1. CHOOSING THE NOMINEE: HOW PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES CAME TO BE AND THEIR FUTURE IN AMERICAN POLITICS Senior Honors Thesis by Ryan Rainey

2. Acknowledgements  Dr. Houghton  Dr. Kostrzewa  Dr. Kuersten  Family and friends

3. Why Primaries?  The timing  Importance to our political system  To learn more  Educate others

4. Research Questions  How did the primaries get to where they are today?  Why are Iowa and New Hampshire so important?  What does the future have in store for the primary?

5. Topics  Early History and Reform  Iowa and New Hampshire  The 2008 Primary Race  Where the Primary is Headed  Ideas for Reform

6. Early History  Not chosen in the way we are used to  Chosen by Congressional Caucus  Running mate also chosen this way

7. Early History  National Party Convention system in 1830s  Conventions had become the standard by 1840  Party Unity  Power of state party bosses  Smoke filled rooms

8. The Four Periods  James W. Davis identifies four periods  Early Period: 1901-1906  The Ebb-Tide Period: 1917-1945  Reawakened Interest Period: 1945-1968  Post Reform Period: 1968-1986

9. Early Period: 1901-1906  States experiment with primaries  “Beauty Contests”  National primary law  25 states by 1916

10. Ebb-Tide Period 1917-1945  High cost  Low voter turn out  Roaring Twenties  Great Depression  World War II

11. Reawakened Interest Period: 1948- 1968  1952: voter participation more than doubled  Estes Kefauver  Believed in primary success  12 out of 14 states  Did not convince the party bosses

12. Post Reform Period 1968-1986  Many reforms were taken place  Debacle at 1968 Democratic Convention  Hubert H. Humphrey “steals” nomination  Reform Commissions appointed

13. Reform Commissions  Early Reform Commission: 1968  McGovern-Fraser Commission: 1969-1970  O’Hara Commission: 1969-1972  Mikulski Commission: 1972-1973  Winograd Commission: 1974-1978  Hunt Commission: 1980-1982  Fairness Commission: 1985-1986

14. Early Reform Commission: 1968  Led by Howard Hughes  Officially the Commission on the Democratic Selection of Presidential Nominees  “State systems for selecting delegates to the National Convention display considerably less fidelity to the basic democratic principles than a nation which claims to govern itself can safely tolerate”

15. McGovern-Fraser Commission: 1969- 1970  Commission on Party Structure and Development  18 points that include:  Banning high ranking officials getting automatic delegate seats  No ex officio state delegates  Delegate selection to take place during presidential year

16. O’Hara Commission: 1969-1972  Modify delegate allocation  Increase minimum delegates to 20  Randomized seating  12 hour interval for president and vice president nominations

17. Mikulski Commission: 1972-1973  Led by Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland  Established minimum threshold for vote requirements  Could receive at least one delegate out of 3  Eliminate quotas on minorities

18. Winograd Commission: 1974-1978  Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure  Eliminated threshold set by Mikulski  Publicly declared party preference  Establishes time frame for primary  Faithful Delegates

19. Hunt Commission: 1980-1982  Commission on Presidential Nomination  Superdelegates  Reversal of McGovern-Fraser  14% of convention delegates State governors Members of Congress State elected officials Party officials

20. Fairness Commission: 1985-1986  Prompted by Jessie Jackson and Gary Hart  Winner take all distorted the popular vote- abolished  Kept superdelegates

21. Republican Commissions  Committee on Convention Reform: 1968  Delegates and Organizations Committee: 1971  Rule 29 Committee

22. PART II: IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE The Four Primaries

23.  Money Primary  Reassure the voters  Substance  Party leadership

24. Iowa and New Hampshire  Kick off to primary  A “treasure and tradition”

25. Iowa Caucus  Starts with hotel rooms  New Democratic rules  Jimmy Carter  First to spend time and resources in state  Came in second  Win the nomination

26. Why Iowa is First  Written in Iowa law  Punishment of states  Florida in 2012 Given half their normal delegates  Michigan in 2012 Only 30 out of 56 delegates could vote

27. Effects of Iowa  Obama in 2008: Wins with 37.6%-wins nomination  John McCain in 2008: 4 th place finish, wins nomination  Bill Clinton 1991: 4 th place finish, wins nomination  Mike Huckabee: Wins with 34.4%-loses nomination

28. Iowa’s Significance  Winning in Iowa doesn’t guarantee success  Loosing doesn’t doom the campaign  Gets candidates noticed  Narrows playing field  Michelle Bachman  “Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, so I have decided to stand aside.”

29. New Hampshire Primary  Has been first since 1920s  1949 becomes “more interesting”  1952 and Eisnehower  Proving ground  Harry Truman  Lyndon Johnson  Caused them not to seek re-election

30. Significance of New Hampshire  Clinton in 2008: Wins with narrow victory  Obama wins nomination despite losing here  Kerry in 2004: Wins New Hampshire, loses election  McCain in 2008: Wins New Hampshire and nomination, loses election  Bush in 2000: Lost New Hampshire, wins nomination

31. Findings  Should not be ignored  Clinton in 2008  Candidates do so at their own risk  Victory doe not guarantee nomination  A loss can quickly end a campaign

32. PART III: THE 2008 PRIMARY Obama, McCain, and Clinton

33. Hillary Breaks the Rules  Rule changes had big impact  Obama  Credited with delegate strategy  Clinton breaks delegate rules  Failed to attain pledged delegates  Critical to her loss

34. Why Clinton Lost  “Didn’t master the rules”  Didn’t know delegate rules  Chief Strategist Mark Penn

35. Why Clinton Lost cont.  “She underestimated the caucus states.”  Reasoning  Core base  Couldn’t commit to a caucus Women Elderly Blue Collar workers

36. Money in 2008  1968: $20-25 million spent  2008: Clinton alone raises over $223 million  2008: Obama raises $745 million for primary and general election

37. Superdelegates  Largely ignored before  796 up for grabs  Clinton after Super Tuesday  210-243 superdelegates  Obama after Super Tuesday  141-156 superdelegates

38. Superdelegates cont.  Clinton had confidence  Harold Ickes’ prediction  Did not bode well with Obama campaign  David Plouffe criticism  Seat unpledged delegates? MI and FL  Clinton:  “I believe that the super-delegates should do the same as any other delegate or voter, which is to determine who they believe will be president”

39. Superdelegates cont.  Obama  Stoke the anger  Court the superdelegates  Clinton begins trailing  May 10  Obama ahead in superdelegate count  Still not at “magic number”

40. Superdelegates cont.  Clinton’s last option  Wants do-over in MI and FL  Obama  Call on uncommitted delegates  Path to victory  May 10: reaches 2,118 delegates  Clinton withdraws

41. John McCain  Different path to nomination  Winner-take-all  Critical to primary win  No major primary battle

42. The Comeback Kid  Primary campaign in trouble  Strong start  Major issues  Fundraising  Dropping poll numbers  Lack of support

43. The Comeback Kid cont.  Re-tool campaign  Play on conservative record  Distance from George W. Bush  Fundraise  Raises $219 million  Mitt Romney raises $105 million  Wins 1,563 delegates and nomination

44. Findings  Hillary made mistakes  Huge money raised  Superdelegates  Different rules  Different paths

45. PART IV: WHERE THE PRIMARIES SEEM TO BE HEADED Money, Primaries, Conventions

46. Conventions  Old news?  Dying out?  Getting much less coverage  Loosing interest  Honey Boo Boo a threat?  3 million viewers  GOP Convention: 2 million viewers

47. Why We Still Need Conventions  Party unity  Legitimacy  Hammer out national platform  Rising stars

48. Do We Need Superdelegates  “…appear to be the least democratic institution in this entire nominating process”  How SHOULD they vote?  Freedom of Association  Future is uncertain

49. Where Primaries are Headed  Money  Citizens United v. FCC  Free speech right-supporters  Creates corruption and unfair advantages-opposers  Money poured into expensive primaries  Creates “Money Primary”

50. PART V: PROPOSED REFORMS Primary Reforms

51. Five Criteria  Elect a quality candidate  Create information for voters in later states  Encourage voter participation  Equality among states  Shorter interval between primaries and conventions 

52. American Plan  Schedule of 10 intervals over 2 week periods  Starts with Congressional districts  First: combined 8  Second: 16; and so on  Even among states

53. Delaware Plan  Splits country into pods  First pod votes first; has lowest combined population  Following pods: combined population increases  Each pod assigned a month  Backloading?

54. Rotating Regional Plan  Splits states into four regions  Regions rotate  12-13 states in each region  Iowa and New Hampshire remain first

55. Regional Lottery  Four Geographic regions  US Election Lottery drawing  Second lottery for states with four or less electoral votes  State equality issue?

56. One Day National Lottery  All primary and caucus contests held on same day  Eliminates “who goes first?” controversy  Eliminates advantages for lesser known candidates

57. National Plan  Every state votes at same time  Voting open January 1-June 30  Results announced every month

58. Why I Support The National Plan  Voters get to know the candidates  Increase voter participation  Pay more attention to the primaries  Flexibility for candidates

59. The Criteria  Quality candidate?-yes  Gather information?-yes  Voter participation?-yes  Equality among states?-yes  Good time frame between convention?-yes

60. Interregional Plan  Proposed by Sander Levin (D-MI)  Country split into six regions with six sub regions  Sub-regions rotate  March-June

61. Why I Support The Interregional Plan  Each sub-region will get a chance to be first  Chance for lesser known candidates  Closer to conventions-keeps momentum

62. The Criteria  Quality candidate?-yes  Gather information?-yes  Voter participation?-yes, but more limited than National Plan  Equality among states?-yes  Good time frame?-yes

63. Texas Plan  Splits country into four regions  Equal number of states in each region  Equal number of Democratic and Republican states  Regions rotate every primary  Advocates most equality

64. Problems  Raises more questions than it answers  What states go into which group?  Do states stay in the same group every time?  How do you determine Republican/Democratic states?  Registered voters?  How state voted?  What if that changed?

65. The Criteria  Quality candidate?-unsure  Gather information?-yes  Voter participation?-unsure  Equality among states?-yes  Good time frame?-unsure

66. Money? Shorter Primary?  Money is here to stay  Will only get more expensive  Shorter primary will become too compact  Less flexibility for candidates 

67. Overall Research Findings  Primaries have a rich history  Democrats took on many reforms while Republicans did not  Iowa and New Hampshire do matter  2008 important for superdelegates  Will only get more expensive  Somewhat flawed  Some solid reform proposal ideas

68. Conclusions  More open dialogue on reform is needed  Money should be kept under control  The primary has morphed greatly  Important to our political history  Unique to us  Excited to see what is next!

69. THANK YOU!  Thank you everyone for your support, suggestions and enourgaement!