primary

GOFFSTOWN, N.H. — In their last joint appearance before Tuesday’s high-stakes New Hampshire primary, the five major Democratic presidential candidates Sunday coasted through a generally desultory debate enlivened only by attacks on former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas for his support of nuclear power.

Tsongas, who leads in state polls, repeatedly came under attack for his staunch backing of nuclear power–a controversial position in a state where many Democratic activists have long opposed the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Each of Tsongas’ four rivals said they would decrease the nation’s reliance on nuclear energy.

“We’re not all trying to gang up on you, we’re not trying to say you’re wrong all the time,” Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said to Tsongas at one point. “But on this particular issue I think you are. . . . Nuclear power, it seems to me, is fatally flawed.”

The focus on nuclear power–an issue that until recently has played virtually no role in the campaign–underlined the shift in Tsongas’ position from a long-shot who had been gently patronized to a front-runner worthy of pummeling. But other than the criticism of his energy policy–an issue that has not been high on the list of voter concerns here in recent years–Tsongas ran this last gantlet before the vote virtually unscathed.

Early in the debate, former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.–who later grilled Tsongas most aggressively on his support for nuclear power–even embraced him as a fellow outsider committed to “the politics of the future” as compared to the three current officeholders in the race.

Brown then mildly distanced himself from Tsongas, saying the former senator “represents a more conservative, business-oriented view of the future.”

In fact, the tone of the debate was strikingly low-key, with all of the candidates focusing more of their fire on President Bush than their rivals. Tsongas took the lead, employing the front-runner strategy used earlier by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. At every opportunity Tsongas stressed his agreements with his rivals and his differences with Bush.

In the debate, sponsored by Cable News Network and the League of Women Voters, the candidates were hampered by a format so disjointed and at times unstructured that twice Clinton felt compelled to suggest questions to moderator Bernard Shaw.

After weeks of focusing on the bread-and-butter concerns of voters in this economically ravaged state, the candidates Sunday found themselves exploring international population control, the destruction of the rain forests, utility pricing reform and whether the nation needs a better class of light bulb.

In this alternately esoteric and disengaged atmosphere, the only energy was generated by the issue of nuclear power.

One by one, each of Tsongas’ rivals insisted they would reduce reliance on nuclear power. Harkin declared that a program “of developing solar . . . for the future” would allow the nation to avoid “going to the nuclear option that Paul Tsongas wants to move to.”

Brown said he would move to phase out all nuclear power plants over the next decade.

Clinton said: “I do not favor anything that will accelerate the building of nuclear power plants. If you have major incentives to the utilities to engage in conservation, if you have a major attempt to convert to natural gas wherever you can. . . . I do not think you are going to see a need for new nuclear power plants.”

Tsongas–after characterizing nuclear power as part of “the third tier” of his preferred energy options for the country–argued in response to the persistent jabs that a reduction in reliance on nuclear power would require greater use of fossil fuels, raising the threat of global warming through the greenhouse effect.

“If you take out all of your nuclear power plants by definition, you are going to have more fossil fuel burning and add to the greenhouse effect,” Tsongas said. “I take the position that the threat long term is global warming.”

Though Tsongas forcefully held his ground, he bristled under the attacks–which were among the most pointed he has endured. “If I could, I would like . . . to characterize my positions myself and not have others do it,” he said.

After the debate, aides to the other candidates maintained that Tsongas had been weakened by the focus on an issue. “I don’t think his position has been laid out before as it was here tonight, so I think it will hurt him,” said Frank Greer, Clinton’s media adviser.

Thaleia Schlesinger, Tsongas’ sister, countered: “People understand his position was based on his fear of global warming.”

When not arguing over whether to split atoms for energy, the candidates managed to make some points about the economy. To a greater degree than usual, Tsongas declared that his approach–which relies heavily on increasing capital incentives for business and rejects a tax cut for the middle class–offered struggle as well as reward.

“There are two roads,” he said in closing remarks. “One is easy, one is comfortable, but it is downhill. The other is the road to economic prosperity. . . . That road is steeper and it’s harder, but it’s more noble and it’s more worthy.”

Harkin reiterated his support for cutting the defense budget in half over 10 years to support infrastructure investments and other programs at home. And he took a harsh line on trade issues, promising to stand up to Japan and prevent former government trade negotiators from lobbying for foreign governments. “I’m saying trade has to be a two-way street, not a one-way bridge,” he said.

As he has in recent days, Clinton sought to differentiate himself from Tsongas by emphasizing his experience as chief executive in Arkansas and his plans to reform government. “I think we have to have a more activist government,” he said, “but it also has to be more community-based, less bureaucratic and provide more citizen choice.”

Like Harkin, Kerrey insisted that America needed to get tougher with Japan on trade. But he called for the establishment of “new trading structures so that we can expand trade into the rest of the world, trying to convert . . . old enemies into new customers.”

Tsongas, who has taken the strongest free-trade position, urged voluntary protectionism, saying that as President he would ask Americans to shun Japanese imports if Japan doesn’t open its markets. “If the Japanese are not willing to be reasonable,” he said, “you have to play hardball.”

For most of this encounter, though, hardball was apparently the last thing on the minds of the five Democrats chasing the White House. With Tuesday’s pivotal vote in sight, they seemed less like contenders stepping into the ring than weary fighters embracing at the end of a bruising match.

Times political writer Robert Shogan contributed to this story.

Reporting from Tampa, Fla. — Mitt Romney won the Florida presidential primary Tuesday, taking a long stride toward capturing the GOP nomination and dealing a potentially mortal blow to the hopes of the once-resurgent Newt Gingrich.

The television networks called the race for the former Massachusetts governor soon after polls in the westernmost part of the state closed; by that time Romney already held a big lead in the votes already tabulated. The result ended what had become a suspenseless campaign over the last few days, as multiple opinion surveys showed Romney opening a commanding lead.

FOR THE RECORD:
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Mitt Romney the governor of Massachusetts. He is a former governor of that state.

His victory handed Romney Florida’s 50 delegates, the biggest cache yet, but more than that the win shows his ability to capture support in a big, costly and diverse state that will be a major battleground in the fall contest against President Obama.

Speaking to reporters before the polls closed, Romney said he learned a lesson from the double-digit loss he suffered at Gingrich’s hands 10 days ago in South Carolina.

“If we’re successful here, it’ll be pretty clear that when attacked you have to respond and you can’t let charges go unanswered,” Romney said after visiting campaign volunteers at a Tampa phone bank. “I needed to make sure that instead of being outgunned in terms of attacks that I responded aggressively. I think I have and hopefully that will serve me well here.”

For his part, Gingrich showed no signs of backing down, or leaving the race any time soon.

“This is a long way from being over,” the former House speaker said while shaking hands Tuesday morning at a church polling place in Orlando. “I’d say June or July, unless Romney drops out earlier.”

“The same people who said I was dead in June, or the people who said I was dead in Iowa, those people?” Gingrich said. “They’re about as accurate as they have been the last time they were wrong.”

Romney’s victory, while expected, marked a sharp turnabout in fortunes and could be a pivot point in the race for the Republican nomination.

From here, the contest heads Saturday to Nevada, a caucus state that will probably play to his organizational strength, then enters a relative lull. Just a few contests, all of them caucuses, are scheduled before the next big primaries Feb. 28 in Michigan — a Romney state, where his father served three terms as governor — and Arizona.

Gingrich came soaring into Florida after his landslide win in South Carolina and quickly surged to the top of some polls. But his momentum dwindled just as quickly after a pair of lackluster debate performances.

Romney, by contrast, revamped his approach in Florida to demonstrate a new, more pugnacious side onstage and undercut one of the major props of Gingrich’s candidacy: that he alone has the stuff to take it to Obama. Two-thirds of Florida voters said the debates were important in making up their minds, and Romney apparently helped himself with his well-received showings in Tampa and Jacksonville.

He also benefited from the diluted power of religious conservatives, a group that has been, at best, lukewarm to his candidacy. Fewer than 4 in 10 Florida voters described themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians; in South Carolina, they made up nearly two-thirds of electorate.

The issues Romney raised in Florida were not new. For weeks, he has assailed Gingrich over his conduct in Congress, which resulted in a bipartisan reprimand and record $300,000 ethics fine, and his inside-the-Beltway consulting work after leaving office.

Romney focused in particular on the $1.6 million that Gingrich’s firm received from Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage guarantor, which many Republicans blame for the housing crisis that ravaged the nation’s economy and imposed outsized pain on Florida. He accused Gingrich of “selling influence in Washington at a time when we need people who will stand up for the truth.”

With the help of a new speaking coach, Romney pressed his assault without letup, something he had not done since Gingrich’s fifth-place finish in Iowa — a performance that many thought was the end of the former speaker’s campaign.

Romney’s attacks also took on an unusually personal tone. At one point, he scoffed that Gingrich should “look in the mirror” to understand why his campaign was struggling.

The former congressman responded in kind, calling Romney “totally dishonest” and saying it was impossible to debate someone with his casual relationship with the truth.

But Romney was able to pack far more punch in his attacks. While the two candidates were at rough parity on TV in South Carolina, Romney and his allies outspent Gingrich on the Florida race by nearly 5-to-1, or more than $15 million for Romney to Gingrich’s roughly $3 million.

For all of that, Gingrich may end up sticking around longer than Romney and many party leaders would prefer. Because most of the delegates over the next two months will be awarded on a proportional basis, Gingrich can keep adding to his total even if he loses to Romney. Contests in big states like Ohio, New York, Texas and California are weeks or even months away.

Also lurking in the presidential contest are Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Both gave up on Florida, showing up for the debates but not mounting a serious effort.

Paul, who has a small but devout band of followers, is targeting organizationally intensive caucus states in an effort to win delegates to influence the party platform at the Tampa convention.

Santorum, the victor in Iowa by a small margin, has already proved his ability to wage a subsistence campaign and signaled his intention to compete in Colorado and Minnesota, two of this month’s caucus states.

[email protected].

Times staff writers Seema Mehta in Orlando and Maeve Reston in Tampa contributed to this report.

PORTLAND, Maine — The Democratic primary to take on Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was shaken up Wednesday by the decision of one candidate to drop out and join a different race with similarly high stakes.

In a move that could have implications for the closely divided U.S. House as well as the Senate, Jordan Wood, a onetime chief of staff to former Rep. Katie Porter, withdrew from the Senate race to instead seek the congressional seat representing Maine’s 2nd District, where incumbent Democratic Rep. Jared Golden recently announced he will not seek another term.

That leaves Gov. Janet Mills, a party mainstay, and Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who has gained attention for his progressive views and provocative online posts, as the top Democratic challengers to Collins.

Wood’s announcement sets up a potential Democratic congressional primary in the key 2nd District with former Secretary of State Matt Dunlap. The leading Republican candidate for the House seat is former Gov. Paul LePage.

“After many conversations with my family and voters in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, I’ve decided to step up and to be the fighter for the district where I was born and raised,” Wood said in a statement Wednesday.

Maine’s upcoming 2nd District and Senate races are both highly competitive and could help shape the balance of power in Congress. Collins is the sole Republican senator in New England, and toppling her has long been a goal of the Democratic Party. Republicans, meanwhile, have prioritized winning back the 2nd District, where President Trump is popular.

Dunlap announced his bid for the 2nd District weeks before Golden’s announcement that he is vacating. Dunlap said in a statement Wednesday that Wood entering the race “doesn’t change our campaign or our commitment” and that he’s “in this to fight for the people of Maine.”

LePage served as governor from 2011 to 2019. He announced his bid for Congress months ago. Brent Littlefield, a LePage spokesperson, said in a statement that Wood is too liberal for the 2nd District.

“Mainers will pick a job creator, Paul LePage, who will grow the economy and push back on high prices,” Littlefield said.

Two other one-time Democratic candidates for the Senate seat, brewery owner Dan Kleban and former Air Force civilian contractor Daira Smith-Rodriguez, recently dropped out and endorsed Mills. A handful of other Democratic hopefuls remain, though only Mills and Platner are campaigning aggressively.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

It was going to make California count, make it a contender after decades spent watching all those other pipsqueak states decide who among the legions of presidential candidates got to move into the Oval Office.

When California legislators–and Gov. Pete Wilson–agreed two years ago to move the state’s 1996 presidential primary forward from June to March, you could almost hear the silent chortles: Take that, New Hampshire! Back to the farm, Iowa!

And now that the state’s early presidential primary is a mere six months away, the nation’s most delegate-rich state can witness the result:

Nothing.

Sure, the candidates still plumb the state for money, just as they did in the old days. But apart from President Clinton’s trips, there are precious few actual campaign visits and little attention given to the issues peculiar to California. Even Wilson spent more than twice as much time out of state last month than he did tending to matters in Sacramento.

Some candidates still believe that California could ultimately play a big role in selecting the Republican nominee, even given the current dearth of activity. The state, after all, controls about 16%–or 163 of the 991–delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.

Scenarios abound, with California either putting a runaway victor over the top or deciding between two strong candidates. Then again, it could also add to a muddle of results that would force the nomination to be decided weeks later.

“California is going to play a significant role,” said Mark Helmke, communications director for Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, who announced his candidacy in April. “It’s just that none of us could speculate on what that role is.”

Others in the perennially optimistic corps of campaign activists insist that California won’t matter because the front-runner (their candidate, of course) will have it all sewn up beforehand.

“The problem is that California is too late. This thing is going to end in the industrial Midwest,” said Mike Murphy, a senior aide in the campaign of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. Murphy was referring to a ring of primaries to be held the week before California’s.

This underwhelming outcome was utterly predictable, according to campaign seers. And there are both logical and logistic reasons.

California moved its primary up, but only to March 26, six weeks after the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses. Not eager to be left in the dust, a host of other states began to clamor.

New York, with the third-largest delegate pool, moved from early April to early March. Pennsylvania and Ohio moved from late spring to March 19, where they will join Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin in the massive Rust Belt regional primary.

The New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine similarly coalesced into a Yankee primary on March 5–three weeks before California’s primary.

All the movement left California in 32nd place in the 1996 campaign chronology, only slightly better positioned than if it had left the primary in June.

“We were dead last, along with New Jersey and a few other states,” said state Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), who lobbied for an early primary for 14 long years. “We’re better off than we were then. We’re just not significantly better off.”

Because the early primary is a one-year experiment, legislators will have to take up its fate after next year. Costa said that he may propose moving it up even further for the 2000 election.

The state senator initially wanted to set this year’s primary for March 5, which would have made California the first big state on the election calendar. But he compromised with others in the Legislature, who argued that the state is so big that it would swallow up all but the richest candidates. Give the poorer candidates a chance to make their mark in earlier, smaller states, the argument went, and then their momentum could offset their lack of funds in California.

The upshot is this: Candidates are still cozying up to Iowa, whose caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 12, and New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary will be held eight days later.

They are patting backs and kissing babies in South Carolina, whose primary will be held March 2, on the grounds that it will serve either as a fire wall to block a surging campaign or will redouble the momentum of an earlier winner.

They are courting voters elsewhere in the South, where the Super Tuesday primary will be held March 12 and where voters will decide the fates of at least two of their own, Texas’ Phil Gramm and Tennessee’s Alexander.

All of this makes compelling strategic sense.

“The first focus has to be the first caucus and primaries,” said Charles Robbins, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “They come first and if you don’t perform, you’re out of the game.”

Put another way, it would be political malpractice for a candidate to hang out in California when his time is better spent in the earlier states. Compounding matters is California’s status as a winner-take-all primary. That means a candidate who put all his marbles into the state and pulled, say, 48% of the vote would walk away without a delegate. Many other states dispense their delegates proportionally.

“No candidate is going to make a serious commitment to resources in a March primary simply because there’s no guarantee you’re going to get that far,” said an adviser to one of the campaigns. “It’s a huge gamble to put up that money and risk walking away with nothing.”

Another hindrance to actively campaigning in California is the fact that the state is so far from Washington, where no less than six of the nine Republican candidates are based.

One recent Thursday, for example, Specter jetted from Washington to Boston, held two campaign events and was back in the Capitol for Senate business by lunchtime.

“You can’t do that to California,” said his aide Robbins. “Just because of the geography, all the way on the other side of the country, it’s a real project.”

While the Republican candidates have not spent much time in California, their campaigns are starting to lay the foundations of an effort here.

Wilson’s campaign is rebuilding his longstanding organization, despite prominent defections to other camps and surveys that show the governor losing the state to front-runner Bob Dole of Kansas.

Besides having the only full-fledged campaign office in the state, Wilson’s operation has staffers specifically working to buoy his standing here, said spokesman Dan Schnur.

“For all their talk, none of the other campaigns are putting any time or energy into California at all,” he said. “They file in and out for fund-raisers, but beyond that there’s no indication of any serious organizational effort on the part of any of them.”

Wilson does have a leg up, but his opponents argue that his campaign may have folded by late March or, even if he stays in the race, they may be able to build enthusiasm here from the momentum of earlier victories.

Gramm has made the biggest splash, garnering the support of Republican legislative leaders Curt Pringle and Rob Hurtt, both of Orange County, and a host of activists. U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, who is heading Gramm’s California campaign, said the effort so far is a “very well-organized, low dollar” effort.

It will remain entirely a volunteer effort through the end of the year, he said.

“When you’re running statewide in California, it’s important to have money when it counts, not lavishly throw it around months in advance,” Cox said.

Dole has been here infrequently, but has tried to make a big splash when he has come. He salted one Los Angeles fund-raising trip with a high-profile assault on the entertainment industry.

Overall, the Dole campaign said, it has raised $1.5 million in its visits to California.

“Some analysts are suggesting that it will all be over before California,” said Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield. “Our attitude is that we are contesting every state very vigorously. We’re proceeding on the assumption that it is up for grabs.”

Former television commentator Patrick J. Buchanan has made three multi-day fund-raising trips to California since March–the same time frame in which he has visited Iowa 11 times and New Hampshire eight times. His aides say they are putting together networks of volunteers who will fan out in support of Buchanan.

Lugar and Alexander have raised money in California, and Lugar aides said they had particular luck with a direct mail drive that touted his proposal to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace income taxes with a national sales tax. Like the latter two, Specter has had a low profile here.

At some point, the Republican nominee will begin fighting the general election war here–one that President Clinton is already waging. Mindful that he needs to win the state in order to be reelected, Clinton has visited California 19 times in less than three years, more than any other state.