Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Sunday, May 11, 2008

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.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Sticking by my guns with the Election of 1912


It's not over until the fat lady sings seems to be the motto for Hillary Clinton as she continues to stay in a race that is all but won by Barack Obama. Still with the hope that she can some how pull out a win Clinton continues to look more and more like William Taft.

In 1912, the first year with a large amount of political primaries, former president Teddy Roosevelt won a majority of the primaries and seemed like the for sure. However, when it came down to the convention the party decided on William Taft as the nominee. Teddy is so upset he leaves the party and creates the Bull Moose Party to run in the election. Splitting the party vote, Woodrow Wilson is able to skate through the national election to winning the president.

Seeing as the 2008 primary season is yet to conclude, it would be premature to say which historic national election best mirrors the 2008 election. With this in mind, the current situation best mirrors that of 1912, which I discribed above. Obama has won 29 of the primaries to date, compared to Clintons 18, and he has won 1,846 delegates to her 1,685. It is hard to say that Clinton has much of a case for the nomination, but still she hangs in the race. Her only real chance is if the superdelegates vote against the general electorate. The real question is, what if the superdelegates do the unthinkable and elect Hillary Clinton? It's hard to believe that Obama would branch off and form his own political party, but it could be enough for a large portion of the democratic to stay home on election day and thus give the election to John McCain. The Democratic party leaders can only hope that the damage has not been done already

Andrew Stoltzfus

Monday, May 5, 2008

The link between 1984 and 2008






















There are several similarities between the presidential campaign of 1984, and the presidential campaign of 2008, specifically, the length of the democratic primary (resulting in interparty conflict), the fact that themes not issues dominated the contest, the age issue, and the economic deficit. The presidential campaign experienced an extremely long democratic primary, with a number of contenders entering the contest in the beginning. In 1984 there were a total of 8 candidates initially, vying for the Democratic nomination, Governor Reuben, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator John Glenn, Senator Gary Hart, Senator Earnest Hollings, and Civil Rights Activist Jesse Jackson, AFL president Lane Kirkland, Senator George McGovern, and Former Vice President Walter Mondale. The 2008 Democratic Primary began in the same way with 8 contenders vying for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Former senator John Edwards, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, former Senator Mike Gravel, US representative Dennis Kucinich, and Governor Bill Richardson. In both of these presidential primaries the high number of Democrats vying for the nomination can be attributed to the fact that there was no clear Democratic candidate, allowing everyone in 1984, and 2008 to throw their hat in the ring. Due to the high number of democratic contenders vying for the nomination, conflicts between members of the Democratic Party can be found in 1984 and 2008.
In 1984 the democratic convention seemed to be split between Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, Civil Rights Activist Jesse Jackson, and Senator Gary Hart. In 2008 the Democratic candidates who garnered the most attention until recently has been Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards. As the campaign progressed in 1984 the primaries and the media seemed to reduce the democratic contenders to two, Walter Mondale, and Senator Gary Hart. In 1984 Walter Mondale was initially seen as the favorite to win the nomination (because he had tremendous party support) but Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart proved to be serious contenders in that they both gained tremendous backing, and Mr. Hart in particular proved to be the most challenging contender, winning a number of democratic primaries and gathering a significant following with young voters. Similarities can be drawn in the 2008 democratic primary where Senator Hillary Clinton was favored to win the nomination initially but then, Senator Barack Obama (who is seen as representing the young faction of the democratic party** Like Hart) began battling Senator Clinton for the nomination. Like in 1984, I am sure the Democratic Convention of 2008 will prove to be a divisive one.
Another point of comparison can be found in the thematic nature of the presidential contest in 1984 and 2008. In 1984 the campaigned was focused on “church, home, country and morality”, in 2008 the same issues seem to apply. The democratic and republican candidates in 2008 seem to be either dodging the religion question (Senator Obama and Senator McCain) or focusing on the importance of family, country and moral issues (aside from gay rights and abortion, no one wants to touch those).
Another correlation between the 1984 and 2008 presidential campaign is the age issue. In 1984 the fact that Ronald Regan was 73 became a point of criticism for both Democrats and Republicans. When rumors spread that Regan would routinely fall asleep at cabinet meetings, or would blank out when asked foreign policy questions, his age became a critical issue. In 2008 John McCain’s age has become somewhat of an issue. At the age of 71 McCain is one of the oldest people to run for the Presidency. Similar to 1984 McCain has tried to downplay the age issue by joking about it “"I'm older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein, but I learned a few things along the way,"(MSNBC), only time will tell if McCain’s age will really be an issue.
Perhaps the most telling comparison between the 1984 and 2008 presidential campaign is the fact that in both campaigns the country was/and is in an economic deficit. In 1984 Mondale’s plan was to raise taxes, while Regan believed it was better to cut spending on social programs. In 2008 McCain seems to have a similar belief to Regan that raises taxes isn’t the answer, but seems to be more partial to tax cuts. Senator Obama on the other hand believes in “shifting the tax burden more toward the wealthy and making investments — in health care, alternative-energy research and education — that would cost a significant amount of money but could ultimately lift economic growth” (New York Times). Similar but somewhat different from Mr. Obama Senator Clinton plans on “Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the economy has three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets, including the investments being made by foreign governments in the United States; and raise spending on job-creating projects like the development of alternative energy” (New York Times).
Overall, several comparisons can be made between the presidential campaign of 1984 and 2008, specifically the sheer number of candidates, the internal party conflicts (within the Democratic Party), the thematic nature of the contest, the age issue, and the economic deficit. Only time will tell if the 2008 presidential contest will result in a Republican victory like the 1984 campaign did. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

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

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

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/

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The impact of the 1912 Primaries


In the primary elections of 1912 Teddy Roosevelt was running against William Taft in the first primaries. Former President Roosevelt won in landslide victories in 9 out of the 12 primaries. However, when the convention met to decide on whom the candidate would be TR had the nomination pulled out from under him and given to William Taft. The online Biography of TR boldly states that due to the 1912 primaries not deciding the winner, "never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries." (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bullmoose.htm)

That statement could be tested this year as the democratic primaries come to a close. Barack Obama heads towards the home stretch as the Teddy Roosevelt, with the most states won, the most votes overall, and the most pledged delegates. As the race is prolonged and dragged on by the hopes of Hillary Clinton the end could become even more like the 1912. Clinton is calling for Superdelegates, and even pledged delegates if they would be so kind, to back her despite the facts. She bases her case off of random facts such as she has won more larger states and has done better in the traditionally strong democratic voter categories.

Knowing the results of declining to follow the voice of the American people rang out loud and clear in 1912 when TR's third party the Bull Moose Party took second over William Taft and the Republican party, the Democratic National Party should tread lightly in the months to come. The Superdelegates have the ability to step in and end this pointless bickering. At any point the Superdelegates can step in and pledge their support to the clear victor of the people, but they have remained silent and allowed the party to be torn apart. What good is the past if you aren't going to learn from it?


Andrew Stoltzfus