The Real Ralph Nader of 2008: Bob Barr

Now that the nominees for both the major parties are settled, it's time to talk about another nominee who has largely escaped notice: Bob Barr.

In late May, the Libertarian Party nominated for president former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr's nomination will undoubtedly cause John McCain problems come November, and he may very well play the role of spoiler that Ralph Nader did in 2000.

McCain is viewed warily at best among conservative Republicans, particularly those who are religiously conservative. But he is also viewed with suspicion among Hayek-espousing libertarians who don't support the war in Iraq. These folks, of course, contributed heavily to Ron Paul's campaign and routinely delivered 20 percent of the vote or more in late Republican primary states well after the nomination had been all but delivered to McCain.

The problem for McCain is these Ron Paul supporters are clustered in states where he needs to do well to win in November. Additionally, it is interesting to note the relationship between Ron Paul's support to Ross Perot's support in 1992.

The following table looks at Perot's 10 best states in 1992, lists the percentage of the vote George Bush got in 2004, and Ron Paul's performance in the Republican primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) this year:



I then added the latest polling in these states on the matchup between Obama and McCain. The highlighted states, four in number, represent those states where Barr might possibly draw enough votes to tip the balance away from McCain in favor of Obama. Voters here have displayed a propensity to support third party candidates in the past, and have indicated a willingess to support a maverick member of the Republican Party this year. You can add Kansas to that list should Obama pick popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

The point of all of this is to say that Barr can help Obama in his effort to increase the number of states in play this fall. If McCain can't win Nevada, Alaska, and Montana, not only will he lose, he will likely lose big. Even more troubling from his perspective is Minnesota, a state that Republicans have tried to put into play since 2000. The latest polls indicate that Minnesota is again a swing state, but if Barr can pull even 5 percent of the vote (certainly not inconceivable given Perot's 26 percent in 1992 and Jesse Ventura's surprise gubernatorial victory a few years later), McCain's ability to put more "blue" states in play to force Obama to play defense himself will be severely hampered.

Add to this Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, and suddenly, the hill for McCain to climb becomes even steeper.

I should note that it appears that the Obama campaign has noticed this, too. Their recent ad buy reintroducing Obama to voters covers 18 states. Two of those states, Alaska and Montana, are Ross Perot-Ron Paul friendly states. One of those states, Georgia, is home to Bob Barr's former congressional district.

Tim Russert, RIP

I think this says it all.

I'll miss you on Sunday, and I'm sorry you won't be here for the big dance in November.

Indiana in play?

Last night, Hillary Clinton pulled off a razor thin victory in Indiana, beating Obama by about 2 percentage points. The effect is a toss-up, which damages severely Hillary's chances to continue her bid for the nomination.

On MSNBC last night, Chuck Todd drew a line across IN from about Terre Haute, south of Indianapolis, to just south of Muncie and announced that the line appeared to be Indiana's own "Mason Dixon" line. That is, white voters behaved very differently to the south of that line. In short, Hillary racked up huge margins in the Southern parts of the state (essentially, the 8th and 9th Congressional districts) that appears to be the result of older, white, blue collar workers who couldn't stomach Barack Obama's candidacy. The question is why? Was the issue race or class?

Exit polls indicated that in Indiana, BO did better than in PA on the question of the economy: 53% supported HRC if they thought the economy was the number 1 issue, while 47% supported BO.

What's interesting is voters were also asked whether race mattered in their vote. Overwhelmingly, those who said yes voted for HRC--and here's the interesting part: 70% of those over the age of 65 who said race mattered voted for her.

As someone who has lived a number of years in Indiana, the Mason Dixon line that Chuck Todd "happened" upon last night is nothing new. Anyone familiar with the history of the Civil War knows that Indiana south of Indianapolis was Confederate friendly country and probably would have seceeded if left to their own devices. Martinsville, IN was the home of the KKK's Grand Wizard, and the KKK dominated state politics through much of the 1920s. Surely BO's comments about bitterness and clinging to faith were not helpful. But race has always been an issue in the southern reaches of the state.

Looking at the results a bit differently, however, portends some possible problems for BO come the fall. BO won Tippecanoe (Purdue), Monroe (Indiana University), Marion (Indianapolis), St. Joseph (South Bend and Notre Dame), Allen (Fort Wayne), Lake (Gary), Hamilton (Indy suburb), Boone (another Indy suburb), and Elkhart counties. That's it folks. EVERY other county went to HRC. Jefferson county, a suburb of Louisville, went 66-33 for HRC (which might tell you how Kentucky will go). The margins elsewhere were similar.

