Category: Election

Yes, we built it; can we repair it? Pt. 6

Note: Before we begin this section, unless otherwise noted all quotes in this article are from Rick Perlstein’s book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America

During the 1960’s, there was an ostensible shift in the conservative dynamic of how to run campaigns and what issues conservative politicians should focus on.  Perlstein writes that in the 1960’s that “millions of Americans recognized the balance of forces in the exact same way –that America was engulfed in a pitched battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light.  The only thing was: Americans disagreed radically over which side was which.”  This continues the use of fear by the Republican Party to take back their party and by extension be able to win the Presidency and enact this agenda.

Nixon as a President and even before then had a method to be able to turn the world into a black and white dilemma.  After the Checkers speech, that we have talked about in the past, the responses were split between those who were supporters of Nixon and enemies of Nixon.  Nixon exploited this idea 16 years later when he was running for President, again.  Nixon after watching Ronald Reagan in California and deployed to swing Congressional districts was able to use the strategy of fear to mobilize voters.

President Lyndon Johnson recognized this pattern and the fear of the Republicans to try to win votes prior to 1966.  He said,” “Fooling the people has become the name—of—the—game for a good many Republicans in Congress.  They have no constructive programs to fight inflation. They have no program to ease racial tensions. They don’t know what to do about crime in the streets, or how to end the war in Vietnam. But they do know that if they can scare people, they may win a few votes!”

Before the election, the Republican National Committee produced a video to be shown days before the election that would show the problems of America including crime, caskets from Vietnam, and riots with Johnson talking about the Great Society.  While some of the more liberal Republicans were trying to pull the video because it was tasteless, Conservatives complained that it wasn’t hard-hitting enough.

Nixon decided rightly or wrongly that the way to get back in the good graces of the Republican Party and be in the White House was to focus on law and order issues.  To back him up was a memo titled “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority”.  The theory was that elections were won by focusing on people’s resentments.  One of the aspects that he focused on is that is the assumption that voters will only vote their “blood line, church, neighborhood, or caste.”

Yes, we built it; can we repair it? Pt. 5

After the 1964 Presidential election of Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater, there was some talk about the end of the Republican Party.  In a blowout victory, Johnson was able to get 61% of the popular vote.  As Rick Perlstein wrote in Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, two of the nation’s ”most respected” political scientists thought that the dominance of the conservatives within the Republican Party would bring an end to the competitive two-party system.

Johnson sensing an actual mandate from the American people gave a speech where he outlined the role of American government in the next half century to provide for a “Great Society.”  In a commencement speech for the University of Michgan he outlined the role:

“For a century we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization…The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.”

Perlstein wrote after the election “the Republican National Committee could hardly raise the $200,000 each month necessary to keep its office open.”  It’s not as if this disaster was not predictable.  Nixon lobbied for a draft of George Romney for the 1964 Presidential nomination and called Goldwater’s nomination would be a “tragedy” as Perlstein wrote.

But the part of the Republican Party that was energized by the Goldwater nomination was the fringe portions of the party.  The ones that Goldwater had helped stoke to be able to get the nomination.  The John Birch Society was able to increase their members after the Goldwater defeat.  Unlike the usual #demsindisarray stories that are so frequent throughout the election season, this was more similar to #Republicansindisarray.  The Washington Post wrote that there was an “attempted gigantic political kidnapping by fanatics.”

There are two ways to respond to electoral defeats.  The first way to respond is to try to moderate your stances and to move to the middle to try and find voters.  This is the way the Democratic Party tends to respond to electoral defeats.  After the 1972 beatdown of George McGovern, the Democratic Party nominated Jimmy Carter to be President.   The other way is to not moderate your stances at all and even double down on your stances.  The stances can’t change but you do rely on the world around you to change to be able to match your already held stances.  This would seem like a risky strategy.  However, I don’t think this is technically what happens.

I’ll explore the 1960s and the Republican Party in much greater detail. But the short of it is that I believe that the Republican Party uses natural fears that people have to motivate their base.  When we see them double down on their positions, it is because the positions that they are advocating for are for policies of fear.  That’s what the next few posts in this series will be about.  It will be about how fear is being used constantly by the Republican Party.

Yes, we built that; can we repair it? Pt. 4

In The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Rubin writes “far from being an invention of the politically correct, victimhood has been a talking point of the right ever since Burke decried the mob’s treatment of Marie Antoinette.”  We see this victim card played by a number of conservative politicians and everyday conservatives.  We hear about how a number of Republicans are routinely discriminated against because of their political views, their religious views, or are otherwise victimized.  They can weaponize this victim accusation to their political gain.  Those who are not Republicans who may have actually been victimized may see their actions backfire when seen through a partisan lens.

Mark Sanford was Governor of South Carolina in 2009 when he claimed that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, he was actually in Argentina having an affair.  During his disappearance, there was speculation over who was running the state.  Sanford’s wife claimed that he had previously disappeared like this in the past, as well.  It was later found out that Sanford and his wife were going through a trial separation at the time.  Sanford never thought about resigning from being the Governor of South Carolina.  He did, however, resign as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.  The South Carolina legislature let Sanford know that they were going to impeach him if he did not resign.  Sanford called what ultimately became a bluff.  He was able to serve out his time as Governor.  His wife, Jenny Sanford, filed divorce which included custody of their sons.

In 2013, the 1st Congressional District in South Carolina held a special election to replace Tim Scott who was appointed the Senator after Jim DeMint’s resignation.  Sanford had previously stated that the last election he was in was his last, decided to throw his hat into the ring.  In the crowded field to replace Scott, Sanford was a heavy favorite to retake the seat.  He was the leading vote getter in the initial primary.  However, because nobody got the majority of the vote, it was headed to a run-off.

In a poll released on March 26, 2013 Sanford had a net favorability in the district of -24 compared to the net favorability of +14 of Elizabeth Colbert Busch who was going to be the Democratic challenger.  His favorability was much higher with Republicans in the district (not surprisingly).  His net favorability with Republicans was +14.  With those who had supported Mitt Romney in 2012 was +14.  Jenny’s net favorability overall was +37 in the district and +43 with Romney supporters.

On April 17, 2013, it was reported by the Associated Press that his ex-wife Jenny had filed a complaint on Mark regarding an incident where he was trespassing on her property.  According to the complaint, this was not the first time that he had trespassed on the property.  Jenny, to her credit, said that she was trying her hardest not to interfere with the race saying that she thought that the documents should be kept sealed.   Mark claimed that he was trying to go to the house to watch the 2nd half of the Super Bowl with his son and that he tried to reach out to Jenny.

Public Policy Polling conducted a poll from April 19 -21 of that year so immediately after the incident became public.  His net favorability ticked upwards slightly within the district to -18.  His favorability was higher among Mitt Romney supporters to +23.  Jenny’s net favorability suffered quite a bit of a decline.  In the district as a whole, her net favorability was +28.  Almost all of this decline was with Romney supporters, as her net favorability fell to +22, a 21 point drop.  64% of Romney supporters said that the trespassing charges gave them no doubts at all about his fitness for public office.

There was very little other news that came out around that time for Sanford that I am able to find.  The debate for the special election did not occur until April 29.  Sanford went on the trail debating a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi after the trespassing news came out.  So it’s not really clear what was driving Sanford’s increased support.

Sanford’s favorability went higher and higher as it was closer to the election.  With Romney’s supporter, he hit a net favorability of +34 in a poll released on May 5, 2013.  Jenny’s net favorability stayed around the same as the last poll showing a net favorability of +25 with Romney supporters.  Despite Sanford’s overall net favorability of -11 in the district as a whole, he won the special election 54-45 against Colbert Busch.

My theory is that while Sanford was most likely trespassing on his ex-wife’s property without her permission.  However, the problem is that voters thought Jenny Sanford was trying to politicize this issue and show that he was unfit for office.  This galvanized conservatives who view every attack on them as political regardless of if it was true.  This effectively gave Sanford a chance to win the special election and he took advantage of the opportunity.

We will revisit the Sanford case as we approach a couple of other issues.  This special election gave us an opportunity to see a number of issues that I will bring up over the coming days and weeks.

Yes, we built it; can we repair it? Pt. 3

The troubling case of Rick Perry

Rick Perry ran for the GOP presidential nomination for 2012.  He was considered a heavy favorite at the time.  His gubernatorial record in Texas and his Texan drawl endeared him to a large number of Republican voters.  Perry announced his candidacy on August 11, 2011.  He led the national polls for the Republican primary beginning August 15th and didn’t relinquish the lead until the week of September 25.  Mitt Romney then took the lead.  Romney, for the most part, held the lead going forward outside of about two weeks in February.

Just two weeks after Perry announced his candidacy, Public Policy Polling (PPP) found that he had 33% of the GOP support for the nomination.  He had taken a fairly sizable lead over Romney (13 points).  As they note in their write-up, in a race of the top tier -Perry, Romney, and Michele Bachmann- Perry would win 41-29-19.  His net favorability rating at that point in the race was a staggering +47.  His biggest support was from those who defined themselves as very conservative.  He was the first choice of 40% of those voters.

Even as late as September 14, Perry still had a significant lead on Romney by 13 points although his total had slipped to 31% of the GOP electorate.  He enjoyed virtually the same level of support from the very conservative portion of the GOP electorate (39% in this poll).  His momentum had somewhat stalled but his vote total of the GOP electorate remained steady after a month of leading the polls.  He had maintained about 30% of the GOP electorate if you look at the Real Clear Politics averages.  Not insignificantly, this poll would have included a debate from September 7, 2011 where Perry and the state of Texas were cheered for their use of the death penalty.

He would maintain about 30% for the next two weeks.  Then a Fox News poll that was conducted from 09/25 – 09/27 saw him slip all the way down to 19%, trailing Romney by 4 points.  Perry would not lead another poll during the cycle.  For the next month, he would stay between 6-19% of the GOP electorate.  So what happened during that time that saw him fall so precipitously?  My explanation is that there was this debate performance.

PPP published this chart after seeing Perry’s performance fall so much during the month of September:

A similar story happened in West Virginia.  PPP noted that Perry’s net favorability dropped 37 points in North Carolina and 30 points in West Virginia.  Nationally, we had something similar.  Perry dropped 17 points in one month from 31% to 14%.  His biggest drop was with those who identify as very conservative.  Nationally, he went from 39% to 20% with them.

