_ The Democratic convention is over, and a CNN poll taken before the convention had Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 48% each.  That, by the way, leaves only 4% of the voters undecided – I can’t remember an election where there have been so few undecided voters two months before Election Day (and prior to the debates).

The August unemployment rate went down slightly to 8.1%, but I still feel that this number is a major factor working against Barack Obama’s re-election.  He doesn’t really have much of an answer to charges that his administration failed to fix the economy.  Despite Bill Clinton’s defense of the Obama administration during his convention speech, I’m guessing the Democratic strategy will continue to try to shift the campaign discussion away from economic issues.  Maybe they’ll try to re-frame the discussion around Bain Capital and Mitt Romney’s tax returns (and marginal tax rate), but the economy remains a huge negative for President Obama.

Both party conventions are over, the race is tied, and we have only two months left in the general election campaign.  Let the games begin!

John Klemanski

_ Yesterday, former President Bill Clinton spoke at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, NC.  It’s amazing how he is now perceived (the elder statesman) compared to his last years as President.  Maybe we’ve forgiven him for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, especially since we now look fondly on those economic boom years of the mid-to-late 1990s over which he presided.

Because of that, lots of people might now look to Clinton for advice that can put us back on the road to recovery.  Since he’s no longer an elected official (with all of the polarization, demonization, and partisan criticism that comes with that), he’s actually been praised by both parties in recent months.  Clinton has become so popular that the Democrats have been airing TV ads (effective, in my view) of him praising Barack Obama and arguing that economic recovery is more likely under a Barack Obama administration rather than a Mitt Romney administration.

Clinton’s speech at the convention hit most of the right notes, but he does like to talk.  This year’s speech was over 45 minutes long – and does anyone remember his interminable speech at the 1988 convention?  At that convention, I seem to remember that when he said “Finally….”, the crowd erupted with sustained applause – even the strong partisans in the crowd had had enough.

But those were different times.  In 2012, people want something along the lines of the Clinton-era economy – lots of jobs (we had a dot com boom, remember?), increasing housing values and new home construction, and more relaxed rules for lending money to entrepreneurs so they could create their start-up businesses.  Of course, some of that was illusory and temporary – it couldn’t be sustained.

I doubt that one speech will change people’s minds about which candidate can better fix our economy.  But if people listened to Bill Clinton last night, and if he continues to actively campaign for Barack Obama, it’s possible that Mitt Romney’s competitive advantage on economic issues will decrease over the next two months. All in all, Bill Clinton’s speech has been the highlight so far of what I have considered to be a somewhat lackluster convention.

John Klemanski

As the Republican party convention ends and we begin to turn our attention to next week’s Democratic party convention in Charlotte, it might be a good time to assess the progress of the Republican challenge for the presidency so far.

Up to this point, I’ve generally considered Mitt Romney a moderate (within the Republican party), mostly because of his past positions on certain issues (many now apparently repudiated) and because he didn’t present the clear views of a Rick Santorum or a Ron Paul during the primaries.  We learned a little more about Mitt Romney the person at the convention, but I’m still not sure what he stands for exactly.  So far, all I know is that he’s for winning – he seems to have switched positions on several issues from the time he was Governor of Massachusetts to the period of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries – so I don’t know if it is accurate to call him a moderate or a conservative.

Although we haven’t heard the phrase too much this year, it would seem that Romney would be subject to lots of concern about “flip-flopping.”  However, accurate this label has been regarding other candidates (remember 2004 and the attacks against John Kerry?), it would seem to be fair to at least bring up the contradictions and inconsistencies of Romney’s past record and current claims.

Now, I haven’t been one to particularly like the “flip flop” label, since it ignores the possibility that a reasonable person can learn about issues and change their position based on new knowledge and reasoned argument.   If that’s what has happened in Romney’s case, then his campaign needs to communicate to voters how and why he changed his views on various policies.  Otherwise, he looks like he’s pandering to voters.  Moreover, he’s changed his position on some “morality” issues, which aren’t typically subject to shifts in position (pro-choice/pro-life, for example).

For four months, I’ve felt that this election is Mitt Romney’s to lose, as long as unemployment stays high and the economy continues to struggle.  And for many voters, the fact that Romney isn’t Barack Obama will be enough – they’ll vote for Romney regardless.  But there is a small (and important) group of undecided voters, who will likely want to see a more detailed alternative to President Obama.  How will Mitt Romney define himself over the next two months such that the undecided voters will see him as a suitable alternative?  I think voters of all stripes want to see and hear about that.

