December 17th, 2007 iipcms
Democrat John Kerry celebrates his Iowa caucus victory in January 2004. His Iowa victory helped him win other states. (© AP Images)
By Michelle Austein
USINFO Staff Writer
Washington -- With the presidential election primary season beginning -- and possibly ending -- earlier than ever before, candidates face many new challenges, political experts say.
Iowa and New Hampshire have state laws saying they must hold their nominating contests first. While past elections saw these events at the end of January or in February, Iowa will hold its caucus for the 2008 elections on January 3, and New Hampshire will have its primary on January 8. The two states kept moving their caucus and primary dates earlier to protect their first-in-the-nation status.
With the first race in the 2008 presidential contest just two days after New Year’s Day, the candidates’ final crucial days of campaigning in Iowa coincide with the holiday season. For those behind in Iowa trying to ramp up their efforts, “they are doing it at the worst possible time,” Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said at a December 13 panel discussion.
Trailing candidates often turn to attack ads in the closing days of a campaign, but Ornstein noted, “I would not want to be a candidate putting … negative commercials on the air during a time when people want to have at least a moment of good feeling.”
This is one of the reasons why candidates in Iowa “are acting as if they're in the last week of the campaign,” said Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News. Todd spoke at a Foreign Press Center briefing December 10 in Washington.
“None of them [is] risking the idea that somehow they have more time to make their … closing argument,” he said.
A victory in Iowa often provides momentum for a candidate to pick up wins in other states. In the 2004 election, for example, Democratic nominee John Kerry was behind in nearly every poll, Todd said, but a win in Iowa led him to victory in nearly every other state. “So momentum can be everything,” he said.
With only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire’s contests, momentum may be more important than ever, Todd said, because a candidate’s momentum usually peaks about four or five days after the Iowa caucuses.
This likely will be especially true on the Democratic side, where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are nearly tied in New Hampshire. “I think Iowa's going to be overly influential on New Hampshire,” Todd said. “If Clinton wins Iowa, she wins New Hampshire. If Obama wins Iowa, he wins New Hampshire. It's that close.”
In past years, with more time between Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates had “some opportunity to recover if they had stumbled badly,” said Ornstein. “Now there isn’t.”
“Momentum in this case does matter,” Ornstein said.
While states moved their primaries and caucuses earlier to try to limit the impact Iowa and New Hampshire have on the race, it is possible the opposite will be the case, Ornstein said. Candidates who do well in these states may be able to pick up quick victories in the other states holding nominating contests in January.
In past elections, a large number of states held their primaries on the same Tuesday in March, referred to as “Super Tuesday.” With so many elections on the same day, “Super Tuesday” often could make or break a candidacy.
But this year, as states moved their primaries and caucuses earlier, “Super Tuesday” has been replaced by what some call “Super-Duper Tuesday” or “Tsunami Tuesday.” On this day, February 5, 2008, some 22 states will hold nominating contests. These states are spread across the country and represent a diverse set of states including California, New York, Missouri and North Dakota.
Candidates will have to “campaign simultaneously in 22 states,” Ornstein said, and have to put teams together quickly in these states to earn voters’ support.
Candidates also will have to divide their advertising resources among different states. Yet, “the free publicity that comes to the early winners will probably overwhelm the paid advertising,” Ornstein said.
While many states in the 2008 campaign season will hold their races on February 5, there is no guarantee that the nominees will be known by that evening. Political experts suggest that a longer race is more likely on the Republican side, where voters are splitting their support among a number of candidates. Several candidates each could win a handful of the February 5 states.
If this is the case, candidates will have to focus their efforts on the remaining state races, most of which will be in late February or March, although some will happen as late as June. Potentially, if no one candidate wins a majority of primary delegates, the nominee could be selected at the party’s convention in September, although most experts think that is unlikely.
“[Republicans] want to hurry up and have a nominee,” Todd said. “They feel like the longer there's internal strife that's out in the public, the worse it is for them in the long run.”
Ornstein said one party’s race affects the other. “If one contest is over early, every bit of attention will go to the other side.” Some states allow independents to decide on Election Day which party’s primary they will participate in, meaning that if the Democratic race ends early, those independents will choose to vote in the Republican primaries, or vice versa.
Posted in Feeds | No Comments »
December 12th, 2007 iipcms
Barack Obama campaigns with Oprah Winfrey. Obama has been emphasizing that he wants to bring change to America. (© AP Images)
By Michelle Austein
Staff Writer
Washington -- Recent polls show that Americans split their support among many presidential candidates. However, these same polls indicate there is one thing on which many Americans agree: It is time for a change.
A CBS News/New York Times poll released December 10 found that 71 percent of Americans think their country is on the wrong track. Approval ratings for both the president and Congress continue to be low. The poll also showed that a majority of Americans think the economy is worsening.
These factors indicate that Americans are looking for a leader who can change the direction in which the country is heading, said NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd. Todd spoke with journalists at the Foreign Press Center in Washington December 10.
Voters "desperately want change," Todd said. "People are upset; they are worried about America's role in the world."
According to Todd, when Americans say they want change, they generally mean they are looking for a different style of leadership and governing. It does not necessarily mean they want policies to change drastically.
Americans still are interested in leaders with political experience, and even the candidates who campaign on their ability to bring new ideas to the table have to prove that they have enough experience -- particularly on foreign affairs, Todd said.
When voters think about a candidate's experience, Todd said, they think of that person as "commander in chief, world leader, leader of the free world."
This desire for change might explain the recent rise of two candidates who do not have much national political experience -- Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee.
OBAMA’S MESSAGE OF CHANGE
Since the beginning of his campaign, first-term Illinois Senator Barack Obama has said he seeks to bring change to Washington, while New York Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton has been emphasizing her experience.
Obama's focus on change is evident on the campaign trail. This past weekend, at campaign events before thousands of people with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, signs reading "change we can believe in" adorned the stages.
Clinton has been "changing her message quite frequently over the last three or four weeks," Todd said. A new campaign ad now emphasizes that electing Hillary Clinton would bring "a new beginning."
"She is desperately trying to get some of that change energy that Obama has been basically locking up," Todd said.
A relative newcomer to the political scene, Obama has to show that he has the experience to lead. "If [Obama] can prove just enough experience," Todd predicted, "then he's going to be the Democratic nominee."
If Clinton does not win the nomination, "she will be another in a long line of candidates who have lost change-versus-experience arguments," Todd said. This is especially the case among Democrats, whose most recent presidents were candidates representing change -- including Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy.
HUCKABEE’S ANTI-WASHINGTON APPROACH
Democrats are especially eager for change, but Republicans are seeking this as well, Todd said.
The CBS News/New York Times poll indicates that Republicans still favor a candidate with experience over one with new ideas, but Todd said many Republicans are also interested in seeing the country take a new direction. This might be one of the reasons that relatively unknown Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has gone from a long-shot candidate to near the top of the polls in the past two months.
"None of the other candidates are impressing the Republicans," Todd said, "so [Huckabee] is serving as a 'none of the above'" choice. Todd noted that other Republican candidates have spent much of their time on the campaign trail proving that they share some of the same traditional Republican values that President Bush holds.
Meanwhile, Huckabee has been campaigning as an anti-Washington candidate, Todd said. "When you look at the [Republican] candidates, the only one that is even coming close to tapping into the change atmosphere that is inside the Republican Party is Mike Huckabee," he said.
Posted in Feeds | No Comments »
December 6th, 2007 iipcms
College students in West Burlington, Iowa, show their support for Democrat Barack Obama. (© AP Images)
By Michelle Austein
USINFO Staff Writer
Washington -- Young Americans are paying attention to the 2008 presidential race, and many are ready to help their preferred candidate achieve victory, a poll by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP) shows.
Like the national average, voter turnout among young Americans has been on the rise. From 2000 to 2004, turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds increased 9 percent, more than double the overall turnout increase. In the 2006 midterm elections, turnout in this age group was 3 percent higher than in 2002, nearly double the national turnout increase. The 2006 election was the first increase in young voter turnout in a nonpresidential election in 24 years.
Today polls indicate that youth turnout in 2008 could once again increase. Polls show that young Americans are paying close attention to both American politics and national and international affairs. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March showed that 85 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds say they are interested in keeping up with national affairs.
Young Americans share many of the concerns of those in other generations. In a poll conducted by IOP, the war in Iraq and health care are their top concerns -- mirroring most national polls.
Those who worked on the IOP poll presented their findings at the Brookings Institution in Washington December 5. Conducted online between October 28 and November 9, the poll asked some 2,500 18- to 24-year-olds about the issues that concern them and which candidates they prefer. About half of those polled were college students.
IOP found that 18- to 24-year-olds do not share their parents’ and grandparents’ views on all issues. For example, youth are more supportive of U.S. leaders unconditionally meeting with heads of rogue nations. They also more strongly believe that international organizations such as the United Nations should take the lead in solving international problems.
Many young people, about 40 percent, consider themselves to be independent, while 35 percent say they are Democrats and 25 percent are Republicans, IOP found. Those who do identify with a party are quite loyal to it -- more than 40 percent of young Republicans and Democrats say they are “strong” members of their party.
Young people are more willing to support a third-party candidate, said John Della Volpe, IOP’s polling director. Unsatisfied with the current political parties, about 37 percent of young people from both parties said that a third party is needed, according to IOP.
Young Americans are ready to help out in campaigns -- more than a third said that if asked, they would volunteer for a campaign. Even more are willing to if encouraged by a friend. Sixty percent said they would spread the word about a candidate they like by talking with friends and family.
More than half said they would join a candidate’s online group, such as a Facebook group. Candidates have been focusing much of their efforts online, but as Harvard University junior Marina Fisher said, students also like the more traditional methods of promoting a candidate with lawn signs, bumper stickers and rallies. “These seem like the oldest ways of engagement we can think of,” Fisher said.
“It is clear that while new media are emerging, the old ones are here to stay,” she said.
While much of the media has focused on young Democrats’ support of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the IOP poll shows that young Democrats support many candidates. While Obama is still the preferred Democratic candidate in this poll, it is far from guaranteed that the majority of youth will support him. He is especially popular on college campuses, but those youth not in college favor New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
On the Republican side, the IOP found that young voters favor former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, followed by Arizona Senator John McCain. However, a large number, 30 percent, say they are unsure who they will vote for, which is slightly higher than when IOP polled in March. A rise in undecided voters as the election nears is very unusual, noted Della Volpe.
Della Volpe discussed the difficulty of polling young people. Traditionally, most polls are conducted via landline phone, but nearly half of young voters do not have a landline. Pollsters are not allowed to call cell phones.
With young Democrats, those who do have landline phones tend to have more conservative views and different feelings about the war in Iraq that tend to align them more with Clinton, Della Volpe said, so polls conducted by phone tend to show more Clinton supporters. This may be one reason why the IOP poll, conducted on the Internet, shows Obama leading young Democrats, but a poll by the Sacred Heart Polling Institute conducted by phone two weeks earlier showed Clinton with a large lead.
Posted in Feeds | No Comments »
December 4th, 2007 iipcms
Senators Clinton and Obama, at the Democratic debate November 15 in Las Vegas, Nevada, have stepped up their attacks. (© AP Images)
By Michelle Austein
Staff Writer
Washington -- With the first presidential nominating contests less than a month away, candidates in both parties are stepping up their attacks on opponents.
