Presidential Elections
PS242: Campaigns & Elections
Department of Political Science
Duke University
16 April 2014
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
1/49
Nominating Conventions Con’t.
1968 marked a turning point for the Democrats.
It wasn’t that they lost a landslide to Nixon and the Republicans
(in fact, the election was fairly close). Rather, it was everything
that led up to the loss.
Essentially: if the Democrats ever wanted to win again, they
needed to change the way they chose their nominees - and fast.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
2/49
McGovern-Fraser
Soon after Nixon was sworn in, the Democrats established the
Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (the
McGovern-Fraser Commission).
The overarching goals?
1. Make the nomination process more public and open to those
who wish to participate.
2. Shorten the nomination calendar so that delegates are only
awarded within the election year.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
3/49
McGovern-Fraser
Before McGovern-Fraser:
- Not all states had primary elections used to select delegates.
- A vast majority of states had party leaders (“elites”) select the
delegates in state conventions.
- In states that had primaries, this didn’t necessarily mean that the
election results would be used in the selection of delegates.
- The right for people to participate in primaries was not
guaranteed (i.e. blacks in the South).
- States were not awarded a number delegates on the basis of
population.
- The timing of delegate selections were haphazard. The
nomination calendar often spanned multiple years.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
4/49
McGovern-Fraser
After McGovern-Fraser:
- The vast majority of states hold primaries to allocate delegates.
- The vast majority of delegates are awarded on the basis of state
primary election results (at least 90%).
- All delegates must be awarded in the year of the election.
- Participation in primaries must be open to all Democrats.
- The timing, manner, and location of delegate-awarding contests
must be publicized.
- Potential delegates must state their candidate of preference (if
none, must be labeled as “uncommitted”).
- Delegates must be geographically and demographically
representative (roughly) of the U.S. population.
In sum, McGovern-Fraser had a set of 18 rules to change the
nomination process in the Democratic Party.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
5/49
McGovern-Fraser
Although McGovern-Fraser did not apply to the Republican
nomination process, it dramatically changed that too. Why?
1. States are responsible for administering primary elections - and
most states required that the same rules apply to all parties.
2. Out of practicality, the GOP looked at many of the
McGovern-Fraser reforms and said “you know, that makes
sense.”
The result was that by 1972, nominations in both parties were
conducted by the new rules of the game. This is the modern
process we know (and love?) so well.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
6/49
Selecting Delegates
Alright. So we now know that we (the people) select more
delegates to national conventions than ever before - and that party
leaders/elites have less influence. But how exactly do we select
them?
- Primaries
- Caucuses
For those of you keeping score at home: yes, these are the same
terms we’ve used time and time again.
And yes, we broadly refer to both as the “presidential primaries.”
We like to keep it confusing.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
7/49
Selecting Delegates
But the good news is that the terms roughly have always meant
the same thing. Broadly speaking:
- Primaries: “standard” elections where voters go to the polls
between certain hours on Election Day. Ballots are secret, cast
on paper or electronically.
- Caucuses: gatherings of individuals from a geographic area at a
specific location at a specific time who identify/register with that
party. Ballots cast either by voice (not secret) or written (secret).
The goal of both is the same: select delegates.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
8/49
Selecting Delegates
Which states use caucuses versus primaries? It’s up to the states,
but we can still blame the Democrats.
Remember: state law dictates the operation and function of
elections, often mandating that if one party uses a given system,
the other parties must as well. And since the Democrats,
post-McGovern-Fraser, set the use of primaries, the Republicans
hold many primaries as well.
So, most states hold primaries.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
9/49
Selecting Delegates
Pros of primaries?
- Easier to participate in (can vote all day).
- Requires less knowledge/experience on the part of the voters:
it’s a system people know.
- Has higher rates of turnout than caucuses.
Cons of primaries?
- Allow less of a party concensus on the selection of delegates
(non-party registrants can vote in your party’s primary).
- Doesn’t foster the same type of community-building gathering.