Unless BO can change the dynamics of this election once he wraps up the nomination, he will have a tough time changing the electoral map. To win Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia, he's going to have to reach out to those rural, white, lower class voters. McCain's biography is compelling to those voters, and BO is going to have a tough time topping him in this area. This means BO will have to beat McCain on the issues. Given the toxic nature of the Republican brand name these days, this should not be hard to do IF he can get off the nomination battle and onto the general election campaign. Last night, he signaled that he was prepared to do that.

HRC, unfortunately, seems less than willing. But given that campaigns are funded by resources (read The Power of Money in Congressional Campaigns, 1880-2006 for my take on this), she's going to have a tough go of it in the next few weeks. Money will begin to dry up and then she'll have little choice but to bow out.

And then BO can begin to repair the wounds of the primary and get his ducks in order for the fall campaign. Will Indiana be in play this fall? I would have to say, given the primary election results, that it is not very likely.

Hoosiers for Obama

Last night, I had the opportunity to see Barack Obama’s campaign rally here in South Bend. Tickets were gone within ten minutes on Tuesday, but because of my longstanding relationships with the local media, I was able to get credentials in return for some live post-event analysis.

As I sit here and begin to form my thoughts, I am reminded of the pitfalls and cautions of the participant-observer method of social science. Political scientist and congressional scholar Dick Fenno spent the bulk of his professional career following politicians around at home and in Washington to better understand their perceptions of representation. In a particularly interesting methodological piece (Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation), Fenno has written how difficult it can be to put your own emotions aside and not become invested in the success of those you spend considerable time observing. Fenno notes that he came to like the senators and congressmen he travelled with, and found himself wanting them to win and to succeed regardless of their particular politics. To do good political analysis, it is important to remember to keep your own emotions and passions in check and not get caught up in the “moment”.

And yet, a political rally is perhaps the hardest place to keep those passions at bay. The very activity is designed to pull you up, to get you excited, to stomp your feet, to clap your hands, to say “Yes, We Can” with the crowd. I saw members of the media wearing Obama stickers and clapping with the crowd. I did my best to remain detached and stick to my main purpose for being there: to understand the sensation that is Barack Obama and why he might come out of the political wilderness and capture the presidential nomination.

In terms of Obama’s speech, I did not hear much that I hadn’t heard or read elsewhere. The speech was his standard spiel, and not particularly tailored to Indiana. Contrast this with Hillary’s speech, which had a laser-like focus on the economy and certainly was meant to stir the union folk in the crowd to action.

No, the speech itself did not tell me much about Obama. Rather, it was his unscripted moments that spoke volumes about the man. Unlike Hillary, Barack did not take questions. The questions allowed Hillary to showcase one of her strengths: the ability to talk policy. What struck me about Barack was his poise and confidence. But do not confuse confidence with arrogance. I’ve read elsewhere that Barack thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips. It will shock no one that politicians have egos; a healthy dose of ego is required put oneself through the gut-wrenching and exhausting daily slog that is a campaign.

Arrogance is not what I sensed. Instead, I sensed that this man knew who he was and was sure of his leadership abilities. And he was human. Barack was funny, engaging, and witty. At one moment, he said that he’s shaken tens of thousands of hands, and kissed hundreds of babies. Then he stopped for a moment and pointed to a baby in the crowd in front of him, saying, “And I’m going to kiss that baby, too. He’s a cutie”. The crowd roared its appreciation, and he chuckled. When he wrapped up his speech, the crowd began to shout, “NO, NO”. Barack just smiled and said, “C’mon guys, it’s late. We need to get some sleep so we can get to work.” Barack was, quite simply, engaging. He passes, I think, the beer buddy factor. I wanted belly up to the bar with him and quaff a brew or two with him.

The difference, though, is I felt I could talk about anything with him at that bar. Sports, religion, politics, faith, problems at the office—you name it. Barack seemed to me more like the close friend you confide in and share your problems with than the buddy you talk sports with while watching the game. Perhaps this explains some of his attraction: his ability, in a short period of time, to develop an attachment with people. Bill Clinton has this—some call it “EQ” or emotional intelligence. Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein has pointed out that EQ is something that is in short supply, but something that is particularly useful for successful leadership. A lack of EQ, on the other hand, can be devastating (witness Nixon).




For those looking for policy details, there were none. But the crowd didn’t seem to care. 3,500 folks turned out in the middle of the week and waited until 10:45 to see Barack. Some probably didn’t get home until after midnight. Yet no one left. The crowd was electric and the cheers for Barack upon his entrance deafening. This crowd didn’t need the details: it had largely made up its mind already. They wanted Barack, and they wanted him now. If the energy in that room translates into volunteering and voting, Barack may very well win Indiana—a state demographically more to Hillary’s favor.

