Electoral Expedience vs. Ideological Purity (Group B)

Electoral Expedience v. Ideological Purity is an issue political parties have been dealing with during primary season since as early as 1800. The republican and the Democratic parties, when choosing a candidate to run in general election must decide whether or not they want to go with the candidate who will perform well in the election, or the candidate which maintains the parties’ respective ideals. The most notable elections in which this Electoral Expedience v. Ideological Purity has occurred is the elections of 1912, 2004 and 2008. In the election of 1912 two Republican candidates were pitted against each other, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. Republican leaders had to decide whether or not to run a candidate who was conservative on party issues (Taft) or a candidate who they knew would do well in the General Election and garner the most electoral votes (Theodore Roosevelt). The old guard Republicans of this election decided to Run Taft as their candidate because he promoted party issues, and passed over Roosevelt because he seemed to be promoting more Progressive ideals, than Republican ones. The result of the Republican parties failure to pick Roosevelt as their candidate was the formation of the Progressive party in 1912 (Presidential Campaigns). In the 2004 election the choice of John Kerry over Howard Dean seemed to be primarily because of Kerry’s electoral Expedience “But supporting a candidate because he is “electable” is a coolly calculated and ephemeral political commitment. Any passion for Kerry, for example, seems to come less for the man himself than that he represents a vehicle to defeat Bush” (Moberg) http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/693/. Most political analyst felt during that during the 2004 campaign Dean represented more of the party ideals, but Kerry possessed the electability quality they were looking for. In 2008 the same can be seen in the Republican Party with Mike Huckabee and John McCain. A number of GOP analyst agreed that Huckabee embodied a large number of the Republican Ideals, they were looking for in a candidate but unlike McCain he had a very low potential for doing well in the polls. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8003.html
In 1912, 2004, and 2008 (and many other elections) the choice of which candidate to run came down to whom the party believed would do well in the polls, which in some cases ended up being the candidate that wasn’t the strongest believer in the parties ideals.

Third Term President

“McCain appears intent on abandoning some of his most deeply cherished personal values, including his commitment to secular values and distaste for religious bigotry, in favor of catering to the great W. coalition of white evangelicals and security-obsessed conservatives. Like Bush, his mantras are war and belligerence abroad, and at home, fear-mongering, “free trade,” lower taxes on the wealthy, and “job training” for the increasingly miserable middle classes. If he is elected, it will be “Groundhog Day,” the Bill Murray film about a character doomed to live through the same day over and over again. It will be the last eight years that we will suffer through again under a President McCain. This quote taken from an article entitled McCain rushes for Bush’s third term, published in several notable magazines, describes the idea that some political analyst share regarding McCain and his potential election to the White house, primarily how it could be seen as a third term for George Bush. The author of the article Juan Cole mentions that with one trip to the white house, and a crucial “endorsement: by President George Bush, John McCain seems to be abandoning his core belief system (as seen in 2000 campaign), In order to realign himself with the current Republican administration, and garner support among those faithful Republicans who love Bush. Cole also mentions in the article, that in 2000 McCain denounced Evangalicist “as agents of intolerance” “but now he is acting as Bush did then, and welcoming them and their endorsements with open arms. Finally the article states that McCain is sticking to the same strategy that Bush did in 2004, by promoting security against a week democratic candidate. The article concludes by stating that a Third Term for Bush can be seen in a McCain presidency, by McCain’s decision to adopt similar and in some cases the same foreign and domestic polices as President Bush. http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/john-mccain-runs-for-george-bushs-third-term/
This idea of presidential candidates being an extension of the predecessors is a common theme within historical presidential campaigns, one of those campaigns being the election of 1908. In this election William Howard Taft and his campaign was criticized for being too closely connected to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The Presidential Campaigns book by Paul F. Boller states that during the election of 1908 “Taft with T.R. at his elbow took an advanced position of many issues…with T.R.’s coaching he gradually improved and even began enjoying the hustings” (pg 179). Under T.R’s guidance Taft’s campaign gained momentum and he was able to assume the presidency (Most people believe because he adopted most of TR’s policies) Taft’s presidency according to most historians is T.R. third term in office...
A presidential candidate being an extension of their predecessors is not a new issue within American politics. The idea of incumbents assuming a “third term” in their party’s next choice, will continue to be an issue as long as there are Presidential Campaigns in the United States.

Links Between 2008 and 1904

There are a number of links between the presidential election of 1904 and 2008. McCain and Roosevelt each are/were questioned based on issues outside the platform issues of the campaign. For Roosevelt the question was if he was actually sane or not. For McCain the question is of his age (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24mccain.html). Roosevelt's own party was afraid that something would happen to him or he would do something really crazy to bring down his chances of getting elected. With McCain's age there are questions from both sides of the political spectrum if he is able to lead in his old age. It also questions who his Vice Presidential candidate might be. The candidate must be younger and able to lead at a moments notice.


On the Democrats side of the ticket Obama and Clinton with their call for change can be seen much like the anti-corruption candidates like Roosevelt was (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/barackobama.uselections2008). There have been questions of the decisions and motives of the Bush Administration. Also there was a large amount of candidates running in the 2008 election because in 2004 not many ran because of Bush running for re-election. In 1904 not many Democrats ran either. It seems that all cycles come back around.


-Andrew Stoltzfus

Da Da Daa! It's Underdog!

In the past, one of the most important points in a primary election was the Iowa caucus. The key in Iowa was to present yourself as the underdog and still come out on top. Doing better than expected gave you access to new contributors, renewed the confidence of your current contributors, and increased your media coverage. For the most part, this still holds true for this year’s primaries. However, thanks to the revamped early primaries, there is a new underdog state, Pennsylvania.
As covered by CNN on April 2, 2008, both Obama and Clinton are jockeying for the underdog position. Clinton, looking at the whole picture, is the apparent underdog for the country. It is Obama though, who holds the underdog title in the state of Pennsylvania. As the voting day draws closer, Obama’s underdog status has become less and less noticeable as his support in the polls continues to grow.
Still, both candidates fight for their title as the Rocky Balboa. So much so, has Clinton pitched herself as the Rocky Balboa of the Democratic primaries, that if you right now were to Google “Rocky Balboa” the first result at the top of the page is a blog spot on Forbes.com discussing Hillary Clinton and her selling herself as the great, hero boxer.
It does seem though, that Clinton has a lot more to lose if she were to lose Pennsylvania, given her already fleeting hopes at winning the nomination. If she can successfully sell herself as the underdog and pull out a ‘W’, she might win back some strong support. On the other hand, if Obama comes away with the win, the remaining primaries will painful ones for the Clinton team.

If Nomination Eludes Her, Clinton Could Pull A “Perot”. Team B.

If the smoke clears from the conflagration ignited by the ferocity of the Democratic presidential primary season; and Senator Obama is left standing as the Democratic presidential nominee, then Senator Clinton could launch an Independent presidential campaign like billionaire Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential election.

In the event that Senator Clinton is unable to persuade the super delegates that she is more electable than her opponent, then her chances become slim in being able to grasp the brass ring. The nomination would be out of reach for her, but not necessarily the keys to The White House.

The time might come when it becomes clear that the feud between Clinton and Obama has fractured the Democratic Party so very badly, that the Senator from New York might be able to persuade her supporters, who may feel bitter and disenfranchised, to support her as an Independent presidential candidate. Such inter-Party bitterness might create a unique opportunity in U.S. presidential elections; a successful bid by a candidate outside of the dualopoly.

Such a candidate would have to posses certain attributes. This candidate would have to have the ability to gain the support of Independents, moderates, and centrists. Reserves of vast financial resources would also be a prerequisite. This candidate would have to have sufficient name recognition and an appeal that are equal to the nominees. The candidate would need to emphasis change, leadership, and a certain level of gravitas that would convince individuals to sway away from the comforting caress of the Republicans and Democrats.

Senator Hillary Clinton received support from Liberal Republicans, Democrats, moderates, independents and centrists alike in her bids for the U.S. Senate. The former First Lady has a personal fortune estimated well into the millions of dollars resulting from her husband’s speaking engagements and her well -received book. The Senator is known around the world thanks to her time in The White House alongside her President-husband; therefore, she possesses name recognition in spades. She has a larger than life persona that could persuade party loyalists to break away and support an Independent bid. As Senator in a state that is the media capital of the world, Senator Clinton knows how to utilize the media to disseminate his message.

Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, please recall the presidential election of 1992, when a charismatic Texas billionaire named Ross Perot capitalized on the frustration that the American people were feeling with the two major parties and how they conduct themselves. As Mr. Paul F. Boller Jr. reminds us in “Presidential Campaigns”:


On election day, in the largest voter turnout since 1960, Governor Clinton won the election with 43 percent of the popular votes to Bush’s 38 percent and Perot’s 19 percent. His electoral victory was more impressive: 370 votes to Bush’s 168. Perot won no electoral votes, but his share of the popular votes was the largest for an Independent candidate since Theodore Roosevelt, running as a Progressive, took 27 percent of the popular votes in 1912.

Senator Clinton could win electoral votes in states such as New York, Arkansas, and other states that contain Democrats and Independents dissatisfied with Senator Obama.

With an Independent run, Senator Clinton could reach across ideological boundaries and be an attractive candidate to an electorate disgruntled and dissatisfied with the elephants and the jackasses.

Senator Clinton should play to win the game she’s in right now, but if she’s ultimately forced to cash in her chips in the Democratic Party primary, perhaps the former First Lady should roll the dice and see what happens. Ross Perot gambled, and almost changed history.

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

Ryan Christiano.

Party Switching Group B Post 1

An article in the associated press on Tuesday April 1st, discusses in great detail the current trend in American politics of party switching. This trend has become somewhat of an issue in the 2008 race for the white house. Party switching involves members of one party voting for a primary candidate of another party, in order to have the person they feel would loose to their candidate, be the person nominated. For example there currently are members of the Republican Party engaging in party switching, specifically voting for Hillary Clinton, in order to have her be the democratic nominee. They are party switching because they feel that Hillary has a better chance of loosing to John McCain than Barack Obama. The article also goes into great detail regarding the influential roles that radio host like Victoria Taft and Rush Limbaugh have played in this primary season (keep in mind that both are staunch Republicans). The previously mentioned radio personalities have been urging members of their parties to vote for Hillary in the democratic primaries as well, because they feel that she will have a better chance of loosing against John McCain. This party switching has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of democratic voters registered in the presidential primaries that have yet to occur. The author of the article does mention that this party switching is minimized in states where there are closed primaries and voters cannot just vote for whomever they want primarly because they are registered in that state for one party or another. I think this article is extremely important because it highlights a trend that could dictate who the presidential nominee is for the Democratic Party will be. This trend is also important because it solidifies the idea that when people recognize that a political leader or entity can be prove to be a legitimate threat to a party or an ideal, they must come up with a way in which to cast them aside.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-yFl91SZQSuxY6iahMsbW_3FCHAD8VP7GEG0

Group A: Repeating the Past our setting a new precedent...

Sometimes the past can foreshadow the future so it comes as no surprise that political analysts are already speculating about the possible damage that can be caused by internal party disputes. Many worry that the ongoing competition between democratic presidential candidates may hurt their party’s chances of winning the election come November. According to popular belief negative disputes between two candidates of the same political party often leave voters liking one candidate and hating the other, creating a dilemma at the polls. For if a voter favors one candidate and he/she is not chosen as the presidential nominee they tend to vote against their party by casting a ballot for the other side rather than the disliked candidate.
According to an article reported by Katherine Q. Seelye and Jane Bosman in The New York Times, past elections has developed a trend of costing parties the election if contenders representing the same side continue to exhaust their energies through negative confrontations with other candidates of their respective party. We can start with the election of 1980 which depicts the phenomenon of disunity within parties leading to a depletion of supporters and eventually losing the presidency- and continue from there.

“President Jimmy Cater and Senator Edward M. Kennedy had been sharp adversaries with a bad history, and in the 1980 presidential campaign they let it bleed into a bitter nomination fight. The Carter administration challenged Mr. Kennedy’s patriotism and refused to debate, while Mr. Kennedy dragged out their fight for nine months, all the way to the Democratic convention. A weakened Mr. Carter prevailed and won the nomination, but he went on to lose in November”
“Equally difficult was the fight in the election of 1964 on the Republican side. The relationship between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller was so antagonistic that Mr. Rockefeller was booed off the convention stage. Lyndon B. Johnson went on to beat Mr. Goldwater in a landslide” (Bosman, Seelyee, Carrying Primary Scars Into the General Election) .


There are many issued broiling here, not only are we focused on the day to day interaction of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama but it must also be recognized that the Republicans are closely monitoring their opponents– maybe contemplating a similar strategy to the one that caused Blaine his candidacy in 1884- to develop future attacks on their opponents position. The Republicans are not asleep,” said Paul Kirk, who was chairman of the Democratic Party from 1985 to 1989 and was the political director for Mr. Kennedy in 1980. “They’ll use all that stuff for cannon fodder.”
Though it may still be too early to predict how the upcoming election will play out, I am sure the democrats are highly aware of previous mishaps and once interactions between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not escalate into a distasteful contest, the democrats should have no problems in turning out the vote in November; besides there is nothing wrong with a little healthy competition.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01fight.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01campaign.html