September 8, 2007 7:51 PM
2008 Presidential Campaign
The Presidential primary campaign is a play in multiple acts. Act II has begun.During Act I the major candidates, for the most part, played quite nicely together and were basically positive. In fact, they might have been described as downright civil to each other.
During Act II the gloves have come off:
* Clinton described Obama as being "irresponsible and frankly naive." Obama responded that the Clinton campaign was "concocting a 'fabricated controversy'."
* Obama called Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite." Clinton responded that Obama was "getting kind of silly."
* Dodd described as "irresponsible" Obama's seeming to support military action against Al Quaeda in Pakistan.
* Obama hit back at other candidates who criticized him on foreign policy issues, commenting that he found it amusing that he was being attacked by those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in this generation.
* Obama referenced Clinton in saying that conventional wisdom passes for experience in Washington.
* Edwards took a shot at Clinton because she had appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine.
* Edwards, talking about all of the picket lines he had walked in the last couple of years, was challenged by Biden, who asked him how many picket lines he had walked while he was in the Senate.
* After Clinton seemed to suggest that a terrorist attack in the next few months would advantage the Republicans -- Dodd called her remarks "tasteless," and Edwards and Richardson attacked her for dealing with terrorism in a political context.
* Romney charged that New York City, under Giuliani as Mayor, became a magnet for illegal immigrants, and Giuliani said that Romney stood by, looking the other way, as Governor of Massachusetts, when cities and towns in that State declared themselves as "sanctuaries" for immigrants.
* Fred Thompson took a shot at Giuliani for Giuliani's strong support of gun control when he was a Federal prosecutor and as Mayor of New York.
* McCain has called Romney a "flip flopper."
Theoretically, the Iowa caucuses will be held January 14th, followed by the Nevada caucuses on January 19th, the New Hampshire primary on the 22nd, and the South Carolina primary on January 29th. No other event would occur before February in the Democratic primary process. And, in the Republican contest there would be no contests at all prior to February 5th.
Scratch all of the above. There is no way that this exact combination of events will occur in that order. In fact, don't be surprised if you get up on Thanksgiving morning, 2007, and realize that the Iowa caucuses were the previous Monday and the New Hampshire primary is the next Tuesday.
The following seems to have occurred, so far, to change the official scenario.
Florida decided to move its primary to the same date as the South Carolina primary. This caused the Democratic Party Rules Committee to strip Florida of all of its delegate votes.
The South Carolina Republicans decided to move their primary to the 19th. The net result is that New Hampshire will move to the 12th or sooner because of its State law that requires that its primary be at least 7 days before any other primary.
Now Michigan is moving its primary to January 15th. The Democrats will likely take away its delegates as well.
Wyoming Republicans have decided to hold their caucuses on January 5th.
That also means that the New Hampshire primary will move to no later than January 8th.
And then there is Iowa, where State law says that its caucuses will be held at least 8 days before the 1st primary.
That takes the caucuses to December 31st. Well, of course, the caucuses will not be held on New Year's Day.
The Republican National Committee is likely to take similar actions against Florida and Michigan, and perhaps South Carolina and Wyoming. The apparent penalty is to take away half of a State's delegates.
Does it make any difference if these States lose their delegates to their respective national Party conventions?
Probably not.
Long before the convention, the nominees of both Parties will be known. As soon as the two conventions convene each will hear a report from its Rules committee, likely recommending that the delegates from the offending States not be seated. Of course, by that time the nominee will effectively control the floor, so that either the Rules committee will, at the request of the nominee reinstate the delegates, or an effort will be made to get the delegates to overrule the recommendation of the Rules Committee.
All this proves once more that the conventions as we known them are at best anachronisms, and at worst a major time and money drag. It is long past the time to rethink their place in the scheme of Presidential politics.
Democratic Party leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, as well as National Party Chair Howard Dean, called upon the candidates for the Democratic Party nomination, to honor the schedule established by the Democratic National Committee.
Obama, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, and Clinton have announced they will honor the Democratic Party schedule. Ostensibly, this means that the candidates agree not to campaign in those two States and any others that try to jump ahead of February 5th.
Apparently, the pledge does not include fundraising. Can a candidate show up in one of those States to attend a fundraiser on his or her behalf? If that is permissible, does it include a fundraiser that only charges $10-25 per head? Can a candidate send mail, telephone calls or emails into those States? Stay
tuned.
Looking at the current polls in Florida and Michigan this does not appear to be a "politically expensive" decision for anyone but Clinton. As of mid-August, Clinton has a 21-point lead over Obama in Florida, and a 16-point lead in Michigan.
In 2004, the 4 States that the Democratic National Committee has "allowed" to proceed with primaries and caucuses before the February 5th window opens had a total of 646,900 persons participating.
This represents 3.8% of the total of 16,804,000 who participated in all of the primaries and caucuses that year.
| Total turnout | % of Kerry G.E. vote | % of VEP | |
| Iowa | 124,900 | 16.8 | 6% |
| N.H. | 219,800 | 64.5 | 23% |
| S.C. | 293,800 | 44.4 | 10% |
| Nevada | 9,000 | 3.3 | 0.6% * |
* To be fair, given the work being done in Nevada in anticipation of its 2008 caucus, these numbers do not fairly represent the level of participation that is likely in 2008. [Data for the above from Pollster.com]
Republican state party organizations were required to submit their primary/caucus plans to the Republican National Committee. How the party's Rules Committee deals with those plans remains to be seen.
Americans say they are generally quite comfortable with an African-American, a Jew, a woman, an Hispanic or President of the United States.
| Entirely/Somewhat Comfortable | Somewhat/Entirely Uncomfortable | |
| African American | 86 | 12 |
| Jewish | 81 | 17 |
| Woman | 79 | 19 |
| Hispanic | 75 | 24 |
| Mormon | 63 | 34 |
| [ABC/WP 7/07] |
A substantial majority say they would vote for an Africancan, a woman, an Hispanic or a Mormon, but they don't think America is as ready to vote for those folks as they are.
| Would you vote for | Is America ready elect | |
| African American | 92 | 59 |
| Woman | 85 | 58 |
| Hispanic | 80 | 40 |
| [Newsweek 7/07] |
Most significant candidates for President have declined to take public financing in the primary period. There is some question whether the two ultimate Party nominees will take general election public financing. This has led to increasing calls for public financing of elections. But public response is
not all that clear.
In a WP/Kaiser/Harvard survey in May 2007, respondents were asked whether they favored a system of public financing funded by the Federal government, a system of private financing by individuals and political groups, or a combination of the two. 16% chose public financing, 25% private financing, and 55% a combination of the two.
In a Gallup poll taken a month earlier, 22% chose public financing, 45% chose private funding, and 28% chose a combination of the two.
In a survey in early June, respondents were asked whether they supported a system under which candidates would receive grants from a public election fund and could not spend private donations. 74% supported such a system. Partisan support ranged from 80% of Democrats and 78% of Independents to 65% of Republicans. [Lake Research Partners/Bellwether Research]
In an August survey, public financing by the Federal government was deemed unacceptable by 57% of respondents. [Gallup 8/07]
And in a totally open-ended question as to what the number one problem is facing the country, that the respondents and their families are most concerned about, campaign finance reform did not even hit the 1% level. [Battleground Poll 2007 Tarrance Group & Lake Research Partners]
The point is often made that early State polls, e.g., 6 months before an election event, are not particularly good indicators of what will ultimately happen. That is certainly true. If you have any doubts, just track through the polling from the 2003 Democratic primary race.
However, these polls do have an important effect. A good poll for a particular candidate means a great deal to the psyche of the volunteers and workers for that candidate.
So, when in late July, the ABC/WP survey showed that Obama had moved up in Iowa to a virtual tie with Clinton and Edwards, it surely gave heart to his paid and volunteer staff in that State.
Days to Go
(as of 9/8/07)Iowa Caucuses - 128?
New Hampshire Primary - 136?
February 5, 2008 - 150
General Election Day - 423
Inauguration Day 2009 - 500
[NBC-First Read]
