3/5/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with comments from the group's director, Dr. Paul Gurian regarding the uncertainty plaguing the 2012 potential pool of candidates and their relative ideological homogeneity compared to the 2008 Republican candidates. Gurian pointed out that the candidates were considerably more ideologically diverse, even on important issues like immigration. He also commented on the lack of a clear frontrunner as is evidenced by pre-announcement polling. He pointed out that in 2007, Giuliani was the clear frontrunner. Although some consider that status to belong to Romney right now-this is by no means the consensus opinion and seems to be contingent on whether other relatively moderate candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and (although it is a long shot) Jeb Bush or Chris Christie throw their hats into the ring.

The discussion then turned to possible scenarios should candidates widely considered to be likely to enter the 2012 nomination fray indeed run. Romney could take Iowa if the field is mostly composed of social conservatives who will be forced to split the vote. Again, Romney's ability to capture Iowa could be severely compromised should a Pawlenty or Daniels enter the race because neither candidate carries the baggage of RomneyCare-Romney's health insurance reform that passed when he was the governor of Massachusetts which closely resembles the eventual reform package passed by the Democrats in 2010.

This led to a discussion regarding the importance of South Carolina in the Republican primary because of the state's open primary system-which allows independents to vote in either party's primary. With the Republican nomination highly likely to be the only game in town, it is likely that South Carolina's primary will attract a high number of independent voters. Should there be a "tie" coming out of Iowa, with a social conservative carrying that state and a fiscal conservative carrying New Hampshire, South Carolina may well be the decisive in determining the nominee. Should this happen, the state's open primary system should bring rumors of attempts by Democrats to sabotage the primary by encouraging left-leaning independents to cast their vote for the socially conservative candidate in the hopes that the Republican will be forced to give the nomination to a candidate far to the right of the median voter, similar to the rumors that were circulated in the 2008 campaign during Texas' primary between Obama and Clinton.

The group discussed the possibility of the Republicans switching from their current winner-take-all delegate appropriation system to the proportional system used by the Democrats. Should a proportional system be adopted (although most of us agree it is not likely, at least for the 2012 cycle) then the importance of South Carolina would be decreased. This led Jaeyun Sung to comment that a proportional system for the Republicans may make it more likely for them to experience a long, and perhaps more importantly, divisive primary more similar to 2008 than to 2004 or 2000.

Finally, the group responded to the open question of what issues (other than the economy) are likely to be hot for the 2012 cycle. Immigration reform (in the wake of the Arizona's controversial immigration bill, versions of which are now being considered in 11 Republican dominated state legislatures) and if Mitt Romney is in the field-RomneyCare. Should Huckabee or another social conservative prove to be viable, social issues such as the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, as well as the usual issues like traditional marriage, gun control, and abortion will likely be important. Inevitably, this led to a discussion of the Tea Party's influence and how their presence will affect the nomination process-which is largely composed of partisans. Gurian cautioned against the dangers of party division and opined that the Republican Party will need to find a way to keep the party together going into the general election-a proposition easier said than done.

James Cambell Visit: 2/25/11 Meeting

The discussion group was fortunate to have James Campbell, coauthor of The American Campaign and one of the nation's most experienced presidential election forecasters, stop by and share some insights on the 2012 cycle. Dr. Campbell was visiting UGA to give a talk on his current research, "The Economic Records of the Presidents: Party Differences and Inherited Economic Conditions” which reanalyzes (and in his words, debunks) Larry Bartels' highly acclaimed book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

When asked to predict whether any of the candidates widely considered to be likely contenders for the Republican nomination (Romney, Huckabee, Barber, Gingrich, Palin, Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, and now Romer) Campbell predicted an Obama victory but cautioned that changes in the electoral environment, particularly in Obama's approval ratings, are likely between now and 2012. Campbell said that every President who had a 45% approval rating or higher in the final months before the election has won reelection-so that approval rating is something to watch closely as the campaign season progresses.

Campbell also spent some of the meeting discussing the performance of forecasting models in the 2008 election. On average, the forecasting models for '08 were fairly accurate, especially considering that the forecasts are made months before the election (how many months varies with each forecaster) and do not account for campaign effects such as debates performances, gaffes, and of course in the case of 2008, an economic meltdown the likes of which had not been seen in this country since the Great Depression. For those of you unfamiliar with presidential forecasting models, it's important to point out that because of a very small N size (for 2012 models it will be N=17) forecasting models are constructed to be as parsimonious (simple) as possible. Thus, campaign events like those described above, as well as factors such as fundraising are not taken into account in the predictions.

Campbell also discussed why his model incorrectly predicted a 4% margin of victory for McCain. He argued that despite gaffes such as McCain’s ill-fated trip to Washington and temporary campaign suspension, the true reason McCain’s numbers dropped so precipitously in the last two months of the election was because his approval was tied to President Bush’s, whose own approval ratings plummeted from the low 40s to the mid-20s as he lost support from his base because of the economic crises. Thus, despite being an open seat contest focused on the Iraq War initially, 2008 became a classic retrospective election where the party in power was held responsible for poor economic performance.