The Guardian UK
Tuesday 05 February 2008
This is not just the most joyously unpredictable election in US history, writes Michael Tomasky. It is fundamentally about whether America is finally ready to give liberalism another chance.
Ever since those days and weeks in late 2006 when this longest of presidential campaigns began to assume form, commentators have been reaching back into history to find the most apt and dramatic comparison to insert into that evergreen sentence of American punditry, the one that begins "Not since..."
Some landed on 1976, when contested nomination battles in both parties lasted well into the spring and summer. Some went back to 1952, which is the last time both parties' nominations were truly "open" - no incumbent president seeking re-election, and no vice-presidential heir apparent on either side.
Some, anticipating the possibility that the nomination of one party or the other might not be settled by the time of the party's summer conventions, invoked 1924, that tuneless cacophony of a year when the Democrats weren't able to unite around a candidate until the 101st ballot at their convention.
And finally, the more erudite among them showed off by mentioning, say, 1876 or 1828 (never mind, you don't need to know; they were messy).
Now, with the race in full swing, we can say that all of those analogies are wrong. My "not since" sentence consists of three words: Not since never.
I'm not usually given to hyperbole or (I hope) to purple prose, but I believe this to be absolutely true: There has never been a presidential race quite like this in the history of the United States.
It has genuinely impressive candidates. It has a grand theme. It's really, meaningfully, about something. It may result in a woman or, perhaps more incredibly still, a black person being the president of the United States. Or, if not one of them - this is footnote-ish by contrast, but still quite interesting - maybe, then, the oldest person ever elected president, a man who would, if he served two full terms, have 80 candles to blow out on his last White House birthday cake.
And not least, as spectator sport, it has been joyously, raucously unpredictable. Hillary Clinton's eleventh-hour comeback win over Barack Obama in New Hampshire is the single most stunning election result I've seen in 20 years of doing this stuff. And there have been numerous other surprising, even stupefying, plot twists besides.
But let's talk big picture.
The grand theme of this contest, to hear the candidates tell it, is "change." That's a shallow buzzword that doesn't say much, and to listen to the candidates strain to persuade the public that "I represent change too!" (Obama was first) is to be reminded of schoolchildren in pursuit of gold stars from teacher.
But amazingly enough, it's not entirely inapt. This election is fundamentally about whether a majority of Americans are prepared to give liberalism another chance. The story goes like this. The modern conservative movement in America was founded in the mid-1950s. We had conservatives before then, Lord knows. But this was something new. This was conservatism as a dedicated project.
Clarence "Pat" Manion, a dean at the University of Notre Dame and a founder of the movement, convened groups of conservatives to get together and start infiltrating (legally and above board - by winning elections) their local Republican parties. Rich conservatives in various walks of life started putting massive amounts of money into conservative-movement politics - financing candidates, starting ideological magazines, publishing rightwing books. If you drink Coors beer or have ever visited the California theme park called Knott's Berry Farm, you've pitched in yourself.
The Republican party of the day, I should note, was a mostly moderate amalgam. Dwight Eisenhower as president embraced the New Deal. There is a quote of Ike's, famous now in the era of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and piquant enough in light of current circumstances to warrant reproducing here in full:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labour laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid."
Ah well. By 1964, this faction had taken over the Republican party. It nominated Barry Goldwater. But he was massacred that November by Lyndon Johnson, and the wise observers of the day declared this strange conservative thing, this malformed aberration, mercifully deceased.
But it turned out that that was liberalism's high-water mark. The changes, political and cultural, set in train that year - the House of Representatives passed the historic civil rights bill the very day after we Americans first saw the Beatles, on Ed Sullivan's TV show - had, within four or five years' time, unleashed uncontrollable forces.
By that time, the American left - broadly construed to include everyone from Hubert Humphrey to Noam Chomsky - was at war with itself. I expect you know the litany: on race, women's rights, the war in Vietnam, the generation gap, Israel, the developing world and more, liberals were at loggerheads. In the 1970s, things got worse - crime, energy crises, a hostage crisis, malaise and turpitude. Meanwhile, conservatives - who believed some of their negative press in 1964 and retreated for a time - decided enough was enough and rededicated themselves to pouring still more millions of dollars into building an infrastructure of interest groups and media outlets to promote conservative ideas and denigrate liberal ones. They met with a willing public.
Then came Ronald Reagan - history's first movement conservative president. Obama was right, in his now-famous remark of three weeks ago, the one the Clinton campaign ran with (and distorted, eventually to its detriment in South Carolina), that Reagan changed the country in profound ways. It's true that a sizeable minority did not care for the man or his politics. But for most Americans, the Reagan years showed that conservatism worked and had answers.
For 25 long years, it remained so. It remained so even during the term of Bill Clinton, who felt he had no choice but to govern as a moderate progressive in a fundamentally conservative era. It remained so after September 11.
But many Americans' faith in conservatism was injured on the streets of Baghdad and finally died in the flood-soaked streets of New Orleans.
Furthermore, Americans look around themselves and see a middle class that is prosperous but deeply anxious; a healthcare system that works reasonably well, except when you really need it; a world that hasn't reacted very positively to our attempts at bullying it; a planet that might indeed be suffering for our, pardon the pun, sins of emission.
Americans have given up on Bush. That much we know. What we don't know is whether they've given up on his ideology. It may be they look at Bush's failures and see an ideological failure, a failure of conservatism. But it may also be that they see only an execution failure, a failure of competence.
So these are the questions - and they're very important and profound questions - this election will answer: will American voters say that they want a "change," to go back to the key word, only from incompetence to competence, keeping basic conservatism intact (John McCain, arguably)? Will they say they want a shift away from conservatism, but the cautious and incremental shift that Clinton represents? Or will they want the broader change that Obama signifies - a change not dramatically to the left of Clinton in ideological terms, because he is not, but potentially a vast change in the political culture, toward something that does not accept our red v blue divide and culture wars as a given and would redeem America's most solemn original sin of racism?
Liberals around Washington, indeed around the country, are upbeat because it feels like it might be one of those moments. It feels like enough Americans are tired of conservatism, not just of incompetence. It feels like enough of them see that conservatism doesn't have good solutions to some of the new problems America confronts. Not that many Americans, still, are willing to call themselves liberal; just about one adult in five. And no one is hankering for a return to the 1970s or seized with a burning desire to pay higher taxes. But the current mood in the country seems to indicate that Americans are willing to give liberalism that second chance.
And if liberalism gets that chance and succeeds, the modern conservative movement will enter into a period of introspection and recrimination unlike any it's ever experienced. What in this context does "succeed" mean? As little as two things. If a Democratic president and Congress - and everyone expects that Congress will stay in Democratic control - can 1) pass healthcare and 2) articulate and implement a strategic foreign policy vision that defends America and charts a new course in the world, then Americans will embrace this new liberalism. Movement conservatism will be forced to transform itself so utterly as to be unrecognisable as its erstwhile self; which is another way of saying that, short of its 60th birthday, it will in essence perish.
That's all that's at stake.
But of course most voters don't think about these big ideas. Elections are always about a thousand things, little things, some silly things, some not-so-silly things, emotional things. Ah, emotion; now that's a very political word.
In the past year or so, there has arisen a certain vogue in brain research and political behaviour. Why, of all things, brain research? Because some scientists have been studying how citizens arrive at political decisions. They have concluded that voters use emotion far more than reason.
We should always remind ourselves that this election will be about these things, too. It already has been. Clinton did not reason her way to victory in New Hampshire - voters felt sorry for her after she showed a human response to attacks many saw as unchivalrous. Most people couldn't tell you three specific policies Obama advocates, but they sure can tell you how he makes them feel.
Those researchers have also found that among the various emotions, the negative ones - anger and especially fear - are usually better motivators. They have even found quite specifically that scenes or thoughts of death make most people adopt more conservative political views (see The Political Brain by Drew Westen, from which this paper ran extracts in August last year).
Republicans know this, and they understand what they're doing when they allege that Democrats won't protect the country from more terrorist attacks. Democrats except for Bill Clinton haven't understood the role of emotion very well. Al Gore and John Kerry seemed to think voters did things like read the details of healthcare plans. And they responded very weakly to attacks, allowing conservatives to define them in many voters' eyes (remember how the swift boat veterans tarnished Kerry).
So another interesting question: will the Democrats finally understand that a campaign isn't a college debate but is an obstacle course that must be negotiated with a velvet glove on one hand and a switchblade in the other?
We head now to super-duper Tuesday. We will probably have a candidate on the Republican side, McCain. On the Democratic side, if Clinton wins all the large states, especially California, she will probably be able, to use a metaphor from American football, to run out the clock on Obama, eventually winning - one officially "wins" by amassing 2,025 delegates, which one does by winning state primaries and caucuses - in March or April.
But if Obama does well tonight, and especially if he wins California, look out. The inevitable candidate, Clinton, will start looking awfully ... uninevitable. It would be fitting to the extent that that's the kind of election it's been. Remember Rudy Giuliani? He led his Republican opponents almost the entirety of 2007, only to experience in 2008 one of the most astounding flameouts in presidential history. Giuliani was on top back when McCain was finished, dead, kaput.
If you've been watching, you know what I mean. And if you haven't - well, start tuning in. This will be one to tell the grandkids about.
--------
Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America.
Super Tuesday: CQ Politics's Eight Questions and Answers
By Rachel Kapochunas
Congressional Quarterly
Tuesday 05 February 2008
1. How many states are holding contests Feb. 5, and what types of contests will be held?
A total of 24 states, listed here, will hold presidential nominating events on Tuesday. Contests will be held by both parties in each state unless otherwise noted.
Alabama: Primary
Alaska: Republican presidential preference poll and Democratic caucuses
Arizona: Primary
Arkansas: Primary
California: Primary
Colorado: Caucuses
Connecticut: Primary
Delaware: Primary
Georgia: Primary
Idaho: Democratic caucuses
Illinois: Primary
Kansas: Democratic caucuses
Massachusetts: Primary
Minnesota: Caucuses
Missouri: Primary
Montana: Republican caucuses
New Jersey: Primary
New Mexico: Democratic primary
New York: Primary
North Dakota: Primary
Oklahoma: Primary
Tennessee: Primary
Utah: Primary
West Virginia: Republican convention
2. What times might election results be reported?
The West Virginia Republican convention begins meeting at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, so those results may be available by early afternoon.
For the rest of the Super Tuesday states holding primaries, polls begin closing at 7 p.m. eastern time in Georgia and continue to 11 p.m. eastern (8 p.m. pacific time) in California, with most closing at 8 p.m. eastern.
For states holding caucuses, most begin at 9 p.m. eastern time, so the results could begin coming in after 10 p.m. eastern, though most will be later.
3. What is the difference between a primary and a caucus and a convention?
A primary is a conventional election in which participants cast votes in private booths or cubicles or by absentee ballots. Some primaries on Feb. 5 are "closed," meaning only those voters registered with a party can participate in that party's contest; in some other states, independent or "unaffiliated" voters may participate in the party primary of their choice. Several states with Super Tuesday events do not register voters by party, so their primaries are "open" to all voters.
A caucus is essentially a party meeting at which participants express support for their favored candidates. The process varies from state to state. In Alaska, for example, Democrats participating in the Feb. 5 caucus will literally "fan out" and go to separate corners of the caucus rooms to publicly assert their support for a particular candidate. In other states, votes or secret ballots are held at the caucuses to determine the overall levels of candidate preferences.
A convention is another type of presidential nominating meeting that is similar to a caucus, only participation is limited, with party officials usually predominating. West Virginia Republicans are holding a convention on Feb. 5.
4. How many delegates are at stake on Feb. 5?
On Feb. 5, 2,062 Democratic delegates and 1,048 Republican delegates are at stake. That's just slightly more than 50 percent of the Democrats' total delegates and 44 percent of the Republicans' total delegates, excluding delegates that the national parties have withheld from states that violated their scheduling rules for this year's presidential nominating events.
5. Which Feb. 5 states provide the richest delegate prizes to the candidates?
Several delegate-rich states are holding contests on Feb. 5, which has made them prime targets for the candidates.
Population size is the leading factor in determining how many delegates each state receives. But there are other factors. For instance, a state can earn bonus delegates from a major party that has done particularly well there in presidential contests and other elections for statewide offices.
California, by far the nation's most populous state, tops the Super Tuesday list for both parties with 441 Democratic delegates and 173 Republican delegates. New York, the nation's third most-populous state and the second biggest voting on Super Tuesday, is next with 280 Democratic delegates and 101 Republican delegates.
After that, the Feb. 5 states with the most delegates vary by party.
On the Democratic side, Illinois holds 185 delegates , followed by New Jersey and Massachusetts with 127 and 121, respectively. All of those states have been Democratic strongholds in recent statewide elections.
Georgia, where Republicans have been dominant statewide of late, has 72 delegates, the third-highest number on the GOP side. But Illinois, despite the party's downturn there, is next with 70, because it is the third most-populous state voting on Tuesday.
6. How are delegates allocated among the presidential candidates?
Pledged Democratic delegates in all states are awarded proportionally to candidates based on their percentages in the primaries or caucuses. A candidate must receive 15 percent support to qualify for delegates. Each state is also alloted unpledged Democratic delegates, known as "superdelegates," with slots going to party leaders and elected officials who can name their own candidate allegiances irrespective of the voting results in their states.
Delegate allocation varies much more widely by state on the Republican side. Unlike the Democrats, many states' Republican parties allocate delegates under a winner-take-all system that grants all of a state's delegates to the winner of the overall statewide vote. Others employ a modified winner-take-all system, with all of a state's at-large delegates going to the statewide winner, and the rest of the state's delegates allotted by congressional district with the winner of each district receiving all of its delegates. Other states use winner-take-all for a fraction of their delegates. And a few states award Republican delegates proportionally to the primary or caucus results, the system used universally in all states' Democratic contests. A very small number of states have no formal allocation plan.
