The Battle for the White House from Bush to Obama

Volume II Nominations and Elections in an Era of Partisanship

A. Bennett

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137268631
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Políticas europeas

Anthony Bennett guides us through the events of the four elections of the 21st century, showing how this era of partisanship has reshaped not only presidential nominations and elections, but the American presidency and politics itself.

C H A P T E R 1

THE MAKING OF THE PROCESS

IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF THIS SERIES, THE PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENCY,¹ we studied the elections of 1980 through 1996. Two of the three presidents who were elected during those five elections were reelected to serve a full second term. Only George H. W. Bush failed in this regard. The next four elections—the ones we shall study in this second volume—saw two more presidents elected to second terms. Thus the White House saw the greatest concentration of two-term presidents since the era of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson at the start of the nineteenth century when four of five consecutive presidents completed two full terms. This return to two-term presidencies between 1980 and 2012 came as a direct contrast to the period between 1960 and 1980 when none of the five presidents managed to complete two full terms and only one—Richard Nixon—managed to get himself reelected.

We saw in our first volume that the processes for nominating and electing presidents continued to undergo some significant changes during the last two decades of the twentieth century: the number of primaries increased significantly; there was a tendency toward “front loading”; Super Tuesday was established; superdelegates were introduced; national party conventions declined in importance; and presidential debates became an established part of the presidential campaign. Further changes occurred during the first decade of the twenty-first century most notably in the use of new media. But what changed most significantly was the increasingly partisan atmosphere in which presidential elections came to be fought. This was to have significant implications for the way in which candidates won their nominations as well as for the conduct of the general election campaign.

But first, as in our first volume, a brief synopsis of the system as it had developed by 2000 and as it continued to develop through the first four elections of this new century.

FREQUENCY OF ELECTIONS

Presidential elections are held every four years in years divisible by four. This is required by the Constitution in Article II Section 1 and could be changed or varied only by constitutional amendment. Thus whereas Britain had no general election during World War II—there was none between 1935 and 1945—the United States continued to hold its elections right through the war years, including a presidential election in 1944. Federal law fixes the election date as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Thus the election falls any time between the second and the eighth of that month.

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Article II Section 1 also lays down three requirements that a president must fulfill. First, the president must be a natural born citizen of the United States. There were some scurrilous charges that Barack Obama did not qualify on these grounds. Billboards appeared at roadsides saying simply “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” The “birther movement” called for Obama to release his official birth certificate, which he did in 2008. But rumors and accusations still persisted, leading to Obama’s release of his long-form birth certificate in April 2011. Second, the Constitution states that the president must be at least 35 years old. Our period of study includes the fifth youngest president, Barack Obama, at the age of 47. Finally, Article II states that the president must have been resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

Since the passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951 presidents are now limited to serving only two terms in office. This had applied to two presidents before our period of study—Eisenhower (1960) and Reagan (1988)—and to Clinton (2000) and George W. Bush (2008) during this period. Presuming that Barack Obama completes his second term, he will be ineligible for reelection in 2016. If a president comes to office between elections and he serves more than half of the term to which his predecessor was elected, that counts as his first term. If, however, he serves less than half of his predecessor’s term, he would be eligible for election to two full terms in his own right. Thus Gerald Ford who served the last two-and-a-half years of Nixon’s second term would have been eligible for election only once. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, who served only just over one year of Kennedy’s term was elected in his own right to a full term in 1964 and could have been reelected in 1968.

THE PROCESS OF CANDIDATE SELECTION

The process for choosing presidential candidates had evolved significantly over the last three decades of the twentieth century. The most significant raft of changes occurred as a result of the McGovern-Fraser Commission set up by the Democratic Party following their debacle in 1968. It was from this set of reforms and others like them that the presidential primary came to prominence. Ordinary voters would now choose national convention delegates and thereby eliminate the power of the party bosses who had hitherto controlled the conventions, and thereby the choosing of presidential candidates.

1. THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY

Writing some 40 years ago, the late David Broder stated categorically that “nothing that happens before the first presidential primary has any relevance at all.”² Nowadays, the nomination process for the party that does not control the White House begins almost immediately after the midterm elections—the ones held exactly two years before the date of the next presidential election. Indeed, in those election cycles when a president has just been elected to his second—and therefore his final—term, speculation about presidential candidates of both parties begins pretty much straight away, four years before the next election. In the run-up to the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on January 20, 2007, around 10 weeks after the 2006 midterm elections. Barack Obama made his formal announcement on February 10 and John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee, on February 28. But things were not always done this early. In the run-up to the 1980 election—the election with which we began the first volume—the eventual Republican nominee Ronald Reagan declared his candidacy on November 13, 1979, that is over eight months later in the cycle than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain 28 years later. The first change, therefore, that we have seen during this period is the lengthening of what we call “the invisible primary.” In those election cycles when an incumbent president is running for reelection he will not usually be challenged within his own party, therefore there is nothing happening in his party during this period. We shall see that this was the case for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2012. But in 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter had to spend the months prior to the election fighting off a significant challenge from a fellow Democrat, Senator Edward Kennedy.

“The invisible primary” is the name given to the period between the first candidate declarations and the voting in the first primaries and caucuses. The term was coined in 1976 by Arthur T. Hadley in his book of the same name.³ Hadley was drawing attention to what was then a new phenomenon in presidential politics, namely, that what occurred before the primaries and caucuses was of increasing importance. We shall see that a number of factors have led to the invisible primary both becoming longer in duration, but also less invisible. Amongst these factors are: the need to raise the increasingly large sums of money required to compete seriously for the presidential nomination of the major parties; the 24/7 news coverage afforded by the rise of the “new media”—cable news channels as well as the Internet, Twitter, Facebook, and Blogging.

There is now also a plethora of intraparty debates that occur both during the invisible primary and for a few months into the period of the actual primaries and caucuses. By October 2011, Dan Balz was rightly referring to these debates as “an unexpectedly important proving ground” for the prospective candidates.⁴ In 2008, there were 17 Democratic and 15 Republican debates during the invisible primary period, plus a further 9 Democratic and 6 Republican debates after the Iowa caucuses. That’s a total of 47 TV debates during the nomination season plus a further 3 during the general election period. Thus in 2007–2008, Barack Obama took part in 29 debates whilst John McCain participated in 24.

Not only do the prospective candidates debate with their party rivals but they also spend time campaigning and organizing, especially in the states that will hold the first raft of primaries and caucuses. Over the period we are studying in this volume, four states have gradually become established as the early voting states—Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina. By early November 2007—in preparation for the 2008 election—Barack Obama had opened more than 30 offices in Iowa. John Edwards, another serious challenger for the Democratic nomination, had over 20 offices across Iowa with more than 100 paid staff along with precinct leaders in around 80 percent of the 1,800 precincts.⁵ By mid-November 2011, the prospective Republican candidates had already made 204 visits to Iowa spending a total of 373 days in the state. The leading Iowa visitor was former senator Rick Santorum with 28 visits, spending a total of 73 days in the state. Santorum spent five consecutive days in Iowa between November 15 and 20, 2011, during which time he conducted six Town Hall events under the title “Faith, Family and Freedom.” In contrast, the Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had made only 6 visits to Iowa, spending only 7 days there.⁶ This shows that candidates will spend time in those states where they think their particular message will resonate. Iowa Republican caucus voters are known for their conservatism and were therefore more likely to be open to entreaties from the conservative former senator Rick Santorum rather than the more liberal former governor Mitt Romney.

Then there are other events that have developed during this invisible primary season. For Republicans there is the Ames Straw Poll, which occurs in the mid-Iowa town of Ames in the August before election year. The Ames Straw Poll event, which lasts all day, is a cross between a fun fair and a political fund-raising event. There are barbecues, stalls for candidates who want to set them up, and a speaking slot given to each candidate who attends. The Economist magazine described the 2011 event in the following terms:

The atmosphere of the event is more carnival than campaign rally. Candidates lay on food and entertainment to try to lure supporters to the venue. They even provide buses to ferry in adoring followers from the furthest corners of the state. Many of the punters appear to have come more for the free food and fun day out than for the vote itself. Children leapt about on bouncy castles like politicians jockeying for attention. One participant even admitted to being a Democrat who had come simply to hear Buddy Holly’s former band, which was playing for Rick Santorum.

The winner of the 2011 Ames Straw Poll was Representative Michele Bachmann who, as a result, garnered huge media publicity and significant increases both in her poll ratings and campaign bank balance. She received 28 percent of the votes, just a point ahead of another House member, Ron Paul. Yet for all the hours of media coverage and the many newspaper columns filled, just 16,892 people voted. It decides absolutely nothing. But it can—as Mrs. Bachmann discovered in mid-2011—give your candidacy a boost in terms of media coverage, fund-raising, and standing in the polls.

For Democrats, there is the Jefferson Jackson Dinner held in Iowa in November of the preelection year. The rousing speeches delivered at this event proved to be the turning point of John Kerry’s candidacy in 2003 and of Barack Obama’s in 2007. The morning after the 2007 dinner, David Yepsen, the most influential political columnist in Iowa wrote: “Should [Obama] come from behind to win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one the turning points in his campaign here.”⁷ He did and it was.

As well as debating, campaigning, and organizing, candidates need to spend a good deal of time during this period in fund-raising. This is the fourth important ingredient of this period of the campaign. And because presidential campaigns have become progressively more expensive, the preceding period of fund-raising has gotten longer and longer. Indeed, this is the main reason why candidates have begun their campaigns ever earlier. In 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama between them raised just over $220 million whilst their three leading Republican rivals raised just under $200 million. It ought not to escape our notice that neither of the winners of the “money primary” during this period—Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani—would become the party’s presidential candidate.

For some prospective candidates all this activity will initially be aimed at increasing their name recognition. If you’re Republicans like Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman in 2011, then you need to start by getting people to know who you are. It’s all rather reminiscent of the then unknown former peanut farmer and one-term governor of Georgia who in 1975 was going around key states, starting every speech with the line: “My name is Jimmy Carter, and I’m running for president.” Of course, some candidates need little or no introduction. If you’re Hillary Clinton in 2007 or Mitt Romney in 2011, then you already have high levels of name recognition.

2. THE PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES

The invisible primary leads directly into the real primaries—and caucuses. Before we consider the calendar, we need to clarify the terminology. A “presidential primary” is a statewide election to choose a party’s candidate for the upcoming presidential election. A presidential primary has potentially two functions: first, to show support for a candidate amongst ordinary voters; second, to choose delegates committed to vote for specific candidates at the party’s national convention later in the year. Most primaries fulfill both functions; some fulfill only the former and are therefore referred to as “nonbinding” primaries as no delegates are “bound” to vote for a particular candidate at the upcoming convention. These are sometimes called “advisory” or “preferential” primaries: they are merely advisory; they show only voters’ preferences. By 2012, the vast majority of states held a primary but a few—mostly the geographically large but sparsely populated states—held caucuses. Caucuses are a statewide series of meetings rather than an election. They last only an hour or two of an evening rather than having polling stations open all day. But rather than just dropping in to your nearest polling station as for a primary, caucus goers must attend the whole meeting. Thus it can take hours rather than minutes resulting in much lower turnout. Neither are caucuses a secret ballot: voters indicate their candidate preference by a show of hands. As Table 1.1 shows, the number of states in which both parties held caucuses has fallen from 16 in 1980 to 10 in 2012.

Different types of primaries can be identified by who can vote in them. An open primary is one in which any registered voter can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. A closed primary is one in which only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary and only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. A modified primary is one in which registered Republicans can vote only in the Republican primary and registered Democrats can vote only in the Democratic primary, but those registered as independents can vote in either party’s primary.

Table 1.1 States in which both parties held caucuses, 1980 and 2012 compared

Primaries can also be identified by how the delegates are allocated. A winner-take-all primary is one in which whoever wins the primary wins all that state’s delegates to the national party convention. These are permitted only in the Republican Party and have declined in use over this period. A proportional primary is one in which delegates are awarded in proportion to the vote that each candidate wins in the primary. All Democratic Party primaries are of this type. Most states set a threshold—a minimum percentage of votes a candidate must receive to win any delegates—usually fixed at around 10 or 15 percent.

State parties not only decide whether to hold a primary or a caucus, who can vote and how delegates will be allocated, but also when to hold their contest. Until 2012, there was a discernible trend to schedule primaries and caucuses earlier in the election year and to increasingl...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1.  The Making of the Process1
• 2.  2000: “A Uniter, Not a Divider”
• 3.  2004: “You Know Where I Stand”
• 4.  2008: “Change We Can Believe In”
• 5.  2012: “Our Journey Is Not Complete”
• 6.  Nominations and Elections in an Era of Partisanship
• Appendix: Presidential Election Results by State: 2000–2012
• Notes
• Select Bibliography
• Index