Choosing a VP

When Paul Ryan was named as the Vice-Presidential nominee by Republican Mitt Romney, I was asked about his impact on the Presidential race.  I said many times that the Ryan pick would finally energize the conservative base of the Republican Party who were skeptical of their nominee in Ryan.  Ryan’s youthful enthusiasm coupled with his wonkish policy appeal was just what the Romney campaign needed.  The bland Romney campaign searched for its voice throughout the primary season and through the early stages of the general campaign.  Ryan would be that shot in the arm.  For a short time, the Ryan pick did help pull even with President Barack Obama in the polls.  That momentum seems to have been lost in the last week, as recent reports from the Romney front have stated that Ryan has been muzzled by his Romney’s staffers.  Romney’s team wants Ryan to speak less on his “bread and butter” topic, the budget, and more on how badly Obama has run the country.  Conservative pundits and grassroots supporters wonder why this is so?  Without Ryan’s budget appeal, the Romney campaign was back to where it started, in search of a voice.

How much of a factor should a Vice Presidential pick be for a Presidential ticket? What criteria would you look for when choosing a VP nominee?

 

 

The Politics of Celebrity

At the Republican National Convention in 2012, it was Clint Eastwood who made a splash with his speech regarding President Obama.  At the Democratic National Convention in that same year, Kal Penn of Harold and Kumar fame, made a veiled reference to Eastwood’s speech and made overtures toward younger Americans to vote.  In 1964, actor Raymond Massey made a campaign commercial for Republican Barry Goldwater.  Actor E.G. Marshall filmed a spot for Hubert Humphrey in 1968.  Paul Newman campaigned for another Democrat in 1968, Eugene McCarthy.  Sammy Davis Jr. endorsed President Nixon.  Singer Pearl Bailey in 1976 for President Ford.    Even Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.   The list of celebrities endorsing and campaigning for Presidents and presidential candidates is almost endless.  I once watched a PBS documentary entitled, “Vote For Me”, where the then head of the Oklahoma Democratic Party referred to politics as “show business for ugly people.”  He was alluding to the entertainment value of political campaigns and how the political process had become superficial over the years.  This documentary was filmed in the mid-1990s.

Today, it seems as if politics and entertainment industry have come together as one.  Entertainers of all political stripes are now engaged in the political process by adding their opinions to the issues, events, and candidates of the day through social media and traditional media outlets alike.  Has the separation between politics and entertainment become blurred over the years?  Do you believe that entertainers have any influence on the political process?

Who Paid For That Ad?

A common misperception from the 1988 Presidential campaign between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis is that Bush team produced and ran ad that prominently featured Willie Horton.  The “Willie Horton ad” is it was to be called, featured a criminal (Horton) and how he was allowed out of prison on weekends by a Massachusetts Governor (Dukakis) in part to that state’s prison furlough program.  The ad mentions that while Horton was out on one weekend pass, he kidnapped, stabbed, and raped a woman and brutally beat that woman’s boyfriend.  The ad struck a nerve with the public, hurt the Dukakis campaign, and Dukakis never recovered.  Many who watched the ad would reference it as “Bush’s Willie Horton ad” when in fact the ad was created by the National Security PAC (Political Action Committee).  This PAC ran an ad, by federal law, independent of the Bush campaign.

How would the public know if the ad was paid for and produced by an outside or independent organization?  Sure, there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the “Horton” ad that disclosed the source.  The disclaimer was about the size of the type of disclaimers that you see in a car commercial.  A magnifying glass is a necessity for proper reading.  In the last twelve years, identifying a commercial’s source became a bit easier for the public.  With the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (2002), candidates at the federal level who run ads from their own campaign coffers must say, “I am so and so and I am approve this message.”  Most campaign commercials are run by outside organizations, so this BCRA requirement is not applicable.

What are your thoughts on the amount of ads that you have seen in the last few months?  Now that the elections are over, you perhaps can fully process what has been transmitted over the airwaves in this election season.

 

Should There Be Runoff Elections?

We typically use the phrase, “majority rules” when it comes to determining a winner in our elections.  However, many times, a winner can be decided by less than a majority vote.  Therefore, the proper phrase would be, “plurality rules”. In some states, getting a plurality is not enough.  As a result, a second election or a runoff election is used to determine a winner.  Eleven states have runoff elections, nine of them are in the South.  Proponents of a runoff election support the notion that a majority should be earned by a candidate who wishes to be a party’s nominee.  Opponents suggest that a runoff election is too costly to administer and that many who turned out to vote in the initial primary would not vote in a second election.  Thus, a candidate may receive a majority vote, but would do so from a smaller voting population.

Should more states institute provisions for runoff elections?  What are your thoughts on runoff elections?

Prospects for Victory

From the 1964 Ralph G. Martin book, Ballots and Bandwagons, a compilation of events from five political conventions in the early half of the twentieth century:

“Political Axiom Number One says that the brighter the presidential prospect of victory, the greater the crop of available candidates.”

It is a pretty simple rule, but can such a rule be applied not only the Presidency, but to a House, Senate, or Gubernatorial race?  Do you agree with such an axiom?

Looking Ahead to 2016

It’s not even the end of 2012 and names are already being thrown about for the 2016 Presidential contest.  President Barack Obama is term-limited, so that leaves the Democratic nomination wide open.  Governor Mitt Romney will more than likely not be running for the Republican nomination in 2016.  Since neither 2012 candidate is eligible nor likely to run, both political parties will have their work cut out for them in deciding who their Presidential nominees will be.  Voters, of course, will be the ultimate deciding factor in choosing the party nominees.  On the Democratic side, Vice President Joe Biden, newly elected US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are most frequently mentioned.  Outgoing Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and current Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper are also discussed as possible candidates for President.  The Republican side, after two straight Presidential defeats, also has a strong list of possible candidates.  Among them are former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney’s chief conservative opponent in 2012, has also made overtures about running for President in 2016.  Former US Senator Scott Brown, who lost to Elizabeth Warren in his re-election bid this November, is also seen as a dark horse candidate for the White House.  What should we be watching out for when trying to determine who will run for President in 2016?  Pay attention to those who visit Iowa and New Hampshire in 2013.  Those two states conduct the first caucuses and primaries respectively.  Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire help narrow the field of candidates from the serious and not-so-serious.  Since they are first, it is understandable as to why those with Presidential aspirations visit them.  With that in mind, who do you think will run for President in 2016?

What Do We Do Now?

The Candidate (1972) embodies what it is like for an unknown to compete against an entrenched incumbent for the United States Senate.  The film, which starred Robert Redford, Melvyn Douglas, and Peter Boyle, was written by Jeremy Larner, who was the head speechwriter for Eugene McCarthy in his 1968 bid for President.  Shot in a pseudo-documentary style which is common place in many television shows and movies today, The Candidate provides serious and comic moments in how a campaign works.  This is done all through the lens of someone who once worked for a Presidential campaign.  The Candidate is a compelling piece of cinema from the early 1970s.  Perhaps that even with the film’s star power and sobering screenplay, it is the film’s final scene that demonstrates the disconnect between campaign for office and the reality of actually holding office.

After this year’s November election, what do we do now?  Something to think about and answer:  What should those candidates who win/won on Tuesday, November 6 at the national level (President, Senate, House) confront as their first priority in the new year?

What Does A Walker Win Mean For Romney?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s overwhelming victory in June that staved off a recall attempt by Democrats and their allies initially signaled to national Republicans that the Presidential race was up for grabs and that Mitt Romney had a chance to win the state that voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  Romney made an even further push for Wisconsin by naming Representative Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin as his Vice-Presidential running mate.  However, as the November election draws near, polls still show the Presidential has the lead in Wisconsin over Romney with only a month and a half before Election Day.

Why hasn’t the Romney campaign been able to turn Wisconsin into a Republican state in the Presidential year?  The answer is quite simple.  At first glance, Walker’s win over Democrat Tom Barrett was a result of a galvanized voter base on the Republican side who supported Walker’s tough stances on issues related to unions and collective bargaining.   Recall elections bring out more grassroots voters.  Those voters are emotionally attached to the election and its outcome.

Presidential elections bring out voters who are emotionally attached to an election outcome but also they bring out those voters who are considered to be low information voters.  Low information voters tend to pay attention to elections within a month of the actual voting day.  They have less of a connection to the candidates who are running for office and the issues being discussed by those candidates.  Low information voters may very well be what President Obama needs to get re-elected.

Also, there are more college students and younger voters available to vote in Wisconsin in cold November than there were in warm month of June.  They, too, will play a role in the outcome.  Tea Party Republicans and grassroots organizers must be able turn out in higher numbers than they did in June in order to give Romney a shot at winning Wisconsin.

There is little data correlating a recall election outcome to a Presidential election, in that there have been very few recall elections at the state level in the United States.  Even so, when Arnold Schwarzenegger won in the recall election Gray Davis in 2003, Democrats still voted for John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 for President.  Even with little data available related to the correlation of recall elections to Presidential elections, it is safe to assume that there will be a different bloc headed to the voting booth which could make a Walker victory a moot issue for the Romney campaign.

What are your thoughts?

Give Me A Way Out

I can remember visiting my grandparents in Parlin, New Jersey for several holidays and occasions each year.  My grandpa and I would sit and watch a television show called, “The Uncle Floyd Show” which was a New Jersey institution in the form of a low-budget comedy-variety program.  The show bounced around, year after year, from low frequency channel to low budget cable channel so many times that my grandpa would tease me and say that “Uncle Floyd” was on “Channel 52 and a Half”.  Inevitably, we would talk up some baseball stories, mainly focusing on who should and shouldn’t be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.  We wouldn’t get into stats too often, but I would question him about the merits of certain ballplayers, like Steve Garvey, for instance, who I thought should be in Hall and who my grandpa thought should not.  Our selections to the Hall were based on straight up and down votes.  Either he’s allowed induction into the Hall or he’s not.

Voting for someone into the Baseball Hall of Fame is not the same as voting for the next President of the United States yet many polling companies typically give the respondent two candidates to choose from.  Either you vote for the Democrat or you vote for the Republican.  There is little middle ground.  In the United States, voters are more likely to consider themselves, Independent, than Democrat or Republican.  Furthermore, there are extremes to both the left and to the right of our two major parties.  You have your Greens, Socialists and the newly formed Justice Party to the left of the Democrats and the Libertarians and Constitution Party supporter to the right of the Republicans.  However, when asked to choose a Presidential preference, many voters are left with one or the other.  Is it going to be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?  I know we get a chance to say, “I Don’t Know” or “Unsure” or “Other”, but I want my “other” choice to be a specific name.  When I buy a drink from the store, I have a choice of Coke, Pepsi, and other cola brands, such as RC.  The labels never read, “Other Cola”.

Why not list, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, or Rocky Anderson as polling choices?  In Colorado, you could add the name of Roseanne Barr, who is also a third-party candidate for President in some states.  How about adding the Prohibition Party candidate to a poll in Louisiana, the only state where the party qualified this year?

Polls should list all candidates running for President, and for other offices, where applicable.  If it’s a nationwide poll, then all candidates who are running if enough states to qualify for the Electoral College should be listed.   State by state Presidential polls should include all qualified candidates from that state in the survey.  Polls for Gubernatorial, Senate, and House races should also not leave third party or Independent candidates off of their questionnaires.  It is the honest way to go to promote electoral choice in the United States.  Polling companies that offer multiple survey choices only inform the voter more about who is running for a particular office.  There is no harm in doing so.

My grandpa passed away a few years ago.  I miss those baseball discussions with him.  Looking back, it seems that our final decisions on who should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame were pretty rigid.  Making a choice for President in a poll, however, should not have to be as rigid.

What are your thoughts?  Leave a comment below.

The Picking of a Vice-Presidential Nominee

 

 

When Paul Ryan was named as the Vice-Presidential nominee by Republican Mitt Romney, I was asked about his impact on the Presidential race.  I said many times that the Ryan pick would finally energize the conservative base of the Republican Party who were skeptical of their nominee in Ryan.  Ryan’s youthful enthusiasm coupled with his wonkish policy appeal was just what the Romney campaign needed.  The bland Romney campaign searched for its voice throughout the primary season and through the early stages of the general campaign.  Ryan would be that shot in the arm.  For a short time, the Ryan pick did help pull even with President Barack Obama in the polls.  That momentum seems to have been lost in the last week, as recent reports from the Romney front have stated that Ryan has been muzzled by his Romney’s staffers.  Romney’s team wants Ryan to speak less on his “bread and butter” topic, the budget, and more on how badly Obama has run the country.  Conservative pundits and grassroots supporters wonder why this is so?  Without Ryan’s budget appeal, the Romney campaign is back to where it started, in search of a voice.  If the purpose of choosing a VP nominee is to galvanize those voters who otherwise would stay home on Election Day, then why stifle any activity from the more energetic individual from the Romney-Ryan ticket?

How much of a factor should a Vice Presidential pick be for a Presidential ticket?  What criteria would you look for when choosing a VP nominee?