So what happened?  The popular idea is that Perry had his famous oops moment.  But that actually came much later.  What did happen near the end of September was only one debate:

Perry was booed for having tuition assistance to undocumented immigrants.  Would that be enough to sink Perry so far in the polls?  It’s possible, although his debate performance was not the best prompting some consternation among Republican pundits.  The next performance was much better but his poll numbers never recovered.  He couldn’t get above 14% after October 11.  The next debate was November 9.  This was the infamous oops moment.  This is the one that hurt his campaign worse than usual, right?  The next batch of polls before November 22 don’t show much of a difference in his numbers.  He reaches a high mark of 14% immediately after the debate and CNN has him at 12% for their next two polls.

The evidence doesn’t seem to back the idea that Perry’s “oops” moment cost him the nomination.  Based on the polling numbers, it looks like what cost him was his compassion and his justification for enforcing the Texas DREAM Act.

 

Yes, we built it; can we repair it? Pt. 1

Introduction

On July 21, 2016.  Donald Trump accepted the nomination of the Republican Party.  He promptly gave one of the darkest acceptance speeches that I’ve ever read or heard.  There was some debate after Trump clinched the nomination whether the media was complicit in the rise of Trump.  This gave undue credence to the media, in my opinion.  I think the nomination of Trump was the natural consequence of the Republican Party going down the path that they have gone down since at least 1960.  I think a Trumpesque nomination was inevitable and what’s striking is that we’re largely ignoring it while trying to normalize his candidacy.  A lot of effort is being used to show that Trump is so far out of the mainstream of the Republican Party that it’s ridiculous that he got nominated. I think he is very far out of the mainstream and I think he is dangerous.  But more importantly, the groundwork by the Republican Party over the last 50 years has led me to believe that Trump’s nomination was not a mistake but an inevitability.

Over a series of posts that I think I may be able to stretch out until Election Day (the good Lord willing), we’ll explore various elections and politicians as their work into building Trump as a candidate.  Finally, we’ll look at what, if anything can be done to repair the Republican Party and why so many progressives are interested in saving it.  The stories and analysis in these posts may be out of order chronologically because I’m working on them as I get the research completed.

Yes, we built it

The title of this series refers to the reaction of the Republican Party to a speech that Barack Obama gave in 2012.  Obama gave a speech about how someone helped you get to your success.  This wouldn’t normally be controversial.  But Obama has become such a polarizing figure (as we’ll explore in greater detail) that anything he says must be distorted and argued against.  I don’t think it was the correct choice of words since he didn’t finish his train of thought.  I think the context makes it fairly clear what he is saying.

The Republican Party seized on these comments to make it a theme in their convention.  When I went to see Barack Obama speak in Iowa in 2012, there were a number of protesters holding signs that said,”we did build that.”  Most of this stuff hasn’t left the political lexicon, yet.  We can still remember most of this happening, I would hope.

Like Obama’s comments, I don’t think the Republican Party necessarily had to go down this path and they’re not the only ones responsible for it.  I think along the way the Democratic Party and the media have contributed to the Republican Party reacting the way that they do.  But like Obama said, the success was found with our own individual drive and ambition, the most important contributing factor were individuals within the Republican Party and voters within the party.

The case against the death penalty

The troubling case of Carlos DeLuna

In February of 1983, Carlos DeLuna and Carlos Hernandez went to a bar in Corpus Christi.  The two Carloses looked very similar.  Sometimes they were even mistaken for twins.  They were the same height and weight.  Although, there was a slight difference.  Hernandez had a moustache while DeLuna did not.  After the bar, Hernandez went to a gas station, the Shamrock to buy something.  After waiting a while, Hernandez had not returned.  DeLuna went to see what was taking so long and he saw Hernandez wrestling a woman behind the counter.  Scared because of his prior police record for sexual assault, DeLuna took off running.  When he heard sirens, he got even more scared and hid underneath a pickup truck.

deluna carlos.JPG

Image: Carlos DeLuna from the Corpus Christi Police Department; image from the Atlantic

Forty minutes later, he was found there by Corpus Christi Police.  He was arrested for the murder of Wanda Lopez.  Lopez had been stabbed to death.  Police photos showed blood splattered over three feet high.  DeLuna did not have any blood on him.  Police assumed that the rain washed away the blood.  Less than two hours after the murder, the owner of the Shamrock was allowed to wash down the store washing away crucial evidence that could potentially lead to the killer.  As far as the Corpus Christi police were concerned, they had caught their man.

DeLuna, for his part, claimed his innocence.  He took it one step further.  He named the killer.  Carlos Hernandez was the killer.  Corpus Christi police called Hernandez a “phantom.”  The prosecutors were given the name by DeLuna’s lawyers but they were unable to find any evidence that this person existed.  The chief prosecutor of the case called Hernandez a “figment of [DeLuna’s] imagination.”

hernandez carlos.JPG

Image of Carlos Hernandez from the Corpus Christi Police Department.  Image appeared in the Atlantic.

DeLuna was executed for the murder of Lopez on December 8, 1989.  In October of 1989, Hernandez was arrested for the attempted murder of Dina Ybanez.  This information was not brought to the courts of Texas in order to help exonerate an innocent man.

We know all of the information mentioned above and even more information showing the innocence of DeLuna because of the research of Professor James S. Liebman and his colleagues in the book Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution.

Liebman et al. found even more disturbing information regarding this case.  They found that Hernandez bragged to members of the community that he was a knife murderer and that he was the one who killed Lopez.  Further Hernandez joked that his stupid namesake was the one taking the blame.  Oh yes, they found this information out in less than 24 hours after hiring a private detective.  Yet, Hernandez was so elusive that he was unknown to prosecutors.  These claims that he was the killer reached the police within weeks but was dismissed by the prosecutors.

Hernandez had been on parole for virtually his entire adult life.  As reported by Liebman, Hernandez had been arrested 39 times.  Several of these crimes had been due to wielding his knife.  Some of his arrests were for holding up local gas stations.  What’s worse is that he was arrested twice for a 1979 murder.  Once in 1979 and once after DeLuna was on death row.  This information was not disclosed to the courts.  Instead, Hernandez was a phantom.

Liebman and his team of researchers pored over the crime details and police reports for this crime.  They found a shoeprint in blood at the crime scene that was never investigated.  No usable fingerprints were taken at the scene of the crime.  A beer can, a cigarette butt, chewing gum, a button, and a comb were not forensically examined for saliva and/or blood.  When the researchers went to examine the DNA of the crime after DeLuna’s death, they were told that all of it had disappeared.

Carlos DeLuna was executed for the murder of Wanda Lopez.

Nebraska and the Death Penalty

Picture of Governor Pete Ricketts of Nebraska picture originally appeared on Huffington Post

In May of 2015, Nebraska legislators brought LB268 to be considered for a debate.  LB268 was introduced by Ernie Chambers who had been working to this end for four decades.  LB268 would repeal the death penalty in Nebraska and would instead have life in prison as the maximum sentence for first-degree murder.  Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson wrote a letter to the Nebraska legislature that “under current Nebraska law, a sentence to life imprisonment is effectively life imprisonment without (the possibility of{ parole.”

Governor Pete Ricketts said in a statement ahead of the vote, “no one has traveled the state more than I have in 18 months, and everywhere I go there is overwhelming support for keeping the death penalty in Nebraska.  Ahead of this morning’s vote, I am reminding senators that a vote for cloture on LB268 is a vote to repeal the death penalty and to give our state’s most heinous criminals more lenient sentences.  This isn’t rhetoric.  This is reality.”  The stakes were high.  Legislators knew that this bill would face the veto by Governor Ricketts.

Conservative legislators banded together with their progressive counterparts and passed the bill 32-15.  In order to override the veto, they would need 30 votes.  Governor Ricketts criticized the legislature for their votes when issuing a veto saying that “while the legislature has lost touch with the citizens of Nebraska, I will continue to stand with Nebraskans and law enforcement on this important issue.”  After intense lobbying by the Governor and his team, a vote to override the veto succeeded 30-13.

State senator and loyal Ricketts ally Beau McCoy announced that he would do everything he could to stop this bill from being enacted.  McCoy launched a new organization called Nebraskans for Justice to help put the measure on the ballot for the November general election ballot.  McCoy said,”I am standing with Nebraskans who are thoroughly disappointed with Nebraska legislators who voted to end Nebraska’s death penalty.”

McCoy was not the only one disappointed.  State Senator Bill Kintner of Papillion filed an amendment on LB268 to replace the method of execution from lethal injection to the firing squad.  Kintner was disappointed and bitterly complained, “this body is intent on moving the progressive-left agenda ahead.”  Senator McCoy was successful in getting this measure on the ballot in time for the November 2016 election.  If voters in Nebraska vote in favor of the amendment there will effectively be a repeal of the repeal of the death penalty.  Rejecting the measure will keep the death penalty repeal.  I urge all Nebraska voters to reject this measure.  It is time to show Governor Ricketts that he is wrong.  We need to show Senator Kintner that he is wrong.  This is not a partisan issue.  The death penalty as it stands is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and economically infeasible.

Economic costs of the death penalty

The American Law Institute (ALI) is made up of 4,000 judges, lawyers, and law professors.  They helped create the penal system that we currently have and helped create the death penalty, as we know it.  In 2009, they voted to remove the death penalty from their model penal code.  They argued that the death penalty is “so arbitrarily fraught with racial and economic disparities and unable to serve quality legal representation for indigent capital defendants, that it can never be administered fairly.”  As we will see later with regards to the arbitrariness of the death penalty, poorer defendants are more likely to have their crime considered a capital offense.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has found that 90% of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer at the time of their trial.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court found that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial.  Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote a fair trial “cannot be realized if the poor men charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”  Even looking at this case, we see that Florida and other states would only allow lawyers appointed for the indigent in capital cases.  This certainly adds to the cost of death penalty cases.

As we see in state, after state, after state, the death penalty is significantly more expensive than other options.  The Nevada Legislative Auditor issued a report studying the cost of the death penalty in Nevada.  They found “the death penalty, from arrest through the end of incarceration, costs about $532,000 more than other murder cases where the death penalty is not sought.”  Where the death penalty was sought, sentenced, but the offender was not executed the cost was $1.3 million and the cost was only slightly lower where the death penalty was sought but not sentenced at $1.2 million.  Where the death penalty was not sought, the costs were $775,000.

Kansas issued a study on the cost of the death penalty and the Kansas legislature approved the linked report.  The total cost for the 9 trial cases where the death penalty was sought costs on average $395,762 compared to $98,963 on average for the 6 trial cases where the death penalty was not sought.  Some of that has to do with the the fact that when the prosecution sought the death penalty, there was an average of 40 days in court compared to 17 days for cases where the death penalty was not sought.

Seattle University commissioned a study on the death penalty in Washington.  The found that the total costs of the death penalty cases were about $3.07 million compared to $2.01 million for non-death penalty cases.  The biggest differences in the costs were found with the defense costs, prosecution costs, and the petition/appeals for death penalty cases.  The defense costs were about 2.8 to 3.5 times more expensive than non-death penalty cases.  Prosecution costs were about 2.3-4.2 times more expensive and the appeals were 5.7-6.3 times more expensive.

Seeking the death penalty is consistently found to be more expensive than non-death penalty cases.  The only question really is how much more expensive it is.  The rebuttal to this is that while seeking the death penalty in trial is more expensive, the costs even out after a criminal is executed compared to the cost of incarcerating a criminal for the remainder of their life.  Intuitively, this argument holds some appeal.  Unfortunately, it does not match reality.  This is because of two main reasons.  The first one is that in 2014, the executions occurred on average about 18 years after the conviction of the defendant.  Because of the lengthy time in prison, it is hard to find easy cost-savings.  The other reason for a lack of cost-saving is that keeping and maintaining death row is fairly expensive.   In fact, death row inmate management costs more on average than the management of non-death row inmates.  There are a couple of factors for this which include greater security, inmates having their own cells, and that there is a disparity in the inmate-to-staff ratios.

The Seattle University studied linked to earlier found that the cost for incarcerating non-death penalty inmates was 0.7-0.8 times the cost of death row inmates.  As they note in their report, though, they used the “same average daily cost post-2013 for both the [Death penalty] and [non-death penalty] groups.  This resulted in an underestimation of DPS/DPI DOC costs.”  The report of the Kansas legislature noted that it cost $49.3 thousand per inmate per year for a death penalty inmate compared to $24.69 thousand per inmate per year for non-death penalty inmates.  The report from the Nevada legislative auditor found that for incarceration costs, the death penalty is the most expensive sentence for those convicted of first degree murder.  Noting “incarceration costs are higher for the death penalty subgroup, since they are typically housed at a higher cost facility.”

All of this is before we even get to the cost of obtaining the drugs needed to execute an inmate with lethal injection.  With a number of pharmaceutical companies no longer offering the drug cocktail, the prices have skyrocketed.  I do understand that we cannot just reduce moral questions of actions such as the death penalty with an economic rebuttal.  It’s not enough to show that a policy is economically unsound to show that the described action is immoral or should otherwise not continue.  With all policies, I believe that we should do a calculus of cost-benefits to see what we should do going forward.  The death penalty as it currently stands is not viable only on economic grounds but is on shaky constitutional grounds, as well.

Unconstitutional?

I should note that before we continue that a lot of the information for this section is based on the brilliant dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer in Glossip v. Gross.

The 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution plainly states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  In Weems v. United States, the Supreme Court found “that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.”  Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the opinion for Atkins v. Virginia “a claim that punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685 when Lord Jeffreys presided over the ‘Bloddy Assizes’ or when the Bill of Rights was adopted but rather by those that currently prevail.”  It is on this precedent where Justice Breyer calls into question the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Justice Breyer writes that the death penalty fails the constitutional question because of “serious unreliability, arbitrariness in application, and unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose.”  As we’ve seen, there have been innocent people executed for crimes that they commit.  Beyond that, there has been a number of cases where people have been sentenced to death but were exonerated.  There have been 115 exonerations in capital cases.  In his dissent, Justice Breyer notes that courts are 130 times more likely to exonerate a defendant when a death sentence is at issue.  Comparing to other murders, they are nine times more likely to exonerate a defendant with a capital murder compared to noncapital murder. Why does this happen?

The simplest explanation is that there is tremendous bias with the jurors.   In an article titled The Principled Executioner: Capital Juries’ Bias and the Benefits of True Bifurcation, Susan D. Rozelle explores the bias found in jurors.  The term used to describe potential jurors who will not convict someone of death even if they are convinced of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is nullifiers.   She cites a Supreme Court Case Lockhart v. McCree  that allowed nullifers to be excluded from the guilt phase section of a capital case.  Further, the Supreme Court found that each juror should be “willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law.”  Early social science studies found that once prosecutors were able to eliminate nullifiers from juries, those who remained were more likely to hold beliefs that would help the prosecution.  An example of this belief was “if the police have arrested an individula and the district attorney has brought him to trial, there is good reason tto believe that the man on trial is guilty.”

Moreover, eliminating nullifiers from jury pools made the juries more homogeneous.  This may not sound like a problem.  But similar people see evidence the same way.  When you have more people who are different who have different worldviews and different backgrounds, the same piece of evidence is seen in a different way.  As Professor Cass Sunstein wrote “normative bias is well supported by evidence of confirmation bias, by which people tend to seek out, and to believe, evidence that supports their won antecedent views.”  Or more simply, there is a tendency to see what we expect to see.  When you have the same worldviews or same backgrounds people will have the same expectations for what they should see so it will match up.

The Capital Jury Project (CJP) undertook a large study interviewing 1200 jurors who served on 350 capital trials in fourteen states to help study the behavior of capital case jurors.  Their conclusion was that “capital jurors hold disproportionately punitive orientations toward crime and criminal justice, are more likely to be conviction-prone, are more likely to hold racial stereotypes, and are more likely to be pro-prosecution.”  Over 70% of jurors interviewed felt that death was the only acceptable punishment for a murder committed by a defendant with a prior murder conviction.  Almost 60% agreed that death was the only acceptable punishment for planned or premeditated murder.  There were a few other categories including where the victim as a police officer or prison guard, murders involving multiple victims, and murders committed by a drug dealer.  About half of those interviewed felt that death was the only acceptable punishment in each of those situations.  About 30% of those interviewed stated that death was the only acceptable punishment for all of the above crimes.  About 24% of the jurors stated death was the only acceptable punishment for felony murder where the killing that occurs during another crime.  More troubling, some of the capital jurors offered some situations where they would not vote for the death penalty which included war time, children playing with a gun, hunting accident, or if the guy was not guilty.  Comparatively, only 2-3% of jurors who were interviewed stated that the death penalty is unacceptable in those situations mentioned.

What could be more troubling than that?  Perhaps the fact nearly half of those interviewed admitted that they decided the proper punishment before “they had heard a single piece of evidence on the issue of punishment.”  Or that about 10% of jurors stated that the death qualification question (being asked if they would consider the death penalty) “made them think the defendant must be or probably was guilty and that death must be or probably was the appropriate punishment.”

But before we get to the trial, there is tremendous pressure on the community including police officers and prosecutors to find the person who committed this crime.  Capital cases tend to be horrendous crimes.  There the police face pressure to quickly find the person who committed the crime.  In cases where the defendant was exonerated, the police investigation was shorter than those where the defendants were not exonerated according to the article “Frequency and Predictors of False Conviction: Why We Know So Little, and New Data on Capital Cases.”  Because of this pressure, there is a greater likelihood of of the hallmarks of wrongful convictions as noted in Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong including false confessions, mistaken eyewitness testimony, and untruthful jailhouse informants.  Because of all of these factors, researchers estimate that about 4% of those sentenced to death are actually innocent.

Justice Breyer notes in his dissent that when the death penalty was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty would be unconstitutional if “inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”  A lot of studies found that individuals who were accused of murdering white victims as opposed to minority victims were more likely to receive the death penalty.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in 1990 that 82% of the 28 studies found that “race of victim influences capital murder charge or death sentence.” A similar finding was found in the article Furman, McCleskey, and a Single County Case Study published in 2013.  The geographic location of the defendant and victim make a difference, as well.  29 counties nationwide account for half of all death sentences imposed nationwide.  In 2012, 59 counties accounted for all death sentences nationwide.  The reasons for this are that only some states permit the death penalty, the counties may have weaker public defense programs, or it could be that the federal district that the jurors will be filled are a big racial difference than the county where the crime occurred.

Beyond that arbitrariness, there is an arbitrariness involved with what crimes are going to be charged as capital crimes.  Justice Breyer lists a number of crimes that were prosecuted as capital crimes compared to other murders.  Most of them include a single murder from a defendant who previous felony convictions compared to a murderer with multiple victims or other offenses in the context of the crime that make it seemingly more heinous.  I won’t repeat them all here.  But the crimes he chooses are supposed to show that capital charges are arbitrarily chosen and I believe him.

As we look at Gregg v. Georgia, we know that every safeguard has to be observed when a defendant’s life is at stake.  These requirements take a long time to implement.   As Justice Breyer writes, “unless we abandon the procedural requirements that assure fairness and reliability, we are forced to confront the problem of increasingly lengthy delays in capital cases.”

There were 35 executions in 2014.  These executions occurred on average about 18 years after the initial sentencing.  Some states have even longer waits.  For instance, in Florida, the last 10 prisoners executed spent nearly 25 years on death row before execution.  The delays have only increased in recent years.  The average delay in 1960 was two years.  In 2004, it was 11 years.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly half of the 3,000 inmates on death row now have been there more than 15 years.

The ACLU found that inmates on death row are kept in isolation for 22 or more hours per day.  Solitary confinement can lead to anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, rage, and panic.  Beyond that as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Gomez v. Fierro lengthy delays subject “death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.”  Or in the denial of cert for Lackey v. Texas, Stevens wrote that “excessive delays from sentencing to execution can themselves constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”

The delays are necessary because they provide additional safeguards to make sure that the inmate is guilty but they are damaging in their current form.  These delays undermine the claim that the death penalty is a retributive punishment that effectively deters crime.  This claim is undermined by social science research.  The National Research Council reviewed the empirical evidence saying “despite 30 years of empirical research in the area, there remains no reliable statistical evidence that capital punishment in fact deters potential offenders.”

