Vol. 64, No.7

NEWS LETTER University of • Center for Public Service APRIL 1988

VIRGINIA AND THE "SUPER TUESDAY" EXPERIMENT

y arry J. abato

The author is associate professor of gov­ black election in this century, with mary method of nomination to select ernment at the University ofVirginia . the primary dominated by blacks presidential convention delegates. Vir­ and committed liberals. Democrats ginia broke tradition because of an effort attracted fewer former Reagan vot­ led by southern Democratic moderates ers to their primary in Virginia than and conservatives (including former Vir­ The polls had barely closed on March in other southern states. ginia Governor Charles S. Robb) to give 8, 1988 when the founders of "Super the South more of a voice in the selection Tuesday," especially former Virginia • Moderates and conservatives stayed of the Democratic presidential nominee Governor Charles Robb, proclaimed vic­ away from the Democratic primary and, by inference, to nudge the Demo­ tory for their southern primary experi­ in droves, producing one of the low­ cratic party closer to the ideological cen­ ment. Super Tuesday was designed to est turnouts in Virginia's modem ter. This movement led to Super Tuesday, moderate the national Democratic presi­ period. Virginia recorded the worst an agreement by fourteen southern and dential nominating process and to produce turnout of all the southern and bor­ border states to hold simultaneous prima­ a party standard-bearer acceptable to a der state primaries held on March 8. ries on Tuesday, March 8. 1 region that has turned increasingly Repub­ lican in presidential election years. • The Republican party had a very The intent of the primary's founders good day in the Old Dominion. It was to make the earlier Iowa and New Election night claims aside, the results attracted more white voters to its Hampshire contests-which tend to be in Robb's home state of Virginia lend no primary than did the Democrats to dominated by liberal party activists-less credence at a1 to a rosy view of uper theirs, and proportionately more significant in e p e . e 'a ominafng Tuesday. To the contrary, all of the key independents as well. The GOP process. As for the Republicans in Vir­ indicators point to the experiment's turnout, relative to that of the ginia and throughout the South, they were failure: Democrats, was the third highest essentially forced to come along for the among fourteen southern and border primary ride, since Democrats control • won a sizeable states. large majorities in all the region's state victory in Virginia-his best legislatures (which determine the method showing in all the Super Tuesday • Finally, the candidates all but ig­ of delegate selection in each state.) states. Albert Gore, Robb's choice, nored Virginia, despite assurances finished a distant second, barely by the founders of Super Tuesday The Virginia Super Tuesday law, nosing out a second liberal, Michael that southern primary states would passed by the 1987 General Assembly, Dukakis. Virginia was one of be showered with the attentions of allowed candidates to qualify for the pri­ Gore's worst southern states and eager presidential suitors. mary ballot in three different ways: one of Dukakis's best. Dukakis and Jackson, the two prime liberal • The State Board of Elections auto­ candidates, together garnered two­ matically nominated all candidates thirds of the vote in Virginia's BACKGROUND Democratic primary. 1. In addition, six other states outside the Virginia's 1988 presidential primary was South and border area held primaries on March • Super Tuesday in Virginia was the a historic first; never before had either 8. But 'the day was clearly dominated by the state's most disproportionately party in the Old Dominion used the pri- southern results. 36

