_DEM]

20. well that was my point

and Kerry still hasn't gotten the kind of critical media that Dean got. Not that I'm upset over it because I want him to win and we don't need the media tearing anymore democrats to shreds.

[Still_Loves_John]

28. OK, I misunderstood

I thought you meant that NH just jumped on the bandwagon.

[fujiyama]

38. I disagree

that Kerry hasn't recieved the same media scrutiny. Right after it was clear he would win the nomination the media started mouthing off Rovian talking points. I remember various outlets going on about the medals, his testimony, etc. and all in a negative light.

I do agree that Dean was built up and then torn down. However, I think they would have done that with anyone. They exagerrated his "scream" speech as well (and repeated a ridiculous number of times), but even without the media telling me, right as I was watching it, I knew it had hurt his campaign.

[madfloridian]

22. Here is a chart of the dates of the primaries.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2003-07-16-2004-political-calendar.htm

Please note that Dean dropped out on Feb. 18th, I think. The 3 states I have often referred to that are larger and in which Dean usually was ahead had primaries in March and April, FL, NY, and CA.

I have never, as some people seem to infer, blamed the fact that Dean lost Iowa on any one thing. You can not blame any one factor for anything.

However when the 3 largest states who were leaning toward one candidate in particular on the whole do not get a chance to cast a vote while that candidate is in the race....then I think the system needs work.

I just did a search on the topic, and I find most every article agreed with my stance on this.

[WI_DEM]

23. I agree

I think Dean would have done well in California and New York. I'm not certain about Florida. Had he stayed in longer to give his supporters a chance to vote for him I think he would have gotten a good bloc of delegates to the convention. But Dean is a realist too and put the party above his own campaign.

My feeling is had Dean actually come back and won NH we might be seeing John Edwards as the nominee today. Why? Kerry takes Iowa, Dean comes back in NH, Edwards comes in first in SC--we have a three man race. A stronger Dean would have hurt Kerry in the southern states and in states like Wisconsin and Ohio allowing Edwards to come in first in some of those states and having the momentum.

[madfloridian]

25. Florida was Dean/Clark most of the way.

It would have been hard to call for sure, but polls were getting better for him by Iowa. I have some old polls I had saved, but not important enough to scrounge for.

My point is that we should have equal opportunities to vote for all candidates. Our primary was moved ahead, I think, but can't recall the details. There was a lot of anger about it, I believe, because it sort of took Florida out of play. I think JebCo did it, not sure now.

[WI_DEM]

27. you make good points.

[Nicholas_J]

34. Dean did not really ever poll that well in Florida

While Graham was in the race, moat of the polls favored the favorite son, after that Joe Lieberman polled extremely well. Dean only polled well in areas around the University of Florida. Between Graham dropping out and the events in Iowa, Dean;s polling in Florida was not all that good. Florida never really happened for Dean.

By six weeks before the Floorida Primary, all polls and pundits showed Kerry completely in command of the state;

[DjTj]

29. Edwards was rising fast...

...in NH and many of the primaries after that. He shot up from single digits in the days leading up to vote in primary after primary.

I always felt like Edwards always needed one or two more days - he kept on falling just short.

Between Iowa and NH, the headlines were "Kerry Wins!" and "Dean Screams!" I think both Edwards and Clark would have gotten some boost if the Dean Scream story were allowed to die out and people got to actually hear a name besides Kerry.

Maybe Dean could have pivoted back to a campaign mesage about balanced budgets and health care, but I think the momentum was just too negative for him to recover after Iowa. Edwards and/or Clark may have been able to close the gap though, perhaps even laying the groundwork in a few later states. Maybe they would have just taken each other out though and still handed the nomination to Kerry.

...a lot of things could have happenned. Even then, I don't think everyone here was convinced it was all over.

[Yupster]

30. It hurt Edwards the most

Dean was dead, but the compressed primary schedule took away Edwards opportunity to campaign for a week in each state and try to catch Kerry. With so many primaries each week, it had to become an air war, and that left the guys without the money and name ID SOL.

I'd like to see a less compressed schedule next time.

[BootinUp]

32. For one

If the primary schedule was not so shortened, then Clark probably would have done more in Iowa. It could have had a huge effect in that event.

[fujiyama]

39. I think what hurt Clark

the most was that he entered so late and stayed out of IA.

Had he entered much earlier and competeted in IA, things may have been different.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. That is obviously true

I think Jim's point was that, due to the rapid progression of primaries after NH, since Clark did enter late, had he tried to compete in both Iowa and NH, it would have left him essentially zero time to build any type of campaign in any of the states that followed NH. Clark was running around to Arizona and Georgia and New Mexico etc during the lead up to the NH primary as well as campaigning in NH. Had the primary schedule been more like 2000, with a few weeks off after NH, Clark might have been able to do Iowa and NH despite entering late, because had Clark done well in those two states, he still would have had some time for some ground work in the follow up states before the next batch of primaries went off.

I can also see the case for how Edwards and Dean might have done significantly better under the old system. This one strongly favored Kerry as it turned out, obviously, because he kept building off of his wins. I'm not saying he didn't earn it, Kerry could have just as easily been knocked out had he done poorly in Iowa.

[JI7]

41. yeah, it was accepted among all that Kerry's campaign was over

until he won iowa. what i find interesting is that some who complain about kerry winning iowa and using that to get support in other states had no problem with declaring his campaign over based on the assumption that he was going to lose 1 state which he later won. and i'm not talking about you tom as i know you have never done that.

but Kerry also campaigned hard in other states. he was the only one who was visiting all primary states just before the primary elections until edwards had the impressive 2nd place in wisconsin. that's when kerry changed plans and decided to compete mostly in states that edwards was competing in. afterwards he went back to campaiging in states just before they held their primary even though he had pretty much wrapped things up by then.

another thing is that while kerry did mostly focus in iowa, he still kept his campaign running in new hampshire through his wife and kids and other close family and friends. and his personal favorables were always high in new hampshire. he just needed to get rid of the perception of having a dead campaign to gain in the polls again which he did with iowa win.