If we take it all into consideration: the unreliability, the arbitrariness, and the delays, I find myself agreeing with Justice Breyer that we need a wholesale review of the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Conclusion

If ridding ourselves of the death penalty were as straightforward and easy as simply agreeing with Justice Breyer, we wouldn’t have these debates that we’ve been having for over 40 years.  Instead of focusing on concrete issues and what has happened in the past, we are often faced with abstract questions or hypotheticals over would we support the death penalty in what situations.  While it’s impossible to predict how I would respond given a particular situation, based on the evidence that is out there, the death penalty should be repealed.  In Nebraska, it was successfully repealed.  I urge all of you to vote AGAINST the Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal Referendum on November 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elections to watch: AZ-02

on Barber (D), after being injured in an assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords, was elected in June of 2012 to replace Giffords in Congress.  Barber was re-elected in November of 2012 by narrowly defeating Martha McSally by 2454 votes.  The final percentage of the vote was 50.41% – 49.57%.  Barber slightly outperformed President Barack Obama in the district.  President Obama lost the congressional district in the presidential election 49.9-48.4.  Due to the closeness of this race, the Congressional election in 2014 was hotly contested and ended up being the 6th most expensive House race in 2014.  In a rematch of the 2012 Congressional election, Martha McSally defeated Barber by less than 200 votes in 2014.  Unlike in many other districts and mid-term elections, the difference in the election was not merely because of a lack of turnout with the Democratic Party.  As we see from the below table, both candidates lost close to the same amount of voters from 2012 to 2014.

Candidate 2012 vote totals 2014 vote totals
Ron Barber 147,338 109,547
Martha McSally 144,884 109,714
Other 57 104
Total votes 292,279 219,365

Luckily for the voters of the Arizona 2nd Congressional District, Barber is not running for another chance of going against Rep. McSally.  The challenger for McSally in this cycle is most likely going to be State Representative Victoria Steele.  Steele has received the endorsement of 16 of her fellow state legislators as well as Congressman Raul Grijalva.  Steele still has to win the Democratic primary at the end of August against former state Representative Matt Heinz.

While serving in the Arizona House of Representatives, Steele has sponsored a number of progressive bills that would get the attention of a number of progressives, not only in Congress but, nationwide.   HB2546 was introduced on 05/05/2016 and has 17 sponsors.  The bill would increase the minimum wage for fast food employees.  The bill would increase the minimum wage for fast food employees beginning January 1, 2017 to $9/hour then increase it by$1/hour per year for year afterwards.  Additionally, there is a call for a minimum wage increase tied to the consumer price index which would be a cost of living increase.  If the cost of living increase was higher than the call for the minimum wage increase, then the fast food employees would receive the cost of living increase as their minimum wage.

She has signed onto other progressive causes and legislation, as well.  HB2177 was also introduced and sponsored by 21 members of the Arizona House of Representatives.  This bill calls for paid sick and safe time and would be accrued at the beginning of the employment.  SB1327 was introduced in April or 2015.  This bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or sexual identity for employment.  Essentially, this is a bill that has been called on for years which is the Employment Non-discrimination Act.  While there is almost certainly more progressive legislation that Steele has been a sponsor of, the last example I’m going to bring up which is HB2327 introduced in January of 2016.  This bill would allow for needy families to be able to receive cash assistance for a total of twenty-four months compared to a total of twelve months, previously.

Representative McSally has not been a conservative firebrand while she has been serving in Congress.  According to GovTrack’s analysis, she is closer to the middle compared to being on the conservative fringes.  Her own focus while in Congress has been to focus on immigration and veterans.  Her own bills include H.R. 2551 and H.R. 2835.  H.R. 2551 would relax standards for educational assistance for pre-apprenticeship programs for veterans.  This would allow veterans to receive additional educational assistance while they are trying to get back into normal civilian life.  H.R. 2835 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to increase their efforts to recruit members of the Armed Forces to be a Customs and Border Protection officer.  It would also include outreach from DHS to the Armed Forces.   The bill would also minimize the amount of time that a member of the Armed Forces would need to go through to get security clearance or background checks.  Both of these bills are worthy end goals.  If I had more time and space I would go over more of Rep. McSally’s bills that she has introduced and perhaps I will at a later date.

We will do a deeper dive into the policies and bills that Representative McSally and others have co-sponsored and voted on.  Initial polling of the state of Arizona showed that Donald Trump may have issues keeping Arizona in the Republican category and if that continues at all, this district may have more significance.  As we get closer to November, this election will be one worth watching and will be worthwhile for us to look at deeper so we can separate the candidates based on actual policies compared to what political party they happened to be registered with.

Elections to watch: AZ-01

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D) of Arizona’s 1st Congressional District decided not to seek re-election for her Congressional seat and has decided instead to challenge John McCain for his Senate seat.  She provides a good challenge to McCain in a general election.  This was a competitive election in 2012 and 2014 and without the incumbent, could be a viable pickup for the Republican Party in 2016.

In 2012, Kirkpatrick won 48.80% of the vote compared to Jonathan Paton’s 45.15% of the vote.  This was a difference of 9,180 votes.  Kirkpatrick won re-election in 2014 with 52.61% of the vote compared to Republican Andy Tobin’s 47.39% of the vote.  She won by 9,668 votes in 2014.  There were 66,481 less votes cast in 2014 for this district compared to 2012.  Kirkpatrick got 79% of her vote share from 2012 in 2014 compared to the Republican candidate only getting 77% of their vote share.

Democratic candidates

Kirkpatrick was a pretty strong candidate and she received her incumbent bonus which allowed her to keep her seat.  The challengers who are vying to be the Democratic nominee are Tom O’Halleran, Miguel Olivas, and James Maloney.  The primary election will be held on August 30, 2016.

James Maloney – I don’t know a lot about Maloney.  His campaign website is trying to strike a populist tone and ride the coattails of Bernie Sanders’s presidential run.  A lot of his themes on his website are present in Sanders’s campaign, including rebuilding infrastructure and free (community) college.  Unfortunately, for Mr. Maloney, Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary in Arizona’s 1st Congressional district 35,445 votes to 26,267 votes (55-41).  The 2012 Congressional primary for the Democratic Party had 53,078 votes cast (about 10,000 less than the 2016 Presidential primary).  I would assume that as Sanders’s support goes in this district as would Maloney’s.  For now, I am low on Maloney’s chance to become the nominee.

Tom O’Halleran – He is the heavy favorite to become the nominee.  He is a former Republican State Senator for the legislative district in this Congressional district.  He changed his party affiliation prior to 2014 because of perceived failures of the Republican Party to fix a number of issues within Arizona despite having the majority.  Mr. O’Halleran is the “establishment” candidate receiving numerous endorsements and is a part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Emerging Races.    If the establishment fervor wears off by the time of the primary election, O’Halleran should become the nominee.

Miguel Olivas – He ran in 2012 for the Democratic nomination to run for Congress.  He wasn’t successful.  In 2014, he ran to represent the 3rd district (Raul Grijalva)’s district as a Libertarian but withdrew prior to the primary .  Olivas is a small business owner and was previously a staff member in Congress.  I don’t think he will be too successful in securing the nomination

Republican candidates

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) thinks this is an opportunity for a pickup in the House to help maintain their majority.  It’s a district that should, at least, be competitive if they are able to find the right candidate.  There are five candidates with a viable shot of winning, in my opinion.

Wendy Rogers – Rogers ran as a candidate in Arizona’s 9th Congressional District in 2012 and 2014.  She lost in the primary in 2012 and in the general election in 2014.  In the 2012 Republican primary, she lost to Vernon Parker 22.5%-21%.  She lost to Kyrsten Sinema in the general election in 2014 54.7%-41.9% after she beat previous Arizona State quarterback Andrew Walter 59.4% -40.6% in the primary.  She is a business owner and previously served in the United States Air Force.  In 2014, she focused her general election campaign on running as an outsider.  She focused quite a bit on immigration.  This is one of the bigger issues facing Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, according to voters.  I think she will continue to focus on this issue.  Based on first quarter fundraising, she has raised over $100,000 in the first quarter.  She also endorsed Donald Trump very quickly so may get some added support from Trump as we approach the primary election.

Paul Babeu – Babeu is a sheriff from Pinal County.  He has been an extreme conservative on immigration and especially harsh on illegal immigration.  That being said, Babeu endured a scandal when he initially ran for Congress in 2012.  He had to admit that he was gay as an ex-boyfriend claimed Babeu threatened deportation unless the ex-boyfriend would keep quiet about Babeu’s sexuality.  He was re-elected as a sheriff despite this scandal.  He frequently attacked Eric Holder and the Obama administration over immigration.  His campaign will try to focus on immigration and deregulations, especially with the EPA.  Based on some polling in the district and his fundraising totals , Babeu is to be considered the favorite for the nomination.  It’s still early.  He has raised the second most amount of money in the first quarter with $157k raised.

David Gowan – Despite Babeu’s battles with the federal government over immigration, Gowan has received the endorsement of immigration’s favorite sheriff, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Gowan is the former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives so he does have a considerable amount of legislative experience.  Gowan has the only high profile endorsement in the district, so far, on the Republican side.  He has run in the legislative district with the Congressional district since 2008, so he should have some experience in campaigning in the area.  Gowan has gotten quite a bit of financial support of the wealthy Republican community in the district.  He has received the backing of Johnson Utilities owner George Johnson; Tucson car deal Jim Click; and Arizona Cardinals President Michael Bidwell.  I would say that, as of right now, he is in a close second place.

Ken Bennett- the former Arizona Secretary of State and Republican gubernatorial candidate is now running for Congress against a crowded field.  On the one hand, he and Gary Kiehne have been named the NRCC Young Guns and are seen as the best shot of winning the general.  On the other hand, this is probably the worst election cycle to be an establishment favorite.  Bennett only raised $80k in the first quarter.  Most of the conservative donors seem to be focusing on giving to Gowan.  While Bennett should be the favorite on paper, his fundraising totals is not matching that opinion.

