Thursday, April 28, 2016
The 2016 Election
The Tug-of-War Metaphor
Stuff That Matters Less:
The Autopsy: Things that matter at the margin, and in the long term
1. MessagingPROBLEM: PARTY ORGANIZATION DOES NOT CONTROL PARTY IN GOVERNMENT, PARTISAN OUTSIDE GROUPS, OR PARTY IN THE ELECTORATE! IF YOU REMEMBER NOTHING ELSE FROM THIS COURSE, REMEMBER THIS POINT!
2. Demographic Partners
3. Campaign Mechanics
4. Friends and Allies (Third Party Groups)
5. Fundraising
6. Campaign Finance
7. Primary Process
The tug-of-war metaphor assumes roughly equal effort on both sides. It also assumes that the candidates are qualified and broadly acceptable. But the metaphor may break down with Trump:
Why Trump?
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Appearances in Politics Presentation
Here is my presentation about appearances in politics. For later reading, enjoy the height of various candidates throughout history and a pretty harsh critique on Ted Cruz's inability to find a tailor.Significant Layoffs in the Sanders Campaign
According to sources close to the Sanders campaign, Bernie let hundreds of field staffers go after Clinton won four of the five primaries held yesterday in the Northeast. While Sanders has been insistent on staying in the race, it seems he’s becoming aware of his impending loss. At this point, the Sanders campaign may be shifting its focus to impacting the Democratic platform at the convention more than challenging Clinton for the nomination.
His campaign’s director of communications, Michael Briggs, offered an interesting insight into the decision, "We're 80 percent of the way through the caucuses and primaries and we make adjustments as we go along. This is a process that we’ve done before of right-sizing the campaign as we move through the calendar." When asked if the layoffs were coming from a position of weakness Briggs noted that they were instead “coming from a posture of reality.”
Personally, I believe these layoffs demonstrate that Sanders has began to concede the nomination. While nomination may be lost, Bernie’s campaign and the symbolism of his message could remain strong until the convention and beyond.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-campaign-begins-laying-off-staff-222552
His campaign’s director of communications, Michael Briggs, offered an interesting insight into the decision, "We're 80 percent of the way through the caucuses and primaries and we make adjustments as we go along. This is a process that we’ve done before of right-sizing the campaign as we move through the calendar." When asked if the layoffs were coming from a position of weakness Briggs noted that they were instead “coming from a posture of reality.”
Personally, I believe these layoffs demonstrate that Sanders has began to concede the nomination. While nomination may be lost, Bernie’s campaign and the symbolism of his message could remain strong until the convention and beyond.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-campaign-begins-laying-off-staff-222552
Cruz announces Fiorina as VP pick
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/politics/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-vice-president/
Ted Cruz is reportedly announcing that Carly Fiorina will be his running mate if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee.
This unorthodox strategy of naming a running mate before the convention has precedent--Ronald Reagan named Pennsylvania moderate Richard Schweiker as his preferred VP nominee before the convention to shore up moderate support.
I personally don't think this is a good move for Cruz. Coming on the heels of the Trump sweep yesterday, it smacks of desperation and pandering to women. It may also strain relations with the Kasich camp, which could end up hurting him in Indiana.
GOP Going the Wrong Way
The Republican National Committee's "Growth and Opportunity Project" outlines future steps for the Republican Party in reflection of the 2012 election cycle. Its section on messaging and demographic partners especially stand out. The report recognizes that some people say "Republicans don't care" and tries to introduce ways to change this perception through talking about people rather than policy. It also highlights the importance of campaigning for "Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate... [the party] cares about them."
In assessing how the Republican Party has done to meet the goals it outlined in 2013 to win the 2016 election cycle, it has done very poorly. Perhaps it has been more successful in centering its messaging on people, rather than policy, and in launching outreach initiatives for minorities. Through the rise of Donald Trump, however, the Party is at risk of not moving forward but backward. Republican strategists could not have imagined someone as unpopular and divisive as Trump to rise to the top of the Republican ticket. The problem is not necessarily Trump himself but his popularity among Republican primary voters. As discussed in class, Trump's rise in the Party has most likely led a large number of people away from the Party, especially young and minority voters.
The report warns that "If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out. The Party should be proud of its conservative principles, but just because someone disagrees with us on 20 percent of the issues, that does not mean we cannot come together on the rest of the issues where we do agree."
It is hard to imagine what more Trump can do to make the GOP less welcoming and inclusive. If Trump becomes the nominee, the GOP will suffer in future years to try to get the vote of those who are potential Republican voters, those who might "disagree with us on 20 percent of the issues," because of its tainted image.
http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf
In assessing how the Republican Party has done to meet the goals it outlined in 2013 to win the 2016 election cycle, it has done very poorly. Perhaps it has been more successful in centering its messaging on people, rather than policy, and in launching outreach initiatives for minorities. Through the rise of Donald Trump, however, the Party is at risk of not moving forward but backward. Republican strategists could not have imagined someone as unpopular and divisive as Trump to rise to the top of the Republican ticket. The problem is not necessarily Trump himself but his popularity among Republican primary voters. As discussed in class, Trump's rise in the Party has most likely led a large number of people away from the Party, especially young and minority voters.
The report warns that "If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out. The Party should be proud of its conservative principles, but just because someone disagrees with us on 20 percent of the issues, that does not mean we cannot come together on the rest of the issues where we do agree."
It is hard to imagine what more Trump can do to make the GOP less welcoming and inclusive. If Trump becomes the nominee, the GOP will suffer in future years to try to get the vote of those who are potential Republican voters, those who might "disagree with us on 20 percent of the issues," because of its tainted image.
http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
General Elections for President: Fundamentals
Obama Legacy Report
Beck & Heidemann chapter in Green
Beck & Heidemann chapter in Green
Romney and Obama: The Polls
The Vice Presidential Candidate?
Ads? 47%? Debates? Sandy?
Fundamentals I: The Economy (p. 178)
What about 2016? Ruh Roh!
Fundamentals II: Job Approval
Fundamentals III: Partisanship and Polarization
Electoral College
No Republican has carried these states since Bush 41 in 1988:
The Vice Presidential Candidate?
Ads? 47%? Debates? Sandy?
Fundamentals I: The Economy (p. 178)
What about 2016? Ruh Roh!
Fundamentals II: Job Approval
Fundamentals III: Partisanship and Polarization
Electoral College
No Republican has carried these states since Bush 41 in 1988:
California 55
Connecticut 07
Delaware 03
Illinois 20
Maine 04
Maryland 10
Michigan 16
New
Jersey 14
Pennsylvania 20
Vermont 03
TOTAL
152
Why a Kasich-Cruz Alliance is Risky
Recently, the campaigns of Ted Cruz and John Kasich announced that they will be strategically working together in order to stop Donald Trump from getting the 1237 delegates that he needs to be the GOP presidential nominee in the fall. The exchange is pretty straightforward: Kasich will stop competing in Indiana and Cruz will stop competing in New Mexico and Oregon. Although Nate Cohn from the New York Times, among other reporters, believe that this deal may have the potential to stop Trump, I think it is extremely risky for both candidates.
Although I understand the rationale, this alliance assumes that:
1. Voters are strategic, too!
Voters are probably not as educated (or strategic) as Cruz and Kasich are trying to be.
Although it is true (to an extent) that voters refer to certain cues while casting their vote, it is unlikely that voters plan to be "strategic" when voting. At the end of the day, voters will personally vote for who they think is the best candidate.
2. Kasich and Cruz have similar voters.
Although Kasich and Cruz supporters might have more overlap than with Trump supporters, it is unlikely that their supporters are willing to switch over. Cruz represents the strong conservative Republicans while Kasich takes supporters who are even sick of the "Cruz" Republicans. An article in Washington Post writes, "So if you are an Indiana Republican who was for Kasich, it's hard to imagine that you agree with Cruz on almost anything. Ditto a Cruz voter in Oregon or New Mexico. " Overall, it is interesting to examine the dynamics within the electorate vs. with the candidates and this alliance will be an interesting to watch in the upcoming primaries.
Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/25/why-the-ted-cruz-john-kasich-alliance-is-destined-to-fail/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/upshot/cruz-kasich-deal-means-a-much-better-chance-to-stop-trump.html?_r=1
Although I understand the rationale, this alliance assumes that:
1. Voters are strategic, too!
Voters are probably not as educated (or strategic) as Cruz and Kasich are trying to be.
Although it is true (to an extent) that voters refer to certain cues while casting their vote, it is unlikely that voters plan to be "strategic" when voting. At the end of the day, voters will personally vote for who they think is the best candidate.
2. Kasich and Cruz have similar voters.
Although Kasich and Cruz supporters might have more overlap than with Trump supporters, it is unlikely that their supporters are willing to switch over. Cruz represents the strong conservative Republicans while Kasich takes supporters who are even sick of the "Cruz" Republicans. An article in Washington Post writes, "So if you are an Indiana Republican who was for Kasich, it's hard to imagine that you agree with Cruz on almost anything. Ditto a Cruz voter in Oregon or New Mexico. " Overall, it is interesting to examine the dynamics within the electorate vs. with the candidates and this alliance will be an interesting to watch in the upcoming primaries.
Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/25/why-the-ted-cruz-john-kasich-alliance-is-destined-to-fail/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/upshot/cruz-kasich-deal-means-a-much-better-chance-to-stop-trump.html?_r=1
Monday, April 25, 2016
Cruz and Kasich Unite
After Donald Trump’s successful New York primary, he moved
closer to securing the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination and put a dent in
the Presidential chances of Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Therefore, Cruz and
Kasich made the surprising announcement that they are going to team up to try
to prevent Trump from securing the nomination before the convention. The two
candidates agreed to each only pursue certain states so that each could secure
more delegates and prevent Trump from securing the nomination. According to
Cruz’s campaign manager, “To ensure
that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in
November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn
clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico, and we
would hope that allies of both campaigns would follow our lead,”1 This could especially help Kasich since
he has a smaller budget and now gets to focus on smaller states, but overall it
seems like this means both candidates have given up hope that they can catch
Trump. Both seem to be angling toward forcing a contested convention and then
hoping to capture victory in the later rounds.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
General Elections for President: Parties and Processes
The Vice Presidency
William Galston writes:
William Galston writes:
In 2010, political scientists Bernard Grofman and Reuben Kline assessed the impact of vice-presidential selection on voters’ choices in the general election. In the 11 presidential contests from 1968 to 2008, they found, the net effect was at most 1% of the popular vote.
...
In a similar vein, the Gallup Organization examined the vice-presidential debates in elections from 1976 to 2008. The median effect for both parties was 1 percentage point. Public support for the Republican ticket in 2008 fell from 43% before the Sarah Palin- Joe Biden debate to 42% afterward. Support for the Republican ticket in 1988 actually rose to 49% from 47% after that year’s vice-presidential debate, in which the veteran congressman Bentsen was widely perceived as having drubbed the young senator from Indiana, Dan Quayle.The Overstated Home-State Effect (and a more recent article here)
Electoral College
- Registration: Register unregistered supporters to expand the electorate and reregister supporters who may have moved at their new addresses. The registration program included tactics such as voter registration weeks of action, hot spot registration canvasses, and GottaRegister.com
- Persuasion: Persuade voters who were likely to vote but were undecided on who to support. The persuasion program included tactics such as neighbor-to-neighbor conversations, messaging trainings, surrogate events, press articles, television ads, and online efforts such as the Truth Team.
- Turnout: Educate supporters on where, when and how to vote, and motivate them to cast their ballots. The turnout program focused on early vote and Get Out the Vote (GOTV) and included tactics such as commitment cards, early vote events and rallies, and GOTV canvasses
Ted Cruz's Latest Ad Attacks Both Sides of the Aisle
A new ad released today does double duty for the Ted Cruz campaign. It attacks GOP rival Donald Trump while also condemning likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The ad also suggests that the Cruz campaign has finally decided to do some background research on the Donald--which most other Republican campaigns did not do and contributed to their demise.
Why primaries aren't democratic
In a Slate article published on April 20, William Saletan argues that both major parties are doing what they're meant to do: pick candidates that best represent them. He first questions whether Trump and Sanders are even loyal to their respective parties and then states that both of them are winning contents through various party mechanisms (winner-take-all systems and caucuses) that often misrepresent how votes would have been cast in a proportional primary.
He closes:
"Why should the Democratic Party cater to a candidate who won’t commit to the party? And why should the Republican Party support a candidate who doesn’t support half of its platform? In choosing a nominee, a party has two logical priorities. One is to pick someone who can get elected. The other is to make sure that the nominee is loyal to the party and its beliefs. Otherwise, the party becomes just a vehicle for personal ambition. The party has no obligation to make its nomination process unbiased, democratic, or open to all voters. That’s the job of the general election.
So don’t cry for Trump or Sanders. Like anybody else, they can run for president in the fall. For now, the candidates are seeking the nominations of the two major parties. And it’s the parties—state committees, superdelegates, and all—that get to choose the process and the candidates that will represent them best."
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
VP Pick Odds
Given that we’re talking about VP nomination picks in class,
I thought it would be interesting to look at the betting market favorites,
courtesy of InTrade.
Personally, I think the odds for the leading Democrats to be
a bit high—I would take the “other.” The Republican side has more reasonable
odds for the favorites, but there will be so much unexpected at the convention
that even those might be a bit high.
Here are the odds for the leading candidates:
Democrats:
Julian Castro 19%
Tim Kaine 12%
Tom Perez 11%
Cory Booker 10%
Bernie Sanders 10%
Elizabeth Warren 10%
Sherrod Brown 9%
Al Franken 6%
(No others higher than 3%)
Republicans:
John Kasich 19%
Nikki Haley 10%
Marco Rubio 9%
Chris Christie 8%
Scott Walker 5%
Ted Cruz 5%
Jeff Sessions 4%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Jonie Ernst 4%
(No others higher than 3%)
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
From the Convention to the Fall Campaign
A Convention Blast from the Past
A recent article from the NY Times pointed out the interesting twists a GOP contested convention will create. The first contested convention in a long time will uproot some of the modern election practices that have favored analytical, quantitative and social media skills. The interpersonal and persuasion skills of old and battle-tested politicians will be highly valued in Cleveland, probably more so than the skills of a Nate Silver or young campaign manager.
Political campaigns are often viewed as a young person’s game, especially in an era in which digitally savvy, data-fixated strategists track the behavior of millions of voters nationwide and target them with increasing sophistication and precision.
But this year, as Republicans face the prospect of a contested convention, the party is turning to its oldest hands, who learned how to fight over delegates using walkie-talkies, loose-leaf notebooks and quick-footed young pages.
Interestingly, GOPers from the 1976 GOP Convention are being brought back into the political sphere to help this year's candidates. Stuart Spencer, an 89 year old who courted delegates for Ford in 1976, was recruited to help the Kasich campaign. Paul Manafort, who also worked for Ford in 76, is the top convention strategist for Trump. Charlie Black, a Reagan convention operator, is helping Kasich on the floor.
While big data, social media and younger people have become powerful forces in election politics, old-school techniques are not insignificant and may determine this year's GOP nominee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/us/politics/potential-gop-convention-fight-puts-older-hands-in-sudden-demand.html?_r=0
Last Assignment, Spring 2016
Pick one:
- Answer any of the "critical thinking questions" for chapters 9 and 10 of the Brewer and Maisel book (pages 304 or 333 of the print edition).
- Which party will win the presidency in November? In your answer, take account of both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
- Propose a reform of the presidential nomination process. It can apply to both parties, or only one. Explain the problem that you would solve, and tell why your proposal would improve on past reform efforts.
The specifications:
- Essays should be typed (12-point), double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page.
- Cite your sources. Please use endnotes in the format of Chicago Manual of Style. Endnotes do not count against the page limit. Please do not use footnotes, which take up too much page space.
- Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you. Return essays to the Sakai dropbox for this class by 11:59 PM, Wednesday, May 4. Papers will drop one gradepoint for one day’s lateness, a full letter grade after that.
The Outsider Gets an Insider to Help Trump the System
Donald Trump's lack of basic understanding of the Republican nominating system shows just how much of an outsider he is. Apparently unaware that Republicans seeking the nomination must win 1,237 delegates in the primary elections, Trump wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal crying foul play. According to Trump, the nomination system is unfairly rigged against him. But, as Reince Priebus pointed out in response to Trump, the 1,237 threshold is nothing new. Still, Trump raged about the system and warned that if he is not granted the Republican nomination, the GOP will be in for "a rough July."
In the past few days, it seems that the Donald has decided to work the system rather than complain about it. The Trump campaign hired William McGinley, a veteran Republican political attorney, to advise him on delegate battles in upcoming states. McGinley is not the typical outsider the Trump campaign usually hires. In 2012, McGinley served as counsel to the convention's rules committee and got the delegate credentials committee to swap ten Ron Paul delegates for ten Romney delegates. McGinley has also worked for the RNC as an attorney. The choice to hire McGinley suggests that Trump is realizing that hiring insiders can help play the system they created.
Although hiring McGinley will help Trump choose better delegates, it might be too little too late in terms of cinching the nomination. Right now, Trump's chance at being the nominee is hinged on hi winning by big margins in the rest of the primaries, which is unlikely since the field has narrowed and Ted Cruz is winning primaries. In addition, since the Trump campaign was not selecting delegates previously, he could lose many of them after the first ballot at the convention.
In the past few days, it seems that the Donald has decided to work the system rather than complain about it. The Trump campaign hired William McGinley, a veteran Republican political attorney, to advise him on delegate battles in upcoming states. McGinley is not the typical outsider the Trump campaign usually hires. In 2012, McGinley served as counsel to the convention's rules committee and got the delegate credentials committee to swap ten Ron Paul delegates for ten Romney delegates. McGinley has also worked for the RNC as an attorney. The choice to hire McGinley suggests that Trump is realizing that hiring insiders can help play the system they created.
Although hiring McGinley will help Trump choose better delegates, it might be too little too late in terms of cinching the nomination. Right now, Trump's chance at being the nominee is hinged on hi winning by big margins in the rest of the primaries, which is unlikely since the field has narrowed and Ted Cruz is winning primaries. In addition, since the Trump campaign was not selecting delegates previously, he could lose many of them after the first ballot at the convention.
The Place that Wants Donald Trump the Most
This article looks into Buchanan County, VA—where the highest percentage (69.7%) of Trump supporters in the US live. It dives into people's way of life in this Appalachian county, where coal mining dominates the job market.
This county was strongly Democrat in the previous election, with "Mrs. Clinton [winning] 2,245 votes...against Barack Obama, defeating him 90% to 9% and collecting more than five times as many votes as the Republican primary winner." The downturn of the coal industry has shifted many of the miners' allegiances towards Trump, whom they believe to have the business skills necessary to bring back their once thriving industry. As we discussed earlier in the class, Buchanan County fits the profile for Trump supporters—low income ($29,679 median household income), low education (69.1% high school graduation), and low ethnic diversity .
Confusing Names of Third Parties
John Myers, Christine Mai-Duc and Ben Welsh report at The Los Angeles Times:
With nearly half a million registered members, the American Independent Party is bigger than all of California's other minor parties combined. The ultraconservative party's platform opposes abortion rights and same sex marriage, and calls for building a fence along the entire United States border.
Based in the Solano County home of one of its leaders, the AIP bills itself as “The Fastest Growing Political Party in California."
But a Times investigation has found that a majority of its members have registered with the party in error. Nearly three in four people did not realize they had joined the party, a survey of registered AIP voters conducted for The Times found.
That mistake could prevent people from casting votes in the June 7 presidential primary, California's most competitive in decades.
Voters from all walks of life were confused by the use of the word “independent” in the party’s name, according to The Times analysis.
...
Of the 500 AIP voters surveyed by a bipartisan team of pollsters, fewer than 4% could correctly identify their own registration as a member of the American Independent Party.
“That’s what we call a finding with real statistical viability,” said Ben Tulchin, a Democratic pollster who helped craft the survey in collaboration with The Times and Republican pollster Val Smith. “It’s overwhelming and it’s indisputable.”
Tulchin has done polling for Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and Smith's firm has done polling of California Republican voters on their presidential preferences. No data from this poll, conducted on a pro-bono basis for The Times, was shared with any campaigns.
...In 2012, The New York Daily News found that the same thing had happened with the state's Independence Party:
After being read excerpts of the platform, more than 50% of those surveyed in the poll said they wanted to leave the American Independent Party. The more specific the platform position, the weaker the support of those surveyed. Most of the voters who were polled knew little, if anything, about the party to which they belong.
When he registered to vote last year, the 34-year-old Queens plumber checked a box beside the name Independence Party, believing he had filed to be independent of any party affiliation.
Informed of his mistake — one made by 85% of Independence Party enrollees interviewed by the Daily News — Marino got to the heart of the deception by which party leaders keep power and exercise undue influence over the ballot. He said:
“I registered as an independent. I didn’t intend to join the Independence Party. They are putting two words that are similar together. If you put them together in the same sentence, if you are not paying attention, you are not going to catch that. We all can’t make the same mistake.
Monday, April 18, 2016
The Best Man, or Woman
The piece I did today at Fox and Hounds makes for a fun followup to The Best Man:
The Republican National Convention is probably going to pick Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or (much less likely) John Kasich. Since 1972, every major-party presidential nominee has come out of the primaries and caucuses, and GOP voters seem to have little appetite for breaking with that practice. Moreover, it is not even certain that the convention will adopt rules allowing for the nomination of another candidate. A dark-horse nominee seems impossible.
And yet, 2016 is the year for believing six impossible things before breakfast. Just 12 months ago, who would have thought that Trump would be the leading candidate – or that many “establishment” Republicans would see Cruz as the best alternative? So imagine that multiple ballots result in deadlock, and that convention procedures allow delegates to pick anybody they want. Who could emerge?
For years, conventional wisdom had it that Republicans liked to turn to the candidate next in line, that is, somebody who had previously sought the nomination but placed second. In 2008, that candidate was Mike Huckabee. In 2012, it was Rick Santorum. The trouble is that both Huckabee and Santorum both ran this year, and both flopped badly
It might be logical to consider the party’s congressional leaders. House Speaker Paul Ryan has a lot going for him: brains, a solid conservative reputation, and national exposure as the 2012 vice presidential nominee. But he has taken himself out of the running with the strong declaration that he would not accept the nomination. As for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: if you look up the term “Washington Insider,” you may see his picture. Finding that he had a 16 percent national approval rating, one pollster dubbed him “the most unpopular major political figure in the country.” Ted Cruz called him a liar, and is standing by that characterization.
Some anti-Trump conservatives are floating the name of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis. Not only did he build an awesome military career, but he also earned a couple of nicknames that will appeal to various wings of the party. “Mad Dog” would be a huge draw for foreign policy hardliners, while moderates would like “the Warrior Monk,” a soubriquet referring to his contemplative and analytical side. He has shown the physical courage that Trump only pretends to have, and his knowledge of key national security issues would put all the current candidates to shame.
Though Mattis is attractive in many ways, the experience of the most recent general-turned-dark-horse is not encouraging. In 2004, General Wesley Clark entered the Democratic race with an outstanding r̩sum̩, but his candidacy quickly fizzled when he displayed total ineptitude on the political battlefield. Though warfare has much to teach us about politics РI wrote a whole book on the topic Рrunning for office requires skills that military officers do not automatically acquire. Dwight Eisenhower succeeded brilliantly in both realms; but alas, the Good Lord made only one of him.
Republicans might want someone with political experience, the ability to unify the party, and the potential to broaden its reach. Two South Carolinians fit this description. Governor Nikki Haley is a fiscal and social conservative who won acclaim last year for her response to the Charleston massacre, and her support for removing the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol grounds. As 44-year-old Indian American woman, she would undercut the stereotype of the GOP as the party of elderly white guys.
So would 50-year old Senator Tim Scott, the first black Republican senator from the South since Reconstruction. He has strong ties to Christian conservatives and the tea party faction, but he has also won solid reviews from unexpected quarters. Shortly before he moved from the House to the Senate, Eliza Gray wrote in the liberal magazine The New Republic: “For as long as he’s been in politics, Scott has had a knack for navigating the complex internal politics of the GOP. Armed with an ever-present smile, Scott has been able to be all things to all people. He is an insurgent Tea Partier beloved by the House leadership who keeps his constituents happy with the occasional pork project. In a Republican Party that is constantly at war with itself, Senator Scott will offer much more to the GOP than the color of his skin.”
Obscure figures who suddenly land on a national ticket can quickly get into trouble, as Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin learned. Accordingly, the choice of Mattis, Haley, Scott, or any other outside candidate would be an enormous gamble for the GOP.
But would it really be a bigger gamble than nominating a bombastic billionaire with a 67 percent unfavorable rating?
And yet, 2016 is the year for believing six impossible things before breakfast. Just 12 months ago, who would have thought that Trump would be the leading candidate – or that many “establishment” Republicans would see Cruz as the best alternative? So imagine that multiple ballots result in deadlock, and that convention procedures allow delegates to pick anybody they want. Who could emerge?
For years, conventional wisdom had it that Republicans liked to turn to the candidate next in line, that is, somebody who had previously sought the nomination but placed second. In 2008, that candidate was Mike Huckabee. In 2012, it was Rick Santorum. The trouble is that both Huckabee and Santorum both ran this year, and both flopped badly
It might be logical to consider the party’s congressional leaders. House Speaker Paul Ryan has a lot going for him: brains, a solid conservative reputation, and national exposure as the 2012 vice presidential nominee. But he has taken himself out of the running with the strong declaration that he would not accept the nomination. As for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: if you look up the term “Washington Insider,” you may see his picture. Finding that he had a 16 percent national approval rating, one pollster dubbed him “the most unpopular major political figure in the country.” Ted Cruz called him a liar, and is standing by that characterization.
Some anti-Trump conservatives are floating the name of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis. Not only did he build an awesome military career, but he also earned a couple of nicknames that will appeal to various wings of the party. “Mad Dog” would be a huge draw for foreign policy hardliners, while moderates would like “the Warrior Monk,” a soubriquet referring to his contemplative and analytical side. He has shown the physical courage that Trump only pretends to have, and his knowledge of key national security issues would put all the current candidates to shame.
Though Mattis is attractive in many ways, the experience of the most recent general-turned-dark-horse is not encouraging. In 2004, General Wesley Clark entered the Democratic race with an outstanding r̩sum̩, but his candidacy quickly fizzled when he displayed total ineptitude on the political battlefield. Though warfare has much to teach us about politics РI wrote a whole book on the topic Рrunning for office requires skills that military officers do not automatically acquire. Dwight Eisenhower succeeded brilliantly in both realms; but alas, the Good Lord made only one of him.
Republicans might want someone with political experience, the ability to unify the party, and the potential to broaden its reach. Two South Carolinians fit this description. Governor Nikki Haley is a fiscal and social conservative who won acclaim last year for her response to the Charleston massacre, and her support for removing the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol grounds. As 44-year-old Indian American woman, she would undercut the stereotype of the GOP as the party of elderly white guys.
So would 50-year old Senator Tim Scott, the first black Republican senator from the South since Reconstruction. He has strong ties to Christian conservatives and the tea party faction, but he has also won solid reviews from unexpected quarters. Shortly before he moved from the House to the Senate, Eliza Gray wrote in the liberal magazine The New Republic: “For as long as he’s been in politics, Scott has had a knack for navigating the complex internal politics of the GOP. Armed with an ever-present smile, Scott has been able to be all things to all people. He is an insurgent Tea Partier beloved by the House leadership who keeps his constituents happy with the occasional pork project. In a Republican Party that is constantly at war with itself, Senator Scott will offer much more to the GOP than the color of his skin.”
Obscure figures who suddenly land on a national ticket can quickly get into trouble, as Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin learned. Accordingly, the choice of Mattis, Haley, Scott, or any other outside candidate would be an enormous gamble for the GOP.
But would it really be a bigger gamble than nominating a bombastic billionaire with a 67 percent unfavorable rating?
Paul Ryan is NOT Running for President (wink)
We've already discussed in class the possibility of Ryan running for president, and how his public refusals may be just a bluff. Last week, Paul Ryan repeated definitively in a press conference: "I do not want, nor will I accept, the nomination of our party."
Saturday Night live thinks he is repeating his recent refusal to take on the role of Speaker of the House:
This New Yorker article agrees with SNL- there is some historical precedent for Paul Ryan to become the nominee as the GOP heads to an extremely contested convention. According to the article, he is closest historically to Adlai Stevenson. But if we look at the 1968 convention video we saw in class, and the uproar caused by the nomination of a candidate who hadn't run in any primaries, it's easy to imagine the fallout of a revolt of Trump and Cruz supporters. That would not bode well for Paul Ryan, if he did end up running this fall.
Disenchanted Millennials Express why they may not vote this year
Posted for Micky Ferguson
A recent opinion piece by a young voter named Danielle Corcione detailed a sentiment that is common among millennials: that the political system is “rigged.” This article was in response to the Wyoming caucus results, when “Sanders won the popular vote by 12%, but Clinton scored four more superdelegates.” Corcione, a Sanders supporter, expressed her reasons for deciding not to vote if Clinton receives the nomination. She explained that “We support a system by actively taking part in it.” A lot of people might say it is important for her to vote in order to prevent a Trump presidency, but she does not agree. “In a democratic system, I’d vote for a candidate that aligns close with my political stances. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate of the lesser evils to keep a horrific GOP forerunner from entering the Oval Office. That’s partially why our democracy is rigged.,” she wrote.
Although I am typically very opposed to people abstaining from voting, I found this piece very interesting. Does voting validate a system that many millennials want to change? Will not voting make a difference?
Here is the article: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Nomination Contests 2016
Obama Clinton
Superdelegates 463 257
Caucus Delegates 327 175
Primary Delegates 1418.5 1464.5
2208.5 1896.5
The GOP problem: too many candidates!
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Readings on the 2016 Nomination Process
For Thursday:
- Gabriel Sherman, "Operation Trump: Inside the Most Unorthodox Campaign in Political History," New York, April 3, 2016
- Larry Buchanan and Alicia Parlapiano, "How Votes for Trump Could Become Delegates for Someone Else," New York Times, April 3, 2016.
- Patrick Healy and Yamiche Alcindor, "Early Missteps Seen as a Drag on Bernie Sanders’s Campaign," New York Times, April 3, 2016.
Parties and Presidential Nominations
The story of 1968 at about 6:55:
Cousins v. Wigoda 419 U.S. 477 (1975)
Cousins v. Wigoda 419 U.S. 477 (1975)
The National Democratic Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association. "There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of `orderly group activity' protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. . . . The right to associate with the political party of one's choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom." Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56 -57 (1973). "And of course this freedom protected against federal encroachment by the First Amendment is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the same protection from infringement by the States." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 -31 (1968). Moreover, "[a]ny interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents." [419 U.S. 477, 488] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957); see NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 431 (1963).
...
The vital business of the Convention is the nomination of the Party's candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. To that end, the state political parties are "affiliated with a national party through acceptance of the national call to send state delegates to the national convention." Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 225 (1952). The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the [419 U.S. 477, 490] selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. 9 If the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to National Political Party Conventions were left to state law "each of the fifty states could establish the qualifications of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result." Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F. Supp. 82, 86 (ND Ill. 1972). Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerted enterprise engaged in the vital process of choosing Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates - a process which usually involves coalitions cutting across state lines. 10 The Convention serves the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office, and this national interest is greater than any interest of an individual State.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Parties and Congressional Elections
Election tip sheets and data
The Big Picture
Hill committees and campaign triage (Herrnson 101)
NON-COORDINATION COORDINATION WITH POG -- Example of Scott Peters (Herrnson 126-127).
- Sabato Crystal Ball
- Rothenberg Gonzales
- RealClearPolitics
- State data: party id and Obama approval
The Big Picture
- Incumbents Usually Win
- Midterms Are Bad for the President's Party
- Over time, the president's party loses seats
- The Class System (class III is up in 2016)
- The Exposure of the Class of 2014 and the results
- Senate coattails in 2012?
- Seats and Votes in the Senate
- Example: California
- Gerrymandering: cracking, packing, merging, isolating
- Unintentionial gerrymandering
- GOP Advantage in Non-Minority Districts
- The "bench" advantage shifts to the GOP
Parties and Issues (Herrnson 92-93)
Hill committees and campaign triage (Herrnson 101)
- NRCC Young Guns and Patriot
- DCCC Red to Blue and Frontline
- DSCC and NRSC have fewer races to handle
NON-COORDINATION COORDINATION WITH POG -- Example of Scott Peters (Herrnson 126-127).
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
State and Local Nominations and Elections
California data:
Types of primaries
The blanket primary and California Democratic Party v. Jones. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia said:
Cross-Endorsement or Fusion (p. 177)
In Timmons v. Twin Cites Area New Party, SCOTUS upheld anti-fusion laws.
Election law and procedure at the state level
The blanket primary and California Democratic Party v. Jones. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia said:
In concluding that the burden Proposition 198 imposes on petitioners' rights of association is not severe, the Ninth Circuit cited testimony that the prospect of malicious crossover voting, or raiding, is slight, and that even though the numbers of "benevolent" crossover voters were significant, they would be determinative in only a small number of races. But a single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party. In the 1860 presidential election, if opponents of the fledgling Republican Party had been able to cause its nomination of a pro-slavery candidate in place of Abraham Lincoln, the coalition of intraparty factions forming behind him likely would have disintegrated, endangering the party's survival and thwarting its effort to fill the vacuum left by the dissolution of the Whigs. Ordinarily, however, being saddled with an unwanted, and possibly antithetical, nominee would not destroy the party but severely transform it. "[R]egulating the identity of the parties' leaders," we have said, "may ... color the parties' message and interfere with the parties' decisions as to the best means to promote that message."Runoff primaries
Cross-Endorsement or Fusion (p. 177)
In Timmons v. Twin Cites Area New Party, SCOTUS upheld anti-fusion laws.
Election law and procedure at the state level
Bernie Supporter Takes on a Superdelegate
On March 28th, an Alaskan Bernie supporter, Levi Younger, confronted superdelegate Kim Metcalfe, who said that she would vote for Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders won Alaska with 81.6% of the vote. Although Bernie won, Ms. Metcalfe, as a superdelegate, is technically not obligated to vote for him. She can vote however she wants. Many Bernie Sanders supporters have reposted the Facebook conservation as proof that the establishment is working against Bernie. It is also proof that many Americans do not understand what superdelegates are legally allowed to do. The exchange illustrates the undemocratic nature of superdelegates and could lead activists to call for a change in the Democratic primary system.
Chaos in Cleveland
Although Donald Trump is projected to win the majority of delegates prior to the GOP convention, there could be a lot decided at the convention itself. Two recent articles, one by Nate Silver at 538 and another from Vox, entitled 'Contested Conventions, explained,' both come to the conclusion that the GOP candidates will have to extend their battle for the nomination to the convention.
Forecasters think Trump will come close to hitting the 1,237 delegate mark before the convention but even if overshoots it by a little he will be in for a fight in Cleveland. The delegates to the convention and no shortage of rule changes or other seemingly undemocratic party practices could undermine the result of primary voting.
The determination of a nominee through the delegates at the actual convention is the least of the GOP's concerns. The possibility of the use of a 'nuclear option' could, as Donald Trump points out, cause 'riots.' This option entails denying the popularly-selected candidate the nomination. An instructive historical instance of this occurred when Ted Kennedy tried to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1980. Many believe that Kennedy's actions hurt Carter in his race with Reagan. There is a similar concern that the selection of a nominee who is not first in popular support could really hurt the GOP.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11280032/brokered-convention-explained
Forecasters think Trump will come close to hitting the 1,237 delegate mark before the convention but even if overshoots it by a little he will be in for a fight in Cleveland. The delegates to the convention and no shortage of rule changes or other seemingly undemocratic party practices could undermine the result of primary voting.
The determination of a nominee through the delegates at the actual convention is the least of the GOP's concerns. The possibility of the use of a 'nuclear option' could, as Donald Trump points out, cause 'riots.' This option entails denying the popularly-selected candidate the nomination. An instructive historical instance of this occurred when Ted Kennedy tried to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1980. Many believe that Kennedy's actions hurt Carter in his race with Reagan. There is a similar concern that the selection of a nominee who is not first in popular support could really hurt the GOP.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11280032/brokered-convention-explained
Monday, April 4, 2016
Is Paul Ryan the Hero the Republican Party Needs?
I read a pretty
interesting article on Politico about the possibility that the Republican party
might choose Paul Ryan as their nominee if Donald Trump does not get enough
votes to clinch. That would be within the rules to do and it makes sense that
the Republicans would want to nominate someone with more likeability who might
have a better chance to beat Hillary Clinton. So it could be that Ryan is the
candidate the Republicans need, though I guess it depends on who you ask if he
is the candidate the party deserves.
This usurpation
seems like it would be something out of House of Cards at first but "One of the nation's best-wired
Republicans, with an enviable prediction record for this cycle, sees a 60
percent chance of a convention deadlock and a 90 percent chance that delegates
turn to Ryan — ergo, a 54 percent chance that Ryan, who'll start the third week
of July as chairman of the Republican National Convention, will end it as the
nominee."1
Ryan
has quite forcefully denied that he is considering a run for President, saying,
""I’m not for this conversation. I think you need to run for
president in order to be president. I’m not running for president, so, period.
End of story.”2 That sounds pretty
adamant, but at least some people don't believe him. Mike Allen writes
that, "Ryan, who's more calculating and ambitious than he lets on, is
running the same playbook he did to become speaker: saying he doesn't want it,
that it won't happen."1
This
could be a good strategy because, like the article mentions, if Paul Ryan acted
like he wanted the nomination it would make him less likable. Since the
point is to choose someone who wants to be president because he cares about the
Republican cause and wants to help improve society, if Ryan seemed like he
wanted the nomination for personal gain it would defeat the purpose.
So while this demonstrated reluctance is unusual it could be effective. It
does seem pretty crazy, but I guess this has been a pretty crazy election, so
we'll see.
1. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522
2. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/paul-ryan-gop-nomination-2016-221520
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Libertarian Rise?
This article discusses how two of the best known (and most disliked) candidates, Clinton and Trump, have made the Libertarian Party relevant. Anthony Fisher mentions how candidates are required to be polling at least 15 percent nationally to make it to the main stage, and how the Green and Libertarian Parties fought this with a lawsuit. One of the most interesting things Fisher talks about is that while 2016 could be an interesting year for the LP, it's hard to determine what success looks like.
Fisher writes:
"Is the goal the White House, or just altering the national conversation by getting on the main debate stage? The LP knows voters want an alternative, but the party continues to struggle with its sales pitch and structural realities of a two-party system that marginalizes alternative choices."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)