This morning, as I conclude my thoughts on last night’s rally, I think back to Fenno: Did I keep my emotions in check? Could I stop myself from rooting for Barack? And the answer is no. But I rooted for Hillary after her rally, and suspect I would do the same after seeing John McCain. The simple fact of the matter, I am biased, but not in the normal way one might expect. Sure, I have particular policy beliefs and an ideological slant. But as I spend more time observing the political process, I’ve learned that I have another bias, too. I like politicians and I want to see them succeed. It’s too bad that they all can’t win.

Hoosiers for Hillary

As a social scientist, I spend a lot of time immersed in the "science" of politics. Every so often, however, I am reminded that I became a political scientist first and foremost because of my love of politics. I grew up in New Hampshire surrounded by the quadrennial election pageantry, and even spent a year and a half working on campaigns after graduating college.

This presidential election year is one of those moments that reminds me of how much I love politics and the American political system generally.

In May, I'll be moving to Bozeman to start my new position at Montana State. But right now I live in South Bend, IN. And Indiana is now, for the first time in a long time (some say 1968, but I say 1976) that Indiana has received this much attention in a presidential campaign from the major contenders. I've been telling my students to take advantage of this opportunity: go see the candidates, ask them questions, shake their hands. Although I have a number of projects I'd like to get finished sooner rather than later, I remembered that it was an opportunity that I--as a frequent commentator on elections and campaigns--should also not miss. It's one thing to watch the news, read the newspaper, and then form an opinion. It's quite another to take part in the political process personally, front and center.

This week, Bill Clinton attended Dyngus Day events at the Westside Democratic Club in South Bend. And today, Hillary Clinton spoke at Mishawaka High School. I attended both events as an observer of the political process to see if I could glean anything interesting about this election year.

I learned lots of things specific to Bill and Hillary Clinton. But perhaps more importantly, I learned something very special about this election year and the character of our American republic (notice future 206 students that I did not say our American democracy).

During Hillary's speech, she noted that roughly 20 percent of poll respondents indicated they wanted her to drop out of the race, 20 percent wanted Obama to drop from the race, but 60 percent wanted to let the nomination process to play out and to allow voters in other states to have their say. This line drew a positive roar from the crowd, which clearly was pleased to have a voice in deciding this year's election.

Some commentators have indicated that prolonging the nomination process will do harm to the eventual Democratic nominee and benefit McCain's campaign (for example, see Chuck Todd's piece here). Others have cited the Gallup poll that indicates roughly a quarter of Obama and Clinton's support will go to McCain should the other candidate win the Democratic nomination.

I'm not convinced that ending this nomination battle is the best thing for the country or, for that matter, the Democratic Party.

First, I was amazed at the turnout for the Mishawaka event. The location wasn't announced until late in the afternoon on Thursday (after the South Bend school district turned the Clinton campaign's request to visit Washington High School--check out the controversy this has generated here), and yet there were roughly 4,000 folks in the middle of a weekday in attendance. Granted, 1,800 were students, staff, and faculty, but this was impressive. One of the cardinal rules about voting is that people are more likely to vote when they feel their vote counts. Close races create excitement, they generate additional news coverage, and they provide the opportunity for additional political learning. As psychologists term it, close elections decrease the cognitive costs of political participation. How could this be bad for the democratic process?

Second, the focus on the Democratic nomination process has essentially removed McCain from the news cycle. As they say in public relations, all news is good news. A constant discussion and debate about the merits of Obama versus Clinton is not necessarily bad given that the candidates agree on so many of the issues. With Democratic issues and priorities dominating the political discourse, it might be difficult for McCain to shove his agenda onto the table come late summer. And I suspect that Democrats will rally around their nominee in the end, notwithstanding the Gallup poll results.

Third, the interest in politics that this campaign has been nothing short of tremendous. Many of my students have expressed cynical attitudes concerning politics and politicians. One thing I've learned is that a good cure for cynicism is actually visiting and meeting with politicians. Going to hear them give a speech at a rally and getting the opportunity to ask a question humanizes politics and political leaders for people. One of the things I talk about in my Congress class is Fenno's Paradox: the tendency for people to hate Congress but to love their Congressman or Congresswoman. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the obvious reason is people tend to know their individual member of Congress. Politicians are bad and corrupt and they populate Congress, but MY Congressman is a good guy. I know him, I voted for him, he works for us, and comes back to the district all the time.