The following is a breakdown of Feb. 5 Republican delegate allocations by state:
Alabama: Winner-take-all for statewide at-large delegates and for congressional district-level delegates, if a candidate receives 50 percent of the vote. Otherwise, at the congressional district level, the candidate with the first-place plurality gets all but one delegate, which goes to the second-place finisher (as long as that candidate has cleared a threshold of 20 percent of the vote). At the statewide level, if a candidate does not receive 50 percent, delegates are awarded proportionally among the candidates, with a 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates
Alaska: Proportional allocation.
Arizona: Statewide winner-take-all.
Arkansas: Each candidate receiving 10 percent of the statewide vote receives one at-large delegate with the remaining at-large delegates allocated to the statewide majority winner. If there is no majority statewide winner, at-large delegates are allocated proportionally to the top three candidates. A majority winner in a congressional district gets all the delegates allotted to that district. If there is a plurality in a congressional district, the highest vote-getter receives two delegates and next highest receives one.
California: Winner-take-all at the statewide level for at-large delegates and at the congressional district level.
Colorado: Delegates chosen in the Republican caucuses are not bound to candidates.
Connecticut: Statewide winner-take-all.
Delaware: Statewide winner-take-all.
Georgia: Winner-take-all at the statewide level for at-large delegates and at the congressional district level.
Illinois: Congressional district delegates are allocated proportionally based on the primary vote. No formula for at-large delegates who are elected at the state convention.
Massachusetts: Proportional allocation based on the statewide vote, with a 15 percent threshold.
Minnesota: No allocation formula, as the preference vote at the Republican caucuses is non-binding.
Missouri: Statewide winner-take-all.
Montana: Statewide winner-take-all.
New Jersey: Statewide winner-take-all.
New York: Statewide winner-take-all.
North Dakota: Winner-take-all if one candidate receives 66.7 percent. Otherwise, delegates are allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote, with a 15 percent threshold.
Oklahoma: Winner-take-all at the statewide level for at-large delegates and at the congressional district level.
Tennessee: Winner-take-all for at-large delegates if one candidate receives 66.6 percent of the statewide vote, and in each congressional district if a candidate reaches that same threshold. If no candidate receives 66.6 percent, delegate allocation is proportional at each level, with a 20 percent threshold.
Utah: Statewide winner-take-all
West Virginia: Winner-take-all for at-large delegates based on the statewide vote at the Feb. 5 Republican convention. Congressional district-level delegates will be allocated during the party's May 13 presidential primary.
7. So why are so many states voting on the same day?
Many states, in an acceleration of the gradual "front-loading" of the presidential nomination process that has been developing over recent election cycles, moved their nominating contests to Feb. 5 in the hopes of exerting more influence on the outcome of the parties' presidential contests.
The reason that two dozen states specifically crammed onto Feb. 5 is that this is the date designated by both major parties as the earliest on which most states are permitted to hold nominating contests without penalty. In doing so, these states are respecting the letter of party rules, but not the spirit of party leaders who hoped to restrain the "front-loading" process.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) itself gave special preferences to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and permitted Democrats in those states to hold earlier nominating contests without penalty (though the DNC hammered the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties for challenging the rules and scheduling primaries in January without permission, as both states were stripped of all of their allotted delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer).
The Republican National Committee did not provide any waivers to state GOP affiliates that held actual delegate allocation events prior to Feb. 5, stripping all of them (including New Hampshire, home to the traditional first-in-the-nation primary) of half their national convention delegates. But the national party did not penalize Iowa's state party for holding its caucuses on Jan. 3 nor Nevada Republicans for holding their caucuses Jan. 19 because those were deemed as non-binding contests.
8. Does the huge number of delegates at stake mean both parties' nominees will effectively locked in by the Feb. 5 results?
Not necessarily. The 2008 presidential race has been highly competitive on both sides and mixed results on Feb. 5 would keep things that way. The candidate from each party who scores the most wins on Feb. 5 will benefit greatly, of course, but their competitors may not be out of the running just yet. Under that scenario, significant contests may be held in upcoming states such as Ohio and Texas on March 4.
On the Democratic side, if the identity of the prospective nominee remains ambiguous through the end of the nominating process in June, the preferences of the unpledged "superdelegates" could at least theoretically be decisive. Republicans do not have superdelegates.
For a Democrat to secure the party's nomination outright, he or she needs 2,025 delegates; a Republican candidate needs 1,191 of that party's delegates to secure the nomination.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain headed into Feb. 5 with the most Republican delegates awarded, 93, as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed with 77 delegates, according to the Associated Press. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had secured 40 delegates.
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York led the Democratic delegate race with 250 prior to Feb. 5, while Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had 193 delegates, according to the Associated Press (AP). These totals include both delegates earned in early primaries and caucuses, and the candidate endorsements by superdelegates who were surveyed by AP.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment