The race towards the middle, and stupidfying America

The nomination process mirrors the, Hotelling Theory and shows that Americans are all about popularity. In the primaries we search for a candidate that appeals to our vanity, a candidate that has a familiar name or face, or a candidate that really says nothing, harking back to the pre-Jackson era of seeking office is too "ambitious". Elections are all about trickery and deception and stating that we are not as good as we really are. This way if we do bas, it is expected and if we do great its a miracle! (even though we planned it like that, but shhh....do not tell anyone!) This process allows America to whittle the candidates down based on what? Popularity? Who kissed the more babies?

Does anybody remember Rudy Guliani? Some don't, stating Rudy who? and "Giuliani is done," said Andy Smith, the director of polling at the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center. "He has run possibly the worst campaign of a leading candidate that I can remember." (National Post)

But Why? He started to talk. Of course everyone knows about his personal trouble, but all he had to do is go along for the ride, but he didn't. I equate him to Darren McFadden the new running back sensation the performed better then anyone else at the NFL Scouting combine, yet has tons of personal baggage. But he has not addressed it, or made public statements, hes just fixing it and letting his work talk for him. "Americas Mayor" could have easily done that but did the "noble" thing and spoke about the issues and went the way of everyone who does that....home.

Its amazing to see the change of topics after the nominations, we start to talk about real issues, and drop the damn jokes of Hilary insulting her husband and appealing to women. We get down to the nitty gritty, but shouldn't that be the whole election process? I think so, leaving the propaganda and mudslinging to the past. Remember Lincoln almost lost the election because of his daughter...illegitimate daughter...oh wait that was made up.

Chris Brower

Works Cited:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/giuliani-wouldnt-go-for-a-ride/
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=223972

You Know What Burst my Bubble

In recent news we have heard the green party, independent, reform party and maybe a democrat at best. The 2008 third party candidate Ralph Nader has entered the race. What burst my bubble about Ralph is he has always come in to try to “stir things up.” Not at the beginning, but towards the end when all the candidates have put in endless hours of work, speeches, traveling, debates, and hand shacks. This I find is the only problem I have with the election process, in which one outside candidate can just jump in at the end without winning any state. Not just that, but Ralph doesn’t have to spend as much money or time in general to become a presidential nominee. But beside the point do you think Ralph will win, let’s look at his history report. Ralph has run for President of the United States four times in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, and will make a fifth attempt in 2008. In 1992 he ran as a write-in in both the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries, and other primaries. In 1996 and 2000, he was the nominee of the Green Party; in 2004, he ran as an independent. All in which lost by a landslide, not only that but has taken votes from Democrat parties such as the 2000 elections where votes in key states that potentially might have cost Al Gore the presidency. Even look at other candidates that had changed the outcome of an election, such as Ross Perot taking the republican votes from George H.W. Bush in 1992 and costing him the election. Ralph Nader will nearly do the same in the 2008 election by taken the democratic nominee, whoever that maybe. I don’t mind a competitive race, but when a candidate does not put in the hours and effort as the other candidates that’s not right. So when Ralph Nader once again decided to just jump into this race that’s when it “Burst My Bubble”


Tim Lovell

Why is Huckabee still in the Race?

