We all know that Senators Obama and Clinton are fighting against the weight of history in their quest for the White House. He wants to be the first African-American President while she wants to be the first female President. What many might not know is that they also have another subtle historical hurdle to overcome. The last sitting US Senator to be elected to the White House was Senator Kennedy in 1960. Before him, Warren Harding in 1920.
P.S: On the Republican side, only Senator McCain faces the 'curse'
Monday, January 7, 2008
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Notes from Iowa
The Iowa Caucus results were quite a surprise. Both the big-spending, ‘Establishment’ candidates, Clinton and Romney were comfortably beaten by Obama and Huckabee respectively. More about the results here. Following are some of the thoughts I had looking at the results and the Entrance polling numbers.
Ø It’s now pretty certain that Change is going to be the overarching theme of this election. That is bad news for Hillary. She has played the ‘change’ card herself quite liberally but when in the last 20 years, the occupant of the White House has had either the name Bush or Clinton and you carry one of those names, people are going to be wary of you espousing the cause of change
Ø Obama’s victory speech was quite remarkable, very stirring and inspirational. He pitched the day as a kind of watershed in US politics and he might be right. The Clintons better get their act together in New Hampshire because it is very possible that Obama might get on a roll from here. He comfortably won this 97% white state, defeated Mrs. Clinton 5-1 amongst young people and even beat her among women voters.
Ø One thing I really like about Obama is that he never ever plays the Race card. Good stuff!
Ø Edwards needed to win. He didn’t. I think he’s done as are all the other also-rans. It’s now basically down to Obama vs Clinton.
Ø Huckabee’s win on the Republican side is a slap in the face of all the cynics who believe that money is all that is needed to win a US election. Romney poured loads of money into Iowa, outspent Huckabee 5-1 but still got comfortably beaten. Great credit to Huckabee’s grassroots campaign in the state.
Ø Evangelicals proved once again that at least in the interior states, they still form the core of the Republican party.
Ø If not for his background and for the fact that he is way off the map on some issues; Huckabee might have been a great candidate. He communicates well, has great presence and carries himself with a quiet dignity that most of his peers lack. However, it’s still a huge stretch to see him as the candidate and even a greater stretch to see him mounting a credible campaign even if he gets the nomination.
Ø Romney is a bit too intellectual. He appeals to the head, not to the heart. Also, he’s gotten too negative too early. A loss in New Hampshire and he’s probably finished- remarkable given the amount of money he has.
Ø Republican field is basically down to four-Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Guiliani with Fred Thompson still in with a shout. Guiliani’s unique late-state strategy is a huge gamble but given what happened to Romney in Iowa, it might be a masterstroke.
Ø Romney’s failure in Iowa raised one important question- Is the old Reagan coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives still viable? Romney’s efforts to rebuild it in Iowa were unsuccessful. Will he or someone else succeed in other places and if not, what does it mean for the future direction of the Republican party?
Ø Just a word of caution before signing off- Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton all lost in Iowa. Iowa tells us a lot but there’s still a long way to go.
Ø It’s now pretty certain that Change is going to be the overarching theme of this election. That is bad news for Hillary. She has played the ‘change’ card herself quite liberally but when in the last 20 years, the occupant of the White House has had either the name Bush or Clinton and you carry one of those names, people are going to be wary of you espousing the cause of change
Ø Obama’s victory speech was quite remarkable, very stirring and inspirational. He pitched the day as a kind of watershed in US politics and he might be right. The Clintons better get their act together in New Hampshire because it is very possible that Obama might get on a roll from here. He comfortably won this 97% white state, defeated Mrs. Clinton 5-1 amongst young people and even beat her among women voters.
Ø One thing I really like about Obama is that he never ever plays the Race card. Good stuff!
Ø Edwards needed to win. He didn’t. I think he’s done as are all the other also-rans. It’s now basically down to Obama vs Clinton.
Ø Huckabee’s win on the Republican side is a slap in the face of all the cynics who believe that money is all that is needed to win a US election. Romney poured loads of money into Iowa, outspent Huckabee 5-1 but still got comfortably beaten. Great credit to Huckabee’s grassroots campaign in the state.
Ø Evangelicals proved once again that at least in the interior states, they still form the core of the Republican party.
Ø If not for his background and for the fact that he is way off the map on some issues; Huckabee might have been a great candidate. He communicates well, has great presence and carries himself with a quiet dignity that most of his peers lack. However, it’s still a huge stretch to see him as the candidate and even a greater stretch to see him mounting a credible campaign even if he gets the nomination.
Ø Romney is a bit too intellectual. He appeals to the head, not to the heart. Also, he’s gotten too negative too early. A loss in New Hampshire and he’s probably finished- remarkable given the amount of money he has.
Ø Republican field is basically down to four-Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Guiliani with Fred Thompson still in with a shout. Guiliani’s unique late-state strategy is a huge gamble but given what happened to Romney in Iowa, it might be a masterstroke.
Ø Romney’s failure in Iowa raised one important question- Is the old Reagan coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives still viable? Romney’s efforts to rebuild it in Iowa were unsuccessful. Will he or someone else succeed in other places and if not, what does it mean for the future direction of the Republican party?
Ø Just a word of caution before signing off- Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton all lost in Iowa. Iowa tells us a lot but there’s still a long way to go.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Iowa Caucus
The US Presidential Election is on 4th November, 2008. That’s exactly 11 months away. However, serious campaigning started almost a year back (some might say it actually started the day after George W. Bush got re-elected) and the first real votes were cast yesterday in a small, Midwestern state. To understand why, one needs to understand the process that goes into selecting the occupant of the White House. It’s a process full of idiosyncracies, complexities and archaic traditions. In a nutshell, its something like this - the two major parties, Republican and Democratic (for now, we’ll restrict ourselves to these two), elect their Presidential candidates through a system of staggered primaries and caucuses across the 50 states, these candidates are confirmed at the party conventions, they face off in a series of Presidential debates before voting takes place on ‘the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November’. That election is also not straightforward but is done through the Electoral College system but we’ll talk about that some other time.
So, the first real hurdle is getting the party’s nomination. That happens through a system of primaries and caucuses in the different states. A primary is a regular secret ballot election. A caucus, on the other hand, is much more interesting. It is basically a meeting of voters and some of the processes they use to select the candidate are quite fascinating.The primary and caucus schedule is generally spread out over a few months(quite compressed this time round though) and by tradition there are certain states which hold the initial contests and thus prove to be vital in the overall scheme of things. Hence, candidates tend to spend a lot of time and money campaigning in these states, pretty much neglecting the others. These initial states are not your Californias or New Yorks but rather smaller nondescript states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Their overall contribution is minor but a poor performance in these early states can doom a campaign while a strong start might propel you to the nomination. And voters in these states take their responsibility very seriously; they know that their votes will go a long, long way in deciding their party’s nominee.
And so, as tradition demanded, the 2008 Presidential race officially kicked off with the Iowa Caucuses. As I mentioned earlier, Caucuses tend to have different formats. The Iowa Republican Caucus is quite standard-people gather at the caucus venue, cast their secret ballots and at the end, the votes are read. The Democratic Caucus is something else totally. A group of 60-80 people gather at the Caucus venue which may be a school, church or even someone’s house. They gather in a large room in which each corner is earmarked for a particular candidate. In the first round, the voters stand in the corner which represents the candidate they support. So basically, you have this large room in which different clusters of people are standing. Sounds like one of those old party games! The number of votes for each candidate is now counted and those with less than 15% of the total votes are deemed to be ‘not viable’ which means their voters now have to shift to other, still viable candidates. Before they make the decision as to where they switch, each of the viable candidates’ corners send over an ‘ambassador’ to the defeated corner, trying to convince the voters to come to their side. After this last bout of campaigning, the voters make their final decision as to which corner they want to stand in. The vote tally after this second round is what gets reported. This same process is replicated in scores of caucus venues across the state. CNN actually showed the Caucus process going on in someone’s house last night. Of course, the system is archaic and full of flaws but given the recent events we’ve seen surrounding elections in Kenya and Pakistan, it’s strangely comforting to note that there still exist places like Persia, Iowa. Places where people welcome complete strangers into their homes and into their lives with the purpose of holding an election, where a community gets together and amid great civility, lets its voice be heard without obstructing that of another.
So, the first real hurdle is getting the party’s nomination. That happens through a system of primaries and caucuses in the different states. A primary is a regular secret ballot election. A caucus, on the other hand, is much more interesting. It is basically a meeting of voters and some of the processes they use to select the candidate are quite fascinating.The primary and caucus schedule is generally spread out over a few months(quite compressed this time round though) and by tradition there are certain states which hold the initial contests and thus prove to be vital in the overall scheme of things. Hence, candidates tend to spend a lot of time and money campaigning in these states, pretty much neglecting the others. These initial states are not your Californias or New Yorks but rather smaller nondescript states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Their overall contribution is minor but a poor performance in these early states can doom a campaign while a strong start might propel you to the nomination. And voters in these states take their responsibility very seriously; they know that their votes will go a long, long way in deciding their party’s nominee.
And so, as tradition demanded, the 2008 Presidential race officially kicked off with the Iowa Caucuses. As I mentioned earlier, Caucuses tend to have different formats. The Iowa Republican Caucus is quite standard-people gather at the caucus venue, cast their secret ballots and at the end, the votes are read. The Democratic Caucus is something else totally. A group of 60-80 people gather at the Caucus venue which may be a school, church or even someone’s house. They gather in a large room in which each corner is earmarked for a particular candidate. In the first round, the voters stand in the corner which represents the candidate they support. So basically, you have this large room in which different clusters of people are standing. Sounds like one of those old party games! The number of votes for each candidate is now counted and those with less than 15% of the total votes are deemed to be ‘not viable’ which means their voters now have to shift to other, still viable candidates. Before they make the decision as to where they switch, each of the viable candidates’ corners send over an ‘ambassador’ to the defeated corner, trying to convince the voters to come to their side. After this last bout of campaigning, the voters make their final decision as to which corner they want to stand in. The vote tally after this second round is what gets reported. This same process is replicated in scores of caucus venues across the state. CNN actually showed the Caucus process going on in someone’s house last night. Of course, the system is archaic and full of flaws but given the recent events we’ve seen surrounding elections in Kenya and Pakistan, it’s strangely comforting to note that there still exist places like Persia, Iowa. Places where people welcome complete strangers into their homes and into their lives with the purpose of holding an election, where a community gets together and amid great civility, lets its voice be heard without obstructing that of another.
Introduction
I love politics. And I love elections. This blog is about politics and about a particular election-the 2008 US Presidential Election. I followed the last two US Presidential Elections quite keenly, some might say obsessively. I find the complexity and drawn-out nature of the process very appealing. In fact, the 2000 campaign, election and its aftermath remains one of the abiding memories of my adolescence. I intend this blog to serve as a notebook chronicling the events of this campaign. I will also highlight the traditions, idiosyncracies and small sidelights that make the US Elections such a fascinating exercise. This blog, however, is not meant to support any particular candidate or ideology, though you might occasionally find me wistfully remembering President Bush’s remarkable campaign in 2000. I will not use this blog to espouse my political views in any way. All I will do is provide commentary on the results, trends and other things I find interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)