Political Change and Diversity2016 Election, Luke Perry, Ph.D.

Earlier in class I received some questions regarding the presidential election process in America. It’s long and complicated. I hope to now explain more about how things work.

A) Primary Election

For about a century primaries have enabled citizens to choose candidates for each party rather than party elite. Each state holds its own primary for each party in the form of an election (most common) or a caucus (less common). The state decides whether the primary is closed, where only registered party members can participate, or open, where both Democrats and Republicans can participate. Most states have closed primaries.

Candidates in the primary are competing for delegates. A candidate technically earns the nomination of a party by winning the most delegates. These are the people who vote at the national convention in favor of one candidate. In the Republican primary there are a total 2,470 delegates up for grabs. The successful nominee needs to win at least 1,236 delegates (50% plus 1) after each state and U.S. territory holds it primary. I’m focusing on the Republican primary because, barring an unforeseen circumstance, there is no doubt Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.

Each state and territory is granted a different number of delegates from each party, depending on its population and other factors. The delegates for each state all vote at the convention for the winner of the primary in their respective state or territory. Some states will have their delegates vote proportionally, meaning if a candidate wins 60% of the vote in the state, he/she earns 60% of the delegate count in that state. Other states are winner-takes-all.

All states that hold their primary between February 1 (when it begins) and March 15 must award delegates proportionally per Republican Party rules. The purpose is to keep the race competitive into March. After that, states get to choose for themselves whether they want to award delegates in a winner-takes-all fashion, meaning the candidate with the most votes in a state, earns all the delegates.

1

The primary calendar (when each state holds its primary) is very important. All states want to hold its primary as early as possible so they can have the biggest impact on the process.

Here is the beginning of the calendar for the Republican primary:

Iowa Caucuses (30 delegates) February 1, 2016

New Hampshire Primary (23 delegates) February 9, 2016

South Carolina Primary (50 delegates) February 20, 2016

Nevada Caucuses (30 delegates) February 23, 2016

As we discussed in class, Iowa and New Hampshire are always first. Candidates must win one of these states or do very well in both to remain in the race because the outcomes here have a big impact on national attention and fundraising. Interestingly, these are two very different states in terms of the electorate. In 2012, 57% of Republican Iowa caucus goers identified as Evangelical. As a result, evangelicals will be instrumental. This does not bode well for Donald Trump. Iowa is one of Trump’s weakest states despite his national popularity among Republicans. Only 16% of Evangelicals in Iowa currently support him compared to 24% of everyone else in the state.

Going to the Iowa State Fair and eating some type of meat or friedfood is an informal obligation of all presidential candidates as seenhere with Scott Walker.

Ben Carson has been the leader among likely caucus goes in the Iowa polls over the last few months, though Ted Cruz has gained steadily to now rival him. Both Carson and Cruz are very popular with Iowa Evangelicals. Trump and Marco Rubio are also competitive. The other candidates have only received single digit support, meaning they are more focused on New Hampshire.

2

New Hampshire’s electorate is more moderate and liberal than that of Iowa and many other states, particularly predominately Republican ones. Trump currently has a sizeable lead (27%). A handful of other candidates range from 6 to 12%, including Rubio (12%), Cruz (10%), and Carson (9%).

Jeb Bush

Statewide polls can fluctuate significantly, so this is only an early indicator of where things stand. Jeb Bush’s demise from presumed frontrunner to just 6% support in Iowa and New Hampshire is remarkable. He had significant initial advantages in name recognition and fundraising and still has a significant advantage in endorsements. This is Bush’s first campaign for presidency. It does not appear he has the talent or experience to be a premier candidate, no easy feat.

3

Ben Carson

In my professional opinion, the Republicans are now flirting with disaster. Donald Trump and Ben Carson are leading the polls in most states. Carson is the current favorite of social conservatives, while Trump is popular among other factions. Neither man has any political experience. However engaging on the surface, both are political lightweights. Their lack of credentials and experience would make it very difficult to win the general election against any Democratic nominee, particularly a formidable one like Hillary Clinton.

Republican Party leaders know this, which is why they delayed the beginning of the primaries and ensured the vast majority of the primaries will be winner-takes-all. Their bet is that Trump and Carson will not be able to sustain their current popularity, and will start to fade in March, if not sooner, as more experienced and qualified candidates are victorious in winner-take-all states.

Marco Rubio

As mentioned in the chat on Monday, I think Marco Rubio poses the greatest threat to Clinton. He can potentially appeal to younger, ethnically diverse voters, a core constituency of the Democratic Party, and is clearly the most talented campaigner on the Republican side.

4

B) General Election

America has fixed elections. The general election for president is held on the first Tuesday of November every four years. The Electoral College formally elects the president, not the American people. The people who created the U.S. Constitution didn’t trust citizens at large to elect such an important office, though they thought people should have input on the process. As a result, the idea was that citizens vote within their states and members of the Electoral College from each state were tasked with determining whether the popular choice was a good one. If so, they cast their electoral votes in favor of whom the people want. If not, they cast their vast their electoral votes for someone else.

Just years after the system was adopted it began to be reformed. Now the electors in all states just ceremonially cast their votes on behalf of the candidate that wins the election in their state. Most states legally obligate their electors to vote for the most popular candidate. Thus, electors have no influence on the election process, though the overall dynamic of how the Electoral College works is important.

Each state still gets a certain number of electoral votes that equals their number of Congressional representatives. This means that more populated states have a bigger influence on selecting the president. California has the most electoral votes (55) compared to several states that have the minimum (3).

This means that each election cycle each candidate tries to put together a path to victory. To win a candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes. In predicting the outcome of the election, analysts divide states into three categories. First, safe Democratic or safe Republican states are those that consistently vote for candidates of the respective party over time. Second, leaning Democratic or leaning Republican states are those that generally vote consistently for candidates of one party, but are not a lock. Finally, and most interesting, eight to ten states are swing states meaning these states don’t consistently elect candidates from one party over another. Below is analysis for 2016 from Larry Sabato, a prominent election analyst from the University of Virginia.

5

There are several things we to notice here. First, Democrats are safe in fewer states, but these states are the very populated, and contain more electoral votes than the larger number of states that are safe for Republicans. Second, the map illustrates how the Republicans are strong in the South and High Plains, as we’ve discussed, and Democrats are strong in the both coasts and to a lesser extent, the Midwest. Third, the Democratic candidate will have an easier path to victory than the Republican irrespective of who the nominees are. Finally, potential swing states include: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Most of these states have been swing states in the past.

Here is a breakdown of the swing states from 2012 from The Washington Post:

Colorado: One of the six of our swing states that Bush carried twice, Colorado seemed relatively immune to the Republican wave that swept the country in 2010. While two House Democrats fell, Democrats won the governor’s race (due, at least in part, to a Republican candidate disaster) and a very contested Senate race. The battle, as it always is in Colorado, will come down to the Denver suburbs.

Florida: President Obama’s three-point victory in 2008 was quickly erased in 2010 when Republicans won the governorship, the open seat Senate race and four U.S. House seats. Gov. Rick Scott (R) is not at all popular but if Romney puts Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on the ticket it could be the tipping point that Republicans need to win.

Iowa: If there was a single adopted home state for Obama in 2008 it was Iowa where he won the caucuses in January and then swept to a convincing nine-point win in the fall. But, like much of the upper Midwest, Republicans made major gains in Iowa in 2010 — including defeating a Democratic incumbent governor and easily reelecting Sen. Chuck Grassley (R). Obama’s convincing victory in 2008 also belies the inherent competitiveness of the Hawkeye State. Bush carried it in 2004 and then Vice President Al Gore eked out a .3 percentage point win in 2000.

6

Nevada: This is the most competitive small (by population) state in the country. Obama’s 12-point margin in 2008 obscured an incredibly competitive state where Bush won in 2004 and 2000. The collapse of the housing market (and the general economic struggle) has its epicenter in the state where the February unemployment was at 12.3 percent, the highest in the country.

