Election 2008

Summary:

America’s role in the world makes our quadrennial Presidential elections more than just a national event. In our FPA Election Blog, we focused on the international issues that have figured so far in the campaign for the White House, and there have been many: the U.S. military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, non-proliferation, trade and globalization, global warming and energy policy, immigration – to name a few. With less than a year before a new President is chosen, it is clear that foreign policy is on the minds of millions of voters and that the two parties in general have different foreign policy approaches, thus assuring that the eventual party nominees will present American voters a rather distinct choice in foreign policy, an election of consequence for the world.

In 2007, we saw significant differences among each party’s candidates on the key foreign policy issues, but the contrasts between the two parties were far greater. Iraq was the prime example. All Democrats attacked the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war and pledged to remove U.S. troops. (How quickly was a point of difference.) Republicans (with the exception of libertarian Rep. Ron Paul) argued that Democratic withdrawal plans were too hasty and that the Democrats had ignored the recent success of the U.S. military “surge.”

Other international security issues offered a similar contrast between Democratic support for active multilateral diplomacy and Republican emphasis on vigilance and possible unilateral action. These different mind-sets will have to respond and adapt to tough questioning next year, but for now they represent a starting point in a coming “blue–red” debate on values and policy. 2007 was all about debate within the parties; 2008 will be about debate between the parties.

The intra-party debates are not quite over, and no one enjoys a comfortable lead. The changing polling data reinforce the impression that today’s front runners may yet stumble and fall.

-Most critical event
The story of autumn has been the continued rise, then sudden stumble, of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Questions remain, however: how far she has she really fallen, and what led to her decline? If she does indeed lose the New Hampshire primary or the national nomination, her patchy debate performance in Philadelphia will mark the start of her slide. If this happens and supporters turn to Barack Obama, his spirited speech at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner will likely be regarded as the turning point.

-Most influential person
Judging from recent news reports, an observer might say “Oprah.” However, the primary fight would not have begun as early or be as open a field had the current Administration been more popular. With popular support, the Bush Administration could have put forth a candidate, or been sufficiently popular itself, to lend support and resources to electing a successor. This is the first time in our era that a sitting Vice President did not show interest in the party’s nomination, nor did the Administration support a particular candidate. By not entering the fray, and yet being its constant point of reference, George W. Bush influenced the tone, tempo, and strategy of all the campaigns. It’s a paradox, given his low approval ratings; nonetheless President George W. Bush became the U.S. election campaign’s “most influential person,” by virtue of the conditions he created.
-Most influential company
YouTube changed the way that candidates reached the public and, via the CNN/YouTube debates, the way that the public reached the candidates. Starting with Hillary and her “Sopranos” parody last summer, candidates have introduced the 2-3 minute video or news clip, which is placed on a candidate’s own web site, then often migrates to YouTube. And the public, from “Obama Girl” to the irreverent man-in-the-street questioners on the YouTube debates, seems to know that this medium serves not so much to substantively inform as to puncture the self-important.

-Most influential organization
“The only poll that counts is the vote on Election Day” – this bromide of the campaign trail has a corollary: before Election Day, polls count for everything. The power of pollsters in the run-up to the 2008 Election is hard to exaggerate. As a group, polling organizations wield immense influence in long campaigns, from pre-candidacy until the vote is taken. Mark Penn, sitting atop Hillary’s campaign, while running a huge PR (Burson-Marsteller) and polling shop (Penn, Schoen and Berland), may represent the most influential kind of organization involved in the U.S. election — the public opinion specialist who shapes a candidate’s presentation and tactics, then measures how well a candidate is doing and “spins” the results to mass media. Penn is more influential now than other big name pollsters (e.g., Democrat Stan Greenberg, Republican Frank Luntz) because he is at the center of the largest, best financed campaign within a political party that seems most likely (polls again!) to capture the White House next year.

-Most unexpected development
So far, the most unexpected development has been the campaign tailspin of Fred Thompson, the late entrant to the Republican field, and the sudden ascent of Mike Huckabee. Before it began, Thompson seemed to many to Republicans to be Reagan’s heir-apparent — a conservative’s conservative. Thompson joined the race months after his competitors (in September), and since then has campaigned lazily (in comparison to his fellow Republicans), but held consistent his issue positions. He has also seen his polling figures decline sharply.
The fall of Thompson as a contender for the nomination occurred nearly as quickly as the rise of Mike Huckabee. Polling ahead of his competitors in Iowa, Huckabee represents a threat to them among the socially conservative base of the party. As he is on the highly conservative side of the party spectrum, a Huckabee nomination would face staunch opposition in a national contest, but is appealing to the party base. Once a third-tier candidate, now a first—Huckabee’s rise stands as one of the more unexpected developments in the campaign thus far.

-Best photo of 2007

-Prediction for 2008
Our two bloggers eschew taking partisan stands in this blog – but that does not prevent a non-partisan judgment as to who will win.

In Mark’s view, a Clinton-Giuliani race is still the most likely. Both of them will lose contests in January, adding to the suspense on Super Tuesday, February 5th. To Erin, electability is the key. One party’s nominee will depend upon the other, and if the Democratic nominee is clear after Super Tuesday (a Clinton, for example), the Republican (a Romney, perhaps) will soon follow.