More prominent role for the South in presidential primaries?

If the 2008 presidential primaries play out as they are currently shaping up, there could be a lot more attention paid to Southern states and it could come a lot earlier in the process.

As states jockey for more prominent positions in the primary process, Alabama and Arkansas have already moved their primaries to Feb. 5th, and Florida, North Carolina, and Texas are considering it.

Along with California, which is also considering a move to Feb. 5th, this would move "Super Tuesday" from March to February. With Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia also scheduled for February primaries, there will be large numbers of Southern delegates in play right out of the gates next year.

Here's the tentative lineup* (with number of convention delegates in parenthesis):

South Carolina Jan. 29 (D: 54) and Feb. 2 (R: 47)
Alabama moved to Feb. 5 (D: 60, R: 48)
Arkansas moved to Feb. 5 (D: 48, R: 34)
Florida considering move to Feb. 5 (D: 210, R: 114)
North Carolina considering move to Feb. 5 (D: 110, R: 69)
Texas considering move to Feb. 5 (D: 228, R: 140)
Louisiana Feb. 9 (D: 68, R: 46)
Tennessee Feb. 12 (D: 85, R: 55)
Virginia Feb. 12 (D: 98, R: 64)
Georgia March 4 (D: 104, R: 72)
Mississippi March 11 (D: 40, R: 38)
West Virginia May 13 (D: 37, R: 30)
Kentucky May 20 (D: 55, R: 45)

The Democrats will have a total of 4370 delegates with 2186 needed to nominate, and Republicans will have 2517 delegates, with 1259 needed to nominate. If my arithmetic is right, Southern states with primaries in February plus South Carolina in January represent 44% of the delegates needed to nominate for Democrats, and 49% needed for Republicans.

This suggests that the candidates will have to spend some time in the South. Anything that gets the national parties to either a) notice the South, or b) not take us for granted is a good thing, isn't it? And it doesn't appear the eventual Democratic nominee will be able to "whistle past Dixie" this time, at least not in the primaries.

But in the big scheme of things, is "front loading" the primaries a good thing? Could this effectively eliminate "grass-roots" candidates right from the get go? It's one thing to load a bunch of starry-eyed volunteers into an RV and head up to New Hampshire to see what happens. It seems quite another to plan and execute successful, simultaneous statewide campaigns across an entire region, plus California, with limited funding and no name recognition.

Pundits who ponder such things see pros and cons, but the general consensus seems to be that this may not be such a good idea. From the Christian Science Monitor:

Feb. 5 could become a de facto national primary, political analysts say, because candidates who underperform in that vote would have trouble attracting donations that allow them to continue campaigning. And the party nominations could easily be sewn up in the three weeks between the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14 and the Feb. 5 sweepstakes - giving the public insufficient time to watch and test the candidates, they say.

"With that many states front-loading their primary dates, the presidential campaign may get closure sooner, but people in each party may end up regretting the choice," says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California. He cites the meteoric rise in 2004 of Howard Dean, the early Democratic front-runner, who later flamed out when voters watched him more closely over months of campaigning.

"They may find out things about the anointed nominees that they don't like, but find them out too late," says Dr. Pitney.

On the other hand, it may force candidates to talk about something other than ethanol and farm subsidies early on:

These assessments do not cancel out the rationale for California and other states that want more clout in who picks presidential nominees, analysts say.

"A Feb. 5 primary for California means California issues are finally going to be addressed by the candidates, rather than just farm or New England issues," says Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. "It means California voters - not just California donors like big Hollywood celebrities - [would] have a bigger say in the presidential primary."

If candidates are forced to consider California voters, concerns such as offshore oil drilling, illegal immigration, national security, and the environment might move up the issue agenda of candidates, say Mr. Stern and others.

One thing the pundits seem to agree on is that early selection of the presumptive nominees would mean a longer presidential campaign -- starting February 6th and going through a long hot summer into November. And I'm not sure that's something anyone would look forward to.

(*Source: The Green Papers)