In the reading "The Elections of 2004" (pg18-41) it is evident how imperative it remains for a candidate to time the peak in their suppor. This is highlighted when considering Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee's early victory in Iowa, attributed to his support among the evangelicals and a strong support among women, quickly saw him rise in popularity, however Huckabee has failed to build upon his strong start, and is now remaining in the race to the amazement, frustration and humor of others.
When Howard Dean's quick success came to an end, it was evident that he in fact, although competing against John Kerry, had actually helped him to win the nomination by mobilizing the democratic voters. So will Huckabee be able to play a similar role?
Huckabee's choice to remain in the race has raised many eyebrows in frustration, and recently, in laughter. His display on Saturday Night Live attempting to make light of his mathematical impossibility of winning, then ignoring his cues to leave the segment, further raise the question on why he remains? Republican party Strategist Whit Ayres in an interview with CNN highlights that as long as Mike Huckabee remains positive in his comments on McCain and does not stimulate a third party challenge from the right later on in the race, Huckabee's choice to remain could actually help McCain. This is accentuated if very conservative spokesmen continue to criticise Huckabee and make McCain appear more vote worthy to independents whom, as we saw in the Downs-Hotelling theory, will have to power to decide the election later this year. Huckabee believes that his continuation is of service to both the American people and McCain . In the same CNN segment as the Whit Ayres video, Huckabee explains that it is competition that breeds excellence, a lack of it, which would be evident with his resignation, would breed mediocrity. By remaining in the race, Huckabee is thus helping to build and train McCain in stamina, strength and not becoming sloppy, which will ultimately help him in the election against the Democrats.
In reference to "The Elections of 2004," there are obvious links between Huckabee's and Dean's campaign fate, however, will Huckabee be able to help a fellow party member in the same way that Dean did?

In response to Obama in Texas

With all the talk of Obama in Texas in the last post, his counter part Clinton seems to be all but counted out if she losses the race in Texas or Ohio. But why? Let us remember in a previous post that Obama has a some momentum going. He has won 11 straight contests since Super-duper Tuesday. His win in Wisconson last week, by a margin of 17% was his smallest victory since super-Tuesday. So momentum is definitely on his side. If he wins in Texas or Ohio or both, it is seemed that he will be unstoppable, just like the jugger-naut from X-men. So if he is not stopped on March 4 in Texas or Ohio, Clinton may be ran over by the momentum of his victories that she will have no other choice but to drop out and support Barack as the Democratic nominee.

This reminds me of the election of 2004, where John Kerry kept winning and gaining momentum after his victories in the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. He just kept on winning and won the nomination because of all the momentum.

Info received from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23339362/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WI

The Eyes of TEXAS are upon Obama

“We are sending George W. Bush back to TEXAS!” Applause by Democratic Texans is deafening when Presidential Candidate Barack Obama proclaims the end of an era for the nation. Although Texans feel slightly more attached to the current Texan President George W. Bush because of his native roots, but Democrats in the state do not seem to upset to see his term come to a close. Obama thoroughly enjoyed proclaiming this during his tour of Texas on the 22nd of February.
Although the campaigning day in Texas started with a tragedy (a Dallas police officer was killed when he fell off his motorcycle while riding in Senator Hilary Clinton’s motorcade), the trail still continued for both Presidential candidates.
Senator Clinton spent her time in Texas comparing Obama’s campaign promises to his alternative voting record in order to try and disarm his campaign. Without appealing to a direct demographic, she tried a general overall appeal by discussing her ideas for insurance policy reform and quoting, “"It's against the law to discriminate on the basis of age, religion, race or creed, but not against the sick. Well, I am going to change that." Clinton has used this line repeatedly to gain overall appeal, because insurance policies do not only affect one specific demographic, but rather everyone in the nation. Everyone in the nation gets sick and could be rejected by their insurance providers, and Clinton tried to use this in order to gain massive support. Her speech gained much support, but was it enough to win the state of Texas on March 4th?
Unlike Clinton, Barack Obama used campaign tactics that were more specific to the area in which he was appealing to. With Texas being so close to Mexico and having a very high Hispanic population, Obama laid out his immigration and economic plans for the future. Obama appealed to the people by stating he wants the government to facilitate illegal immigrants into becoming citizens and for the lower class immigrants to gain economic holds in society. If you work in this country, you should not be poor." Obama appeals to the lower class immigrants for support, who have hope that he can help change their lives. Although Texas does have issues with immigration due to its geographic location and Obama did lay out his immigration plans to the state, it seems that it might have fallen on deaf ears; any illegal immigrant listening to that speech cannot vote and cannot therefore throw their support behind Obama.
On March 4th, the vote of around 450 delegates is on the line when the states of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont head to the polls. Will the eyes of Texas be upon Obama, or will Clinton conquer the Lone State State?

