Myth

Maybe it's just me, but in all the punditry surrounding the presidential campaign, I find none more grating than the standard line about how "Iowa and New Hampshire provide the unique opportunity for candidates to get their message across directly to the voters," blah blah blah. Blah Blah.

There's not a chance in hell that the process will ever change--Iowa and New Hampshire both, by law, establish the starting line for the official campaign--but please. Midwesterners and New Englanders are neither more nor less qualified to begin the process. New Hampshire gets first-in-the-nation primary standing because for a long time it was one of the few States to select delegates via the primary process. And Iowa got a taste of the big time in 1976, and decided that they liked it. Period.

To further my short thesis here--take a look at the following page at OpenSecrets. Use the drop down box to cycle through total fundraising, dollars spent, and cash on hand. To give a small sample:

Bush is approaching $85 million total--he's already spent almost $15 million and he's running more or less unopposed.
Dean has a total amount raised of a little more than $25 million, and he's spent almost half of that.
Kerry topped out at roughly $20 million--and two thirds of that is gone.

There's NO WAY that you spend upwards of $12-15 million on "retail" politicking. Outlays like this represent all the trappings of modern campaigns: staff, media, polling, you name it. The idea that somehow these two contests are "different" in any meaningful procedural way is silly.

Unless--you make the argument that the early, small contests are a way of getting your staff up to speed, with the possibility that a gaffe or two here and there, either by the candidate, or by his supporters, can be corrected before you hit the Super Tuesdays on the process. If THAT'S the argument, I'll buy it.

But please spare the myth of Midwestern wholesomeness and New England's "fierce independence." That no longer holds water. Campaigns for the presidency are a big business, and the idea that some genuine Mom & Pop candidate will manage to sneak into the race via the early contests, and somehow defeat the big guys is about as true as the idea that a small retailer will somehow defeat Wal-Mart (hell, a relative of mine who sells insurance told me that one of his clients, a sporting goods store, went out of business because Wal-Mart could retail for less than the client paid wholesale).

Sure, it's possible that a little guy could take on the retail chain. But I wouldn't bet on it.