Gary Kiehne – Kiehne, a rancher in Arizona, came in second place in the Republican primary in 2014 losing only by 400 votes to former Arizona speaker of the House Andy Tobin to be Kirkpatrick’s opponent.  He is a wealthy rancher who has loaned his campaign $500,000 so far.  He was named as one of the Young Guns by the NRCC.  This seems like a weird nickname to give considering Kiehne’s comments in the 2014 campaign where he made a point saying that 99% of all mass shooters are Democrats.  In a year where wealthy outspoken people are doing well in the Republican primary, Kiehne should do fairly well at the end of August.

The Right Way of Nominating a President

A talking point when people discuss the 2016 presidential election and the primaries is to talk about the unlikelihood of having Senator Ted Cruz or someone similar to him, who is considered to be an extremist on the Republican side of the political spectrum.  Often, the claim that the Republican party will nominate the one who has the best chance of winning, meaning that he is either a pragmatist or a moderate Republican, as opposed to someone who is more ideologically pure.

Let’s take a look.  We’re beginning with 1976, as it was the first time a Republican primary was held in every state.  This allows us to compare the past and present without having to rely on deals in the backroom filled with cigar smoke and scotch.

1976


The 1976 Republican primary was slightly confusing.  President Gerald Ford initially announced that he would not seek re-election (technically, election).  But he re-considered and began a campaign to seek the nomination and eventual election.  Former Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, began to criticize Gerald Ford in the summer of 1975 and officially announced his candidacy in the fall of 1975.  Reagan was considered the favorite of the Conservative section of the Republican party.  Reagan and his Conservative allies were critical of Ford on the policy of detente with the Soviet Union, Ford’s refusal of help for South Vietnam, the signing of the Helinski Accords, and giving the Panama Canal back to Panama.  The Heritage Foundation would like to remind people that Reagan also criticized Ford for the centralization of the federal government.  Ford criticized Reagan for being too extreme.  Despite this, there was not a nominee at the time of the Republican Convention.  Ford began with a slight lead in the votes but still shy of the number needed to secure the nomination.  In order to gain some votes, Reagan pledged to nominate moderate Republican Senator Richard Schweiker as vice-president.  The move backfired, as conservative delegates were outraged at Reagan.  Senator Jesse Helms who had helped Reagan’s comeback during primary season, was particularly angry.  Helms tried to draft James Buckley as the nominee.  Many Mississippi delegates also switched allegiances and Ford won the nomination.  The Mississippi chairman allegedly switched support because of the nomination of Schweiker.

Conclusion: Reagan was clearly the Conservative choice for the nomination, but in an effort to gain votes, he tried to placate the moderates within the party and it failed.  I feel uncomfortable saying that Ford was nominated because he was seen as the more pragmatic or moderate choice.

1980


The 1980 Republican Presidential primary more closely resembles the primaries that we see. Ronald Reagan was considered the heavy favorite, almost as soon as the 1976 Republican presidential primary concluded.  Reagan had given a speech at the end that overshadowed Ford’s speech.

Minority Leader Howard Baker was known as the great conciliator in the Senate.  There was a story that Democratic Senators would privately support Baker’s quest to run for President.  Because of this, Baker would get the dreaded RINO tag, today, if he was in the political eye.  Baker lost the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire caucus before withdrawing.  A Gallup poll found him to be in 2nd place behind just Ronald Reagan in 1979.

Former Governor John Connally was a Democrat until 1973.  Then he switched parties.  Connally was friends with President Lyndon Johnson and supported the same candidates up until the 1972 election where Connally supported Nixon, instead of George McGovern.  But anyway, Connally was considered a great fundraiser, a fairly strong leader, and a strong orator.  Connally would probably be compared to Mitt Romney in 2008.  If Reagan had been defeated in 1980,  Connally would have likely re-emerged as a potential candidate in 1984.  But poor campaigning, as well as a lack of electoral chops, ultimately doomed him.

Senator Bob Dole,who ran for vice-president under Gerald Ford ran in 1976, chose to run in the 1980 presidential election.  He received less than 1% of the vote for the New Hampshire primary, and immediately withdrew.  Dole, while he was a war hawk and tough on crime, made his first Senate speech on increasing federal aid for the handicapped and disable.  He also joined Democratic Senator Jim McGovern in an effort to lower eligibility requirements for federal food stamps, a fairly liberal goal.  Dole later pleaded with Gerald Ford to run in 1980 as a stop-Reagan faction.

Congressman Phil Crane was a Conservative member of Congress since 1968.  Crane was one of the most Conservative members of the House of Representatives, who had been raised on Barry Goldwater’s campaign for president.  Crane was the first chairman of the Republican Study Committee to keep watch of the Republican party in Congress, who was considered to be too moderate.  Crane was also the Chairman of the Illinois Citizens for Reagan, trying to help in Reagan’s primary presidential run.  He was unsure if Reagan would run again in 1980, and said that if Reagan ran, he would drop out.  He stayed in, even after Reagan’s entrance, but dropped out in early March.

Congressman John B. Anderson initially started as one of the more Conservative members of the House but eventually shifted, gradually to the left for social issues.  His fiscal conservatism remained, though.  He broke with the administration on the Vietnam War and was an outspoken critic of Richard Nixon.  Anderson was also allies with Gerald Ford.  Anderson was primaried in 1978 but survived the primary by 16% of the vote.  He decided to run for President.  Actually, John Anderson deserves a much longer post all about him.  Anderson had considerable support from Rockefeller Republicans, who were more liberal than Reagan supporters.  He was considered much more liberal than many of the Republican nominees.  At one point, he stated that cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and balancing the budget were an impossible combination.  Anderson withdrew and eventually ran as an independent garnering 7% of the votes in the general election.

Former CIA director George H.W. Bush supposedly represented the centrist part of the Republican party.  He criticized Reagan’s supply-side economic theory as “voodoo economics.”  This eventually proved to be successful in the Iowa caucus.  He also won a primary where Reagan did not bother to show up.  But for the most part, Bush was dead in the water by the end of April.  Bush finally withdrew on May 26, 1980.  Bush was later named the vice-presidential nominee by Ronald Reagan.

Former Governor Ronald Reagan who was unsuccessful in 1968 and 1976, finally was successful in 1980.  Reagan represented the true conservatives.  He campaigned hard on the idea of supply-side economics, proposing that tax cuts would increase revenues because people would work harder.  Reagan also promised a balanced budget for the first time since 1969.  Reagan was the front-runner and after firing his campaign manager finally started to act like it, culminating in a victory.

Conclusion: The conservatives’ Conservative won the nomination.

1988


The 1988 Republican presidential primary started with Vice-President George H.W. Bush as the front-runner but eventually included Senator Bob Dole, Congressman Jack Kemp, Governor Pierre S. du Pont IV, and televangelist Pat Robertson.

Governor Pierre S. du Pont IV was governor of Delaware and announced his intention to run for the presidency in 1986, before anyone else.  But he had some radical ideas.  He proposed reforming social security by offering private saving options .  He also wanted to wean people off of welfare by offering jobs, even entry level jobs in the government.  He proposed instituting random drug tests to those who flunked driver’s license tests.  He was a novice and bowed out after a next-to-last finish in New Hampshire.

Congressman Jack Kemp had a difficult time convincing people of his ideas if he became president.  Kemp had a libertarian philosophy of supporting individual rights, preaching tolerance, supporting women, minorities, blue-collar workers, and organized labor.  These ideas clashed with the typical conservative view of ideas and values.  To Democrats and those more liberal, his free market philosophies were just a form of anarchy.  His fiscal policy was very similar to Ronald Reagan, in that he argued for supply-side economics.  He also wanted to freeze government spending.  His poor showing on Super Tuesday eventually forced him to withdraw.  Kemp could probably be compared to the libertarian wing of the Republican party, that is in vogue today.

Televangelist Pat Robertson announced he would run in 1986 if 3 million people signed up to volunteer for his campaign.  Robertson supported a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  He also wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.  He also wanted to ban pornography.  He was a true social conservative.  His views are now basically the same as the generic Republicans.  With his true social conservative credentials, he managed a 2nd place finish in the Iowa caucus.  He withdrew before Super Tuesday.

Senator Bob Dole, who had previously lost as a vice-president in 1976 and lost the Republican nomination in 1980, decided to have another go at it.  Dole and Bush did not differ much in their views.  Bush drew criticism for his portrayal of Dole.  Dole was viewed as an angry person by responding to a question by saying Bush should stop lying about my record.  He was also viewed as a micromanager who could not handle a presidential campaign.  At this point, Dole would be comparable to Mitt Romney in 2008.

Vice-President George H.W. Bush was the early front-runner for the presidential nomination.  Bush was still considered to be the leader of the centrist part of the Republican party, but there was no real conservative to challenge him.  Bush finished in third place at the Iowa caucus.  During the New Hampshire primary, Bush ran a campaign ad portraying Dole as a taxraiser which helped contribute to Dole’s response.  But Bush’s organizational strength really helped as he was able to clinch the nomination once Super Tuesday began.  This is likely comparable to John McCain in 2008.

Conclusion: The only “true” Conservative was Robertson who finished 3rd or 4th.  But the two front-runners were both Republicans who appealed to the centrist wing of the party.

1996


The 1996 Republican primary did not have any immediate front-runners.  The only one who was considered in that breath was Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.


Ambassador Alan Keyes entered the 1996 Republican presidential primary to center the debate around abortion and bring it to the forefront of the political debate.  Keyes did not fare well in the primaries and eventually withdrew.  He would be comparable to what Ben Carson is trying to do, now.

Governor Lamar Alexander ran for President in 1996.  He did not do anything memorable, apparently, and ducked out pretty quickly.  He later served as an adviser to the Dole/Kemp campaign.

Journalist Steve Forbes tried to run in 1996.  He supported a flat tax of 17% on earned income, while maintaining the first $33,000 would be exempt from the tax.  Beside that, he was a traditional Republican.  He supports free trade, school vouchers, downsizing the federal government, and the death penalty. He also opposed drug legalization, same sex marriage, gun control, and environmental regulation.  But his campaign was doomed by his inability to cultivate a winning campaign style.

Presidential advisor Pat Buchanan challenged George H.W. Bush in 1992 because he thought Bush was leading the country in a liberal direction.  Buchanan wanted to challenge the Washington establishment in 1996.  He ran to the right of Bob Dole.  He opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  But there were questions about Buchanan’s comments about being a possible Holocaust denier and having a key campaign adviser go to a meeting with a white supremacist group.  Buchanan denied these allegations saying that the media was trying to smear him.  Buchanan is probably most comparable to Newt Gingrich in 2012.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole was the front-runner for the 1996 presidential nomination but did not have the support of many of the party’s higher-ups.  George W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney were all approached to run in 1996 but declined to run.  Dole was criticized by the left and the right of his party, over the convention platform and his platform, too.  Dole was criticized for the inclusion of the Human Life Amendment.  He had promised a return to supply side economics, promising a 15% cut across the board to income tax.  He is comparable to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Conclusion: There was not a real strong primary challenge in 1996, Bob Dole rose to the top of the pile.  The more conservative members were not real strong challengers.

2000


Again, in 200, there was not a real front-runner for the nomination but George W. Bush became the favorite among the Republican leadership.  John McCain was a darkhorse but he became quite the challenger to Bush.

Ambassador Alan Keyes: Keyes ran again in 2000, this time on a more Conservative platform than before.  He called for the elimination of all federal taxes except tariffs.  He also campaigned on a ban of homosexuals in the military.  He continued his call for bringing abortion policies to the forefront of the political debate.

Senator John McCain: McCain tried to fight against the political doublespeak and the special interest groups.  His campaign focused extensively on campaign finance reform.  McCain repeatedly held long town halls and frequent meetings with reporters to show his straight talk campaigning.  McCain was repeatedly accused by the Bush campaign as a Manchurain candidate.  The Bush campaign also accused supporters of McCain that they were not really Republicans but Democrats pretending to be Republicans.  McCain’s independent streak in the Senate finally caught up with him and the straight talk campaign was defeated under a slew of negative ads.

Governor George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate Conservative.”  He implied that he was a centrist Republican.  He ran on bringing honor and integrity back to the White House.  He also ran on cutting taxes, increased military spending, improving education, and aiding minorities.  Bush’s campaign was that of a generic Republican.  But he was able to effectively paint McCain as a RINO.  Bush won the South Carolina primary, the nomination, and the election on the backs of Christian Evangelical voters.

Conclusion: While Bush implied that he was more of a centrist Republican, he effectively showed himself to be the more Conservative option between himself and John McCain.

2008


The early front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination was Rudy Giuliani but he bowed out fairly early after failing to do well in Iowa.  Mike Huckabee won Iowa and seized the early momentum but John McCain finally won the nomination.

Congressman Ron Paul announced his candidacy in March of 2007.  Paul had a large following and a large group of supporters but ultimately he was unable to unseat any of his rivals in the primary elections.  Paul ran on a campaign of balancing the budget, bringing the troops home, non-interventionist foreign policy, an attempt to be a civil libertarian, and being pro-life.  Paul’s supporters claim to be libertarians but it comes from a different brand, overall, than traditional libertarians.  ANYWAY, Paul failed to endorse another Republican candidate in 2008.

Governor Mike Huckabee was the most Conservative candidates in the 2008 Republican primary.  He was a favorite among Christian evangelicals.  He has stood by his comments that we need to take this nation back to Christ.  He drew considerable support from the Christian evangelical activist groups.  Some media outlets looked through his past speeches and claimed that he was a right-wing Christian.  Huckabee won the Iowa caucus but ultimately bowed out of the election because of lack of funds and structural problems with his campaign.

Governor Mitt Romney’s first run as the presidential nomination was a failure.  Romney’s biggest liability was that he ran for Senate and was Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union.  Late in his gubernatorial tenure, he began to shift his social values to align more with the traditional conservatives’ views.  He was derided by social conservatives for lack of core values and opportunism.  He also faced suspicion from Christian evangelicals because of his religious faith.  Romney was charged as being a flip flopper and came off as phony.  Despite his obvious skills as a fundraiser, it was too much to overcome, with a serious challenger.

Senator John McCain attempted to run for President in 2008.  McCain had national name recognition.  But he faced some criticism for his support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  But he mainly got the nomination because of the troubles and inexperience of Huckabee and the phoniness of Romney. McCain’s straight talk and his appeal as an independent thinker showed support from many in the Republican electorate.

Conclusion: McCain was hardly more electable than Romney, but McCain proved to be more Conservative than Romney but less so than Huckabee.

2012


The 2012 Republican primary basically pitted favorite Mitt Romney against the rest of the field.  The rest of the field was supposed to step up to become the anti-Romney candidate.

Speaker Newt Gingrich was one of the favorites for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in 2011.  Gingrich had some hiccups early on in the campaign having to fire most of his staff.  He appeared back on the upswing and fared well in the South and with evangelical Christians.  Gingrich was a favorite at one point but he struggled and began to lag behind Romney.  Gingrich, typically, fared well in the debates but his campaign was plagued by gaffes such as his ill-fated moon colony idea.  Gingrich lasted well into the primary despite the urging by fellow candidate Rick Santorum.  Gingrich announced he was the “last conservative standing.”  He eventually withdrew and threw his support behind Romney.

Ron Paul ran in 2012 like he had in 2008.  He ran a similar campaign to what he had in 2008.  He eventually ran out of money.  He refused to endorse any Republican candidate or speak at the Republican National Convention.

Rick Santorum decided to run for President to allow the Conservative voice to be heard and articulated.  Santorum initially lagged behind many of those who dropped out and the favorite, Mitt Romney.  But as more of the conservative candidates dropped out, Santorum became the only voice for the true conservatives.  Santorum was able to hold on as long he could before eventually suspending his campaign.

Mitt Romney’s second run for the Republican nomination was more successful than the first.  Always adept at fundraising, Romney was able to compete against lesser opponents.  While charges of his flip-flopping re-emerged in 2011, he was able to defend himself against them.  He focused primarily on the eventual match-up with Barack Obama, as opposed to criticizing his fellow Republicans.  Because of his fundraising ability, he was able to outspend his opponents to the point where he broke them.

Conclusion: I’ve been very critical of the 2012 Republican primary field but Romney was the strongest of the weak candidates.  Romney was easily the most electable candidate of the bunch, but not as a question of his moderate ability.  He was a talented fundraiser and able to effectively communicate his message.  It also helped that Romney seemed to look like a president.

1976: More moderate

1980: More conservative

1988: Senator Bob Dole vs. Vice President George H.W. Bush had Bush as more conservative than Dole.

1996: Weak candidates but Dole was moderate

2000: More conservative between Bush and McCain

2008: This one is tough. Huckabee was more conservative than McCain or Romney but was not as strong as a candidate as either of them.

2012: Weak candidates but Romney was moderate

Overall conclusion: The Republican nominations seem to vary over time but it does not seem that there is a tendency by the party to nominate the most moderate choice.  It seems that there is a bias to elect the most electable candidate with a particular bias toward those who have run for the nomination in the past.  When there are stronger candidates, the Republican party chooses the most Conservative stronger candidate.  But at times when there are weaker candidates, the moderate candidate is allowed to shine and win the nomination.

The Left Way of Nominating a President

I would like to make historical comparisons, if I can.  Some on the Left, make a generalized comment that the Democratic Party chooses the most conservative candidate for the Presidential nomination. I will start with the 1972 Presidential Primary and conclude with the 2008 Presidential primary.

1972

In 1970, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie gave the message of the Democratic Party to Congressional voters before the mid-term elections.  In January of 1971, South Dakota Senator George McGovern announced his candidacy for the Presidential nomination, polling in 5th place among other Democratic hopefuls.  By August of 1971, Muskie was the heavy favorite to win, not only the Democratic nomination but to win the Presidential election.  In January 1972, McGovern was polling at 3% among Democratic voters.  In January 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace announced his candidacy for the Presidential nomination.  Former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey announced his near perennial decision to run for President in 1972.  In March of 1972, former Governor of North Carolina announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.  The Congressional Delegate for Washington, D.C., Walter Fauntroy, announced his candidacy and won the D.C. primary.  After a series of campaign attacks, Muskie ended up losing momentum and withdrew from the nomination before the convention.  George Wallace survived an assassination attempt in May of 1972, but was paralyzed from the waist down.  This effectively ended his campaign and he withdrew during the convention.  Humphrey was well-organized for the 1972 primary season, eventually winning many primaries.  He ultimately withdrew after a delegation fiasco at the convention. Sanford withdrew during the convention after finishing in 5th.  McGovern won the nomination.

Candidates:

Edmund Muskie: Muskie was the vice-presidential nominee for Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election.  Muskie became the voice of the Democratic party by 1970.  He was also chosen to give remarks to the State of the Union address in 1972 and 1973.  Muskie was the heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination.  But Richard Nixon and his “dirty tricks team” forged a letter alleging that Muskie insulted French Canadians and that his wife drank and swore.  Muskie made a big deal out of his defense for his wife.  He had melted snowflakes on his face that many people thought were tears.  He was accused of breaking down.  Even though Muskie won the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, Muskie’s momentum was halted and he withdrew from the nomination.

 

Hubert Humphrey: Humphrey served as Vice-President from 1965-1969.  Humphrey was originally a skeptic of the Vietnam War.  But after President Lyndon Johnson gave him the cold shoulder for his criticism, Humphrey became a vocal supporter of the war.  Although Humphrey had major support from labor unions and other key Democratic allies, including civil rights activists, he was eventually troubled from his lack of support from college students and anti-war activists over his support for the Vietnam War.  Humphrey, who had the full faith and credit of the Democratic Party in 1968, tried to skip the primaries in 1972, ultimately failed, losing to George McGovern at the convention.

George Wallace: Wallace was the Governor of Alabama, who ran in 1970 for re-election as Governor, based on pretty racist advertisements including accusing blacks vowing to take Alabama.  Wallace did not support the Vietnam War.  Wallace’s 1968 election has been the platform for the Republican Party, since.  He argued against the federal government and busing laws.  Arguments, that more or less, carried over to today.  But in 1972, Wallace declared himself a Democrat and that he was a moderate on segregation.  Wallace was a great campaigner, but his assassination attempt ended his campaign.

