5/25/11

The last two weeks have been a flurry of activity. Gingrich and Pawlenty both formally announced their campaigns, while Trump, Daniels and most notably, Huckabee officially bowed out. We spent some time discussing who is most likely to pick up Huckabee's substantial share of voters, with most group members opining that Pawlenty will benefit unless Palin or Bachmann decide to throw their hat into the ring.

We also spent some time discussing Gingrich's rocky start, a bi-product of his controversial statements on Meet the Press where he came close to endorsing a federal mandate for health insurance and called the Ryan budget "right-wing social engineering." Some in the group argued that Gringrich still has plenty of time to recover (and the backpedaling began immediately) but also believe that these will only be the first of many verbal missteps from the gaffe-prone Gingrich.

One thing that became clear from the backfire is that support of the Ryan budget will likely be a litmus test for the party's conservative base. The last week has been filled with soundbites of other Republican nomination hopefuls tactfully trying to endorse the Ryan budget while still leaving themselves the wiggle room needed to triangulate with the general election audience, with whom the Ryan budget's proposed medicare changes polls very poorly.

This led the group to spend some time discussing the apparent division in the party between establishment members and party strategists, and the party purists and Tea Party contingent. Despite playing it cool for the press, the outcome of Tuesday's New York 26 congressional race no doubt has the attention of party leaders and Republican presidential nomination candidates as many pundits speculate that Republican candidate Jane Corwin's endorsement of the Ryan budget played a key role in Democrat Kathy Hochul's upset victory in a district that hasn't gone Democrat in over 40 years. Of course, if the majority of the 9% of votes that went to Tea Party candidate Jack Davis went instead to Corwin, she probably would have still pulled out a win. Some discussion of the Tea Party and their influence in both the presidential elections as well as the 2012 congressional elections ensued.

The meeting wrapped up with some discussion about historical campaigns and how it came to be that the Republican Party is dealing with the intra-party divisions that used to plaque the Democrats. The 2008 nomination campaign failed to produce a nominee that fired up the both the base and attracted independent voters. Of course, the extreme unpopularity of Bush and the Iraq war, as well as an economy spiraling out of control made it a tough contest for any Republican to win. Thus far, the field of declared candidates and potential candidates has failed to produce a Republican that seems suited to accomplish this goal in 2012 leaving some in the group to wonder why. Additionally, the emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 seems more likely to exacerbate these issues than to resolve them. The meeting closed with a discussion of the possibility that some of the GOP's strongest candidates are waiting for 2016 and an open contest rather than taking on the formidable Obama campaign machine.

4/15/11-5/6/11

The last couple of weeks have centered on mapping potential candidates on a 2 dimensional social and fiscal conservatism space. Thanks to Jaeyun's efforts, a graph was presented at the meeting and was the focal point of discussion. The data for the graph are derived from a poll of Republican strategists who were asked to rank their top 5 choices, with Romney and Pawlenty garnering the most votes. Some worried that it may be prudent to use polling results instead, because the data produce a graph that seems to distort the size of Romney's lead. However, there aren't any current polls that list all of the potential candidates so using that method would mean leaving candidates such as Huntsman and Bachmann out. So the graph is a work in progress, but provides a useful visual aid for understanding how the candidates compare ideologically.

The size and location of each candidate's circle is determined by the number of votes they received in the straw poll, and by how group members perceive their ideological placement on both fiscal and social conservatism. The graph shows Romney and Huckabee alone on the two left quadrants because both candidates are more moderate than their counterparts on fiscal policy and Romney is alone as the only moderate on social and fiscal issues. That the rest of the candidates are clustered together in the right hand side quadrants led several in the group to comment that they may be well-positioned because the clustered candidates will largely be fighting over the same voters.

The conversation then turned to the death of Bin Laden, which some group members see as a major coupe for the President that can be useful in his reelection campaign, provided the Democrats are strategic and develop smart ads that remind voters of it. If nothing else, Obama's success neutralizes any "soft on terrorism" attack ads the GOP may have otherwise run and goes a long way towards buffering up both his foreign policy credentials, and the way the public views him as Commander and Chief. Others feel that Afghanistan still poses a major problem for Obama.

The group will not be meeting next week, but will resume the following week at the regular time and place (3:00pm Friday Baldwin 326). Now that the semester is finished we hope that attendance will grow. See you there!

4/8/11 Meeting

As the semester winds down a CDG "core constituency" has been bravely keeping the conversation going. Without any declared Republican candidacies to focus on, the group has continued to discuss potential candidates, how they would match up against Obama, and how their individual presence in the race will affect the other potential candidates. The 4/1/11 meeting opened with a discussion of Romney, who is widely considered to be undeclared in name only. Because of his 2008 run, Romney enjoys name recognition, which is the main driver behind his 1st place ranking in most polls. But it is uncertain how Tea Party Republicans would view Romney, who is widely seen as a more moderate Republican. If the economy is still the central issue, Tea Partiers may more readily look beyond his support of the ObamaCare-like health insurance mandate he supported and implemented in Massachusetts when he was the governor there. But Romney also faces issues with Republican social conservatives because he is a Mormon. Would the specter of a 2nd Obama term be enough to unite the traditional Republican base and the Tea Party behind a candidate that most experts believe would be a viable candidate in the general election, or will the recent movement towards ideological purism drive the nomination battle?

The meeting on Friday opened up with some brief comments about economic voting inspired by a handout from group member Del on unemployment rates and one and two-term presidents. The handout also included a summary of poll results from 5 polls including Gallup and Pew. This led to a discussion of Donald Trumps strong second place showing in NH that made headlines last week and how this is likely being driven by Trump's name recognition from his considerable celebrity. The author volunteered that Trump's recent surge in support might be driven by his shameless pandering to the "birther movement" leading the group to offer various opinions as the whether his conviction that "the evidence is still out" is sincere or not. He is, after all, sending investigators to Hawaii.

The conversation then turned to the 1996 nomination battle between Lamar Alexander and Bob Dole that may (or may not) have turned out differently if the process had taken longer (inspired by an article passed on to the group by Paul). This led to more talk about the invisible primary and the role that name recognition plays in the pre-primary polls. Jaeyun reminded the group that at this point in the 2008 Republican primary, Guilani was leading most of the polls and the little known governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was polling in Iowa at about 1%. He then went on to win the state. This led to more talk about Michele Bachmann and her relatively strong showing of 5% (average).

The meeting wrapped up with a conversation about the (then) impending midnight deadline for a budget deal and how a shutdown would affect both Obama and the Republicans. Del offered that this is a defining moment of the Obama Presidency and that the President would need to demonstrate Clintonesque qualities in order to come out ahead in public opinion. The group was mixed as to who, Obama or the Republicans had the tougher line to walk here-but nearly all agreed that there would be a political price to pay should a deal not be struck. And that’s what you missed!

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.