The more exposure people get to our national leaders, I suspect the less cynical they will become about their leaders and politics more generally. For the first time in a long time, states that were "fly over country" on the way to fundraisers are seeing presidential candidates up close and personal. And this alone has to make them feel like the candidates are their own and not like the other politicians in Washington. The potential to rebuild trust and a personal bond with the next president is a precious and rare gift that can give our next president an incredible leadership opportunity. Nothing should stand in its way.

Let the campaign continue, say I! Enjoy it while you can. Soon, Montana will have its chance. I'm looking forward to seeing Montana matter, much as Indiana matters now.

All but Ignored: The 2008 Congressional Races

With all the attention given to the presidential race, the race for Congress has been all but ignored by the mainstream media.

To get a feel for how the fall congressional elections are going to play out, political scientists and pundits look to special elections as indicators of future election trends. We had one such special election yesterday in Illinois, where Republican Jim Oberweis lost the race for Illinois' 14th Congressional district to Democrat Bill Foster, 52% to 48%.

What makes this race an interesting bellwether for fall congressional elections is the fact this seat is a heavily Republican district that had been represented by none other than former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Given the resources that the Republican Party poured into keeping this seat in Republican hands AND the fact that the demographics greatly favored Republican candidates, this does not bode well at all for Republican chances to recapture the House. In fact, I would put their chances of so doing at less than 5 percent at this point. Given that Democrats captured all the competitive seats and some generally Republican seats in 2006, one might have expected that the pendulum would swing back to the GOP in 2008 when a presidential race would invigorate the base and move some of those seats back into the Republican column.

Given the heavy turnout in Democratic primaries around the country and the fact that Republicans can't keep a seat that they had held for 20 plus years, I would anticipate at this point that the Democrats will continue to build their House majority, capturing anywhere from 5 to 10 seats.

Does Experience Matter? What does Skowronek think?

My students don't know it yet, but they will have to read this blog and comment on the post once they read Yale University political scientist Stephen Skowronek's influencial essay in Studies in American Political Development. The March 10th edition of Time Magazine has two fascinating articles on the relationship between experience and presidential success (see here and here). Unfortunately, the fantastic chart outlining the political experience each president had before achieving the Oval Office is not available online (I'm going to try and scan it and post it soon).

To quote from the first article ("Does Experience Matter in a President"): "At the same time, the value that voters place on resume is constantly shifting. James A. Baker III is an authority on this. In 1980, he managed the campaign of his well-credentialed friend George H.W. Bush, under the slogan 'A President we won't have to train.' But the public mood was sour on Washington, and victory went to an outsider, Ronald Reagan, who had never served in Washington."

How does this relate to Skowronek? Skowronek emphasizes that presidential success is less a function of individual skills and more a function of a president's place in historical and political time. In other words, great presidents don't make history but rather history makes great presidents.

The presidents with the most opportunity to transform the political landscape and implement a new governing regime, according to Skowronek, are the reconstructive presidents. Looking at the Time experience chart, what do all but one of the reconstructive presidents share? Very little previous political experience. Skowronek's reconstructive presidents are Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. Jefferson had the most governmental experience: 27 years. But the others had only 5, 10, 6, and 8 years respectively. That is to say that in periods of great political transformation, when the public wants to radically alter the path away from a crumbling regime, they turn to political outsiders.

What about the failed presidents, the disjunctive presidents that precede a reconstructive president? They are John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. The years of public service of each prior to obtaining the presidency was 24, 30, 35, 8, and 8. The election of Jefferson is the only time a reconstructive president had more prior political experience than man leaving office.

Another way to look at this is to look at the candidate rejected during the moment when politics shifted from disjunction to reconstruction. And in every case, less experience won out if we count the time served as president. Compare the following:

Adams' 28 years to Jefferson's 27.
JQA's 34 to Jackson's 5.
Stephen Douglas' 20 odd years to Lincoln's 10.
Hoover's 12 to FDR's 6.
Carter's 12 to Reagan's 8.

Obama's campaign is prefaced on the politics of transformation and change. And he's a fresh face with comparatively little political experience. Should he win election, is possible that we may witness one of those rare moments in political time where great political change is possible and, more importantly, the nature of the political debate shifts in such away that future politicians for a number of years will have to respond to that shift? It would also mark one of the shortest tenures of a dominant political regime (the Reagan conservative regime) in American political history. It would also mean that George W. Bush would become the first two term disjunctive president--a president who was in office while the public roundly rejected the set of ideas upon which the president was elected and upon which a existing regime is predicated.

As a political scientist and a fan of Skowronek's work, I find this election to be absolutely fascinating.

And by the way, if Obama is elected president, that's 10 years of political experience compared to George W. Bush's 14.