New Hampshire: New Hampshire has a very interesting electoral past. It was the only state that Gore lost in 2000 that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. (Much of that has to do with regional loyalty, wethinks.) Obama carried the state by nine points in 2008 but Republicans won both House seats and an open Senate seat in 2010.

North Carolina: Of our nine swing states, Obama’s winning margin was narrowest in the Tar Heel State. (He won by .4 percentage points.) The Obama team clearly signaled that they believe they can win again in 2012 by putting the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The central question is likely to be whether Obama can turn out as many young people in this college-heavy state as he did in 2008. With massive 18-29 turnout, North Carolina looks doable for Obama. Without it, probably not.

Ohio: Of the larger (population) swing states, Ohio may be the toughest for Obama. Why? It’s an older and whiter population than, say, Florida, and those two constituencies have long been Obama’s weakest. And, while he won in 2008, it wasn’t by the overwhelming margin with which he carried other swing states. (Obama won Ohio by four.)

Virginia: If you are looking for the swingiest state in the country, the Commonwealth has a very good case to make. On the one hand, Obama was the first Democrat to win it since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. On the other, the massive growth of northern Virginia population-wise has changed the electoral calculus for the better for Democrats. If Romney puts Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell on the national ticket, that tells you all you need to know about the importance of Virginia.

Wisconsin: The Badger State will play host to not one but two major national elections this year. The first will the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker (R) in June; the second will be the presidential race in November. Democrats rightly note that they have carried Wisconsin in each of the last five elections and that Obama won it by a whopping 14 points in 2008. But, if you believe 2012 will look a lot like 2004 when it comes to the electoral map — and we do — then there is reason for Republican optimism. That year, Bush lost Wisconsin by just .4 percentage points to Kerry.

7

As you can see below, Obama won all the swing states in 2012 but North Carolina, which he barely won in 2008. This led to a short election night and landslide victory. For example, I was an in-studio TV election analyst on election night. When the results from the swing states started coming in all favoring Obama, it was clear Romney had no chance. It’s important to note that the margin of victory was very close, a few percentage points. This means that even though the election decidedly went in Obama’s favor, a shift of thousands of votes in these states, out of a total of 125 million, would have produced a very different outcome.

There are a few common misconceptions about U.S. elections. Elections are covered by journalists as if they are candidate centered and independents have an important role in determining the outcome. Candidates are certainly important, but presidential elections are largely determined by which party does a party job turning out their party members. Political Scientists have learned that most self-proclaimed independents hold political beliefs that clearly fit with Democrats or Republicans, even if they don’t identify this affiliation. Thus, a very small percentage of voters are truly independent.

U.S. elections are often called a “horse-race.”

8

Many Americans are confused about, and critical of, the Electoral College. One criticism is that one’s vote is futile if you live in a safe or leaning state, which consists of all but about 10 states. In other words, Republicans in New York and Democrats in Utah feel like their vote doesn’t matter.

A second criticism is that a candidate can win the popular vote (meaning he/she received the most total votes from citizens) and still lose the electoral vote. This has only happened four times in U.S. history. Most recently it occurred in 2000 when George W. Bush received less popular votes than Al Gore, but narrowly received more electoral votes. This happened because of how the votes Bush received were distributed among the states and thus translated into electoral votes. In hindsight, this was a pivotal election with 9/11 happening a year later.

9

Though unpopular, the Electoral College system will likely not change soon. It’s very hard to amend the U.S. Constitution. There are some other interesting approaches in the works, including one where states make a compact to cast their electoral votes proportionally, but significant participation is needed from the states for this to work.

I would like to point out one very important advantage of the system most people overlook. If the Electoral College is abolished, candidates would most likely confine the focus of the campaigns to the most populated cities. Campaigns have limited time and resources, so this would be the most efficient and effective approach. As a result, the vast majority of the country would receive much less attention from presidential attentions and potentially presidents in office.

10