Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 19th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
John McCain and Barack Obama face the same challenge of all presidential candidates: to consolidate and energize the party base while winning over the center.
This challenge presents many dimensions for each candidate. Today I focus on John McCain and the Republicans, and soon I will post a separate article about Obama’s coalition.
John McCain is remarkably unpopular among conservative Republicans. During the Republican primaries, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continually criticized McCain. At times their attacks were so vicious that they reached the level usually reserved for Democrats and liberals. One of my first articles on this blog was about this phenomenon: The right-wing attacks on John McCain.
According to some critics on the political right, John McCain is not a “true believer” in core conservative principles, especially on these specific issues: taxes, immigration, and the environment. McCain’s advocacy of campaign finance reform angered some conservatives. They especially dislike McCain’s willingness to sometimes work with Democrats. For purists of all ideologies, “compromise” is one of the most hated words and deeds, and McCain is guilty of occasionally committing this political sin.
Once McCain clinched the Republican nomination, criticisms of him from the traditional right diminished considerably as conservative talk radio shows shifted their focus back to what they do best: attack Democrats. “Hold your nose and vote!” This is a popular slogan for purists in both parties every four years. Most conservatives dislike McCain, but they see him as “the lesser of two evils”. In their perception of political reality, McCain may be a “liberal”, but he is much less dangerous than that “radical leftist”, Barack Obama.
The Three Legs of the Republican Stool
I always thought “stool” was a poor choice of words, but it holds an honored place in the Republican lexicon. Technically, “modern” conservative Republican thought goes back to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, but Ronald Reagan was the culmination of theory and practice. Reagan effectively combined three key elements: 1) strong national defense, 2) limited federal government (especially low taxes), and 3) social conservatism.
These three concepts held special and specific meaning when Reagan was first elected president in 1980. The United States and the world have changed significantly since then. The Reagan administration was part of that change. In 2008, we face new challenges and none of the Republican candidates in 2008 effectively captured the hearts and minds of today’s conservative Republican voters.
John McCain won the nomination largely by default. He was perhaps the candidate closest to representing conservative principles simply by not violating any one of them too much. His biography as a war hero and one who has sacrificed so much is beyond reproach. McCain is especially popular with moderate Republicans and some independents. These voters gave McCain an important edge over his competitors. Without a Ronald Reagan in the mix, John McCain ultimately emerged as the compromise candidate for Republicans.
The Traditional Republican Base is in a Quandary
Of course, most people who voted for George W. Bush will vote for John McCain. Bush’s approval rating is among the lowest ever recorded at about 28%, but that still translates into approximately 34 million voters (Bush won over 62 million votes in 2004). Many believe that President Bush and his administration have greatly damaged the “Republican brand”.
A very effective theme for the Democrats in 2008 is: “John McCain would be Bush’s third term”. It would be political campaign malpractice for the Democrats NOT to use this.
Most of the Rush Limbaugh “ditto-head” Republican base will vote for John McCain. Again, the emphasis is on voting against the Democrat Obama. Many voters in every election vote against someone rather than voting for someone.
A segment of conservative voters may reject McCain and instead vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. (See my previous article: Libertarians, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the “Revolution”). Libertarians know that Bob Barr is not going to win the presidency in 2008.
Additionally, John McCain is not especially popular among “conservative Christians”, many of whom supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Republican primaries. This church-based constituency was a key to the success of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Political organizing of this base has been a cost-effective way for campaigns to tap into volunteers, resources, and many votes.
John McCain shares the same positions on some issues important to conservative Christians, especially his opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. However, candidates like Huckabee and Bush more “speak their language”, while McCain appears less comfortable talking about religion. McCain’s lack of familiarity with this community resulted in making ill-conceived alliances with “televangelists” John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes to attract some of this constituency and widen the discussion with this community to include other topics central to Christianity, such as caring for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians are often misunderstood and unfairly pigeon-holed. Labels often cause confusion, for example, someone may be “conservative” in their religious beliefs without necessarily being politically conservative. Political campaigns would be wise to pay attention to these voters and avoid making assumptions about them.
Turnout is Key
The 2008 presidential election may be very close, especially if recent history is a guide. Both Barack Obama and John McCain must win overwhelmingly among traditional party voters of their respective parties. Turnout is perhaps the most under-rated key to winning elections. Even if McCain wins more than 90% of traditionally Republican votes, how many will turn out to vote? Obama’s success in the Democratic primaries was largely due to high turnout.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Republican presidential candidates especially have enjoyed the benefit of good grassroots “get out the vote” organizational efforts to produce high turnout on election day. While high turnout (for your candidate) is an important key to winning an election, having many highly motivated volunteers is a key to producing high turnout. This is perhaps John McCain’s biggest vulnerability. Many Republicans may “hold their nose and vote” for McCain, but few are motivated to work on getting their friends, neighbors, and undecided voters to do likewise.
McCain suffers “an enthusiasm gap” as reported in this article by Yahoo News:
For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain’s. Sixty-five percent of Obama’s backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain’s, and the Democrat’s supporters are three times likelier to express pride.
The Fight for the Center:
John McCain and Barack Obama want to win over the center, the undecided voters, independents. At the same time, they need to keep their respective party bases happy and enthused. John McCain especially has enjoyed a successful political career by gaining the favorable label of a “maverick”. He does NOT mindlessly vote the “party line”, instead he sometimes “reaches across the aisle” to the other party in order to get legislation passed.
See my recent article McCain and Obama Are Both Flip-Floppers, So What? and check out our Interactive 2008 Electoral Map Calculator. The campaigns are focused on having a winning electoral map strategy, and honing optimal policy positions on key issues is essential to achieve this.
A good case study is John McCain’s recent flip-flop on offshore oil drilling. His earlier opposition to offshore drilling fit his somewhat popular maverick image by taking a pro-environmental stand contradictory to most of his party members. Voters in Florida are especially concerned about potential environmental hazards of drilling for oil off the Florida coasts. Soaring gas prices emerged as an immediate concern for many voters across the map and the ideological spectrum. The McCain campaign calculation is that flip-flopping to now support offshore oil drilling will pay off. They are hoping McCain’s flip-flop will gain votes in some key swing states while maintaining enough support in Florida to win there as well. It’s also a nice sop to the voracious ideological appetite of the conservative Republican base.
Republican political strategist Dick Morris is well known for his work in Bill Clinton’s presidential administration. His advice has often been effective, at least in terms of helping politicians increase their short-term popularity. Morris is especially associated with the concept of triangulation: take policy positions that remove an argument from the opposition, help win over the center, and leave your base with no where else to turn. Bill Clinton’s support of welfare reform and Bush 43’s policy of extending federal prescription drug benefits to seniors are two recent examples of political triangulation.
I have seen Dick Morris on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes several times recently. Sean Hannity, in case you don’t know, is one the guardians of conservative Republican ideological purity. While Hannity continues to urge John McCain to move to the right, Morris argues for the opposite approach. Read this Dick Morris article published by the Washington Post. This short excerpt sums up Morris’ broad strategy advice:
McCain can win by running to the center . . . His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers.
In some elections one candidate is able to unite and enthuse the base while also winning over voters in the middle. That candidate becomes President.
Note: Coming Soon - an article about Barack Obama’s coalition building challenges.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 10th, 2008 — in Bob Barr, Libertarian Party, 3rd Party Politics, John McCain, Blog
Will 2008 be the year for an insurgency of Libertarian politics? This could be the achilles heel of the John McCain campaign. The Republican coalition is breaking apart at least to some extent. The tremendous political success of Ronald Reagan is a distant memory. Reagan united all conservatives and Republicans while winning over much of the center and even some Democrats. George W. Bush successfully brought together enough of this coalition to win in 2000 and 2004, but the many problems of the Bush administration have alienated voters across the political spectrum.
Some conservatives even view Bush as a “liberal”. An interesting and popular sentiment is expressed as: “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.” Many conservatives are angry at the exploding federal budget, budget deficits, and federal debt. The new Department of Homeland Security especially represents expansive government contradictory to the conservative bedrock principle of smaller government. Additionally, some conservatives are unhappy with the Iraq War. Some viewed the invasion of Iraq as bad policy from the beginning, while others are more critical of the handling of the war.
Ron Paul ran a provocative and exciting campaign in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Without winning a single state and accumulating only 35 delegates (out of 2,380), Texas Congressman Paul nevertheless galvanized a highly enthusiastic following and won over 1.16 million votes (see this page from CNN for a good summary of Ron Paul’s performance in the primaries). Ron Paul was especially popular among younger conservatives critical of the Iraq War and angry that the Bush administration continued to expand the size of the federal government. While technically a Republican, Ron Paul advocates Libertarian Party principles: limited government, low taxes, and modest foreign policy.
Coincidentally, once Ron Paul’s campaign effectively ended, former Republican U.S. House Representative from Georgia, Bob Barr emerged as the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2008. Some of the energy and excitement for Ron Paul’s candidacy has transferred to the Barr campaign. A small but dedicated constituency for Libertarian politics hopes to shake up the U.S. political landscape in 2008. The most recent Zogby Poll released on July 10th shows Bob Barr at 6% nationally (with Obama leading McCain 44% to 38%, a 6% margin). Review the Zogby electoral map to see that Bob Barr has significant support in several swing states.
Unlike the other unsuccessful Republican candidates for president this year, Ron Paul has NOT endorsed John McCain. Many supporters of Ron Paul and Bob Barr hoped that Ron Paul would be Bob Barr’s running mate, but this did not happen. Wayne Allen Root is the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 2008. The selection of Root has not been well publicized. I never heard of him or even knew if Bob Barr had selected his running mate until I did some research to write this paragraph. I cannot even find information about Root on Bob Barr’s official campaign website. Libertarians, if you want more success, you must do better than this!
Ron Paul has yet to endorse either John McCain or Bob Barr. According to this article in the Atlantic Journal Consitution:
Paul has criticized McCain, and while Paul has not endorsed Barr, he recently praised his former House colleague.
Barr, Paul told CNN, “talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message.”
Some Ron Paul supporters are still undecided about how to cast their vote in November. An official endorsement from Ron Paul likely would help Bob Barr’s campaign tremendously.
If the Libertarian Party can make a splash in 2008, that would represent a minor “revolution”, to use the terminology of the Ron Paul campaign (and the title of Paul’s new book, Revolution: a Manifesto). Bob Barr’s campaign has the potential to break off a sizeable portion of the traditional Republican vote. It could signal the beginning of a real third party in American politics: a party strong enough to influence elections for the foreseeable future and end the stranglehold of the U.S. two party system.
Please see our previous articles in the Topic of 3rd Party politics and vote in our opinion polls on 3rd Parties.
Update, July 13, 2008: After I first posted this article, the website for Bob Barr’s campaign added a new link on their home page, “Meet Wayne Allyn Root“. Also, Time magazine published this article: “Libertarians: A (Not So) Lunatic Fringe“.
Sphere: Related Content
7 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 6th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
In Defense of Flip-Flopping:
Imagine an American leader with a specific strategy to fight a foreign enemy and save New York City. Then this leader meets with leaders from France and instead adopts a very different strategy, the French strategy. As we celebrate the 4th of July, remember that this flip-flop by George Washington in 1781 enabled the fledgling United States to defeat the British in Yorktown, Virginia.
Abraham Lincoln was a big time flip-flopper, especially on the issue of slavery. Instead of holding to strong principles on the most important moral and social issue of the 19th century, Lincoln’s position on the slavery issue continually shifted according to the political winds. After many years and much tragedy, Lincoln finally abolished slavery for politically and militarily strategic reasons. Also, thank goodness Franklin D. Roosevelt finally flip-flopped on his position regarding fighting Hitler and the Nazis in 1941.
Changing your mind is not necessarily bad. History is very interesting and teaches us important lessons, but I’m much more interested in the future. What will a candidate really do if elected president? I want leaders who evolve and grow. The tragic mess of the Iraq War is largely the result of a myopic, inflexible, obstinate mindset.
Perhaps the greatest “invention” of all time is the scientific method. Science has the humility to start with the premise that we don’t know the truth, and perhaps we never will. We continually test theories and measure, learn and revise. Effective government is an ongoing process. Government is far from pure science, but the concept of learning and re-evaluating is essential. Each day brings new challenges and shifts in economic and demographic reality. Policies that made sense in 1984 are often not good choices today. Of course, in wartime, policies need to change instantly as “events on the ground” dictate and as our understanding deepens.
The Political Problem of the Flip-Flop:
Don’t misread my “defense of flip-flopping”. Just because flip-flopping is not always bad does not mean it’s always good. It is always a political risk in that it raises questions of character. People accuse candidates of not having strong principles, opting out to do only what is politically expedient, and of lying, breaking campaign promises, not being trustworthy.
Hearing that a candidate is a flip-flopper persuades some knee-jerk voters. All politicians are flip-floppers. John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” and Barack Obama’s “New Politics” are good campaign slogans. Each accusing the other of “flip-flopping” is easy, but hopefully a worn-out tactic and meaningless label in 2008. Often the flip-flop accusation itself is politically expedient. Emblematic of the dumbing down of political discourse, sound bites and meaningless labels replace intelligent discussion of difficult and intricate policy.
Recent Flip-Flop Disasters:
We have two big examples of the flip-flop label impacting recent elections. In the 1988 presidential campaign, Republican George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, and then during his presidency, Bush raised taxes. This especially angered some Republicans who either voted for Ross Perot or stayed home for the 1992 election. This flip-flop was one factor enabling the election of Bill Clinton. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry recorded this most unfortunate sound bite: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for the Iraq War] before I voted against it.” Republican operatives used this in their larger negative portrayal of Kerry as being unreliable. The flip-flopper label stuck on Kerry and hurt his public image.
McCain/Obama Flip-Flops: 2008 Greatest Hits:
We are going to hear much about candidate flip-flopping until November. The flip-flop label hurts the most when it sticks to just one candidate. Both McCain and Obama have each accumulated sizeable lists of flip-flops. Attacking each other as a “flip-flopper” makes as much sense as criticizing their opponent for being a Senator.
Basically, flip-flopping doesn’t really matter unless: 1) people really care about that specific issue, and 2) a candidate clearly breaks a promise important to many voters. Another scenario is an established pattern of flip-flopping in which a candidate rapidly changes positions on many issues. Neither McCain nor Obama have flip-flopped in a way that will hurt them significantly.
Here’s a short list of some well-publicized McCain and Obama flip-flops and a quick review of why each doesn’t matter.
Obama on Campaign Financing: in 2007 Obama promised to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a public financed general election”. Obama clearly flip-flopped on this one when he announced last month that he would opt out of public financing. This means Obama will not accept the $84 million of federal government funds available to him. In doing so, he is exempt from fund-raising limits. Obama has kept his promise to not accept money from PACs (political action committees) and corporations. Individuals are limited to donating a maximum of $2,300. Few people follow the intricacies of campaign financing rules. Those who actually follow this realize that Obama’s new approach saves the federal government $84 million. Also, the problem with campaign financing is precisely that PACs and corporate interests have too much influence. By accepting only small donations from individuals, Obama’s campaign exemplifies what campaign finance reform laws strive to achieve. Reference.
McCain on Privatizing Social Security: John McCain has recently taken both sides of this controversial topic, as quoted in the Baltimore Sun:
Two weeks ago, Mr. McCain said, “I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Funny that categorical claim, too, because according to a Wall Street Journal story March 3, here’s what Mr. McCain said just three months ago: “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed.”
This is an important issue that divides people, but McCain has time to clarify where he really stands. He may anger some Republicans/conservatives if he clarifies that he is against privatization. Given recent stock market performance, support for privatizing Social Security is dwindling.
McCain and Obama cut ties with controversial religious leaders: Both McCain and Obama had embraced religious leaders who ended up being campaign liabilities because of their inflammatory statements and fiery rhetoric. Both presidential candidates flip-flopped by ultimately denouncing, renouncing, and rejecting their former allies. Very few voters will change their vote because of they dislike these rejections.
McCain on Off-Shore Drilling: McCain has been a long-time opponent of offshore drilling, but recently (three weeks ago) changed his position in favor of offshore drilling. This is like many flip-flops: people are much more concerned about the actual issue than the act of flip-flopping. McCain is hedging his bet that his new position will be more popular than his previous opposition to offshore drilling. Reference.
Obama on Iraq: This is a case in which no flip-flop happened. Obama has been remarkably consistent on the issue of the Iraq War. Some anti-Obama operatives (e.g., Fox News) are attempting to manufacture a controversy simply by accusing Obama of flip-flopping. This is compounded by complaints from a few left-wing “purists” who abhor any suggestion of nuance and especially any move toward the political center. Example (Barack at Risk by Tom Hayden).
