Early voting will beckon third-party candidates

By MARSHA MERCER

MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON — We’re about to test the old adage: Familiarity breeds contempt — and third-party presidential candidates.

OK, I invented that last part, but one result of states moving up their already early presidential primaries is a ridiculously long general campaign. And that means more time for an independent or third-party candidate to think he can fly in, Superman-style, to save the voters from their contempt for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

In our hyper-connected age, presidential candidates — like other celebrities — run the risk of overexposure. The more we get to know them, the more flaws we see. In the 2008 presidential election, we’ll see the nominees longer than ever.

If you’ve hated past negative presidential campaigns, consider this: We’ll know who the Democratic and Republican presidential contenders are by Feb. 5, if not earlier. For nine months until the November election, the candidates and their backers will have nothing to do but attack.

Like Pinocchio’s nose

The longest presidential campaign in history got at least a couple of weeks longer when South Carolina Republicans moved their primary to Jan. 19. They’d planned what now seems a leisurely jog to Feb. 2 for their “first in the South” contest, a tradition since 1980.

Then Florida had the temerity to set its primary on Jan. 29. Imagine a big state in the South, even if Florida doesn’t consider itself the South, trying to have a voice in picking the presidential nominees. The nerve. What’s next? California, which thought Feb. 5 was early enough, switching to January, too? It’s not enough to write checks?

Once South Carolina jumped forward two weeks, it looked like Iowa and New Hampshire would, too. But they’re playing the caucus and primary dates close to the vest until they see what other states do.

The domino effect means Iowans could be wrapping Christmas presents at their caucuses in mid-December. This is madness. Nobody wants to start voting for president in the year preceding the election.

As it is, the campaign schedule gives plenty of time for buyer’s remorse, or the voters’ equivalent. Imagine how tired you’re going to be by the summer Democratic and Republican national conventions of Hillary’s voice and Romney’s teeth — or whatever annoying traits surface in the two parties’ nominees.

Picture the excitement then if Michael (I can spend more of my money than you can imagine) Bloomberg or Al (I’m young enough but have no plan for 2008, unless I change my mind) Gore enters the race.

Few people believe an independent or third-party candidate can win the White House. In 1992, Ross Perot spent $65 million and won 19 percent of the vote. He did not win a single electoral vote. A third-party candidate would be a wild card in a zany year.

Repeat candidates used to get points for perseverance. Bob Dole was said to have “earned” his presidential run in 1996 by his congressional service and by running in 1988.

Now, though, when every mistake and policy shift gets magnified and repeated, trying again is harder to do. Look at John McCain.

Gore could be a special case because of the success of his book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and his ownership of the climate-change issue.

Front-loaded process

Who wins with the crush of early primaries? Front-runners with the most money are likely to gain momentum, and moneymen become even more important when candidates have to spend heavily in several states.

Bob Graham, a former Florida governor and senator and presidential contender in 2004, is among those calling for primary reform. He favors keeping Iowa and New Hampshire first, followed by five regional primaries. The order would be rotated.

“Iowa and New Hampshire are not perfect, but they are more likely to eliminate flawed candidates than states where voters see only television commercials,” he wrote in a recent New York Times oped.

The problem is that the current primary system is a free-for-all. Every four years, people say it’s broken, that it pits parochial pride against parochial pride. Many smart people have offered plans for something better that would allow voters in more states to take the measure of candidates over time.

But that’s for 2012. And no one’s in charge.

X Marsha Mercer is Washington bureau chief for Media General News Service. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.