Terry Sanford: Sanford, the former Governor of North Carolina, announced his candidacy to show that not all Southerners were in favor of segregation.  Sanford served as Governor of North Carolina, where he increased the state’s expenditures to public universities.  He oversaw the creation of North Carolina’s Community College System.  He raised taxes to help pay for the expenditure.  He also fought for desegregation in North Carolina.  He also was a vocal opponent of the death penalty.  Sanford did not fare well in the primaries.

George McGovern: McGovern, the Senator from South Dakota, was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War.  He had helped lead protests in 1968 after Humphrey won the nomination.  He announced his candidacy before anybody else, in January 1971.  McGovern was still polling below 5% by 1972.  McGovern ran with a grassroots level organization focusing on his anti-war policies.  McGovern won less primary votes than Hubert Humphrey but won, in part by a winner take all system in California.  McGovern’s campaign was focused on withdrawal of Vietnam, amnesty for draft dodgers,  and a 37% decrease in defense spending,  McGovern’s campaign at the end was attacked by the labor movement and Southern Democrats.

Conclusion: McGovern won over the party’s established candidates in Muskie and Humphrey.  By focusing on college students and appealing to the Left, McGovern won the nomination.  The favorites were both Muskie and Humphrey, they both lost.

 

1976

There were no heavy favorites for the 1976 Democratic nomination, a record 23 people entered the race, but ultimately, it went to Jimmy Carter. In February of 1975, Henry Jackson, Senator from Washington, announced his candidacy.  He was considered the favorite when he ran for his candidacy.  Governor of Georgia Jimmy Carter announced his candidacy, as late as January of 1976, Carter was polling at 4% among Democratic voters.  After Carter announced his candidacy, Morris Udall, a Congressman from Arizona announced that he would be the liberal alternative to Carter.  Near the end of the campaign, Governor of California Jerry Brown announced that his campaign hoping to stall the conservative Carter’s campaign.

Candidates:

Henry Jackson: Jackson was considered a whore for defense spending.  He criticized President Dwight Eisenhower for not spending enough for defense spending.  He was considered the Senator from Boeing for his all talk about adding additional contracts to his state.  Jackson was one of the biggest supporters for the Civil Rights movement.  But because of his calls for defense spending and his support for the Vietnam War, Jackson’s campaign was initially attacked by the Left.  Jackson had raised his profile by speaking about the Middle East and U.S.-Soviet policy.  Jackson was also supported for his vocal support for Israel.  But because he never got off the ground for his support for Vietnam War and his lack of support from the labor movement, he ran out of money and ultimately dropped out of the campaign.

Jimmy Carter: Carter was not well-known nationally.  But because of the opposition to the Watergate scandal, Carter was able to target people because of his outsider status.  Carter won election as Governor of Georgia, in part because of a nasty racially charged campaign.  While he was Governor, he announced that segregation was over.  Carter merged hundreds of state agencies, as well.  He ran as a moderate in the South to George Wallace’s ideology.  While in the North, he looked Conservative.  Carter grabbed the early momentum by winning Iowa and New Hampshire. His early successes led the Left to find a new candidate to support.

Morris Udall: By the time Udall decided to run, Carter defeated his early challengers with a string of victories.  Udall announced his candidacy as the liberal alternative to Carter.  Udall was known in Congress for his environmental policies, Native American welfare, and commitment to campaign finance reform.  Udall, apparently, made witty speeches, which delighted a lot of his supporters.  Udall did not really emerge as a a formidable foe to Carter.  He was attacked as a racist in the Michigan primary.  He ultimately lost and did not get over the campaign as he endorsed Edward Kennedy’s run in 1980 against Carter.

 

Jerry Brown: Brown announced his candidacy even later, hoping to challenge the moderate Carter.  Brown was the Governor of California, at the time.  He was a fiscal conservative, championed environmental issues, and opposed the death penalty.  Brown was unable to stop Carter’s momentum, despite ultimate primary wins in Louisiana, New Jersey, California, and Nevada.

Conclusion: There was no clear establishment favorite after Edward Kennedy declined to run.  Jackson was the first favorite, but ultimately dropped out.  Carter was considered a conservative, at the time, but never really earned the support of the Party.  The Carter primary victory was vastly different than any since.

 

1984

At the beginning of the campaign, vice-president and former Senator from Minnesota, Walter Mondale was the early favorite for the 1984 Democratic nomination.  Despite a primary win in New Hampshire by a moderate Senator from Colorado named Gary Hart, Mondale maintained his front-runner status.  Civil Rights Activist Jesse Jackson was regarded as a fringe candidate and finished in 3rd place, eventually winning 21% of the popular vote from the Democratic primary.  Former astronaut and Ohio Senator John Glenn also announced his candidacy, he was in 2nd place behind Mondale in early polling, but Glenn ultimately failed as a candidate.

Candidates:

John Glenn: Glenn was an astronaut and became a Senator in 1974.  Glenn was considered a choice for Carter’s vice-president nominee but his speech did not impress the Democratic Party.  In November of 1983, Glenn was polling a close second, trailing only Mondale.  Glenn decided to run for President as if he was voting for Senate.  He declined to cater to the interest groups, trying to appeal to everyday voters.  Glenn went deep in debt for his presidential campaign and failed to live up to his early billing.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was more or less considered a fringe candidate.  He managed to win three to five primaries.  He won more votes in Virginia than any other candidate, but Mondale won more delegates.  Jackson’s campaign was doomed by his anti-Semitic remarks referring to New York City as Hymietown.  He also refused to disassociate himself from Louis Farrakhan.  He also was a supporter of the Palestine state.  Jackson was also critical of Mondale, saying that the last relevant politician from Minneapolis was Hubert Humphrey.

 

Gary Hart: Hart, Senator from Colorado, started out behind many contenders as someone who was not well known within the Democratic Party.  He began his campaign in New Hampshire earlier than most.  By late 1983, Hart was ahead of the middling contenders and polled in the middle of the pack.  Although, he lost the Iowa caucus, he came back and won the New Hampshire primary.  Hart was a moderate Democrat, who people thought represented the future of the party.  Because he was more independent, his ideas were different than many of the contenders in the Democratic primary.  Mondale jumped on this by claiming that Hart’s ideas were not substantial enough.  Ultimately, Hart lost to Mondale in the Democratic convention.

Walter Mondale: Mondale, by virtue of being Vice-President from 1977-1981 and running in 1980, was the clear front-runner in the 1984 election.  Mondale was a typical liberal Democratic presidential candidate who eventually campaigned against Ronald Reagan by supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, a nuclear freeze, and against Reagan’s economic policies.  His liberal attitudes helped him clinch the Democratic nomination but ultimately failed him in the general election.

Conclusion: Mondale was the most liberal candidate in the field.  He was also the front-runner throughout the entire election.  Some credit his lopsided defeat in the general election as the reason to shift to more moderate candidates from the Democratic party.

 

1988

After the fairly strong showing in the 1984 presidential primaries, Gary Hart was considered the front-runner for the 1988 nomination.  But in 1987, news broke that Hart had an extra-marital affair.  Hart suspended his campaign and it became a free-for-all for the nomination.  Representative Dick Gephardt initially seized some of the momentum in Iowa by highlighting what he thought was unfair trade practices by Japan and South Korea.  Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis portrayed Gephardt as a flip-flopper in commercials.  Gephardt finished second to Dukakis in New Hampshire but his flop-flopping advertisements doomed Gephardt by Super Tuesday.  In early 1988, Jesse Jackson gained momentum by winning in Michigan.  But that was short-lived, as Dukakis won the Colorado primary and Wisconsin primary in back to back days. Senator Al Gore ran, as well, trying to capture the momentum on Super Tuesday as being the only Southern candidate, when 12 states would hold their primaries.  But he failed to account for Jackson, as Jackson and Gore split the Southern votes.  Dukakis did not focus on the Southern states and was able to win the majority of the primaries.

 

Candidates:

Dick Gephardt: Rep. Gephardt ran for President from his position representing Missouri, the 3rd District.  Gephardt, initially was dependent on labor and union spending as he decided to run.  He, initially, was critical of the decision in Roe v. Wade but later decided that he no longer supports restrictions on abortion rights.  He, also, initially voted in favor of Reagan’s tax cuts before being against them. He supported universal health coverage, fair trade, and progressive taxation.  He was able to capitalize on this spending by running advertisements that included highlighting unfair trade from Japan and Korea.  But after Jesse Jackson’s strong showing in Michigan, many unions and those in the labor movement switched support to Jesse Jackson, Gephardt ran out of money and steam.  Despite his strong showing early, he was out by Super Tuesday.

Al Gore: Gore, initially was a long-shot for the nomination.  But because of his youthfulness and his centrist policies, Gore seemed to be a match made in television heaven.  Gore was a Southern Democrat who opposed federal funding for abortion, supported prayer in school, and voted against banning interstate sales of handguns.  Gore was compared, somewhat favorably, to John F. Kennedy.  But Gore did not foresee Jackson splitting the Southern vote with him on Super Tuesday.  Gore was also criticized for some of the supporting words given by New York City Mayor Ed Koch in defense of Israel.  Many of these views cast others in  negative light and Gore was perceived as being too negative, he soon dropped out of the race.

Jesse Jackson: Initially considered a long shot due to his race and his kind of strange showing in the 1984 Presidential nomination process, Jackson showed to be a formidable foe by giving a rousing speech to the United AutoWorkers in Detroit.  Jackson picked up a lot of support in the union heavy Michigan.  After, he won the state, Jackson was considered the front-runner.  Jackson was considered to be a very liberal candidate supporting a variety of views that were not even on the Democratic party platform.  He was a supporter of single payer health care, going away from mandatory minimum sentences, reviving many of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies for farmers, providing free community college for all, among others.  Jackson was doomed, in part, because of the criminal activity of his half-brother.  Jackson, also, did not have the support from white voters.

