Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Have New Hampshire and Iowa lost the power to pick presidents? It's complicated

Published

on

Opinion: Have New Hampshire and Iowa lost the power to pick presidents? It's complicated

New Hampshire voters headed to the polls this week more than a month before most voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on the presidential nominations. They were preceded only by the small number of Iowans who braved subzero temperatures last week to participate in the nation’s first Republican caucuses.

We nevertheless appear to remain on a collision course with a Biden-Trump rematch that nobody wants. But we shouldn’t blame Iowa and New Hampshire for that.

Voters in these early states, along with the political elites who fight to protect their privilege, tend to take their role very seriously and believe they are especially equipped to evaluate the candidates. They have been called “presidential wine tasters” who may not make a choice until they shake hands with every hopeful. Ever since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 Iowa caucuses and was catapulted to the nomination by the momentum — what George H.W. Bush called “big mo” — voters in the early states have been widely regarded as kingmakers.

The reality, however, is not so simple. Donald Trump is the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire in the modern era. On the Democratic side, since Carter, only Al Gore and John Kerry have won both. Moreover, winning either state is rarely associated with winning the presidency the following November.

The presidential nomination process was overhauled following the 1968 election with the intent of taking power from party elites and handing it to voters. The resulting system is federalist: The national parties set guidelines, and the state parties structure their contests within those boundaries. Most states are allowed to hold primaries and caucuses between early March and mid-June, but a few are granted exemptions to hold earlier contests.

Advertisement

In 2008, Nevada and South Carolina were added to the early contests in predominantly white and rural Iowa and New Hampshire to increase diversity. The Democratic Party sought to bring even more diversity to the front with additional changes this year.

That made the nomination process even more complicated. Now some states are holding separate Democratic and Republican primaries and caucuses (Michigan, Nevada); others wanted an early contest so desperately that they scheduled it in violation of national party rules (New Hampshire). States often fight for an early primary because it brings outsize attention from candidates and the media.

But Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states don’t pick presidents so much as they help narrow the possibilities. At one point, more than a dozen Republican contenders were seeking this year’s nomination. Two weeks into the voting, we’re down to just two. Candidates often bow out early, sometimes before any voting takes place, so they are not seen as damaged goods, don’t waste precious resources and preserve their political futures. Such calculations certainly played into Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to withdraw days after Iowa.

Trump has only 32 of the 1,125 delegates needed to win the nomination; his onetime U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, is only 15 delegates behind and has pledged to stay in the race until her home state, South Carolina, votes in about a month. Yet it appears likely that there will be a presumptive nominee by the time the rest of us get a chance to weigh in.

While some nomination contests, such as the 2008 battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, lasted for the duration of the calendar, other competitive races have been decided quickly. In 2000, George W. Bush and Gore both became the presumptive nominees after just 45 days, before half of the states held their contests.

Advertisement

Though the early states don’t decide, they can help shape the trajectory of the race. They have given candidates second chances, as with Bill Clinton in 1992; slowed apparent coronations, as John McCain and Bernie Sanders did against Bush and Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2016, respectively; or effectively sealed the deal, as appears to be the case with Trump this year.

But the early contests don’t winnow the field and shape our choices on their own. While the parties have less power than they did 60 years ago, party elites still influence nominations through endorsements in the “invisible primary” stage, before the voting begins. This year, for instance, the vast majority of Republican elites who have made endorsements have backed Trump.

Focusing on the early states can blur the bigger picture. Trump and Biden led the polls for most or all of the invisible primary period, frequently by more than 50 points. Both solidified the support of party elites and dominated endorsements early on. Iowa and New Hampshire only confirmed what was fairly clear for more than a year: 2024 is likely to yield another contest between Trump and Biden whether we want it or not.

Caitlin E. Jewitt is an associate professor of political science at Virginia Tech and the author of “The Primary Rules: Parties, Voters, and Presidential Nominations.” Gregory Shufeldt is an associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis and a former Public Voices fellow with the OpEd Project.

Advertisement

Politics

Supreme Court Expands Presidential Powers to Fire Independent Regulators

Published

on

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump could fire independent regulators for any reason. But the justices carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the immediate removal of Lisa D. Cook, a Federal Reserve governor.

Continue Reading

Politics

Emotion and feelings: How Democratic Socialists’ congressional insurgency could come back to bite them

Published

on

Emotion and feelings: How Democratic Socialists’ congressional insurgency could come back to bite them

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Socialists of America are on the charge, running hot off their wins in the New York Democratic primaries last week. Their victories in multiple Congressional seats – felling both Reps. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., and Dan Goldman, D-N.Y. – signals that the party is ready to move on from the same old, same old.

Espaillat chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Goldman was a key House staffer during the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.

“Even Dan Goldman’s not good enough for them,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Fox. “That is how radical it’s become.”

Some moderate Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the left.

Advertisement

MAMDANI-BACKED SOCIALISTS LOOK TO TAKE NEW YORK PLAYBOOK NATIONWIDE AFTER PRIMARY VICTORIES

The left flank of the Democratic Party has surged to the top of the nation’s most hotly-contested primaries. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

“That’s not the same brand of politics that we have. We’re not those type of Democrats,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., who represents a battleground district.

“There’s a new group of Democratic Socialists who are socialists who are not commonsense Democrats. Who are not interested in getting things done. They’re interested in throwing bombs. Not actually solving problems,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J.

LURCHING LEFT: MAMDANI-BACKED CANDIDATES OUST ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS

Advertisement

Some Democrats are worried how far left candidates command more attention than those in the middle. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., worries that the outsized attention garnered by the left sends the wrong impression to voters.

“What they don’t want is divisiveness. They don’t want screaming and yelling,” said McDonald Rivet.

Mainstream Democrats feel trapped in the middle as the left – specifically the New York City left – wields an outsized media and political megaphone.

“Those candidates would not have won in Virginia where I live,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va.

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., is among the moderate Democrats trying to distance themselves from the party’s insurgent wing. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Republicans believe they are primed to nationalize the midterms. Republicans can do that by highlighting the extreme views of Democratic Socialists who captured primary victories in New York City. The GOP wants to portray their opponents as veering left.

“These are board-certified communists, right?” asked Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. “They want no police. They want no private property.”

President Trump capitalized on the Democratic outcomes in his home city.

“The Democrat party is in big trouble because this isn’t stopping with New York,” he forecast.

VICTORIES BY MAMDANI-BACKED CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES SPOTLIGHTS GROWING RIFT IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Advertisement

This shakeup has progressive leaders demanding transformation at the top.

“You’re going to see, I think, people voting for new leadership and to change their representation,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The Democratic Party tapped Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., to deliver their official response to President Trump’s 2025 State of the Union speech. Slotkin is a moderate who won in a battleground race in 2024 – even as the President prevailed in the Wolverine State. But during an appearance on SiriusXM, Slotkin insists on a Democratic Party management switch.

“If people can’t understand that the game has fundamentally changed and they can’t adapt, then they need to let others,” said Slotkin. “The old models do not work for people.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is perceived by Republicans as vulnerable after his preferred candidates failed in their congressional primaries. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Republicans believe House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is vulnerable after the DSA elected their candidates over his preferred picks in New York City.

“I think Hakeem Jeffries’ friends and neighbors gave him a big middle finger,” said House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. “If you lose three elections in your hometown, that’s a pretty big slap in the face.”

He added that Democrats “are going further and further to the left to the point where they are full-blown, card-carrying socialists.”

And then there is the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and in some cases, antisemitic take by some of these candidates. Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, is a moderate Democrat from a swing district. He’s Jewish and one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in the House.

“There are some on the left who use Israel the way that some on the right use immigrants or trans kids as a way to divide. And I think it’s terrible. It’s also just not what voters want us talking about,” said Landsman.

Advertisement

HOUSE DEMOCRAT LASHES OUT WHEN GRILLED ON WHETHER SOCIALIST VICTORIES WOULD THREATEN DEM UNITY

Yours truly tangled with Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. – who once chaired the House Democratic Caucus. I pressed him about what the party would do about some candidates “who are too far to the left.”

“What does that mean? That’s your statement. Did the people of New York vote?” queried Larson.

I assured him that they did.

“Is that democracy?” asked Larson.

Advertisement

“But if some of them are antisemitic,” I countered.

“Is that a democracy?” continued Larson.

“Will you stand by people if they have antisemitic views?” I followed up.

Larson finally addressed my inquiry. His answer crystallized the schism the Democratic Party now faces.

“I’m against antisemitism, if that’s your question,” Larson declared.

Advertisement

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., got into a heated exchange with Fox News’ Chad Pergram over the views of some likely members of his party’s next freshman class. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The fact that Democrats are now facing this debate robs them of valuable time on economic issues.