The dynamics of the primary system drive candidates to appeal to the most aggressive voters, said Pietro Nivola, director of the Governance Studies Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, at a forum hosted by the League of Women Voters November 28. (See related article.)
"The result is when the chips are down, the races are getting tight as they are now … it's just simply too tempting to go on the attack," Nivola said.
This is evident in the Democratic-nomination race between New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Polls show Clinton winning nationally, but with a narrower lead than in previous months. In Iowa, the first state to hold a nominating event, polls show the race too close to call.
Although the candidates initially said they would run positive campaigns, many of their recent events have focused on attacking each other’s proposed policies. The battle continues on the Internet, where Clinton's Web site includes "The Fact Hub," showing Obama's false statements on health care. Obama's team launched "Hillary Attacks" to document her attacks against him.
"What's happened in both parties is as the Iowa caucuses and other events approach, the candidates running second and third start to get more desperate and start to criticize the front-runner," Howard Reiter, professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, told USINFO. "There is an old rule in politics that if you don't attack the front-runner, then the front-runner is likely to remain the front-runner. This is something we have done for a long time."
For the Republicans, this old rule is beginning to play out in Iowa, where former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, once considered a long-shot candidate, now narrowly leads in some polls. This has made him a new target for his rivals, who are criticizing decisions he made as governor.
On the national level, it is more complicated. Early in the Republican nomination race, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney often were considered to have the best chances of winning the nomination, and therefore faced attacks from other Republicans as well as from each other.
But today, there is no clear front-runner, meaning many candidates are attacking multiple opponents at once. For example, an ad by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson features old video footage of Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani making statements that contradict their views on certain topics today.
Negative campaigning and personal attacks on political rivals are common in both primary and general elections. It is not just presidential races that go negative -- many closely contested congressional races feature attacks as well.
When asked in polls, Americans say they do not like watching candidates speak negatively of others. Yet political scientists say evidence shows that negative campaigns work, which is why they are consistently used.
"None of us like it when people attack other people," Sandy Maisel, professor of government at Colby College in Maine, told USINFO. "But, it works."
One reason attacks work is that Americans want to feel secure, and candidates can show their strength by being aggressive, especially when responding to another candidates’ attacks, said Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University in Atlanta.
Westen, author of the book The Political Brain, which examines how politicians connect emotionally with voters, told USINFO that while campaign attacks can be effective, they must be used by a candidate in a way that associates the negative comments strictly with the opponent. Too much negativity can make a candidate seem like the "angry candidate," and the angry candidate never wins, Westen said.
Primary candidates also must consider how their attacks may play out if they win the nomination, Maisel said. History has shown that while candidates may attack their opponents in the primaries, they often need their opponents’ help to win the general election.
As a primary candidate, "you want to win, and to win you might have to attack your opponent in this race," Maisel said. "But you don't want to attack your opponent … to the point that their supporters won't support you in the general election."
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING DATES BACK TO EARLIEST ELECTIONS
"In the first decades of this country, you had some pretty bitter quarrels between presidential candidates," Nivola said.
Some of America's earliest political contests were its meanest. Supporters of John Adams’ bid for the presidency in 1796 called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values.
The 1828 election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was one of the country's bitterest. Jackson's supporters called Adams "the pimp," alleging that Adams convinced a woman to have an affair with a Russian leader. Adams' team fired back, accusing Jackson's wife of being a prostitute. Adams supporters called Jackson a "jackass" -- and used the illustration of a donkey to make the point.
In an ironic twist, Jackson liked the donkey so much he started using it on his own campaign material. Today, the donkey widely is used to represent the Democratic Party.
Posted in Feeds | No Comments »
December 3rd, 2007 iipcms
An Iraq war supporter and anti-war demonstrators in Jackson, Mississippi, in 2003. Americans are divided over the issue. (© AP Images)
By Michelle Austein
USINFO Staff Writer
Washington -- Although Americans feel politically divided today, this polarization is not necessarily a bad thing, political experts say.
Today, the division among Americans is often depicted in the colors red and blue. During the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore, Americans spent weeks looking at maps depicting in red the states that voted Republican and in blue the states that voted Democrat. Since then, defining political views as "red" (Republican) or "blue" (Democratic) is a regular occurrence.
American history has shown that there are periods of polarization and periods of consensus in the political landscape. This current era of polarization is seen by many as beginning in the years following the end of the Cold War.
"There's no question that the partisan polarity between the Democrats and Republicans these days … runs deeper, certainly, than it did a generation ago," said Pietro Nivola, director of the Governance Studies Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Nivola, who is the editor of the book Red and Blue Nation?, spoke at a November 28 forum in Washington hosted by the League of Women Voters.
"Not everything about political polarization is a bad thing," Nivola said.
Polls show that Republicans and Democrats care about different social issues and have different perceptions of what the United States' priorities should be. For example, Nivola said, there are striking differences when it comes to foreign policy. Republicans' top priorities are keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue states and destroying al-Qaeda. Democrats’ top goals include withdrawing from Iraq and improving multilateral relations with allies, he said.
A number of factors influence today's divide. One is that the characteristics of parties' supporters have changed in recent decades. At one time, the Democratic Party base was in the South, and Southerners tended to hold conservative views similar to many in the Republican Party. Today, those Southerners predominately support Republicans. Additionally, religious voters have moved more into the Republican camp, making the party more conservative and the Democrats more liberal, Nivola said.
An increase in the number of “safe seats” in Congress, seats typically held by the same political party from one election to the next, has furthered this polarization, according to Nivola. Because a congressman knows his district will support his party, he has no incentive to work with his opponents, Nivola said.
The media also has had an impact. The rise of Internet blogs, talk radio and cable news has created outlets that cater to certain political viewpoints, allowing Americans to choose to watch sources they find agreeable, Nivola said.
There are many problems with having such a polarized electorate, but there are some advantages as well, according to William Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"Passion, conflict and a measure of divisiveness are to be expected and, within limits, are not to be deplored," he said.
A divided government may have difficulties solving long-term domestic policy problems because it is difficult to reach compromises, Galston said. Polarization also "makes sustainable foreign policy much harder to put into place," he said, and when parties disagree, it is difficult to send a clear international message.
When one party controls the executive and another controls the legislature, it can be difficult to fill judicial vacancies because one branch must nominate a judge while the other must approve the nomination. On the other hand, if one party controls both branches in an era of polarization, congressional oversight of the executive is limited, affecting the accountability of government, Galston said.
Additionally, "high degrees of polarization are not good for public trust and confidence," he said. "That does not mean … that the public is driven out of the political arena -- in fact you can see high levels of political participation coinciding with very high levels of political mistrust." This is likely one of the reasons why voter turnout has been higher in recent elections.
Having distinct alternatives is one of several advantages of having a divided electorate, Galston said. "When there is greater polarization between the parties, the electorate is offered clearer choices."
In a period of polarization, Americans realize that if they vote for a Republican, they are going to get a different type of foreign policy and a different focus on social issues than if they vote for a Democrat, Galston said. They may doubt what the differences will be when the candidates are more alike.
"Because the choices are clearer, politics are more intelligible to average citizens," he said, citing studies conducted over the past 10 years that show that Americans are improving their understanding of politics.
During a time of political consensus, those who do not share the majority's views may not be heard. When these eras end, there is an opportunity for new political views to be represented, Galston said.
Nivola and Galston suggested some potential ways of decreasing polarization. These include setting term limits for judges so there are less contentious battles over lifetime appointments, using election run-off voting so candidates have to appeal to a wider base to gain a majority of votes rather than a plurality and establishing bipartisan commissions to oversee redistricting to reduce the number of safe congressional seats.
Posted in Feeds | No Comments »