1968 and 2008

1968 and the current election of 2008 have many similarities which lead me to believe it is the most similar election. “Nixon, Humphrey and the Vietnam War”, as titled in our Presidential Campaigns text parallels the ongoing election. The Vietnam War in 1968 was “bitterly dividing the country”, war hawks ‘’supported Johnson’s administration efforts to prevent a North Vietnam takeover of South Vietnam” (Boller 320). The doves protested the war and staged sit-ins and demonstrations. Currently, the Iraq war is playing a significant issue in this election. The democratic nominees, Clinton and Obama are calling for an end to the war and to pull out troops. McCain, on the other hand is against pulling the troops out until the ‘job is done’.

Another similarity between ’68 and ’08 is Nixon and McCain. Nixon made a comeback after being defeated in 1960 by John F. Kennedy and once again in 1964 by Barry Goldwater. In order to gain attention, Nixon tried hard to regain political attention by making speeches, and reaching out to other Republican party officials for friendships (321). McCain ran for nomination in 2000 against Bush and subsequently lost. However since then he has gained momentum, like Nixon, and has shed his “loser’s image” (321).

Another issue that is similar is the ‘tough on crime’ approach that the Conservatives take. Giuliani made many get tough on crime stances during his short-lived campaign and McCain himself takes a tough on terror/crime stance as well. Nixon made use of the law and order issue, he promised to make streets safer and “restore order and respect for law in this country” (324).

In conclusion, the Vietnam and Iraq wars separated the country between doves and hawks and are important backgrounds to the elections.

-Diana Davino

1976 and 2008

In an earlier post, I wrote about the tit-for-tat primary season for the Republican party in the 1976 presidential race and how it is similar to the Democratic nomination process this time around. Also, in another post, I wrote about the effect religion had in the 1976 race and the 2008 race. To refresh everyone's memories, the tit-for-tat primary race in 1976 meant that Reagan and Ford would both win primaries, and that neither could gain momentum in the nomination process. When Ford would get a big win, Reagan would come right back and get a big win of his own. This is somewhat similar to the 2008 race, with neither candidate, Obama or Clinton, able to get a long standing momentum lasting more than a month or so. While Obama got some momentum by winning 12 straight contests in a row after Super-Tuesday, he could not carry that momentum into Texas and Ohio, as Clinton won big there. As for the religion aspect, I earlier wrote that the whole hoop-la surrounding Jeremiah Wright and how it negatively affected Obama is similar to the 1976 race in that Jimmy Carter had some issues with religion. For instance, he talked about faith in an article published in Playboy Magazine. Carter said that it was a sin to even think of coveting another woman other than his wife, and that by that logic, he has sinned. Another aspect of religion that played a role in 1976 was that it was found out that Carter's Baptist church in Georgia had denied entry of a black person into it. They said they had no problem allowing a black person in there, but that was because there were no black people that went to that church and they figured entry would not be an issue. But when a black person tried to enter, they locked the doors. Carter defended his church and said he would not stop going there. As a result, Carter's 33% advantage over Ford dwindled and had a real race on his hands when the general election came closer.

One other similarity I noticed between these two elections is the South. Carter was the last Democrat that was able to win Southern states as a result of being a governor from Georgia. Obama, in the primaries, has won the South convincingly, (excluding Florida), and some predict that Obama could bring some Southern states, like Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and maybe even South Carolina and Mississippi into play as a result of all those states heavy African American populations. If this is the case, then the media would be saying that this is the first time a Democrat has won Southern states like this since Carter in 1976.

While I think that this election is most similar to 1976, I feel that one cannot use the 1976 election as a catalyst for the outcome of this race. There are may different issues today that were not big issues 32 years ago. The outcome of the race this year will be determined on how well each party can get their voters out. Assuming that Obama wins the nomination, as it so likely seems now, and Obama versus McCain race will be an exciting one and possible a realigning race. The one thing that 1976 tells us about today's race, is that many things will be thrown at each candidate from the other side, yet both seemed in 1976 to whether it till the general election when the winner was not really known. All I know is that when I cast my ballot in November and am nervously watching election results come in on the networks to see how my guy is doing, I will expect to hear some of the better commentators mention 1976 a few times, whether it be for the fact that Obama may have won some Southern states that have not been won by a Democrat since 1976, or for the fact that a personal religious issue and a tit-for-tat primary season negatively affected one of the candidates.

Religion Politics

The news lately about this election has not really been about the close race, or the fact that in less than a week a toss up state in Indiana will have their turn to vote in the race for the Democratic nomination, but rather it has been about religion. The whole controversy is over comments made by Obama's (now former and estranged) pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments were anti-American comments and some say that Obama did not to a well enough job in repudiating these comments. However, just yesterday, Obama basically split with Wright, saying he was shocked and appalled at his comments from earlier in the week. Overall, this may hurt Obama, but as many of times before, big issues one day are yesterday's news the next day. With this controversy with the Pastor Wright in the news today, I bet a lot of people have forgotten the whole deal with the rumor that Obama is actually a Muslim.

All of this hoop la around the religion controversy reminds me of the 1976 election with Jimmy Carter. In that campaign, Carter, who is a devout Southern Baptist from Georgia, did an interview with Playboy Magazine about religion. In it, Carter said that any man who looks and lusts for another woman, even in their own mind, is committing adultery, and that he was guilty of that sin. He then said that he was forgiven by Christ. The headlines in the news in the next few days read that "Carter Sinned" and "Carter Lusts For Other Women." This hurt his poll numbers and his standing among the public (sort of like what is happening to Obama right now), however Carter ended up winning the election of 1976 regardless.

Sources from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/ED2010DQND.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html?ref=us

Electoral Tit-for-Tat

We have all heard it before, the Democratic Primary has been essentially going back and forth, or as Professor Cassino put it, tit-for-tat. It all started off in Iowa, with an Obama win. Then Clinton won in New Hampshire and Nevada. Not to be outdone, Obama won in South Carolina, and then a few weeks later, both candidates essentially split the super Tuesday contests and we are now here, for the most part tied, with Obama with what some put it as an advantage that is too far for Clinton to catch up to. Lately, after Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, polling has showed that the race is tied nationwide among Democrats' choice for the Democratic nomination, and has been looking that way for about the past week. This back and forth and essentially tied up race for the Democratic nomination (thus the name tit-for-tat, or back and forth) is starting to wind down, and many Democrats hope that at the end of the contests in June, the nominee will be selected.

The next contests in this back and forth race is on May 6 (That is if you exclude the Guam caucuses that occur on May 3, but only have 4 delegates at stake). The two contests that occur on that date are in North Carolina and Indiana. With an electorate that would favor Obama in North Carolina (much the way the electorate in Pennsylvania favored Clinton) and since he is most likely to win that primary barring something totally unexpected, Indiana is the next big prize up for grabs in this tit-for-tat race. Many view this state as a toss-up, giving some momentum to the winner into the final few contests of the nominating season. Polls recently have shown this race to be tied, with no clear favorite. This entire campaign, we have seen that when one of the candidates wins, the other one makes a comeback a few days or weeks later in the next contests, thus tit-for-tat (ala Clinton's victory in New Hampshire and Nevada and then Obama's victory in South Carolina).

Now if in the last contests and if the super delegates don't decide fast enough, the Democrats could go to a dead locked convention in Denver in late August. That and all of this tit-for-tat in the primary season with each candidate going back and forth in the primaries reminds me of an election from not too long ago in 1976. In the 1976 race, GOP candidates Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford were going tit-for-tat in the primary season. When one won a contest, the other won would also win a contest. It was a close race, and neither was able to secure enough delegates to win the GOP nomination. The race went to the convention in the summer and a fight ensued between Reagan and Ford until President Ford finally prevailed and had enough delegates for the nomination. That finally ended the tit-for-tat primary season in 1976. If one candidate in this election for the Democrats isn't decided before the convention, we could possibly see something similar in what happened to the Republicans in 1976. We shall soon see if that tit-for-tat continues, if Clinton wins big in Indiana, or if it ends and Indiana goes heavily for Obama.

Information obtained from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20080429_6505.php
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/polls-clinton-obama-tied-in-indiana/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-obama-dead-even-for-fifth-straight-day/

............Don't forget about those Congressional races!

While everyone this year keeps talking about the hot 2008 Presidential race, and whose going to win, there are many many more elections that are going on at the same time this Election Day. There are elections on town levels, state legislatures, governorships, U.S. Senate Seats and U.S. House seats. All of these are generally considered down ballot races, as the main election this year is the presidential election between McCain versus Obama or Clinton. But, it is extremely vital for each party to win seats in the U.S. Congress as a newly elected president needs members of his own party to have a majority to get his or her agenda through. With a divided government, it is really hard or even impossible for a President to get his or her agenda through Congress without having his or her party with a majority in Congress (A prime example of this it the bitter years we saw in the late 1990's with Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and the Republican controlled Congress. It was very hard for Clinton to get his agenda through Congress).

This year, for the 2008 election, the Democrats go into the election with majorities in the House and Senate. If Clinton or Obama were to win the White House, then they would need a Democratic controlled Congress to get their agenda through with as little changes to it as possible. If McCain wins, then he is hoping for the Republicans to take back Congress, so he can get his agenda through. As of right now, the prospects look really good for the Democrats to not only maintain their majorities, but to gain a significant amount of seats based on a number of reasons. One reason is the number of open seats in each house there are that were once held by Republicans. There are 6 open seats in the Senate and over 20 seats in the House. Also, the heads (Chuck Schumer (NY) for the Senate, Chris Van Hollen (MD) for the House) of the Democratic Congressional and Senate Campaign Committee (which are responsible for electing Democrats to the each body of Congress respectively) has a much more cash on hand to spend for Congressional races then the Republican Campaign Committees have on hand. The exact number is about $30 million for the Democrats and $3 million for the Republicans. This means the Democrats will be able to spend much more money on seats that could be vulnerable and the Republicans would be struggling to just play defense in some seats that are vulnerable. All in all, the Congressional races are very important to who ever wins the presidency as to get their agenda through Congress.

The implications of the Congressional races and the Presidential election of this year reminds me of numerous elections in the past. One such race was back in 1800, when Jefferson and the Republicans beat the Federalists in the presidential and Congressional races. As a result, Jefferson was more easily able to get his agenda through the Congress then if the Federalists were the party in power in Congress. Another election is the 1928 election, when Hoover and the Republican party swept into power with sweeping victories in the House and Presidency. As a result, these important Congressional races paved the way for these presidents to more easily get their agenda passed through Congress. This could be the case this year, depending on which party wins the Presidency and Congress respectively.

Websites that I obtained the information from:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/08/870099.aspx
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr06.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/08/dccc-chair-warns-negative-presidential-race-could-do-damage/