Landsman argued that voters would prefer candidates to stick to groceries and the price of gas.

Gottheimer echoed Landsman on kitchen table subjects.

“We should be focused on ways to actually solve problems like that. Not coming in here and using tea party tactics and trying to divide up the country and pray to socialist ideals,” said Gottheimer.

Advertisement

So what is the party to do?

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

“They’re our nominees. We’re going to support them. We’re going to welcome them. They’re going to be part of our caucus and we’re going to unite behind Leader Jeffries,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight panel.

But that doesn’t address the fissures. It doesn’t address how voters may perceive the party. And it doesn’t establish if these new Democratic nominees will work on behalf of the party to raise money and advocate for Democrats across the board. Or, will they become professional bomb throwers – ala what the right has endured for a while.

“It’s going to be a lot harder to get things done when you get more and more extreme candidates who are here because they’re interested in political celebrity. They are interested in fighting. They’re interested in making points,” asserted Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.

Advertisement

Republicans have had an abysmal week themselves – President Donald Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., for instance, got into a shouting match over Iran. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images)

Republicans suffered through an absolutely abysmal week. House GOP leaders had to yank multiple bills off the floor and send lawmakers home early because of internal disputes. President Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., got into a shouting match about Iran. And the president even threatened to veto a bipartisan housing bill. President Trump then refused to sign the bill at the Capitol, despite his aides touting the bill and House Republicans tricking out Statuary Hall for a signing ceremony.

The President characterized the housing bill as “a yawn.”

But the Democrats’ internal fractures may have superseded any internecine fighting among Republicans.

“While it’s not been a great week for Republicans, I think it’s been a much worse week for Democrats because of these primary elections,” observed Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Democrats will certainly run on economic issues and capitalize on statements by the President about basic issues like housing. But will a genuine policy debate outweigh fears about progressives nationwide?

Emotion and feelings rule in politics. And it could be a problem for Democrats if Republicans appropriate what happened in New York and Xerox it onto battleground districts across the country.

Continue Reading

Politics

Anthropic partners with California to expand AI use by government workers

Published

on

Anthropic partners with California to expand AI use by government workers

Anthropic teamed up with California to get more state workers to use its artificial intelligence assistant Claude as part of an effort to leverage technology to make the government more efficient.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced the partnership on Monday, said state agencies will be able to access Claude at a 50% discount. Free training and other assistance will also be available to the workers. California’s local governments will also get the same discount under the agreement.

Government workers can use Claude to draft and summarize documents, analyze information and do other tasks.

Anthropic, an AI company based in San Francisco, has a version of its AI assistant for government clients that provides more security than what it provides other consumers.

The new partnership shows how AI is playing a bigger role at work as tech companies market their tools as ways to complete tasks more quickly. Last year, San Francisco made Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, which is powered by OpenAI’s model, available to nearly 30,000 city employees.

Advertisement

Still, the rise of automation at work has heightened concerns that people will lose their jobs. There are also worries that there are not yet adequate guardrails in place to mitigate data privacy and security risks.

Anthropic and the governor said that they’re focused on the responsible use of AI.

“AI should not replace the human work of government; it should help our workers move faster, solve problems more effectively, and deliver better results for Californians,” Newsom said in a statement.

The remarks didn’t appear to comfort union leaders.

“Wow. Look local government, the Gov is giving you a 50% off coupon to give up your residents’ private data, outsource your jobs to big tech. Isn’t that cool? Because California basically invented AI slop!” said Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, in a post on X.

Advertisement

Anthropic has faced political hurdles as it pushes to get more companies and government agencies to use its products.

Most notable, it’s sparred publicly with the Trump administration, which ordered the company to cut off foreign access to its most powerful AI systems this month.

The Trump administration cited potential national security risks, but Anthropic disagreed with the findings. Last week, tensions decreased after the U.S. government gave Anthropic permission to restore access to its AI model Mythos to certain clients.

Valued at nearly $1 trillion, Anthropic has also signaled it plans to become a publicly traded company.

California has already started using Claude more in state government to develop tools to get the public to engage more in AI policy discussions and assist state workers, the governor’s office said in its news release.

Advertisement

State agencies, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, are also using AI to reduce wait times and improve customer service.

“As state employees, our goal is to provide our fellow Californians with the best possible service,” Government Operations Agency Secretary Nick Maduros said in a statement. “To do that, we need to make sure our teams have access to the best modern tools, including Claude and other emerging technologies.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending