California’s Decision to Move Up Primary Date Stirs Debate

When California politicians advanced the date of the 2000 presidential primary, their aim was to end years of frustration over the largest state’s puny role in the nominating process. But if recent experience and present political realities are any guide, the chances of achieving that goal seem dim.

According to many national experts, all Californians are likely to accomplish with their new March 7 primary date is to further degrade the much-derided presidential selection system.

The increasingly “front-loaded” delegate-selection system, which California’s leap forward accelerates, dramatically reduces the chances of all but the best-known, best-heeled candidates. Others will lack the time or money to get their message across. And this, in turn, diminishes the prospects of real competition or surprises occurring in most primaries--even those moving up on the election calendar.

With California’s move, the experts say, the likely outlook for the 2000 campaign is that the nominations will be preordained before ballots are cast in the Golden State or elsewhere--with the possible exceptions of Iowa and New Hampshire, where delegate selection for both parties traditionally begins. After a cursory winnowing of the field in those two small states, “all that the people of California will get to do will be to ratify the Gallup Poll and the fund-raising totals,” says GOP strategist David Keene, an advisor to the Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bob Dole campaigns.

And those Californians hoping the new primary date will boost the presidential prospects of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson also could face disappointment, many political professionals say.

“Wilson could be a contender,” says GOP consultant Charles Black, a strategist for the presidential campaigns of Reagan, Bush, and, most recently, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas). “But he’s got to play by the same rules as everybody else, which means he has to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.”

Of course, at this early stage, no one can predict the consequences of California’s shift. A few analysts guess the change could still help a dark horse who, by finishing dramatically ahead of expectations in Iowa or New Hampshire, could gain enough momentum to cash in on the cornucopia of delegates up for grabs in California and New York.

But even under that scenario, California’s impact may be less than many imagine.

“Instead of enhancing the power of the people of California to determine the outcome of the nominating process, the early primary in California could well enhance the power of the people in Iowa and New Hampshire,” speculates Democrat strategist Tad Devine, a former advisor to the presidential campaigns of Walter F. Mondale and Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.).

“The California move is the final nail in the coffin” of the primary nominating process, claims Fred Wertheimer, former head of Common Cause and founder of Democracy 21, a new political reform group. “It drastically narrows the time frame for considering the competing candidates, for examining their views and giving them a chance to make their arguments for public support.”

No one finds it hard to understand why California is moving up its primary date. Despite its size, the state that now sends about 10% of the delegate total to each national convention has not had a meaningful role in the nominating process since 1972, when George S. McGovern nailed down the Democratic nod by defeating Hubert H. Humphrey in the Golden State contest then held in June.

“We’ve been fundamentally irrelevant,” says Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who managed the 1988 presidential bid of Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). “California has as much right to be a decisive part of this process as anybody else.”

And on the surface, at least, Californians will probably see more of the initial political action in 2000 than they have in the past. “People will campaign there and spend a lot of money there,” Black says.

But the experts anticipate that the choices available to the state’s voters will be diminished by the intensification of front-loading, with its corresponding financial pressures.

Many believe that in the 1996 campaign, these factors led a number of potentially appealing Republican prospects--such as former Cabinet secretaries Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp and William J. Bennett--not to compete for the GOP presidential nomination. And even some supporters of the ultimate winner, Dole, now concede that their candidate’s huge financial advantage over his GOP rivals blotted out misgivings within party circles about his general election prospects.

In 2000, the effect of California’s move to March 7 will be compounded because of the other states that also have slated their primaries for that date: New York (the nation’s third most populous state), Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut and Maryland.

The likely consequence of this massive bicoastal competition, says GOP campaign veteran Keene, is that “a candidate will essentially wrap up the nomination before he’s truly tested in the process.”

Under these circumstances, Keene adds, “one could argue that the only serious Republican contenders are [Texas Gov.] George W. Bush, because he leads in the polls, and [publishing magnate] Steve Forbes, because he can write a check. There isn’t anybody else that has the possibility of raising the kind of money they would need.”

And on the Democratic side, analysts see a similar advantage for Vice President Al Gore, barring damaging fallout from the ongoing Justice Department investigation into his 1996 campaign fund-raising activities.

In addition to the prestige and prominence of the nation’s second-highest office, Gore has ready access to the high-powered contribution apparatus that bankrolled the reelection of the Clinton-Gore ticket.

Recent history shows that the steadily increasing demand for huge campaign treasuries to cope with the front-loaded political calendar has made it hard for underdogs to sustain momentum even if they do well at the start. Not since 1976, when the Democrats made Jimmy Carter their standard-bearer, has a genuine dark horse won the nomination.

Since then, both parties have seen upset victories by underdogs, such as Bush over Reagan in the 1980 Iowa Republican caucus, Gary Hart over Mondale in the 1984 New Hampshire Democratic primary and Paul E. Tsongas over Bill Clinton in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary. But in each case, these victories proved mere flukes and the front-runner won out in the end.

Looking ahead to 2000, the impact of the California change could be greater on the GOP presidential race than on the Democratic contest. Under Republican rules, the California delegation (165 out of 1,990 total delegates in 1996) will be awarded on a winner-take-all basis to whomever finishes first. Under Democratic rules, the delegation (424 out of 4,289 in 1996) will be divided proportionately among the competing candidates.

That could provide a big boost for Wilson if he decides to seek the GOP nomination. But to cash in on the opportunity, Wilson will have to find ways to offset the negative impression left by his ill-fated 1996 candidacy.

Right now, says Keene, Wilson “doesn’t come up as first, second or third choice in the minds of most people outside California.”