who had qualified for federal Elections.3 One fringe candidate made his (estimated at perhaps $1 matching funds under the Federal way onto the Democratic ballot by sub­ million) to be excessive; and they simply Election Campaign Act (FECA) by mitting a petition: the political extremist preferred to leave delegate selection to the time of the board's meeting Lyndon LaRouche, whose cult makes its committed party activists. (January 5, 1988). home in the town ofLeesburg in Northern Virginia's Loudoun County. The presidential candidates did rela­ • The state political parties were al­ tively little campaigning in Virginia. Na­ lowed to nominate all candidates For the Democrats, the primary had tive Virginian Pat Robertson, who has his "whose candidacy is generally ad­ considerably more significance than for national headquarters in Chesapeake, had vocated or recognized in the na­ the GOP, since 75 of the 85 Democratic made several major state appearances in tional news media throughout the delegates to the party's July presidential 1987, and his forces had overwhelmingly United States." nominating convention would be commit­ won a straw vote at a December 1987 ted to support candidates in proportion to . GOP-sponsored event in Staunton. While • Finally, potential candidates them­ the vote cast for each contender (with a all of the other still-active contenders ex­ selves were permitted to gain a bal­ threshold minimum of 15 percent of the cept George Bush made at least one foray lot berth by submitting petitions total votes necessary for any candidate to into Virginia during the months before the signed by at least one=hal fer­ - -secure-delegates). -primary, dIe appearances-were srra11y cent of the registered voters in Vir­ brief ones. However, Democrats Jesse ginia (a total of 12,630, including at The Republican primary, by contrast, Jackson and Albert Gore, whose strategies least 200 from each congressional was merely a beauty contest. All 50 of for victory depended heavily on good district). Virginia's GOP presidential delegates showings in the South, made several ap­ were to be chosen, as in the past, in pearances each. Only Gore spent a sub­ To be listed on the ballot, all nominated congressional district and at the stantial amount on television advertising candidates also had to file a formal decla­ state convention following a series of in the Old Dominion. Dole and Dukakis ration of candidacy with the State Board mass meetings held in all the state's cities used some paid media, mainly in the of Elections. This provision would pre­ and counties from February through Washington market; but not a single can­ vent a potential candidate such as Gover­ May.s The Republicans did not make the didate even approached the spending limit nor Mario Cuomo of New York or U.S. Super Tuesday vote binding because they of$1,638,947 set for Virginia.6 Logically, Senator Sam Nunn of from being resented the way the Democratic General the Democrats made more of a campaign included without his expressed consent.) Assembly had foisted the primary upon effort than the Republicans since the them without their consent; they Democratic primary resulted in the actual The form of the ballot and the voting considered the cost to taxpayers of a allocation of convention delegates. procedures were unusual, and the latter caused some controversy. Candidates of The Gore campaign secured the most each party were listed alphabetically (in­ publicized endorsements. Former Gover­ stead of by lot as normally done), and an 3. The Democratic ballot included former nor Robb, Attorney General Mary Sue "uncommitted" line was also added to the Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, Terry, and House of Delegates Speaker A. ballot on each side of the partisan divide. Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, U.S. Rep. Richard L. Philpott all weighed in for the candi­ Gephardt of Missouri, U.S. Senator Albert Most importantly, voters at the polls had date attempting to position himself as the Gore of , former U.S. Senator Gary to choose, in public, one or the other Hart of , Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, and southerner in the race. Other key endorse- party's ballot, and their selection was re­ .. enator aul imon of Illinois. The Re­ men in . corded by the election officials. Unlike public ballot consisted of Vice President for Dole, U.S. Representative Thomas twenty-five other states, Virginia has no George Bush, Senate Minority Leader Robert Bliley of Richmond for Bush, and U.S. party registration, so this was the first time J. Dole, former Secretary of State Alexander Representative Rick Boucher of South­ many of the state's electors had ever pub­ M. Haig Jr., U.S. Rep. of New for Gephardt. Most office­ licly expressed a party preference.2 This York, former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) holders remained neutral, however; Gov­ aspect of the Super Tuesday voting was DuPont IV, and Marion G. (Pat) Robertson of ernor Gerald Baliles, Lieutenant Governor not universally popular, and it generated Virginia. L. Douglas Wilder, and U.S. Senator John Warner were in this category. unfavorable editorials and letters to the 4. Of the 75 committed delegates, 49 were to editor throughout the state. Some claimed be selected at the ten congressional district that this "invasion ofprivacy" would hold conventions, and 26 at the June state party down voter turnout. convention. The remaining 10 delegate posts 6. The limit is a function ofvoting-age popula­ (called "") are given to elected tion and is set for each state by the Federal As it happened, all of the major candi­ party and public officials like the governor and Election Commission, under terms dictated by dates in both parties qualified for the bal­ the national committee persons; under congressional statute. lot by designation of the State Board of Democratic rules they are not bound to any candidate.

5. Three GOP delegates were to be designated 2. The only two-party statewide primaries ever at each of the ten congressional district cau­ before held in Virginia were conducted in 1949 cuses (for a total of 30), with the remaining 20 for the office of governor. to be elected at the June state party convention. 37

PRIMARY ELECTION Gore managed to win the Roanoke Gore did well only in the rural areas, Sixth District narrowly (37.9 percent) and where he finished relatively close to Neither party's primary was close when the Southwest Ninth, bordering on his na­ Jackson. the ballots were counted on March 8. tive Tennessee, handily (55.0 percent), Jesse Jackson routed his opponents, while carrying 34 counties and 12 cities. The demographic distribution of the securing 45.1 percent of the total (and 37 Dukakis garnered support from Northern vote differed greatly by party. The Demo­ delegates), to 22.3 percent (22 delegates) Virginia's two congressional districts, cratic voters were about twice as likely as for Albert Gore and 22.0 percent (16 winning them with an average plurality of Republican voters to be found in central delegates) for . As in 42.2 percent. He won 8 counties and 6 cities; a large majority of GOP primary most of the South, Richard Gephardt was cities, all in the Northern Virginia region. participants (almost 60 percent) were sub­ not a major contender and won only 4.4 urbanites, compared to about 45 percent percent. , the one-time party Bush's triumph was even more com­ of the Democrats. In fact, the 1988 Re­ frontrunner, and Paul Simon trailed with plete than that of Jackson. All ten con­ publican presidential primary drew pro­ 1.7 and 1.9 percent, respectively. On the gressional districts fell into his column, portionately fewer central city dwellers Republican side, George Bush won a with margins ranging from 49.3 percent in than any modern election; at the same landslide victory, taking 53.3 percent to the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Second Dis­ time, the GOP broke all records for pro­ 26.0 percent f r and 13.7 trict to 59.0 percent in the Richmond portionate suburban participation. percent for Pat obertson. Robertson's Third. Bush carried every locality in the dismal showing in his home state was a state. Such a clean sweep is rare; even Jackson's plurality victory in Vir­ humiliating embarrassment to him. (By when candidates win by more lopsided ginia's suburbs was a feat that had eluded contrast, Bush and Dole had won every margins than Bush did (such as Richard Douglas Wilder in 1985. Yet a primary is delegate in their home states of and Nixon in 1972 or John Warner in 1984), a far different animal than a general elec­ Kansas.) Jack Kemp brought up the rear they usually lose at least one or two cities tion. Relatively few conservative subur­ at 4.6 percent. and counties. ban whites voted Democratic in March 1988, for example; and this light tum­ Jackson won six of the ten congres­ Bush's edge was relatively undifferen­ out-compared to a general election with sional districts, sweeping the Tidewater tiated, with roughly equal majorities in the large turnout--enabled Jackson to carry First, Second, and Fourth and the Rich­ central cities, suburbs, and rural areas (see staunchly Republican suburban areas such mond Third, with large majorities ranging Table 1). By contrast, Jackson's strength as Henrico and Chesterfield counties. On up to 70.2 percent in the Fourth. Jackson was much greater in the central cities than the other hand, central cities, Jackson's secured smaller pluralities in the Pied­ anywhere else; he took 64.1 percent of the electoral bastion, are collectively about 15 mont Seventh (34.6 percent) and the central city vote, compared to 38.2 per­ percent of the usual general election total; Southside Fifth (48.1 percent). Jackson cent of the suburban total and 38.5 percent but in the 1988 Democratic primary they carried 53 of 95 counties and 18 of 41 of the rural tally. Dukakis's support was accounted for fully a quarter of the state­ cities. overwhelmingly suburban in nature, while wide vote. Finally, Jackson benefitted

A l 1 The Urban Vote in the 1988 Virginia Presidential Primaries

Democratic Primary RepUblican Primary

Percent of Percent Of Urban Measure Total Vote Jackson Gore Dukakis Others Total Vote Bush Dole Robertson Others

Urban Corridor 65.8 47.7 17.0 24.9 10.4 69.4 53.1 26.3 13.6 7.0 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 70.9 47.5 18.4 24.4 9.7 73.3 52.8 26.6 13.5 7.1 Central Cities 25.4 64.1 14.2 14A9 6.8 13.6 54.5 24.4 15.1 6.0 Suburbs 45.5 38.2 20.7 29.7 11.4 59.7 52.5 27.1 13.1 7.3 Rural Areas 25.8 38.5 33.1 15.0 13.4 22.5 54.4 24.4 14.7 6.5

SOURCE: Compiled from offiical election results provided by the State Board of Elections. For definitions of "Urban Measures," see Larry Sabato, Virginia Votes 1983-1986 (Charlottesville: Institute of Government, University of Virgini~ 1987). 38

TABLE 2 Voting in Selected Predominantly Black Precincts in Virginia Cities, 1988 Virginia Presidential Primaries

Democratic Primary Republican Primary

Number Total Percent of All Total Percent of of Votes Registered Jackson Others Votes Registered Bush Dole Robertson Others Cities Precincts Cast Voting % % Cast Voting % % % 0/0

BLACK PRECINCTS: Charlottesville 1 290 23.9 88.2 11.8 24 2.0 33.3 45.8 12.5 8.4 Virginia Beach 1 436 26.1 82.2 17.8 89 5.3 43.2 21.6 23.9 11.3 Hampton 2 1,735 39.5 93.7 6.3 76 1.7 48.7 18.4 30.3 2.6 Newport News 8 3,923 41.2 94.7 5.3 22 0.2 9.0 3. .6 Norfolk 10 7,986 41.5 95.0 5.0 62 0.3 37.1 17.7 40.3 4.8 Portsmouth 2 2,243 55.2 96.8 3.2 17 0.4 11.8 5.9 76.5 5.9 Richmond 15 6,637 32.9 91.9 8.1 133 0.7 38.3 17.3 28.6 15.8 Emporia 1 113 26.3 88.5 1.5 0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Petersburg 4 1,556 37.1 94.9 5.1 25 1.6 32.0 8.0 52.0 8.0 --- Totals 44 24,919 38.4 93.8 6.2 448 0.7 37.7 18.8 33.5 10.0

SOURCE: Official election results provided by the States Board of Elections. For listing of black precincts, see Larry Sabato, Virginia Votes 1983-1986 (Charlottesville: Institute of Government, University of Virginia, 1987).

from the large field ofprimary contenders. The GOP primary, in Virginia and So few whites voted in Virginia's 1988 With the fragmented vote, he emerged a throughout the South, was virtually an all­ Democratic primary, in fact, that the state narrow plurality winner in many areas he white primary. The ABC News exit polls GOP was able to attract more whites to its probably could not have carried in a two­ on election day found that only 1 percent primary than the Democrats drew to person context. of all Republicans in the South who voted theirs, despite the much lower overall on Super Tuesday were black; in Virginia, Republican vote total. 8 the figure was a comparable 2 percent.

The Democratic primary in Virginia, BLACK AND WHITE VOTING on the other hand, was probably the most PATTERNS disproportionately black election (primary DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWNS or general) in this century. While blacks The black vote in Virginia, as throughout comprise just 16 percent of the voting-age The findings of the ABC News exit polls the region and country, was a Jackson population, their Democratic turnout (33 on election day (supplemented by NBC vote, as Table 2 clearly demonstrates. In percent) was much greater than that of and CBS exit polls) confirm that Jack­ sample urban black precincts around the whites (10 percent), producing a Demo­ son's coalition was built primarily upon a state, Jackson secured a massive 93.8 per­ cratic primary that was approximately 38 nearly monolithic black base. About 14 cent of the votes cast. And virtually all percent black.? This was much greater percent of the whites also supported him, black votes were recorded on the Demo­ than the South as a whole, where the ABC however. While this was far better than cratic side of the ledger. Over 98 percent exit polls showed blacks comprising about his 1984 showing among whites, it was of the total votes in the black precincts 27 percent of the regional Democratic considerably less than the white backing listed in Table 2 were cast for Democratic turnout. candidates. Among the miniscule number of blacks who voted on the Republican 7. This 38 percent figure was the estimate of 8. About 98 percent of the total Virginia GOP ballot, Bush had a slight edge (37.7 per­ both the CBS and NBC News exit polls. The turnout was white, or 230,000 whites; only cent) over Robertson (33.5 percent), with ABC News exit poll put the figure at 35 per­ about 61 percent of the Democratic primary Dole at 18.8 percent. cent, but turnout in black precincts, relative to was white, or 224,000. white precincts, suggests that the higher pro­ portion is more accurate. 39 he had received in the weeks preceding Catholic vote (17 percent). Gore was the Old Dominion drew a few more independ­ Super Tuesday in several northern states clear favorite among white born-again and ents and a few less born-agains, but other­ (like Maine, Vennont, and ). evangelical Christians, and by a lesser but wise very closely mirrored the regional Jackson's white proportion also lagged still decisive margin among white main­ average. considerably behind Doug Wilder's 44 line Protestants. Dukakis won a majority percent in 1985. Yet Jackson's share of of both Catholic and Jewish voters. Re­ white support in Virginia was more than sults broken down by national origin show double that measured in many other that Dukakis attracted the ballots of eth­ southern states.9 The probable reason for nics of many stripes (especially Greeks, LOW VOTER TURNOUT this is that white turnout was lower in Vir­ Italians, and Poles). Gore was the favorite ginia than elsewhere, with the result that among voters ofEnglish and Irish descent. Voter turnout for Virginia's first presiden­ committed liberals dominated the Old tial primaries was abysmal: just 22.7 per­ Dominion's white primary participation in As could be surmised from his margin cent of the registered voters and 13 per­ the primary to a greater degree than in of victory, George Bush won almost every cent ofthe voting-age (18 and over) popu­ most other states. (Gore's higher propor­ age, income, educational, ideological, oc­ lation cast a ballot when the totals for both tion in most other states, drawn mainly cupational, and sexual category. Bush parties are combined. The 1988 primary from moderate and conservative whites, even easily defeated Pat Robertson among turnout was just a fraction of the usual also suggests as much.) Jackson was par­ white born-again and evangelical Chris­ general election turnout. The November ticularly successful at winning white votes tians (supposedly Robertson's electoral 1987 referendum to establish a state-spon­ in Northern Virginia, where he secured anchor), receiving 42 percent of their sored lottery drew nearly three times as about 26 percent of the regional total in an votes to Robertson's 29 percent. Bush did many participants, for instance, and the area that is overwhelmingly white. best ofall among Republican party identi­ general election for president in 1984 fiers, conservatives, women, whites, the drew about four times as many. Beyond race, Jackson drew dispropor­ youngest and oldest voters, those with tionate strength from strong Democrats, high incomes, and white mainline Protes­ Even compared with the few recent liberals, voters aged 25 to 59, blue-collar tants and Catholics. Democratic Virginia statewide primaries workers, and those with low incomes and (Republicans have not had any recent somewhat less education. Gore's 'coali­ Dole managed to carry Democratic statewide primaries), the 1988 Demo­ tion was clearly contrasted with that of identifiers and liberals, confirming his cratic turnout was low (see Table 3). Jackson; the Tennessee senator's base was greater attraction for crossover voters. He Only the miniscule turnout in the lightly more independent and Republican, ideo­ also ran relatively stronger among the contested 1970 U.S. Senate primary was logically conservative, almost completely youngest voters (aged 18 to 24) and those less than that of 1988-despite all of the white, considerably older, more white­ with the highest level of education. hoopla and press attention surrounding collar, and somewhat better off finan­ Robertson's best showing, other than with Super Tuesday, as well as the stake that a cially. The portrait of Dukakis backers evangelicals, was with the handful of popular Virginian, Charles Robb, had in was also distinctive; of the three major blacks who participated in the GOP pri­ its success.IO candidates, he had the most diffuse sup­ mary and with individuals with the lowest port by party, ideology, and age. But his incomes. Moreover-and incredibly-Virginia voters were, like Gore's, almost entirely recorded the lowest turnout of all the white. Dukakis also attracted heavy back­ A comparison of the electorates of the southern and border primary states on ing from professionals, the highly edu­ two parties is also instructive. The Demo­ March 8 (see Table 4). While none ofthe cated, and those with the largest incomes. cratic primary drew almost all the libera states could be said to have had a par­ Men were slightly more likely to favor ideologues and blacks, of course, while ticularly high voter participation rate Dukakis and Gore (and women, Jackson), the GOP primary was heavily tilted to­ (including the three states of Missouri, but the "gender gap" in this contest was ward conservatives. While the other Tennessee, and Texas, which sponsored not great. cleavages were not always so dramatic, favorite sons), no other state sunk quite so the Democratic participants were more low as Virginia. Adding insult to injury The religious divider was an interest­ likely to be younger, female, with lower ing one. Jackson, of course, gathered the incomes, and less well educated. Republi­ votes of almost all blacks of every reli­ can voters tended to be older, with higher gious persuasion; but, in addition, he gar­ incomes, and college educated. The GOP 10. The defenders of Super Tuesday in Vir­ nered a respectable slice of the white primary, unlike the Democratic one, was ginia point out that voter participation in 1984 equally split among the sexes. Republi­ was much lower than in 1988-25,000 in the cans could also find cheer in attracting a earlier year, 600,000 in 1988. The argument is disproportionate number of independents fallacious and the comparison is spurious. In 9. According to the ABC News exit polls, only and white Catholics to their banner. 1984 the Democratic party held little-publi­ 7 percent of whites in North Carolina, Ken­ cized caucuses, which required several hours tucky, and voted for Jackson; 6 percent of each voter's time compared to the few min­ in Georgia, , and ; and only Compared to other southern Demo­ utes-at the voter's convenience-for a pri­ 5 percent in . Even Maryland, at 11 cratic primaries, the Virginia voters were mary vote. All caucuses, even Iowa's first-in­ percent, had a lower proportion of white votes more likely to be black, liberal, and the-nation ones, draw small turnouts compared for Jackson than Virginia. younger, while the GOP primary in the with most primaries. That is inevitable. 40

in the South had voted for in 1984, perhaps indicating some modest success for the party in attracting former TABLE 3 adherents back to the fold. It is highly Turnout in Statewide Democratic Primaries in Virginia, 1969-1988 questionable, though, whether many of these Reagan supporters ever really left Votes Cast Votes Cast the Democratic party. So numerous were as Percent of as Percent of white Democratic defectors to Reagan in Year Office Registered Voting-Age Population 1984 that many future Democratic pri­ mary participants would inevitably have 1969 Governor (run-off) 25.0 19 been Reagan voters. 1970 U.S. Senate 7.3 5 1977 Governor 24.8 14 Interestingly, Virginia's 1988 primary President (Democrat only) 13.8 1988 8 attracted fewer Reagan Democrats than in other southern states, according to the SOURCE: Compiled by the author. ABC News exit polls. In Virginia, just 24 percent of the 1988 DemoCI f C r" m voters had cast a ballot for Reagan in 1984, compared to 47 percent in Arkan­ sas, 44 percent in , 42 percent in for Virginia's Democratic primary spon­ versa) to swell the turnout in those nine Florida, 41 percent in Louisiana, 40 per­ sors was the relatively good performance states, including Virginia, where such cent in North Carolina, and 30 percent in of the state's GOP. The Republicans crossovers were permitted. Some good Georgia. This was yet another measure of mustered a turnout almost two-thirds as news for Democrats could be found, how­ the failure of the leaders of Virginia's large as the Democrats-the third best ever. Nearly 40 percent of the voters in Democratic Super Tuesday to achieve ratio of the fourteen primary states listed the Democratic Super Tuesday primaries their primary goals. in Table 4.11

Note that Democratic turnout was larger than Republican turnout in every one of the states; this is hardly surprising, TABLE 4 however, in light of the Democrats' con­ tinued regional edge in terms of party "Super Tuesday" Turnout in the South and Border States identification.12 More impressive were Total Turnout Total Republican the gains scored by the GOP. The overall (Both Parties Combined) Primary Vote as Democratic primary turnout in the region A5 Percentage of Percentage of Total fell marginally from 14.6 percent of the State Voting-Age Population Total Democratic Primary Vote voting-age population in 1984 to 14.3 per­ cent in 1988. The Republican turnout in Arkansas 32 14 the same states rose from 5.8 percent in 28 44 1984 to 7 percent in 1988. 25 53 Louisiana 24 23 The exit polls such as the one cited ear­ Missouri 24 76 . lier, by the way, suggest that there was Tennessee 23 44 little "crossover vote" (i.e., Democrats Florida 22 70 participating in the GOP primary, and vice Georgia 22 64 Texas 22 58 Maryland 20 38 Alabama 19 52 11. GOP turnout actually exceeded Demo­ North Carolina 19 41 cratic turnout in twelve counties (Augusta, Kentucky 16 38 Carroll, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Fauquier, Virginia 13 64 Frederick, Hanover, Lancaster, Prince Wil­ liam, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Stafford) and seven cities (Colonial Heights, Fairfax, SOURCE: Calculated by the author from data in Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 46 Manassas, Manassas Park, Poquoson, Virginia (March 12, 1988): 641. Beach, and Waynesboro). NOTE: Voting-age population incudes all those aged 18 and above, whether registered or not. Registration practices (such as purging) vary widely from state to state, so valid 12. See Larry Sabato, The Party's Just Begun: interstate comparisons of turnout should be based on voting-age population rather than Shaping Political Partiesfor America's Future registered voter totals. (Boston: Little, Brown/Scott, 1988), pp. 158-70. 41

SOUTHERN "SUPER TUESDAY" boosted the candidacies of the two active Tuesday's founders set for themselves. COMPARISONS liberal candidates (Jackson and Dukakis) Political inertia, like its physical twin, is a every bit as much as that of Gore. (The powerful force: an object in motion or at The failure of Super Tuesday's founder, biggest winner of all, of course, was a rest tends to stay in motion or at rest. Charles Robb, to influence events in his Republican, George Bush.) Instead of at­ own home state is emphasized by Jesse tracting moderate and conservative voters If Super Tuesday is to be repeated at Jackson's performance on March 8: Vir­ back into the Democratic fold, Super all, it ought to be done differently. The ginia was the site of Jackson's best show­ Tuesday left the vast majority indifferent, South should organize three "Not-Quite­ ing in all of the southern and border states. judging by the turnout, and Republicans So-Super Tuesdays," scattered throughout Even Mississippi, which has a 38 percent were given the opportunity to build their the process, preferably with one in the black population, did not equal Jackson's own parties in the South by luring some beginning (early March), one in the vote proportion in the Old Dominion, conservative independents into their pri­ middle (late April), and one at the end which has but an 18 percent black popula­ mary fold. (The GOP's success, like that (early June). The southern states can ei­ tion. In nine of the fourteen states, Robb's of the Democrats, was mixed.) ther be arbitrarily divided into the three presidential choice, Albert Gore, ran more groups on the three chosen days, or ar­ strongly than i Virginia. Finally, Vir­ Rather than encouraging the presiden­ ranged by "subregion" (the border South ginia was th fourth best state for tial candidates to spend more time in the on one day, the eep outh on another, Dukakis, who was the second most liberal South, the massive twenty-state, mega­ and the "Mega-state" South-Florida and candidate (after Jackson) and also not a primary forced the contenders to jet back Texas-on the third). Robb favorite. Jackson and Dukakis to­ and forth between airports in a short three­ gether received over two-thirds of the week interval after Iowa and New Hamp­ In this fashion, the candidates will have Democratic primary vote. shire. It was a tarmac-to-tarmac cam­ a better chance to get to know the South in paign, not a people-to-people one. Be­ all its variety, and they will return, again As solid as George Bush's victory was cause all southern state elections were and again, to southern issues, people, and in Virginia, Bush's share of the vote was scheduled simultaneously, the South's concerns. And whenever the critical bettered in nine other states. Dole fared concerns became moot for the duration of moment in the presidential selection pro­ rclatively well in Virginia; it was his the nominating contests. By contrast, if cess occurs, the South will have a voice. fourth best southern and border state. the South had salted its states throughout This crucial window can never be timed Robertson's vote proportion in his home the February to June primary calendar, and predicted in advance. Sometimes a state was scarcely better than his low re­ candidates would have had to return re­ party nominee is determined early (Rea­ gional average of 13.6 percent. peatedly to the South, addressing southern gan in 1980 and Bush in 1988); on occa­ issues and having a greater opportunity to sion in mid-season (Carter in 1976); and acquaint themselves with the problems other times very late (Ford in 1976 and and people of each state. Mondale in 1984). "SUPER TUESDAY" IN RETROSPECT Finally, because Super Tuesday fol­ The South can be ready to playa part, lowed other crucial northern contests and whatever the circumstances, with a three­ The originators of the southern primary because of the relatively liberal composi­ tiered regional primary. Such a system have proclaimed it a success, mainly be­ tion of the Democratic primary electorate will hardly guarantee victory for a cause the winners in Iowa (Robert Dole even in the South, the candidates, with the moderate-conservative candidate in the an ic w e ended, and sole xce tion of Gore, saw no reason to Democratic part , nor will it raise han­ the nonplayer in Iowa (Albert Gore) was shift their positions to the right (or center, tom armies of moderates to participate in a vindicated. Yet New Hampshire had al­ depending on one's ideological bias). primary long since abandoned by most of ready dethroned Dole and Gephardt, and them. The objectives of this alternative Gore's victory in five southern states was Perhaps these conclusions would have plan are more modest than 1988's mega­ matched by Jesse Jackson. (With the ad­ been different if a more conservative primary, but they are also more achiev­ dition of South Carolina the following southerner, such as Robb or Senator Sam able. The Super Tuesday experiment weekend, Jackson actually bettered Gore.) Nunn of Georgia, had run. But even then, failed, but hopes for greater southern in­ In addition, Michael Dukakis won the success would hardly have been assured. fluence on future presidential nominating glittering Sunbelt jewels of Texas and Changing the dynamics of modem-day contests need not be dashed as a Florida, the day's biggest prizes. primary electorates is a monumental task, consequence. yet that is precisely the goal Super Moreover, the Democratic founders of Super Tuesday learned anew the re­ former's law of unintended consequences: ...... reforms always have consequences un­ ...... foreseen and unintended by those who invent the reforms. Designed to promote ...· :tq .. ·g~t ..6;, ••·the·.rnaniJi list.·I(j fJb~i~; tA~ NiW1 .. 1.Jtier .. ~ab6 I1l~#th~.jJst··.)yrite··I~ ... a southern candidate, or at least the ·:.:::;:.:;Ne li'~.L~r!*r, .. ~q7 Yin~rJ!all, .. Un.lr.~rs.i~.·?t.YI~g-i":i~;: ..9~:{(r!QJ(efrille)·.}'A 22903 ~.:: .... "southern" (i.e., moderate-conservative) ·>;r}~a§~p,.~n~;o ~ryPi! .~1te:~l!IflP}et~:irzafli.nggdl!r~~s,;ffl,~l~t1/ij~l"l!·Zip.· Colfe ~ .. perspective, the regional primary actually ...... UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Entered as second-class mail Charlottesville, Virginia

NEWS LETTER

(ISSN OO~2-027~) ./'? Executive Editor I James A. {DolpllYi Norton Managing Editor / Sandra H. Wiley Publications Assistant / Alison F. Campbell Published monthly by the Center for Public Ser­ vice, University of Virginia. The views expressed ate thosetof theauthofsand not the official position of the Center or the Uni­ versity. Entered as second-class matter January 2 1925, at the po t office at Charlottesville, Virginia, under the act of August 24, 1912., (Q 1988 by The Rector and Visitors ofthe University of Virginia. Printed by the University Printing Office. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Center for Public Service, 207 Minor Hall, VA, Charlotte vil1e, VA;22903,