Caucuses, on the whole, tend to be much more friendly.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
10/49
Selecting Delegates
Pros of caucuses? (bet you didn’t see this coming)
- Fosters an environment for party loyalists to really hash it out,
reaching the “best” decisions about delegate selection.
- Enables a fuller range of preferences to be expressed (we’ll show
this in a minute).
- Much more fun (maybe that’s just my own opinion...).
Cons of caucuses?
- Can be a very big time/energy commitment for voters. Also
requires more knowledge about how to participate.
- As such, turnout is very low!
- Individual opinion can be easily swayed by electioneering.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
11/49
The Iowa Caucuses
You really ought to give Iowa a try!
The Iowa Caucuses are the first major election event in every
presidential nomination contest since 1972.
...why? Essentially, it’s first by accident.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
12/49
The Iowa Caucuses
Remember: McGovern-Fraser said that all delegates must be
selected in the year of the election.
- In the 1968 Democratic nomination, delegates were decided as
early as mid-1967.
And Iowa has a very lengthy delegation selection process:
- Voters meet in precinct caucuses to select delegates to the
county conventions.
- At county conventions, delegates to the congressional district
conventions are selected.
- At congressional district conventions, delegates to the state
convention are selected...
- ... and at the state convention, national convention delegates are
selected.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
13/49
The Iowa Caucuses
When the Democrats picked July 9th as the start date of the 1972
Democratic National Convention (earlier than normal), Iowa had
to fit all of those steps between January 1st and July 8th.
The Iowa Democratic Party picked January 24, 1972.
And there you have it. Iowa just happened to be the first in the
nation.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
14/49
The Iowa Caucuses
At first, nobody really seemed to care - or see the strategic
importance - that Iowa was first.
In 1972, our friend George McGovern (yes, that McGovern)
decided to campaign in Iowa when other candidates didn’t. Most
party insiders thought it was hopeless: Sen. Ed Muskie (Maine)
was seen as the likely nominee.
In Iowa, McGovern earned beat expectations (he still lost to
Muskie, though) and went on to win the nomination.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
15/49
The Iowa Caucuses
Sure, McGovern may have moved into frontrunner status after
Iowa, but it wasn’t so obvious (Muskie’s campaign faltered for
other reasons too).
In 1976, the unknown Governor of Georgia campaigned heavily in
Iowa and won the caucuses. He eventually stunned the party
insiders and won the nomination.
Suddenly, the importance of winning Iowa was crystal clear. And
Iowa fought to keep it’s status as first.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
16/49
The Iowa Caucuses
But really, how important is winning Iowa? Tell that to Presidents
Harkin, Gephardt, Huckabee, and Santorum.
But even if winning Iowa doesn’t ultimately get you the
nomination, it does bring many perks: money, national press,
frontrunner status, etc.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
17/49
The Iowa Caucuses
How exactly do Iowans caucus? Depends on your party of
preference.
Republicans: pretty standard. Gather in a room, take a voice vote.
No run-offs or second-round voting. Pretty blah.
Democrats: that’s a whole different ball game.
Corny Alert!
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
18/49
The New Hampshire Primary
What of that other early contest - New Hampshire?
New Hampshire has held the first primary for quite some time - as
far back as 1916.
And once candidates really started to see the importance in early
victories, it’s role in picking presidents solidified.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
19/49
The New Hampshire Primary
But we must ask again, how important is winning New Hampshire?
Presidents Clinton, Tsongas, McCain (2000)...
But once again, winning New Hampshire can bring many of the
same things (money, attention, status).
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
20/49
The New Hampshire Primary
So who gets to pick the presidential nominees first. Iowans? New
Hampshirites? Well it’s the good people of Dixville Notch, of
course.
Since 1960, the citizens of Dixville Notch (pop. 12) vote at
midnight on the day of the primary and on the day of the general
election.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
21/49
Everybody Else
The rest of the country has a primary/caucus calendar set by the
national parties.
2012 Republican Primaries/Caucuses, source: FrontloadingHQ.com
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
22/49
Everybody Else
We know there’s an incentive to going early. Iowa and New
Hampshire get a lot of attention and access to the candidates.
What if another state wants to go sooner?
This is what is known as Frontloading: moving up the date of
your state’s primary/caucus with the purpose of increasing the
influence your state has in selectiong the nominee.
Other reasons to frontload? Early campaigns bring moolah to your
state: campaigns are becoming more expensive and are starting
earlier and earlier.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
23/49
Everybody Else
Frontloading over time:
Source: Change and Continuity in the 2010 and 2012 Elections
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
24/49
Everybody Else
What do parties think of Frontloading? They hate it.
In 2012, Florida was told by the parties to hold their primary on
March 6th. They said “eh, nope” and held it on January 31st.
The response of the parties? Stripping away half of Florida’s
delegates to the national convention.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
25/49
Everybody Else
Knowing what we know, is it fair that Iowa and New Hampshire
have such a disproportionate role to play in nominations?
On the one hand, absolutely not: why do they get unparalleled
access to the candidates every four years?
But also, possibly yes. Iowans and New Hampshirites put in a great
deal of effort to learn about the candidates and reach “informed”
choices. We can benefit from letting them do the hard work.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
26/49
Everybody Else
And what about the states that go last? They don’t get much - if
any - say in the nomination.
By the time places like California, Montana, and New Mexico go to
the primary, each party most likely has a presumptive nominee: a
candidate who has secured enough pledged delegates to win the
party’s nomination, regardless of how all unpledged delegates,
superdelegates, and remaining pledged delegates vote.
The flipside: what if a contest goes so long that these late states
actually matter? (e.g. Democrats in 2008).
Most of the time, this won’t be the case. These states will be
effectively worthless in the nomination contest. So what can be
done?
We’ll talk about this next week.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
27/49
The Veepstakes
Remember: everything we’ve talked about up to this point is the
nomination process for presidential candidates.
Even though parties ultimately run a ticket in the general election
(a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate), the choice of
the VP candidate is ultimately up to the party nominee.
Enter: the “Veepstakes”: the process of a presidential nominee
(or a presumptive nominee) selecting his/her running mate.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
28/49
The Veepstakes
So what’s the purpose of the Vice President?
Officially?
- Preside as President of the Senate, casting a deciding vote (if
necessary).
- Oh, and fill the big shoes if the President resigns, dies, gets
abducted by aliens, etc.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
29/49
The Veepstakes
“The Vice Presidency is the most insignificant office that ever the
invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
John Adams
Vice President (1789-1797)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
30/49
The Veepstakes
“I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history,
than Vice Presidnet.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Vice President (1901)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
31/49
The Veepstakes
“Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other
was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was
heard of either of them again.”
Thomas Marshall
Vice President (1913-1921)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
32/49
The Veepstakes
“I enjoyed my time as Vice President. It never interfered with my
mandatory 11 hours of sleep a day.”
Calvin Coolidge
Vice President (1921-1923)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
33/49
The Veepstakes
“This is a hell of a job. I can only do two things: one is to sit up
here and listen to you birds talk... the other is to look at
newspapers every morning to see how the president’s health is.”
Charles Dawes
Vice President (1925-1929)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
34/49
The Veepstakes
The Vice Presidency is “not worth a bucket of warm piss” - adding
it was “the worst damn fool mistake I ever made.”
John Nance Garner
Vice President (1933-1941)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
35/49
The Veepstakes
“Look at all the Vice Presidents in history. Where are they? They
were about as useful as a cow’s fifth teat.”
Harry S. Truman
Vice President (1945)
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
36/49
The Veepstakes
Alright, so being Vice President has fewer job responsibilities than
being a Kardashian. But is there another purpose to the Vice
Presidency - perhaps, of electoral importance?
Specifically, what role does the choice of a Vice Presidential
candidate play in the hopes of a Presidential candidate winning the
election?
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
37/49
The Veepstakes
There are a few thoughts here - that the Vice President candidate
has the potential to:
- Balance the ticket: unite the party?
- Balance the ticket: make a dream team?
- Set up for next time?
As always, let’s take a look at these.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
38/49
The Veepstakes
Balancing the ticket: uniting the party.
