The Silly Season

We are now in what the media call the silly season of politics. This is the period between announcing a presidential bid and the first primaries. This period has gotten longer and longer over the last 20 years. It is now April of 2015, and we have 5 announced presidential candidates and at least 4 others considering a run. We have daily reams of articles on the state of the race, Hillary's advantages, Republican themes, etc, etc.

I think I follow these stories about as closely as any non-politico does. For me they are all redundant. The driving issues remain demographics, Obama's popularity, Hillary's fundamental unlikeableness and Republican social policy unlikeableness. These topics repeat, in various forms, daily. I wonder why the public doesn't tire of them. Predicting the presidential race now is not even like predicting the outcome of a basketball game in the first quarter. It's like predicting it in the weight room, or during recruiting. It's utterly pointless.

So why do it? Why the endless campaign? Why is it news?

This portion of a presidential cycle is not about the public, no matter how much the media try to publicize idiot 'gotcha' questions and resurrect the moment when candidate 'x' appeared to slide his hand into his suit pants, or whatever. This portion of the cycle is about raising money and lining up party operatives and donors. It is all behind-the-scenes grunt work of creating a campaign and getting the support no one ever sees.

It is no secret that running a successful presidential campaign takes a great deal of money. The de facto 'entry fee' is about 20 million dollars. Each candidate then must go about lining up this much financial support, obtained in part by showing the candidate's values, agenda and ability to 'connect' with voters. This takes a great deal of time. The election is November of year 4 (of the cycle). Primaries begin January year 4. The money must be in place by September of year 3 at the latest. Staff must be hired. Operatives must be 'on the ground' in primary states.

The front loading of the primary schedule makes an early start to the money cycle imperative. Here is a summary of dates for the Democratic Party's first primary and its convention-

YEAR	First Primary	Last Primary	Convention
1952	3/11	6/11	7/21
1960	3/8	6/7	7/11
1968	3/12	6/11	8/26
1976	1/27	6/8	7/12
1984	2/20	6/12	7/16
1002	2/10	6/9	7/13
2000	1/24	6/6	8/14
2012	1/10	6/5

These exclude the Iowa Caucuses. The last primary date obscures the front loading of the process. Most primaries take place by mid-March. And most states have a primary that is binding. Prior to 1960 many primaries were not binding, and fewer states had them. This gave greater meaning to the conventions as the forum for candidate selection. It also gave greater power to political 'bosses', powerful local and national figures who could work the delegates on the floor to gain support for their candidates.

The current system appears more representative. more states have primaries, and these are binding. The role of bosses has been minimized. The people's voice chooses the candidate. Well, not quite.

The front loading of the primary season means a decision on a candidate is typically made by mid-March. There has been no serious dispute over who the candidate would be for either party since 1984. Not only are the primary results binding, comitting votes at the conventions, but so many delegates have been bound by the end of March that it is impossible for a challenger to get enough support to win the nomination. The candidates themselves bow out, trying to give their party the best and longest shot of getting 'one of theirs' elected.

The front-loaded season requires candidates to have as much as 100 million dollars on hand for the primaries. This money can only be raised by support from political machines and big business. Thus we have a situation of unintended consequence, where an attempt at populism has rebounded as central money control of the process. No candidate can be elected without the support of Wall Street and Big Businesses, and of their political parties. The opportunities for maverick candidates to come through the process, like Carter, or Kefauver, is essentially gone. Humphrey won the 1968 candidacy without winning a single primary! That is impossible today.

And so we have a situation where campaigning for an election in November of year 4 must begin as early as February of year 3. The functional presidential campaign was never a sprint, but now it is 22 months long across two years. Nearly half of every election cycle is spent just getting elected.

While this is the silly season as far as the public awareness is concerned, I think everyone should be troubled by the current arrangements. We have financial oligarchy, with the successful candidate appealing to the public only insofar as popularity is needed to actually win the election. Becoming the candidate requires schmoozing with the very people who are pilloried every day- Big Business and the 1%.

We then complain with all the bitterness of the truly disenfranchised, who realize our votes are merely window dressing. Whatever candidate we choose has already been vetted by the forces that trouble us most. Nominal agendas of income equality or taxation reform are shallow promises anathema to the groups that end up funding the successful candidates.

I'm completely uninterested in the fatuous pronouncements of candidates in April 2015. But I think everyone should be aware of the process of choosing candidates. It is undemocratic and unrepresentative. While the press babble of candidates is indeed silly, this season is actually the determining one for which candidates we will vote on, and every one of them, regardless of party, will owe Wall Street, not us.

Ted