Michael Dukakis: The Governor of Massachusetts at the time, Dukakis merely outspent the rest of his opponents to eventually win the nomination.  It really wasn’t that impressive of a victory.  This seems similar to Mitt Romney in 2012.  Dukakis ate up his competitors by outspending them and appealing to white voters.  By not focusing on the South, Dukakis was able to win other stats while Gore split the South with Jackson.

 

Conclusion: This election was very strange.  Dukakis was able to pick apart his opponents by using their weaknesses against them.  By focusing on flip-flopping with Gephardt, appealing to white voters to defeat Jackson, and to show that Gore was not liberal enough, Dukakis was able to secure the nomination.  This one had three lead changes for the nomination and the heavy favorite before the election did not even end up running.

 

1992

As the Iowa caucus came about Iowa Senator Tom Harkin won handily but less than one month later, Harkin was out of the race.  Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, who was painting himself as a New Democrat, was a relative unknown.  A woman came forward claiming an affair with Clinton, but he re-branded himself as the comeback kid.  He finished in second place behind Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire.  California Governor Jerry Brown won in Maine delaying the momentum of Tsongas.  Clinton began to take the momentum away from Tsongas and Brown, finishing in 2nd place in Arizona before beginning to win states of his own.  Tsongas hoped to push Brown out of the race by Illinois but Brown managed to stick around coming in 3rd place.  A week later, Brown won Connecticut sealing the fate for Tsongas.  Clinton won the vast majority of states after Connecticut.  Brown lost New York after being ahead for awhile.  That was the end for Brown.  Clinton was able to secure the nomination.

Candidates:

Tom Harkin: The Iowa Senator was considered the early favorite for the Democratic nomination.  He had strong support with the labor movement and began his run as a populist.  But he was not well suited for a national campaign.  Poor showings at other primaries doomed Harkin.  He threw his support behind Bill Clinton, early on, and later campaigned for him.

Paul Tsongas: Tsongas ignored the Iowa caucus and decided to focus on the New Hampshire primary.  He began the campaign focusing on his independence and fiscal conservatism.  He decided against campaigning on a tax cut like many other candidates. He was viewed as a social liberal and an economic moderate.  While in Congress, he focused on environmental conservation  and pro-business economic policies.  He was critical of the Democratic party for focusing on wealth redistribution when he thought they should be focusing on the federal deficit.  Tsongas, after his New Hampshire primary win, picked up several other primaries but was unable to match Clinton for fundraising.  His biggest chance was to force Jerry Brown from the race, which he was unable to do.  He was briefly considered the front-runner but Bill Clinton’s popularity and narrative as the comeback kid, placed him as the favorite for the majority of the race.

 

Jerry Brown: The former Governor of California was considered to be the most left candidate and the candidate who was the most right.  He campaigned by only accepting individual donations.  He also campaigned on populist ideals, calling for Congressional term limits.  But at different points, he campaigned for a flat tax, the abolition of the Department of Education, opposition to NAFTA, and support for living-wage laws.  Brown’s campaign was interesting, not spending for commercials but hosting talk and radio shows.  What allowed him to be a serious contender to Clinton was a narrow victory in Connecticut.  What doomed him was his in the New York primary, he told many Democratic leaders in New York City that he was considering Jesse Jackson as his Vice-President.  Because of his anti-Semitic remarks earlier, Jackson was still a hated figure in New York City.  Brown was unable to win New York.  Ultimately, Brown came in 2nd place overall.

Bill Clinton: Clinton gave a very long speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention that was poorly delivered.  He should have played the saxophone.  But Clinton was an unknown in Iowa for the nomination, finishing a distant third.  While campaigning in New Hampshire, accusations of an extramarital affair was surfacing.  Clinton went on 60 Minutes with Hillary Rodham Clinton fighting the charge.  Clinton was able to convince enough voters to give him some love.  He finished within single digits of Tsongas in New Hampshire.  This was considered a major victory for Clinton’s campaign because he was not expected to do this well.  Clinton secured most of the South on Super Tuesday but he had failed to win a state outside of the South.  Because of Jerry Brown’s mistake in New York, Clinton was able to win New York which gave him credence that he wasn’t a regional candidate.  Clinton later became the nominee.

Conclusion: The original favorite bowed out early.  Clinton became the favorite by New Hampshire but there were still many questions about his ability to win outside of the South fairly late.  While Brown was never considered a favorite, he gave Clinton a challenge.  As for who was most Conservative and most Liberal?  Clinton was thought to be the leader of the New Democratic Party where it was going to win the middle of America.  Brown was considered the most Conservative and most Liberal candidate.  Tsongas is certainly not a Liberal.  Harkin was the closest to a Liberal in the campaign.  But, yikes. There was not a true Liberal in the Mondale mold.

 

2000

Vice-President Al Gore was considered the favorite to run for the presidential nomination, as early as 1997.  Meanwhile, New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley formed an exploratory campaign to run for President in 1998.  Bradley was the only candidate to challenge Gore.  He trailed Gore in every poll and every primary.

Candidates:

Bill Bradley: Bradley campaigned as the liberal alternative to Vice-President Al Gore.  He campaigned on universal health care, gun control, and campaign finance reform.  Bradley also advocated for expanding the minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, expand Head Start, and expand welfare.  He stated that the best tax system would be low rates and no loopholes.  Bradley did not lead in any poll and he lost every primary.

Al Gore: After basically 12 years in the national spotlight, either running for President or being Vice-President, Gore was the Democratic Party’s favorite to win the nomination.  Gore ran to the middle throughout the campaign and distanced himself from Bill Clinton.  Gore was offensive with Bradley during their debates, but thanks to access to the party’s credit card, Gore was able to win the nomination, easily.

Conclusion: If you’re arguing for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, Al Gore is basically your comparison.  Gore was much more conservative than Bradley and was considered the favorite three years before election.  If this is the nomination process in 2016, I fear for the 2016 Democratic nomination.  As we’ve seen for a number of primaries the favorite failed to secure the nomination, but in 2000, this was remarkably changed.

 

2004

 

In May of 2002, Vermont Governor Howard Dean announced he would form an exploratory committee to run for President.  Massachusetts Senator John Kerry announced in December of 2002 that he, too, would form a committee.  North Carolina John Edwards also announced his intention to form a committee.  In April of 2004, fundraising totals for the first quarter of 2003 were announced showing Edwards in the lead, followed by Kerry.  Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman were ahead of Howard Dean but they were still over $4 million behind Kerry and Edwards.  Dean showed the first advertisement of the campaign.  A liberal website, MoveOn held a nonbinding Democratic primary for financial support and the website’s endorsement.  Dean came in first, followed by Dennis Kucinich, and Kerry.  By July of 2003, the second quarter fundraising numbers were in and Dean was now able to raise more money than anyone else.  Kerry came in second.  Edwards tied with Lieberman, in third place.  In fall of 2003, Dean was considered the favorite, performing strongly in polls.  Although he was a pragmatic centrist as Governor, in the mold of Bill Clinton, he denounced George W. Bush’s policies, in addition to, Democrats who did not oppose them, enough.  Dean was referred to as a Rockefeller Republican, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Despite being a heavy favorite, Dean focused on negative advertisements in Iowa.  After the results of Iowa were counted, Kerry finished in 1st, Edwards in 2nd, and Dean in 3rd.  Dean downplayed the result but Kerry was able to win New Hampshire, as well.  Edwards regained momentum by focusing on positive ads.  Kerry was able to maintain his lead throughout the process and secured the nomination.

 

Candidates:

Howard Dean: Dean has become a favorite of liberals on the internet who think that Dean represented the only liberal response in 2004.  They forget the criticism of Ralph Nader and others that called him a Rockefeller Republican.  Dean opposed the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts and drew on the internet for grassroots activism and campaign funding.  This was in the mold of Jerry Brown asking for individual donations for his presidential campaign.  Dean was a longshot candidate to begin with, but because of his early announcement, as we’ve seen, he was able to gain early support.

John Edwards: Edwards was a one-term Senator from North Carolina.  He was the second or third place finisher in almost every primary.  Looking at the fundraising numbers, Edwards was the favorite to win the nomination.  By virtue of staying in the race longer than others, he was able to secure a number of delegates.  He also focused on positive advertisements.  He refused to attack John Kerry.

John Kerry: Despite not being the party favorite or party activists’ favorite, Kerry won nearly every primary or caucus.  You know he’s pretty much the favorite, when they say that the Iowa caucus revitalized his sagging campaign.  It’s the first caucus.  Whatever.

Conclusion: Edwards was initially the favorite if you look at fundraising.  Due to the internet and progressives, more or less seeing the same blogs and websites, Dean was the favorite.  But when it came to voting, there was no doubt, Kerry was the favorite, throughout.  Dean was considered by some to be the most liberal and that’s certainly the popular narrative now.  But that could simply be political posturing.  Edwards was often the one who was characterized as being the populist.  But we know how narratives can be invented years after the fact.

 

2008

 

This was the first presidential election I remember paying close attention to. I watched the Democratic Presidential debates and also one of my friends and I volunteered for John Edwards’s campaign.  With respect to the other candidates, the choices were between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton emerged as the early two favorites in terms of fundraising.  Clinton was the favorite, according to an assortment of polls. In September 2007, she was leading the first six states that would hold primaries and caucuses. After multiple third place finishes, Edwards dropped out of the race.  Barack Obama won the early momentum by winning Iowa after Hillary Clinton declined to show up.  Obama campaigned largely on hope and change.  The Iowa caucus announced his presence to those who had been ignoring politics.  After the Iowa caucus, Obama began to look a little bit better in polls, showing him leading in New Hampshire.  Clinton narrowly won New Hampshire.  She stumbled after New Hampshire, implicitly making a racial remark about Obama.  Bill Clinton later compared Barack Obama’s primary victories to Jesse Jackson’s victories in 1988.  Obama surged on Super Tuesday after a one on one debate with Hillary Clinton.  The idea among Democratic voters and progressives was that Obama would be more liberal than Clinton.

Overall conclusion:

The favorite for the Democratic primary won in 1984 and 2000.

The most “moderate” candidate won in 1976 and 2000.

There is not strong historical evidence for the claim that the Democratic party would nominate the most moderate candidate.  Nor is there strong evidence for the favorite before the primary season to win the Democratic nomination.