PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS IN THE UNITED STATES. November 5, 2012 Hans Noel Georgetown University

PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS IN THE UNITED STATES November 5, 2012 Hans Noel Georgetown University

PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS IN THE UNITED STATES NOMINATIONS Origins of U.S. Primaries The Invisible Primary GENERAL ELECTION The Fundamentals Shape the Election The Electoral College

THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1787) STATES FORM THE UNION

IT S ALL ABOUT THE STATES State parties choose delegates to conventions, which choose candidates, who compete in the Electoral College for the presidency DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS

NOMINATIONS Origins of U.S. Primaries The Invisible Primary GENERAL ELECTION The Fundamentals Shape the Election The Electoral College

COORDINATING VOTERS Election of 1824: Popular Vote Electoral College Democrat-Republican (J.Q. Adams) 31% 84 Democrat-Republican (Jackson) 41% 99 Democrat-Republican (Crawford) 11.2% 41 Democrat-Republican (Clay) 13% 37 Election of 1828: Democrat Jackson vs. National Republican Adams

SOLUTION I: CONVENTIONS How it might work: Party delegates arrive. They deliberate. Name the candidate. How it came to work: Pre-convention coordination Campaigning among future delegates Then delegates arrive...

PARTY CONVENTIONS Roughly 1928, Parties began increasingly to settle on their nominee before the convention. Number of ballots to select a winner (log scale) 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 3 Ballots for Nomination, 1840-1968 (For open nominations only) 1 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1968 Year

PRIMARIES AS TESTS Primaries begin in early 1900s, progressive reform. For president, primarily used to demonstrate appeal, not to actually win delegates. e.g. John F. Kennedy in West Virginia

1968-1972 MCGOVERN-FRASER COMMISSION 1968: Democrats Hubert H. Humphrey Supporters of McCarthy (and RFK) unhappy with 1968 outcome. Commission to evaluate delegate selection Delegates must be chosen in a manner open to rankand-file party members. Not primaries, necessarily. Expected more caucuses. Democratic state legislatures impose on both parties.

1972 and 1976 MCGOVERN AND CARTER 1972, McGovern wins the system he designed. 1976, Carter comes to Iowa early. Momentum. The only candidate to campaign in every primary. Carter is not viewed as a successful president. Why not? Not able to work with own party.

Date State Carter Udall Jackson Wallace Brown Church Bayh Bentsen Shriver Harris January 19 Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 February 24 N.H. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 March 2 Mass. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 March 9 Fla. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 March 16 Ill. 0 0 0 0 March 23 N.C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 April 6 Wis. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 April 27 Pa. 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 1 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 May 4 D.C. 0 0 0 Ala. 0 0 0 Ga. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ind. 0 0 0 May 11 Neb. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 18 Md. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mich. 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 25 Ark. 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ky. 0 0 0 0 Nev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ore. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tenn. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 June 1 Mont. 0 0 0 0 0 R.I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.D. 0 0 0 0 0 June 8 Calif. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 0 0 0 0 0

SOLUTION II: PRIMARIES How it might work: Party delegates chosen by party voters. Delegates deliberate, name candidate. How it worked: Delegates pledged to candidates, but not chosen by party leaders. No deliberation The party s solution: Get involved sooner The Invisible Primary

FIGURE 6-1: Distribution of Endorsements by Contest 8 6 4 2 Muskie McGovern Humphrey Mills 1972 DEMOCRATS Jackson Lindsay 20. of governors endorsing Distribution of politically weighted endorsements before the Iowa caucus for presidential nominations, 1972 to 2004. Eventually nominee in black. 8 1980 DEMOCRATS 8 1980 REPUBLICANS 6 4 2 68.6% of governors endorsing 6 4 2 27.8% of governors endorsing Carter Kennedy Brown Reagan Bush Connally Baker Anderson Bayh Crane McCarthy Dole Harris 8 6 4 2 Dukakis Gephardt Gore Jackson 1988 DEMOCRATS Simon Hart 19.2% of go endorsing Babbitt 8 6 4 2 Bush Dole Kemp Robertson 1988 REPUBLICANS DuPont Haig 58.3% of go endorsing 8 6 4 2 1976 DEMOCRATS 11.4% of governors endorsing 8 6 4 2 1976 REPUBLICANS 100. of governors endorsing 8 6 4 2 1992 DEMOCRATS 44.8% of governors endorsing 8 6 4 2 1996 REPUBLICANS 90. of governors endorsing Jackson Udall Bentsen Carter Bayh Humphrey Harris Church Sanford Ford Reagan Clinton Harkin Kerrey Tsongas Brown Dole Gramm Alexander Buchanan Forbes Lugar Keyes Dornan 8 2000 DEMOCRATS 8 2000 REPUBLICANS 6 4 2 64.7% of governors endorsing 6 4 2 87.5% of governors endorsing Gore Bradley Bush Forbes Hatch 8 1984 DEMOCRATS 8 2004 DEMOCRATS 6 4 2 47.1% of governors endorsing 6 4 2 4.8% of governors endorsing Mondale Glenn Cranston Jackson Hart Askew Hollings McGovern Gephardt Dean Kerry Edwards Kucinich Clark Lieberman Sharpton Braun

FIGURE 9 5: Vote shares vs. Endorsements PARTY VOTERS ARE LOYAL Voters who self-identify as partisan vote much the same way as political endorsers. Independent voters are less persuaded. Partisan Voters y Independent Voters y 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 10 75% 5 25% 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 10 75% 5 25% 0.00 0.25 25% 0.50 5 0.75 75% 10 1.00 x 0.00 0.25 25% 0.50 5 0.75 75% 10 1.00 Endorsements x Endorsements is the percent of all politically weighted endorsements for each candidate in the year prior to the primaries, up to the day before the Iowa caucuses. Primary election vote shares are from Mayer 2007. Solid circles are Democrats. Open circles are Republicans.

2012 INVISIBLE PRIMARY Romney emerges as most broadly acceptable. But not broadly enough. Series of anti-romney candidates also not broadly acceptable enough. Not electable enough. Failure to coordinate early on Romney could have led to unexpected outcomes.

NOMINATIONS Origins of U.S. Primaries The Invisible Primary GENERAL ELECTION The Fundamentals Shape the Election The Electoral College

THE ECONOMY Incumbent's Share of Two-Party Vote 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 2008 1980 1960 1972 1956 1996 1988 1948 2004 2000 1968 1976 1992 1952 1964 1984-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 % Change in RDI

PARTY IDENTIFICATION A stable orientation (attachment, predisposition) toward a political party Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what? (IF REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT) Would you call yourself a strong (REP/DEM) or a not very strong (REP/DEM)? (IF INDEPENDENT, OTHER NO PREFERENCE:) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic party?

PARTY ID IN THE U.S. 1952 TO 2004 10 Str. R Wk. R 75% Lean R 5 Ind. Lean D 25% Wk. D Str. D 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

PARTY LOYALTY IN 2004 10 75% 5 25% Str. D Wk. D Lean D Ind. Lean R Wk. R Str. R Bush Vote in 2004

PARTY LOYALTY IN 2008 10 75% 5 25% Str. D Lean D Wk. D Ind. Lean R Wk. R Str. R McCain Vote in 2008

PARTY LOYALTY 1952-2008 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 Coefficient from logit model predicting presidential vote choice with party identification 0.50 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

VOLATILE POLLS 15 2008 SPREAD: OBAMA VS. MCCAIN 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 Nov 2006 Feb 2007 Jun 2007 Sep 2007 Dec 2007 Apr 2008 Jul 2008 Nov 2008 Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

LESS VOLATILE POLLS 20 2012 SPREAD: OBAMA VS. ROMNEY 15 10 5 0 5 10 May 2009 Dec 2009 Jul 2010 Feb 2011 Sep 2011 Apr 2012 Nov 2012 Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

2008

2012 SWING STATES pollster.com

THE ROAD TO 270 pollster.com

THE ROAD TO 270 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992 1988 1984 1980 Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton Dukakis Mondale Carter McCain Bush Bush Dole Bush Bush Reagan Reagan

YEAR TO YEAR STABILITY 1988 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1992 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1996 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1984 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1988 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1992 2000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2004 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2008 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1996 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2004

2012 SWING STATES pollster.com

THANK YOU