Barack Obama has often repeated his well-crafted sound bite that “we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as George Bush was careless getting in.” Obama has always been clear that he wants a quick but orderly withdrawal from Iraq based on the recommendations of the generals in the field.
Obama has recently re-iterated his belief that U.S. policy in Iraq needs flexibility based on the advice of commanding officers. Some have jumped on this statement to characterize it as a “flip-flop”. Attempting to couple the flip-flop label with a key issue is a good campaign tactic, but it is much more effective if it is based on at least a shred of truth. The hope must be to alienate some of Obama’s strong anti-war supporters. In all fairness, this tactic should hurt only the credibility of the false accusers. Reference.
More McCain and Obama Flip-Flops:
The Move to the Center: Politics 101 teaches that once the primaries are over, the presidential nominees from each party move to the political center and away from respective left and right extremes. As John McCain and Barack Obama attempt to win over the political center, we will see more real flip-flopping and accusations from both of the candidates and their campaigns. The bottom line is that you can’t simply vote against the flip-flopper: all candidates flip-flop and maybe that’s even a good thing.
The left-wing purists are a problem for Obama, and the right-wing purists are a problem for John McCain. This sounds like a good topic for my next article.
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 28th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
Election Referee has developed an interactive point-and-click electoral vote calculator map to let you easily explore election scenarios. You can see that many states are currently “toss-up” swing battleground states. This map calculator also shows the electoral map for the last five elections. You can easily see which states have consistently voted as Democratic blue states and which have been Republican red states.
One interesting scenario: click on 2004, click on Obama, and then click on Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. This results in a 269-269 tie between John McCain and Barack Obama. Although unlikely, this scenario would force a vote of the U.S. House of Representatives to decide the next president.
You can embed this electoral vote calculator map into your own website or blog. Simply copy the “Embed” code above and paste it into your web page or blog post code.
For more in-depth analysis tools for the 2008 presidential election, visit these excellent resources:
Also, read our article U.S. Presidential Election Rules and the Electoral Map. This includes many interesting details and some important history with good reference links.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 25th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Comic Relief, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, John McCain, Blog
The 2008 general election battle between John McCain and Barack Obama is starting to take shape. This election is a critically important referendum on the future direction of the United States. We have very serious decisions to make about both our bad economy and problematic foreign policy, including the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, much of mainstream media and talk radio focus on unfounded, meaningless, and downright stupid attacks on candidate spouses Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. I cannot possibly find a better way to address this than to include some comic relief with this video from The Daily Show’s John Stewart:
I hope that this video is final word on candidate spouse controversies. This election should be about the policies and character of the candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The attacks against both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are ridiculous and frustrating distractions from important issues. People perpetuating these attacks are shameless.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.
The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.
All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).
The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.
Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:
(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)
The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.
Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.
Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.
What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.
There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.
The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.
The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.
This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.
Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.
The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.
General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.
For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.
Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.
John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.
Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.
Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 15th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
Last week the Obama campaign announced the opening of a new website: FightTheSmears.com.
The unfair and ridiculous attacks against Barack Obama are numerous and frequent. The new Obama website addresses some of the smears against Obama and directly and convincingly refutes them. FightTheSmears.com as a web-based rapid-response tactic is an interesting and significant development in the election campaign.
Political attacks come in all shapes and sizes. Of course, political smears are nothing new and I think go back to the first cave council elections in 56,742 B.C.
Often candidates directly attack their opponents in debates, official statements, and campaign commercials. This is a legitimate and above-board tactic because the candidate who is attacking must be accountable for the message. Sometimes the message is unfair, but at least it is out in the open for discussion, and the attacked candidate can choose how to respond directly to the attacker.
Barack Obama and John McCain have already engaged in some good clean “debate” on substantive issues. Both campaigns will do plenty of “spinning” to paint their opponent negatively and themselves positively. No doubt, some of their statements will be unfair and perhaps even blatantly false. But, I have some faith that both McCain and Obama want to run clean campaigns and will not tolerate smear tactics by their official surrogates.
A political smear is when people (often anonymous) create a lie about a candidate and aggressively spread the rumor. A smear campaign (focused in South Carolina) against John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries possibly impacted the contest enough to guarantee that George Bush would win the Republican nomination that year. That was an example of an effective “whisper” campaign because no one was accountable yet the disgraceful rumor spread widely.
Swift-Boating is a new verb:
During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a political group ironically named “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SWVT)” sponsored a $546,000 advertising campaign to air television commercials attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.[ref] The ads focused on undermining the reputation of Senator Kerry’s military service as a highly decorated officer and veteran of the Vietnam War. Right-wing radio talks shows picked up on the SWVT message and repeatedly perpetuated this line of attack on Kerry. Many analysts believe that John Kerry and his campaign failed to recognize the seriousness of this smear. Kerry and his campaign were slow to respond and this may have cost Kerry the election.
527 Political Groups:
SWVT was one of many 527 political groups, as described by Wikipedia:
A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations that are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or by a state elections commission, and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.
527s are key in recent presidential elections. They legally can (and do) pour unlimited millions of dollars into attack ad campaigns while operating as officially separate from any candidate’s campaign. 527s fly beneath the radar of campaign finance reform. Expect to hear much more about 527s as we approach the general election.
One argument is that a campaign should not respond to smears because doing so simply helps advertise the falsehood. The Obama campaign decided that it is better to respond. Barack Obama has been and will be smeared. “Swift-boating” is the spreading of the lies, but a candidate is “swift boated” only if the smear works. FightTheSmears.com helps prevent Obama from being “swift boated”.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 13th, 2008 — in Mainstream Media, Blog
News media giant Tim Russert died today from a heart attack. Russert was 58 years old.
Russert was best known as the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a frequent commentator on other NBC and MSNBC news shows.
Tim Russert played an important role in this 2008 presidential campaign, including being a moderator of one of the final debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which took place in Cleveland, Ohio on February 26th, 2008. Here is the entire transcript as printed in the New York Times.
Watch this short video excerpt of perhaps Russert’s most memorable and widely quoted statement in the 2008 campaign.
Some news analysts pointed out that once Tim Russert declared that Obama would win the nomination, the race was effectively over. Russert’s opinion was perhaps the most respected in all of election news media.
News junkies will greatly miss Tim Russert. He has been an outstanding analyst and intelligent voice in television news for decades.
Russert had unparalleled insight into presidential election campaigns as demonstrated by this excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Russert calculated possible United States Electoral College outcomes on a marker board on the air during NBC’s coverage of the 2000 presidential election and memorably summed up the outcome as dependent upon “Florida, Florida, Florida.” Russert again accurately predicted the final battleground of the presidential elections of 2004: “Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.” On the MSNBC show Tucker, Russert predicted the battleground states of the 2008 presidential election would be New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, saying, “If Democrats can win three of those four, they can lose Ohio and Florida, and win the presidency.”
I find it unfortunate that so many people casually bash the news media. Tim Russert provided a great service to the public and he will be sorely missed.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 7th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Hillary Clinton gave an important speech today to thousands of her supporters gathered at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
Senator Clinton said:
“The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.”
“Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulated him on the victory he has won . . . I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.
Clinton’s speech was powerful and moving, perhaps one of the greatest concession speeches in U.S. history. I cannot recall a more important one.
Watch Hillary Clinton’s full speech:
For months many have wondered “What will Hillary Clinton Do?” Some suggested that she would not concede and would take the fight for the nomination all the way to the Democratic Party National Convention in Denver, August 25-28.
Today Clinton’s speech for Obama ended all speculation as she echoed a mantra of the Obama campaign: “Yes we can!” Clinton fulfilled an important campaign promise that she would give full support to the Democratic Party nominee once all the votes were counted.
Democrats must be ecstatic to see yet another extraordinary event in the 2008 Presidential campaign.
I am especially moved by this line from Senator Clinton’s speech:
“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before.”
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are essential for an Obama and Democratic Party victory over Republican John McCain in November, 2008.
Some pundits suggested the Hillary Clinton’s speech today was an audition to be Barack Obama’s running mate.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about the Obama/Clinton “Dream Ticket”.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 5th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Here is the full text of Hillary Clinton’s email to her supporters:
Subject: I want you to know
Dear John,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Loading ...