This is a follow-up to my earlier argument that, apart from fundraising, the structural underpinnings of the 2008 campaign--frontloading, lots of early attention, and a drawn out pre-primary process--
are actually healthy for American democracy. There was so much pushback in the comments, from so many different directions, that I felt a second post would be more helpful than simply responding to every single comment. In short, I am not backing down from my position at all, and in the extended entry I explain why.
According to Pew (PDF), the public is far more engaged in the 2008 campaign than any other presidential election during that time period. Here are the average results for how closely people are paying attention to each of the last six presidential campaigns before the start of the primary / caucus season:
Public Engagement In Presidential Campaigns, Pre-Primary
| Year |
Very Close Attention |
Somewhat Close Attention |
Total |
| 2008 |
21.4% |
30.8% |
52.2% |
| 2004 |
12.2% |
26.9% |
39.1% |
| 2000 |
15.5% |
32.2% |
47.8% |
| 1996 |
11.5% |
33.8% |
45.3% |
| 1992 |
10.5% |
26.5% |
37.0% |
| 1988 |
14.5% |
31.0% |
45.5% |
Already, nine months out, the public is more engaged in the 2008 presidential election than it was during the pre-primary period during any of the last five presidential campaigns. In fact, for the first time in decades, more than half of the country is either "very" are "somewhat" closely engaged in the presidential election during the pre-primary period. The gap between 2008 and previous elections is further emphasized when one considers that the average poll used to determine interest the other campaigns was taken in October--fully seven months later than the average poll used to determine interest in the 2008 campaign. Had the comparison been made to interest in presidential campaigns at equivalent dates, the gap between 2008 and previous elections would be much greater than this already significant upturn. Further, the percentage of the population registering a particularly high level of engagement in the campaign is 50% greater than the previous "open seat" elections of 1988 and 2000. This increased public interest in the campaign is matched by the rapidly increasing amount of campaign donors and the number of people attending campaign rallies, both of which are easily on record pace compared to other recent elections.
One of the main complaints that people brought up in the comments to my previous post was that most voters were not paying attention yet, and would not do so until January. Thus, even with a longer campaign, most voters would still have less time to make up their minds because there will be only twenty-two days between the Iowa caucuses and Super Tuesday. However, this data shows quite clearly that voters are not waiting until January to start paying attention. Instead, they are paying attention now. This will lead to significantly higher levels of voter turnout than previous primary / caucus seasons. This also means voters will spend more time, not less, making a decision on who to support. And yes, because of the frontloading, far more people will potentially have a say in who is nominated. Increased turnout, more informed voters, a greatly expanded electorate and increased grassroots activism--this is why it is a good thing the campaign is receiving so much attention early in the season.
Now, some commenters took umbrage with my characterization of those who opposed such an early start to the campaign season as cynical about voters and political activism. I stand by that too. The entire notion that the primary / caucus season needs to be spaced out because people don't start paying attention until January demonstrates a lower level of faith in the American electorate than is deserved--a lack of faith that is accurately characterized as cynical. The truth is, not only are people clearly paying attention at higher levels than previous elections, but the entire reason people are paying more attention is because of the wave of grassroots and netroots people-powered progressive activism that has arisen in the past few years.
Pew's data strongly suggests this to be the case:
First, a larger percentage of the Democrats than Republicans are paying attention to the campaign (31% vs. 20%). Notably, 38% of liberal Democrats say they have given the campaign a lot of thought, compared with just 24% of conservative Republicans. And while nearly half of Democrats (46%) volunteered a presidential candidate they might support, only 29% of Republicans named a candidate for whom they might vote.
It isn't just that people in general are paying more attention to this presidential election than they have in the past, but that liberal and progressive Democrats are paying
way more attention than they have in the past. Hmmm... why would liberal Democrats be so much more engaged in the 2008 presidential election than in previous elections? What could possibly have changed? Was there some new development over the past four years that profoundly altered the progressive political landscape? Of course there was. The progressive blogosphere, netroots and grassroots, the same people powered movement that time and time again has demonstrated an ability to engage, agitate and activate progressive and liberal Democrats on a scale not seen in decades, came into maturity during the last four years. Simply put, the people-powered progressive movement is the cause for greater interest in the presidential campaign. Why else would Clinton, Edwards and Obama
all erased once enormous head-to-head general election deficits against both McCain and Giuliani over the past few months? The Democratic edge both in attention and general election poll trends isn't starpower, as both McCain and Giuliani started this campaign better known and better liked than all three top Democrats. The reason is because progressive movement is driving interest in, attention to, and even largely creating the content of, this campaign. We are the ones providing the large crowds, the huge numbers of campaign donors, and the engaged rank and file--not Republicans, not Independents, and not even really "moderates."
From where I sit, I see a progressive, people-powered movement as the cause for record levels of voter engagement in a presidential election. This new voter engagement is not restricted simply to dedicated political activists, and is instead broadly based. Further, it is helping all Democrats improve their general election performance against all Republicans. As a result of this, we will have a larger, more informed, more engaged, and more progressive electorate. These developments are all very, very good, both for America and for American democracy. If you think the campaign has started too early, it just seems to me that you are giving neither the American people nor the progressive movement enough credit. Don't be so cynical. We saw how well that worked from 1994-2004. I am sure there are some people who miss that time period when engaging in politics, much less from a progressive perspective, simply wasn't something that the average American did. That phenomenon certainly helped conservatives regularly get away with bloody murder, entirely unchecked. Fortunately, people are changing now, by becoming more engaged, more active, and more progressive. I am thrilled with these developments, none of which would have been possible if the campaign had not started "way too early." An active, engaged populace is a hallmark of a healthy democracy, while complaints about excessive political activism and civic engagement is a hallmark of a thriving aristocracy.
