|
|
March 14, 1996
SENATOR CHUCK ROBB ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPER TUESDAY
In 1988, the first "Super Tuesday" was held. It was an effort to increase the importance of primaries in the South and those following New Hampshire. The NewsHour interviewed Chuck Robb, one of those who had designed the primary system, to discuss the results. In 1988 Senator Robb argued that the goal of "Super Tuesday" was, "to move away from the individual approach - the so-called retail approach - and see if a candidate could talk about issues and priorities in presidential terms that require an emphasis on organization, on money, (and) on the ability to motivate on a broad scale..."
Now, eight years later, the Senator from Virgina answers your questions about how well the idea of Super Tuesday has worked.
A question from Linda Nelson, Lahaina, Hawaii:From the far West, it seems like these primaries are just another expensive layer removing the selection of the president from the people. The media hype, the dollars spent, all this is going in the opposite direction to what I would like -- spending caps, more free exposure, less reliance on advertising -- in other words, significant campaign reform. The chances of an anti -system candidate who is not wealthy ever being elected are just about zero under this system. What is your response to this?
Senator Robb responds:
When we created Super Tuesday, our intention was to try to influence the nominating process so that presidential candidates would be required to develop a national message instead of just courting local precinct leaders, and talking about parochial issues. We wanted to force them to deal with the kinds of presidential issues they would confront in the general election in the fall, and as southern Governors and southern legislators we could do it without a change in federal law -- and showcase the South.
Your question involves a very legitimate concern. I agree that the whole political process has become too expensive, but fixing it isn't easy. Spending caps make sense, but they involve First Amendment concerns as well as enforcement difficulties. The concept of free media time has been explored repeatedly and I support it. But problems arise when you try to determine which television and radio stations are required to provide time and to which candidates. I understand your concern about the difficulty in nominating anti-system candidates who are not wealthy. Whether it's fair or not, our system links public support with a candidates ability to raise money. But fortunately money alone doesn't determine the outcome of every election as Michael Huffington, Ross Perot, and now Steve Forbes can attest!
A question from Paul Grimes, San Diego, California:
The current presidential primary system has two problems. One is timing. In California, we now have a March primary, but it is probably too late to make a difference, as other states have even earlier primaries. The other problem is "coat tails." Local politics suffer with early primaries. We just aren't ready to focus on the issues, when the general election is still eight months away. I suggest a national primary date for presidential years in June. This will shorten campaigns, save money, equal the impact for all states, and give us time to think about the issues on both a local and national level.
Senator Robb responds:
You have identified a very real problem when national and local politics mix in the nominating process. I have long been intrigued with a national primary, or several fixed dates where states could decide to hold their primaries. But I've accepted the value of one or two early test cases where candidates of limited means can have a chance to catch on. California provides a broad-based test of a candidate's message all by itself -- like Super Tuesday -- where a candidate can't win with only retail politics.
A question from Rick Sigrist, LaRue, Ohio:
It would seem to me that the system still doesn't work! (Should the majority of the candidates be chosen all in the same month?) What new changes do you believe need to be instituted?
Senator Robb responds:
Many of the "old pros" believe that the presidential nominating process ought to evolve and allow the voters to test candidates and winnow the field gradually. Every presidential nominating cycle, people attempt to fine tune the process to avoid what they didn't like last time. The problem is that we'll always have something we don't like, something to improve. We're never going to find a system that works for everyone. What's important to realize is that it's appropriate to try to make the system better, but not everyone will be happy with it.
A question from Jeffrey Weinberg, Washington, DC:
Now that we have "Jr. Tuesday, " "Super Tuesday," and a kind of "Rust Belt" Tuesday, do you think maybe we've gone too far in the other direction? I know you have been concerned about the "Iowa Syndrome" - relying too heavily on one state to influence the direction of the election, but is the alternative really better?
Senator Robb responds:
The idea of retail politics I alluded to earlier applies here, too. Presidential candidates shouldn't be spending the majority of their time courting money or special interests. They should focus their attention on broader issues that affect the entire country like fiscal matters and foreign policy. Voters should be able to judge presidential candidates on their national leadership potential and their vision for our country's future, not on parochial, home town concerns.
A question from Lawrence Steingold, Virginia Beach, Virginia:
Doesn't Pat Buchanan's win in New Hampshire, but lack of support elsewhere, bear out your theory for the need for broad coalitions? Would Buchanan be doing better if not for the "mega" primaries?
Senator Robb responds:
The difficulty with candidates who appeal to our fears and polarize the electorate is that they limit their ability to expand their base. And while those with a broader base don't always generate passion, their message resonates with a much larger audience. Polarizers play a valuable role in shaping issues -- but those who strive to become national leaders have to be able to reach and communicate with a more inclusive audience.
Click to see a Forum Menu.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