In a time when the parties were less homogeneous (i.e. not today),
this was a major concern.
For example: picking a two Northern Democrats to be the
Presidential and VP nominees could have ticked off the South.
Oh, I’m sorry. Did I say “could”? I meant “did”.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
39/49
The Veepstakes
Balancing the ticket: uniting the party.
In 1968, the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota)
and Edmund Muskie (Maine) for their ticket.
Southern Democrats put their support behind the candidacy of
George Wallace (Alabama) - who ultimately won five Southern
states that otherwise would have been won by Humphrey/Muskie.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
40/49
The Veepstakes
Balancing the ticket: uniting the party.
The regional balance of the ticket (which was the case for 50 of
the 56 major party presidential tickets 1900-2012) is very practical
for another reason: the Electoral College.
We know that the best strategy isn’t to win as many votes as
possible, nationwide. Rather, you need to be strategic to pick up
key states and their electors.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
41/49
The Veepstakes
Balance the ticket: making the dream team.
Presidential candidates have their different strengths and
weaknesses. Campaigns will obviously play up the strengths - but
they’d also ideally like to downplay/minimize the weaknesses.
Let’s say that the nominee of our party is strong on the economy
but weak on military/national security issues. Wouldn’t we try to
pick a Vice Presidential nominee who has strengths in those areas?
This also helps people feel better about the VP as the
first-in-the-line successor.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
42/49
The Veepstakes
Balance the ticket: making the dream team.
Although the Vice Presidency wasn’t always seen as important, it’s
undeniable that the role of the office has changed over time
(notice how none of the quotes from VPs come post-Truman).
Nowadays, the office actually carries a good amount of heft. Vice
Presidents are active on policy, negotiations, and foreign relations.
Thus - picking a Vice Presidential nominee who can fill these shoes
has become increasingly important.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
43/49
The Veepstakes
Setting up for next time.
14 of the 43 presidents (we’re only counting you once, Grover
Cleveland) served as Vice President.
So, it seems that the Vice Presidency is a prime spot to be if you
want to be President. Why not put somebody there who is
presidential material?
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
44/49
The Veepstakes
Setting up for next time.
This is precisely what occurred with the Democrats in 1944. FDR
was running for his fourth term - but it became clear that his
health was failing quickly. Democratic leaders didn’t want the
current VP (Henry A. Wallace) to become president.
What’d they do? Kicked Wallace (left) off the ticket and replaced
him with Harry Truman (right).
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
45/49
The Veepstakes
Setting up for next time.
But be careful here: this can be a double edged sword.
One Heartbeat Away
The Palin Effect? Could have cost McCain 2% of his vote share
(Elis, Hillygus, Nie 2010).
And no, it wasn’t only Palin that potentially cost the party’s
nominee votes. Other candidates mentioned: Thomas Eagleton
(Democrat - 1972), Dan Quayle (Republican - 1988, 1992).
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
46/49
The Debates
One of the most visible aspects of a presidential election are the
debates.
The use of debates in major elections isn’t a new phenomenon (i.e.
the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858).
Back in those days, people would flock to hear candidates debate for hours at a time. It was a simpler time.
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
47/49
The Debates
Before the era of radio/TV, debating really wasn’t even a
campaign factor for presidential candidates. They didn’t occur.
1960 was the first debate between two presidential candidates and everybody remembers this (Kennedy-Nixon).
We had to wait until 1976 for the next set of debates.
An-ti-ci-pa-a-tion is making me wait...
Since then, we’ve always had a series of debates between the major
party nominees - and a Vice Presidential debate (since 1984).
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
48/49
The Debates
So who sponsors these debates?
Originally, it was up to the media. But seeing potential problems,
the nonpartisan civic organization League of Women Voters took
over the task starting in ’76.
Eventually, even the LWV got frustrated. Parties took over and
established the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates
(CPD).
And since the CPD is bipartisan, they’ve come under criticism for
excluding third party candidates from the debates (in fairness, they
did so in 1992 with Bush-Clinton-Perot).
Mark Dudley
16 April 2014
49/49