Michael Barone

/> Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, the leaders in Republican polls during most of the year, have announced they will not compete in the straw poll held in Iowa on Aug. 15. Fred Thompson, who is polling well and expected to enter the race, may also opt out of this early test of strength. Florida has moved its primary to Jan. 29, just one week after New Hampshire and shortly after the actual Iowa caucus, in defiance of Democratic Party rules. (Florida Democrats risk being tossed out of the national convention but say they don't care.) Michigan Democrats have also said they'll hold a caucus on Jan. 29, or even earlier if New Hampshire acts on its threat to move its primary back. <
p /> All these moves are threats to the rule that Iowa and New Hampshire vote first. In fact, the process was begun by the Democratic National Committee, which has authorized a Nevada caucus and a South Carolina primary just after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Now others are joining in the attacks.

And a good thing, too, is my gut reaction. I have thumbed through my copy of the Constitution many times to find the part that says Iowa and New Hampshire come first, and I have yet to find it. And in fact they have not always come first. Both have been around for about a century. But in their modern form, New Hampshire first listed candidates on its ballot in 1952, and Iowa held the first of its first-in-the-nation caucuses in 1972. Ever since, these two states have lobbied -- browbeaten, actually -- presidential candidates to pledge to maintain their monopoly. For more than a quarter century, the blackmail has worked. But it's not clear that it's going to work any more.

The case for Iowa and New Hampshire goes along these lines. They are small states with small electorates -- 250,000 caucusgoers in Iowa (out of a population of 3 million) and 450,000 primary voters in New Hampshire (out of a population of 1.3 million) -- who are used to evaluating candidates firsthand. They are thus venues for retail politics, which is impossible in large states.

The case against them is that they are scarcely typical of the nation (they're 93 percent and 95 percent white, for example) and may not produce the best national candidates. They are overly influenced by locally important issues. For instance, you don't want to run in Iowa if you've voted against ethanol subsidies. And woe to you in New Hampshire if you voted to shut down the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Iowa is unusually dovish, as are New Hampshire Democrats. New Hampshire Republicans are unusually averse to tax increases.

Michael Barone

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM