David Brady and Morris Fiorina: The 2008 Elections

Our last presentation of this morning includes David Brady and Morris Fiorina. By the way, just particularly for the new comers, there are there are three lunch spots, and you may David is a true university citizen here at Stanford. He is the Deputy Director and Senior Fellow here at Hoover. He is also the Bohn and Janice Arthur McCoy, Professor of Political Science and Leadership Values in the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and he is a professor in Stanford in its Department of Political Science. In addition, he is the Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. I just wish all those other entities would pay more of David's salary than but that's the price of the citizenship. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences David's areas of expertise include the US Congress, Congressional Decision making, US Election Results and the History of Political Parties in the United States. Among his many books are, "Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to George W Bush" and "Red and Blue Nation: Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics". Morris Fiorina is a senior fellow here at the Hoover institution as well as the Wendt Family Professor of Political Science at Stanford. Prior to coming to Hoover and Stanford in 1998, he was a professor of Government at Harvard. A member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, most research focuses on legislative and electoral processes with particular emphasis on the ways in which political institutions and procedures facilitated to start the representation of citizen's preferences. He has written many articles and books including "The New American Democracy", "Divided Government" and "The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence". His most recent book is "Cultural War? The Myth of a The Myth of a Polarized America." David and Morris topic this morning goes from concept, I think to now setting the stage of the 2008 elections. So join me in welcoming Dave and Mo. In my lifetime, there had been two we have gone through two presidential nominating system, so I will talk I will look over that, talk about the new system and how that affects the nominating process and partly ultimately the presidential election. The pre 1970 system by the way pleasure to talk to an audience who knows what a pre 70 system might be since most of my undergraduates were - weren't like in 1995 or something. The pre 70 system was characterized by bosses, professionals like the Mayor Daley of Chicago. 85 percent of the delegates were selected by caucuses not by non elected caucuses but the caucuses where you go and meet in the local precinct committee or precinct captains house and that would be tallied after the counting level etcetera. The candidate strategy was to convince the bosses that they were electable, there were reasonable candidates and could win. And the boss's goal in that system was to have, wanted the winner. Two if you going to have to have a loser, make it a loser of this more favorable with your interest and to cut a deal, and I get two brief stories on that in 1952 and our republican primary was republican nomination was closely contested between Taft and Eisenhower. And Eisenhower wanted California to stay study on the first ballet and the governor of California Earl Warren was the favorite son candidate, the Eisenhower people went to Warren and said, if you can keep California through the first ballet from switching to Taft which delegates preferred, and stick with you don't switch to Eisenhower but just stick with you as a favorite son candidate, the first supreme court nomination is yours. That's how Earl Warren got to be the Chief Justice. In 1960, Jack Kennedy, who was a moderate democrat, Jack Kennedy and Mayor Daley was also a modern democrat but Mayor Daley was the last person to sign on to Kennedy as a candidate, why? Because he wants to show, he was electable. And in the end, he finally did come on and he made an arrangement that the Chicago Skyway, which was about partially built, which was supposed to be allied people, but these get around Chicago but would be funded by a toll which wasn't working that that Kennedy if he got elected would in fact take that over it's part of the federal high way system and that's what happened. If you just re read Ted White's "The Making of the President, 1960" it's a great book, it's a great read, but you also find out that candidate spent all their time traveling around the country, not really much on primaries but most of their time trying to convince these bosses that they were the best candidates. So Kennedy's strategy was to play up his moderation, deal with the question of Catholicism and would he follow the Pope which he get with the Houston Baptist convention and his alleged lack of expertise in foreign affairs. LBJ focused on his experiences, majority leading when that wasn't working, he switched to a southern strategy, none of that worked. Final load under this system, that's the last time we have had multiple ballets for the presidency at a nominating convention in 1956, Stevenson was nominated on the third ballet. So the new system which, were more familiar with, reversed the situation 85 percent of the delegates are - now chosen from primaries. It increases the importance of New Hampshire and Iowa. It changed the parties, the party for instead of professionals, what happened was, you had amateurs and James Q. Wilson turns our activists come in and take over the party, often activists interested in single issues and then the strategy for and there was also an emphasis on representativeness and at the convention were blacks, Hispanics, women etcetera were these other groups representatives you have to have the representative sample couldn't be the way it had been on the past. The strategy then was to candidates had a strategy, well, where is my vote, what are my what issues am I going to focus on and how do I get my vote out. The result of that was that it over emphasized made the Democratic Party and the primaries further left than the average democratic voter. So the April voters were for democrats left of the center. And in the Republican Party the April voters or the February voters were lied up center which gave the left and the right wings in both parties more influence. So the spacing of the primaries was also important so there little own candidates from small states McGovern or a Jimmy Carter from George - you could actually do well, do better than expected in Iowa and New Hampshire and as you saw in the case of Carter actually win the nomination. Now once this system got started which was essentially driven by the democrats in the McGovern Commission, the problem was for the democrats that their party was so heterogeneous that candidates made promises in different states and it's sort of long time for the democrats to get a nominee and the longer it took to get a nominee, the more promises they had to make which hurt them in the November election and one way to look at that if I had more time I would show what I show undergraduates, I show former governor Jerry Brown of California and the way he dressed in his most recent presidential campaign. So in new and when he was in Colorado, he wore of course Patagonian red and green environmental turn up sweaters, then immediately going to Michigan of course he wore a hard hat, and union logos etcetera, etcetera. And as he moved on, the country changed side and finally when he got to California and more than he wore a hot tub. Now the new system the new system is just evolving, but the main thing is that states have moved up, they have just all the states here say retired of New Hampshire or tired of Iowa we having this one and the big states have moved up. And what this has done is its absolutely increased candidate uncertainty. That is the wise strategy used were you think, here is I want to do this in Iva, I am going to do this in New Hampshire, depending upon I do how I do in Iowa, then I changed my strategy, on depending on how I do in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is time to change the strategy. So just think of 2000; the 2000 2000 when George Bush didn't do so well and New Hampshire lost McCain but still had time to get back into South Carolina and and get the nomination. Now, with everything front loaded, uncertainty per candidates has increased which has met two things; A) means, no serous candidate can take a matching federal funds because they may need to do everything all at once. And secondly, the second the second thing that means is that, it favors people with lots of people with money and name, reputations already. So in 2007'08, the first four states were to be Iowa and New Hampshire which were traditional. Then Nevada the democrats wanted to go in Nevada because it's heavily Hispanic and probably and very high high percentage of labor union; and South Carolina because they had a large number of African Americans. Then the other states could follow. Well, what's happened to that is that that's all changed, and let me just show you how that's changed. So, here is the 2004 Presidential primaries and you can see by February 5th, the total number of delegates was 500 which is a 11 percent of the total number of delegates roughly a 11 percent of both parties. Here is 2008 as we know it. So on February 5th, 2500 or 60 percent of all the delegates will have been chosen. Now, every state has different strategies. Republics but republican states in general tend to be primary we did not take all; which makes a little easier for them to nominate while democratic states tend to be proportional as as just the way California runs things. Okay, so that that means this front loading, what does that do? Well, among other things it really helped Hillary and it has helped Julie and Annie. How it has helped Hillary? Well, if you go back to that first strategy the first four states; here strategy was since she is not a great retail politician, her strategy was to get by in Iowa and New Hampshire then you move into South Carolina into the Southern states and up. Then she was going to pull the bill card which is they have very favorable ratings among African Americans and the series of states that followed what the Bush were where where she was clearly the winner. The candidacy of Senator Obama was really a bad deal for her because it meant that her whole strategy had to shift. She suddenly had to do better in Iowa and New Hampshire. She had because she couldn't count on the Black vote in the Southern States where where, was it was divided and within a month, what had happened was Obama had come pretty close and was ahead in some of those key southern states. So, this was a blessing to her because she has already a lot of money with everything moved out front. What has happened is it's benefited her and I will show some of this. So this is the democratic nomination poll national. You can see that somewhere in April or may got a little closer by then, essentially she has been increasing her lead Senator Obama has fallen fallen away some what. Now on the Republican side, this benefits Giuliani because the standard interpretation was well okay. So, what's Giuliani going to do because Iowa or they might they might do okay in New Hampshire because they know where it is on the East-coast. But as soon as they got to South Carolina what's the problem? What are you going to do to show that picture up Rudy in a dress and that you then only have to just show the picture in South Carolina show a little tape 30 seconds of Rudy marching in Gay Pride Parade and that will take care of him in South Carolina. So he is gone. Well, this benefited him greatly because this means strategically go back to that other picture, he can spend a lot of time in California and New York States where he can win and said, "I don't need to worry about so much states where I can't win." And and the delegates are actually in California and they are in New Hampshire and they are not in New Hampshire, it's addressed. So now Giuliani now one or the last last point about the republican; the down side for republic's is that frankly, there is very little juice in that party. Most activists are not people have not yet committed. I will show you that at the end. This is the first time since we have reasonable data spontaneously going back to 1896; that Republicans have been outraged at the Presidential level by democrats. The first time since 1896, the Republicans are raising less money in the Presidential campaign. So you can see here that what has happened is McCain's falling, Thomson has moved up a little bit, Romney has raised himself a little bit. But essentially Giuliani has a a, remained to had in all of these polls. Now here is New Hampshire, now one of the things that show you how Hillary's campaign is. She has run a very solid campaign; is that the idea was, and and one of the proofs for that is, in Iowa and in New Hampshire where some her opponents like Edwards and others have focused their ads and attention; she is now ahead in Iowa and her lead in New Hampshire is now 22 points. So that is how she is letting a national campaign or she has run very well carry her ahead and that's carried over to New Hampshire. Now note the difference in in Iowa; Romney is ahead of Giuliani. And here is the latest New Hampshire poll; and in New Hampshire in Mitt Romney he is up by six points over Giuliani. Now that of course has been Romney's strategy. He has put everything in and I am going to win the first two Iowa and New Hampshire. There is enough time that I hope I get a boost out of that. What we really don't know now is is there enough time to get a boost across states or how how much will that press pick it up? We we just don't know that because it's so compacted. Now I am going to do a blue state. So here is blue state among democratic voters. And again you can see that in the state of California, Hillary has a 22 point lead. Now note, Giuliani in California is also doing well because of the various candidates, he is the one that's had the national strategy and so he is up by 17 points in California; which again shows what his strategy has benefited him to have all the primaries front loaded because he can say, "Well, I don't have to worry about all of them in South Carolina so much. I am concentrating on New York, California and the big states where the election will be won. Now here is a even in a red state, South Carolina; you can see that here even though Obama is doing here reasonably better, than he is in some other states. Hillary is still up by 11 points even in a a state in which a red state in which most of the a majority of the democratic primary voters will be Black. Now the South Carolina Republican poll show Giuliani if it was a regular slow pattern process that we normally had. Julie wants Giuliani would be in some trouble Fred Thomson is up by five points here and Giuliani is not running anywhere near as he was in the past. So, again the notion is that in these states where Giuliani would do badly, he is doing. He is not doing as well as he is, but given the uploading of these things, he is in much better shape than he would be because by February 5th, we are going to have chosen 60 percent of the delegates. Now here is a swing states. So you take a swing state like Florida and again, Hillary here is up by 34 points. So here campaign objectively has been just a first rate campaign and no no reason it should be. The Clines have been campaigning for the Presidency for over 20 years in one way or another and they have terrific set of fund raisers like Terry McAuliffe outstanding of what he does. They have great polsters, they have great campaign people, so so it's the here it's the Bill and Hillary machine that's just gone in the height here. And the proof that the campaign is doing very well is these sort of huge margin she has now just unlike Giuliani not just that got nationally but in the states where in in the states where across all states. Now here is the Florida Republican poll and here Giuliani again advantage. He is run by a plus eight percentage point lead. So he is doing better in big states than he is doing in others. And the fact that Florida has pushed up has has been a big help to him. Now here is the number on money; and if you take up Romney's money to himself, those numbers are are even worse. But that the first time that's ever that's happened as far as we there are number the reasonable Presidential spending numbers spotting at some what later back you go. But, as far as we can tell back to 1896, this was the first time that a Democratic Presidential Candidate has raised more money. And my view about that is frankly that was not all that much interest yet in the Republican days whether that been sort of the Northern California Libertarian ways or the base Southern Christian base in the South. Not a lot of interest for any particular candidate yet. And here we have the bidding pools this, the Iowa bidding pool, the numbers in the British major British bidding pools of the same, you will see blue line shows that Hillary has overwhelmingly favored and noticed the republicans