ARTICLES REFERENCED:
Christina Bellatoni and Brian DeBose.Eyes of Texas upon Obama. The Washington Post. February 23rd, 2008.
Nancy Cook. Ohio, Texas Voters Differ on Top Issues. NPR Weekend Edition. Sunday, February 24, 2008.

ATTENTION ALL FORMER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES!!!!

We have heard it all. OBAMA, HILLARY, OBAMA HILLARY!!!!! Well just in January we were looking at eight presidential candidates for the Democrats. Yes, remember those debates back in the summer where minor candidates like Mike Gravel, a former Senator from Alaska, and Chris Dodd, the actual Democratic Senator from Connecticut, (the one with the white hair who wasn't Anderson Cooper) were fighting for airtime? Ahhhh the good ol' days.....

Well today for all intensive purposes it's just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton left in the Democratic race (Technically speaking, Mike Gravel is still in the race for the Democratic nomination, and has not dropped out yet, but he has not won a single delegate). However, out of the former Democratic presidential candidates, none of them have announced their support for Obama or Hillary.
Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and John Edwards may have dropped out, but they also have not endorsed any candidate. Their support is widely wanted by both campaigns, and in the past few weeks, Bill Clinton watched the Superbowl with Bill Richarson, and Hillary and Obama met with John Edwards and his family at his home in North Carolina. As the Ohio primary comes closer, there might be some pressure raised on Dennis Kucinich, who is still a Congressman from Ohio, to endorse a candidate. The two campaigns probably feel that with the support of their former contenders, they can gain some media attention, or even some delegates in the case of John Edwards as he did win 26 delegates in his run for the presidency. In a close race for the Democratic nomination, those 26 delegates might come in big at the convention.

Endorsements are big in general, or can amount to nothing at all. During the nomination process in 1844 for the Democrats, Martin Van Buren was running for the nomination, and James K. Polk ended up becoming a dark horse candidate after it was clear that the convention would be deadlocked. Sometime in the summer of 1844, former president Andrew Jackson called James Polk to his house and announced to him that Polk was his favorite for the nomination at the convention, essentially picking up the endorsement of Jackson. Long story short, Polk ended up winning the Democratic nomination for president, and then in November he won the presidency.
With endorsements flying around these days, some are huge and will add media attention like with Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. Some are minor and don't mean anything. In the end, it is the endorsement of the American voter that really matters, but until they decide, former presidential contenders are being sought after now for the support of a candidate.

Information on the former presidential candidates received from:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

Articles used in this entry from:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/obama-and-edwards-meet/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23303147

11 Debates Straight

At this point in time Barack Obama has succeeded in winning all of his last 11 debates with New York senator Hillary Clinton. The last of those debates was one of Hillary’s last chances to try and slow down the momentum Barack has built up over the past few weeks. The results of the last debate weren’t quite exactly what Senator Clinton had in mind. I’m sure coming into it she felt that it was a great chance to knock Obama off course, or at least slow his momentum.
In order to do this she needed to challenge Barack Obama and score a few points off of him. She failed to do this not because she was outshined by Obama, but because for some reason she refused to challenge him, even when the moderators gave her the opportunity to do so. However, this doesn’t mean that the debate was a complete failure for her. She did manage to make her point and make clear distinctions between her healthcare plan and Obama’s.
Hillary managed to make it clear that her plan would leave less Americans uninsured than Obama’s plan would. She also managed to display that her knowledge on healthcare outweighed Obama’s by a significant amount. However, when she tried to take a shot at his inexperience he replied by point out that he voted against a war with Iraq while she did not. It sent the message that he knows what he’s doing while she does not.
These debates remind me somewhat of the debates between Nixon and Kennedy during the election of 1960. Like Clinton with Obama, Nixon tried to point out Kennedy’s inexperience where Kennedy successfully nullified the statements by bringing up the fact that he and Nixon entered the senate at the same time. Also, just like the democratic primary debates, Nixon, like Clinton with Obama, tried to slow down Kennedy’s momentum during the Presidential debates. Hillary Clinton looks to succeed in the democratic primary debates where Nixon failed in his presidential debates. However, as of now, it looks as if Barack Obama is going to be one tough man to tackle for Hillary.