John Klemanski

In an apparent effort to subvert our expectations about the gender gap and the lack of female support for the Republican party, yesterday’s convention featured a series of mostly women (public officials, candidates, Ann Romney) who spoke to the major talking points of the Republican brand this year.

I’m guessing this was done intentionally by party leaders, with the hope that people watching (a separate topic – was anyone watching?) would more easily associate women and support for the party. The anchor speaker in this series of females (notable exception, Chris Christie) was Ann Romney who gave a speech that was very well received by the convention audience and who was given fairly high marks by many journalists covering the event.

One advantage that (female) spouses of politicians seem to have is that they aren’t politicians themselves.  They can bring a more personal side of a politician, which many average Americans relate to more powerfully than because of politics or issues.  After all, politics is about conflict, although I’ve tried to convince my students that politics is about the resolution of conflict.  Of course, I don’t really believe that anymore after watching the last two years of Congress (fighting, obstructing, filibustering, delaying, demonizing opponents) and the dysfunction in general in Washington.

If Republicans are trying to show that women support the party, what would Democrats do at their convention to try to subvert our expectations about their party and its supporters?  Have a bunch of older, white Southern males speak in Charlotte, perhaps?

John Klemanski

The Republican national convention was scheduled to begin today, but the convention has been shortened to three days because of Hurricane Isaac’s possible effects on the Tampa, FL area.  The shortened convention (which still could be extended to Friday) doesn’t look like it will affect the party’s major plans to showcase Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the Republican standard-bearers this year.

However, other storms have been brewing that Republicans must weather.  The Todd Akin debacle (see previous blogs by both Prof. Dulio and me) hasn’t gone away, mostly because Akin has refused to withdraw from the Missouri Senate race, despite calls from just about everyone for him to do so.  Mitt Romney’s recent joke (and I do believe it was meant just as a joke, albeit a poor one) regarding his and Anne’s birthplace in Michigan has Democrats hounding him for his insensitive remarks (at best) or that he revealed his true beliefs and is part of the “birther movement” (at worst) – those who still believe Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.

With the convention in heavily-Hispanic Florida, Republicans must also face the apparent contradiction between their attempts to recruit Hispanic voters (who are a crucial factor to winning several states) and the party’s reputation for having a hard line regarding immigration policy – a sensitive topic among many Hispanic voters.  Mitt Romney’s move to the conservative right during the Republican primary also isn’t in line with a majority of Americans on several social issues, but it seems as though he’s been forced to talk about those social issues so far, rather than the economy.

I have one personal experience with a national convention.  In 1980, the Republican convention was held in Detroit.  Back in those days, someone without credentials (me) could go down to the RenCen and walk around, soaking up the atmosphere.  You can’t do that anymore, with much tighter security now.  I was wandering around a lower hallway when I was stopped by a Secret Service agent, who stepped in front of me and said, “Please step back for the President.”  My reaction was, “Why is Jimmy Carter at the Republican convention?”  The agent was talking about former President Gerald Ford, who was scheduled to speak at the convention that nominated Ronald Reagan.  Also, he didn’t laugh.  On the bright side, I wasn’t detained.

John Klemanski

A recent Detroit News/WDIV public opinion poll has U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow with a 7 point lead over challenger Pete Hoekstra.  While some observers consider this a solid or safe lead, I think this lead possibly could be overcome, given the right circumstances. However, I don’t think those circumstances exist.

Hoekstra has a couple of major challenges of his own.  While he has some name recognition on the western side of the state (he’s from Holland, MI), he doesn’t have the same recognition throughout the state and especially in the population center of southeast Michigan.

Moreover, he has taken conservative positions on social issues, including those on abortion that could be considered too extreme by many Michigan voters.  He also has been caught up in Missouri’s Todd Akin mess a little (see previous posts by Prof. Dulio and me on Akin) – for two reasons.  One, his pro-life position is similar to Akin’s, which I’m sure the Stabenow campaign will emphasize throughout the campaign.  Two, he and Akin both have publicly announced they favor repeal of the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators), preferring that we return to Senatorial election by each state’s legislature.  Regardless of how you feel about the merits of this proposal, the fact that Hoekstra is connected to Akin by their agreement on the 17th Amendment can only spell trouble for him as we continue through the campaign.  Even Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report) did a story on this that connected Hoekstra and Akin.

Because of the presidential election this year, the Michigan Senate race may stay under the radar of most voters for the next two months.  How well each candidate can mobilize their supporters on Election Day will have a major influence on the outcome of this election.  I don’t think Pete Hoekstra will lose as badly as Jack Hoogendyk lost to Carl Levin in 2008, but I don’t see how he can beat Debbie Stabenow unless Michigan goes big for Mitt Romney and Republicans in general.

John Klemanski

The political world has been really stirred up, and rightly so, with Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about rape and abortion a few days ago (see John's post below as well). These remarks have certainly caused remarkable havoc in Rep. Akin’s campaign to defeat sitting Missouri Senator Clarie McCaskill. Prior to his remarks, Akin was leading in this contest according to polling going back to March of this year. Stunningly, a poll from 8/20 shows him still leading by a point, although this is down from an 11–point lead from earlier in the month.

The Akin controversy also impacted the presidential race, although I would argue in marginal ways. For the few days this was at the forefront of political news coverage the Obama and Romney campaigns were asked questions about Akin and his remarks. While this issue got both campaigns away from their own messages, it arguable hurt Romney more. Not only because Democrats and the President could come out and tie the Republican Akin to his party’s presidential candidate, but because any day that Romney is not able to focus completely on jobs and the economy, his campaign is at a disadvantage. That’s the issue over this election will be fought.

All of this is fine and dandy, but I think this whole story says a lot about a broader element of our political system. In particular, it says a lot about the strength of political parties. Consider this: Rep. Akin makes some comments that are offensive, I imagine, to a huge majority of the nation (pro-choice and pro-life individuals alike). As his party’s candidate for the US Senate, he is trying to unseat a sitting Democrat and give the GOP a “pickup” in the chamber that gets the party closer to a majority. Akin was well on his way to achieving that. Now, however, his electoral prospects are unbelievably dim. Election handicapper and long-time observer, Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report, notes on his website that Akin is now “unelectable.”

National Republicans saw the same thing and a chorus of calls came for Akin to step aside before the deadline for a candidate withdraw from the ballot in Missouri. High-profile Republicans like Scott Brown (MA) and Ron Johnson (WI) -- each Senators themselves – called for him to get out of the race. So did Mitt Romney. Reports have surfaced that the GOP Senate campaign committee – the NRSC – won’t spend any money on behalf of Akin if he stayed in the race. Even after all of this, Akin declined and said he was going to continue his campaign (I should say here that I think that a Democrat in s similar position would probably do the same thing).

Consider that for a minute. Individuals across the spectrum of the Republican Party have lined up against one of their own candidates for office and that candidate has defied the party and its leaders. What does that say about how our political parties operate today and how strong they are?

It’s no secret that we have weak political parties in the United States, and this is only the latest example of this fact. Resisting the urge to give a PS322 lecture here, suffice it to say that there was a time when political parties dominated politics. During the Golden Age of Parties, the “party machine” and the “party boss” ran the entire show. In elections the boss decided who would run for office (candidate recruitment) as well as where they would run and how (the boss controlled all of the resources for campaigning). Rep. Akin wouldn’t have lasted 2 minutes as a candidate back then. With the advent of primary elections (which took away, for the most part, parties’ ability to recruit candidates and decide who would stand for election) and several other reforms, parties lost a great deal of power. They regained some – mainly due to their ability to raise great sums of money – more recently.

But the Akin controversy shines a light on the idea of how weak our parties are today. I’m not advocating going back to the days of the party boss or party machine. I’m not even sure I’m against our “candidate-centered” system of campaigning. It’s simply striking to me that after all the calls for Rep. Akin to abandon his candidacy – something that would in all likelihood benefit his party – he’s able to completely ignore them. One has to wonder about what role parties have in elections these days. Sure, they develop platforms that are supposed to represent the beliefs of the party. But candidates are not tied to these documents and they are not held accountable when they break from the platform. Both candidates in the presidential race, for instance, will likely distance themselves from components of their party's platform. Maybe parties these days are simply conduits for raising and spending a lot of money. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Parties have become very good at this and directing money to tasks and services that candidates need to win an election. I wonder if they really have much power left beyond this.

Dave Dulio

Todd Akin, a conservative U.S. Representative from Missouri, recently won the state’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Claire McCaskill.  McCaskill has been seen as a vulnerable incumbent, and Republicans saw the Missouri Senate seat as a major part of their overall strategy to take a majority in the U.S. Senate in 2012.

However, Akin made some comments during a St. Louis TV interview regarding what he called “legitimate rape” and how a woman’s body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases.  Outrage came from many sources, including Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, MA Senator Scott Brown, and several Republican former U.S. Senators from Missouri, all calling for Akin to drop out of the race for the good of the party.

Yesterday was the deadline for Akin to withdraw so that the party could select another candidate for November.  However, he did not do that, and while apologizing for those comments in a new ad, he also maintained that he was going to remain in the race and win.  Now that the deadline has passed, it would take a court order (and payment to cover the costs of printing new ballots) for Akin to withdraw from the ballot.  This story also raised a related issue, in which Akin reaffirmed his position that he did not support abortion rights for women under any circumstances, including those who were victims of rape or incest.

How this will affect the Missouri Senate race isn’t entirely clear, but we’ve already heard that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is withdrawing its $5 million in support of Akin, and a major Super PAC (Crossroads) that had been supporting Akin also announced it won’t be running its ads for this race anymore.  That’s likely to hurt Akin’s chances, and I’m sure the McCaskill campaign will remind Missouri voters throughout the campaign of his remarks.

John Klemanski

As long as I’ve been following politics, each new presidential election has brought with it a call to reform the Electoral College.  For many people, the system of indirectly electing the president seems archaic.  In the modern day, with higher levels of formal education held by many voters, the lack of direct popular vote doesn’t seem appropriate.  Because of the Electoral College, candidates need to win states, which is why the so-called “swing states” or battleground states receive so much attention.

It’s interesting that the reforms have taken two different – and opposite – approaches.  One approach is to go “higher” than state level – that is, to use the outcome of a “national popular vote” (NPV).  The candidate who receives more votes overall wins the election.  This reform is meant to solve the occasional problem we’ve had when one candidate receives the most popular votes nationally, but loses the Electoral College vote – and the election.  This most recently occurred in 2000, in a close race that turned on relatively few votes (537) in Florida that gave George W. Bush the win over Al Gore.  I think about 8 states (including California) have pledged support of the NPV reform, and public opinion poll results have consistently shown that a majority of Americans favor direct election of the president.

The other reform seeks to go “lower” than state level, by counting popular vote totals at the congressional district level.  In this scenario, one Electoral College vote would be given to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district. The two at-large Electoral College votes would be given to the overall popular vote winner in each state.  Two states currently use this system -- Nebraska and Maine.

Of course, there is a bit of “inside baseball” to these reforms, I’m guessing.  For example, the two political parties would see advantages (in some states) for the congressional district reform. Republicans would love to capture at least some of California’s 55 Electoral College votes, and they would do so, given the party’s strength in certain congressional districts in that state.  California has gone Democratic in each presidential election since 1992. And so-called “red states” that typically go Republican also have one or two “blue” strongholds (particularly in their urban areas).

Any nation-wide change would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so that is a major obstacle to reform. I’m guessing there would be a huge fight over which reform should be approved.  Likelihood of a reform anytime soon?  Small.

John Klemanski

All of the public opinion polling numbers so far indicate that the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is very close – within a few percentage points of each other (and within the margin of error).  In close races such as this, even a small swing among voters to one candidate or the other can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

One group of voters that typically receives lots of attention from candidates and the media is the group of independent voters, and more specifically, undecided voters.  In most recent presidential elections, this group has comprised about 10% or more of likely voters.  That doesn’t sound like a lot, but they are the so-called “persuadable voters” who can turn an election.

However, in 2012, the polls that I’ve seen show that only about 3-4% of voters are undecided, even with more than 2 ½ months to go until Election Day.  That’s pretty small, although their vote can still make a difference in an extremely close race.  As such, it is possible that all of the TV ads – and even normally important events such as the debates – might not mean as much this year.  Of course, certain events or major mistakes in the debates by one candidate could move voters, but there simply are fewer of those likely to change their minds between now and November.

What this also means for the two campaigns is that each needs to make sure they identify and mobilize their supporters – those voters who’ve already made up their mind.  Democrats tend to have the greater challenge here because more of their likely supporters are more marginal voters to begin with, and making sure those people vote is more difficult than for Republican candidates trying to do the same with their base voters.

This is in part why some advocacy groups and the Democratic Party have been fighting the Voter ID laws that have been enacted in a number of states since 2010.  These organizations feel that individuals who are more likely to be Democratic voters (seniors, minorities, and young people) also are more likely to have issues with presenting photo IDs. 

In general, the higher the voter turnout in an election, the better it is for a Democratic candidate.  It is incumbent (“incumbent,” get it?) upon President Obama’s campaign team to make sure their supporters come out to vote in 2012 (and bring their photo ID).  If they fail to do this sufficiently, Mitt Romney will be our next president.

John Klemanski