are all over the place. Giuliani is still a little bit ahead but Thomson has come up, McCain has gone down. Romney has come up a bit and so so the bottom line on all of this is that this new campaign system which she is just involved just evolving has advantaged Giuliani and it has advantaged Hillary Clinton. It has advantaged her more than him for the reasons I have already specified. But he does have some advantage by that front loading and still stands probably the best chance of getting the nomination. Okay. Now here is the latest now that's the difference between them they are not getting the nomination and here is that latest quick Presidential Election poll which both of them Morris and I regard as a a reliable poll. Nationally, Hillary beats Rudy, 43 to 39 and she has a higher percentage over Mitt Romney. So, I think that's my part. Good morning. It's nice to see so many of you again. We decided before hand that David would take most of his time doing the formal presentation, I will use most of my time awaiting your questions. I really what to emphasis this. The word caveat is in all caps, bold faced, italics, underlined. And I though of that I would have done and read too with in a Courtney. But a year in politics is an eternity and what do you get the more you realize how true that is. If you think back in 2004 around this time, people in Howard Deans campaign were talking about what cabinet post they will have under the new administration. And in 2006, even four or five months before the election George Allen's campaign was looking ahead his Presidential run this year. So things change, they change all the time, that's why journalists can write about politics for the whole year advance because things are constantly changing. So even if we can't see them, we can't imagine them, I guarantee something is going to change. So whatever we say today, we are talking about; "If the election were held today, this is what it looks like this is what traditions are." Now lets spend a few minutes here on what's going to happen in the non-presidential race we are not what's going to happen? What could happen if the election were held under traditions as they exist today? In the last election, the republicans lost both chambers of congress. This was not considered to be likely six months before the fact, but it became increasing likely in terms of the house and all those considered extremely unlikely than democrats could run the table and take control of the Senate, and they did it. Now in the aftermath of that election, republicans were not but 30 seats down. In the aftermath of that election, some republicans consoled themselves by saying that, "Work whenever there is a tide like this we tend to get them back next time. Look ahead for example, in 2008 there are going to be 61 democrats sitting in seats that George Bush carried in 2004. Only eight republicans were sitting in seats that joined Kerry carried in 2004. That logic normally has a good deal of validity in the United States. When there is a big tide for example, the democratic tied in 1964 or the republican tide in 1980; when the tide goes back out, it tends to carry a lot of people out who were carried in. The election of 1966 was a big republican year. Election of 1982 was a big democratic year. The problem the republicans faced this time is that the conditions that gave rise at the tide in 2006 still exists and may even be getting worse. That is, George Bush's approval rating is continuing in the low 30's. The war shows no sign of being a over about 2008. The economy some people think is going to sputter and get a little worse during the election year. So the conditions it gave rise to the reaction in 19 2006 could still exist or very likely still exists in 2008. And the republicans still have some more hanging fruit. There are 33 republicans; they are back to the marginal districts; that is the 55 percent of the vote of west. In 2006, you congratulate the democrats who are targeting those seats. The democrats in turn have 28 marginal seats and those people who came in and those nearer elections in 2006 may survive again in 2008 if the conditions are keep running in a favorable direction. Republicans have more open seats, some of them were safe but some of them are that seems like one republican is he is on retiring almost every week. And the Charlie Cook, David just referred to him that they are tracking the races and of the 20 most competitive congressional races in the country today, 14 are in republican seats. The forecasting models we have developed which frankly haven't worked as well in recent years but there is enough spaces in the house that you can do statistical forecasts. And they are predicting plugging in the conditions Bush approval, economic conditions, the generic congressional vote. They are predicting at the moment a loss of may be six to 12 seats the republicans in 2008. So it's not a disaster by any means, but but losses. Republicans are in have much greater concern about the Senate. As I mentioned the democrats were in the table taking six seats in the last election to take control, the republicans are defending almost two thirds of the seats up this time, they have 22 seats up, the democrats only have 12, four of the republican seats are in states that Kerry carried and all of those and combines are in difficulty. They are all facing tough races. Five open seats, several of these are also in considerable difficulty. And then of course Larry Craig just won't go away and that seat should be safe but who knows we stay in it and a bit around and what might happen. And then Stevenson in Alaska is under investigation and he is got a pretty solid challenger, and if he is indicted and doesn't step down, that seem too, it would be very much in play. In contrast, the democrats would only have 12 seats up, three of them in Bush states, but they are all okay except for one, Mary L. Landrieu in Louisiana, is the one person who is in trouble for the democrats partly because a lot of black constituencies have been moved out of state and then she has been weakened by Katrina, no open seats on the democratic side. And taking a closer look at the republicans, Sununu and Collins Sununu in New Hampshire and Collins in Maine are both facing up real fights. The the Bush administration really seems to be doing a good job of eradicating the Republican Party in New England that they are really they are in different party, those are very likely to go borrowing something something new. Coleman in Minnesota, it's considered to be running in a very tough race, but it's just hard to imagine that a well funded, reasonably component and incumbent is going to be defeated by a comedian. And the the challenge appears to be Al Franken on the democratic side but he is the all time favorite to win. But nevertheless, people say Coleman's in a tough race. And in Smith up in Organ again in the tough race with the good challenger, but it has been working hard for several years not trying to distance himself from the Bush administration and trying to establish independent presence. So you know, at least probably you know, decent threat to pull through. The open seats Virginia is becoming a blue state. That is the Washington suburb is expanded, the complexion of Virginia is changing, the democrats and Warner have a very attractive candidate. The republicans may be or very likely to have a really tough primary fight between Davis the moderate from the north and the conservative, so what was his name I forgot his name but anyway, that would further weaken the party going to the general election. Colorado, the republic has been barely hanging on with that seat for a couple of elections and there is an Udall running now, that's seems like a tip. In New Mexico, it all depends on Richardson, if Richardson pulls out of the presidential race and goes to the senate that's considered virtually a lock. And Nebraska was until just the end of last week when Bob Kerrey announced that he would not be running for the Nebraska seat, that was considered to be at at best to toss up for the republicans if Kerrey came into the race. The democratic campaign committees were actually running on the theme of a filibuster proof majority in 2008 that is picking up nine seats and have to get to 60 in the filibuster proof. That seems extremely unlikely, the democrats would have to hang on to [0:28:15] ____ seat, they would have to defeat all the incumbent's defeat take three of the open seats and pick up a few more surprises somewhere like like Alan in Virginia last time. So it seems extremely unlikely. On the other hand, six months before the last election, the odds the democrats could run the table and take the senate also seemed extremely unlikely, so I am sure there is some seat being lost over this. And again just talking about money in the house, I mean this big picture is the same, the democrats are outracing the republicans, there in the house it's by a good margin most of the money in house elections comes in the form of personal contributions with also some bad contributions. In the senate, the various party committees have been taking on an increasingly prominent role through coordinate expenditures and independent expenditures, they could move money around the country. As you can see here, the democratic senate campaign committee has 50 percent more money than the republicans do. They are playing defense and nobody wants the seat the Louisiana seat, they are on the offense and all the other seats. Republicans on the other hand with much, much money are playing defenses assured in a whole lot of seats and can be on the offense in only seat. So unless the situation changes, there is just a lot of fact that is cumulating to work against the the republicans and the congress. Now there are also 100s of state elections going on next year, the most of the governors are elected during the off years, so so there is only 14 out there divided seven republican, seven democratic. Republicans took a bidding the states was in sort of a 100 legislative seats in the last election. They brought it through 1994 and peaked in 2004 they have been slipping, the purple states here are the states that have divided government that is the governor and at least one half is a different party from at least one half in the legislature and half the states in US in contrast to the red-blue presidential map half of the states in the US are purple. That is both parties have shown capable winning majorities for one institutional level over another but the other half were about speaking the split between the red republican states and blue democratic states. The long term problem with taking a big bidding again this time in the states is you are getting close to the 2010 census, now be redistricting after that census. So in fact the republicans keep taking a bidding in the legislatures and the governor's races, they will be in unless the opposition when the redistricting comes around after the next census. Tongue-in-cheek, people have pointed out that it might be good for the republicans at all other levels to lose the presidency this time, because there is a general tendency to to gain seats in the half year election of all levels and so if you want to take back some of the state legislatures, takes back the house and everything and it might actually be I say it's tongue-in-cheek, but I mean there is the statistical tendency. That's the end and now we are happy to evade any of your questions