Rubio, Walker, Jeb, Paul, Kasich, Santorum, Cruz — and, if we are lucky, maybe even “the Donald” — are expected to visit Colorado. You can bet, too, on visits from Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley and maybe even Biden and Warren. The 2016 presidential election is underway. On Aug. 6, Fox News will host a cable-land “coming-out party” for leading Republican hopefuls.
What journalists have long called the “invisible primary” is in mid-course. The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are just six months away. Colorado caucuses are tentatively on the calendar for March 1, 2016.
What role will Colorado play in next year’s presidential nominating process? How much influence will Coloradans have?
Colorado ranks 11th out of the 50 states in terms of influencing the contemporary presidential nominating process. That puts Colorado in the top quarter of states having an impact on the outcome of the primaries and caucuses.
We have looked at all presidential primaries and caucuses in the 50 states from 1992 to 2012, a time span that includes six presidential elections.
We rated a state “influential” if their primary or caucuses were held before the final winner in the nominating process had been determined, when the candidates were still actively campaigning against each other and the outcome was still in doubt. We rated a state not influential if their primary or caucuses were scheduled so late that the winner was already determined.
Colorado landed in 11th position in our study because it held influential contests in four of the six presidential elections studied — 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012. In 2000 and 2004, Colorado was scheduled too late on the primary/caucuses calendar to be in the running.
Colorado is one of a number of states that have held both presidential primaries and presidential caucuses in different years. Colorado held presidential primaries in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections. In 2004, 2008 and 2012, however, the state legislature abandoned the primary and Colorado just held caucuses.
(In our opinion, this move to caucuses was ill-advised, because many more voters turn out in presidential primaries than participate in caucuses.)
An attempt to reinstate the presidential primary in Colorado died in committee in the recently adjourned session of the state legislature.
Colorado, ranking No. 11 on our list, is doing better than neighboring states — Oklahoma is No. 18, Wyoming No. 27, Kansas No. 37, Utah No. 41, Nebraska No. 47, and New Mexico No. 48.
Making a state influential in the presidential primaries and caucuses rests mainly with the state legislature and the governor. In most cases, the dates of primaries and caucuses are set by the legislature and then signed into state law by the governor. The earlier a state schedules its primary or caucuses, the more likely it is to have an impact on the presidential nominating process.
The top two states on our list are — no surprise — Iowa and New Hampshire. The legislatures of both states have worked relentlessly to get their primaries and caucuses scheduled early and keep them early.
Hillary Clinton has to do very well in these two states. She came in a disappointing third in Iowa in the 2008 presidential contest. Contending Republicans who cannot place in the top two or three spots in these two states have slim to no chance of winning their nomination.
The Centennial state will get many candidate visits this fall and winter, but New Hampshire and Iowa will win the candidate-tourist sweepstakes.
In third place is South Carolina, which gained position on the list by holding, for years, the first Republican primary in the South. Now both parties in South Carolina hold an early primary, right after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Seven states fill the gap between South Carolina (No. 3) and Colorado (No. 11). They are Georgia (No. 4), Massachusetts (No. 5), Arizona (No. 6), Delaware (No. 7), North Dakota (No. 8), Michigan (No. 9), and Missouri (No. 10). These states are mainly small or midsized in population. State legislatures and governors in these states are doing a better job of making their voters influential in presidential primaries and caucuses than political leaders in the heavily populated states.
In fact, political leaders in heavily populated states are doing a poor job of making their voters count in the presidential primaries/caucuses sweepstakes. Florida ranks No. 16 and Illinois No. 17. New York, at one time the most populous state in the U.S., comes in at No. 21. Ohio is No. 29, and California, the most populous state in the nation, is No. 33.
Everything is big in Texas — except the state’s consequence in presidential primaries and caucuses. The Lone Star state is listed at No. 43.
The bottom of the list is as instructive as the top. From 1992 through 2012, seven states and the District of Columbia were of no consequence whatsoever on the outcome of the presidential primaries and caucuses. Prominent on this list were the relatively highly populated states of North Carolina (No. 49) and Pennsylvania (No. 51).
Keep in mind this influence list changes. States sometimes move up the list by scheduling an earlier primary or caucuses. In most cases, however, states move down the list because they take no action when other states, with more attentive state legislators and governors, move up. Ohio, for example, just moved their March primary a week later. This will allow Ohio, under GOP rules, to have the top vote-getter in the primary get all the convention votes (winner-take-all).
Also, there are the strange cases of Wisconsin and Oregon. In the 1960s they conducted compelling, widely watched, and influential presidential primaries. Through inaction, however, Wisconsin has dropped to No. 28 and Oregon to No. 50.
What is the takeaway for Colorado? Relatively high on the primary/caucuses list, Colorado is a potential candidate playmaker. That means chances are favorable that the Democratic and especially the Republican presidential nominating contests will still be undecided when Coloradans head out to their party caucuses in early March.
Would-be presidents are coming to Colorado. You can bet on it.
Thomas E. Cronin and Robert D. Loevy are political scientists at Colorado College in Colorado Springs and co-authors of “Colorado Politics and Policy; Governing a Purple State.”
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
