Hillary Clinton has been quite bold in defending her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. She has flatly stated that campaign contributions do not influence her political stances, but at the same time she also believes that lobbyists have a right to make those contributions regardless of their intentions. Ultimately, campaign finance issues are really all about trust: are elected officials trustworthy enough to treat all contributions as donations rather than bribes, even when they know their behavior in office will influence the future contributions they receive? Is it better for politicians to reject contributions from those with ulterior motives in order to avoid the appearance of evil or for them to attempt to establish their honesty in some other way?
Fundamental to this issue is the nature of the privately financed American political campaign. While politicians need votes to assume office, they often just as desperately require money, for it is money that is the fuel that will power their campaigns from start to finish. Hillary Clinton's point of view is pragmatic: since politics costs money, let politicians accept contributions from various sources but not allow themselves to be influenced by the donors of that money. I don't think it requires a superhuman set of ethics to be a politician that acts that way, but because money is so vital a part of the political process temptations will always be around to entice politicians great and small. To remove lobbyists from the political money race could remove the number of those temptations...but campaign coffers will be significantly less full as a result.
Another question relevant to this discussion is whether or not lobbyists play a worthwhile role in politics. Hillary Clinton, who says that lobbyists sometimes do represent the views of a significant number of "ordinary Americans," is probably closer to the truth than is John Edwards, who seems to view lobbyists as coming from another planet (OK, maybe just another America). The Lobbying Spending Database shows that huge companies like General Electric as well as organizations like AARP spend significant amounts of money on lobbying. There really is a wide variety in the interests which lobbyists represent; the ordinary Americans that Edwards champions are represented to an extent by lobbyists. On the other hand, lobbying also provides a way for wealthy individuals and corporations to attempt to use their wealth to influence politics in ways that may not be beneficial for the country as a whole.
Personally, if I were running for office I probably would accept contributions from lobbyists. To me, that would be part of running a fiscally responsible campaign; of course, ignoring their attempts to influence policy would be part of being a responsible representative. I would have to live with the consequences of this decision: namely, people might trust me less because they would assume me to be beholden to special interests. All things considered, I certainly can't fault Edwards for taking the moral high ground on this issue; he obviously feels that he can afford to campaign without lobbyist aid. However, I also won't automatically distrust a candidate who accepts lobbyist contributions simply because I know politics is expensive. This whole debate makes me ponder the wisdom of having publicly financed campaigns; they would be a government money pit, but excessive campaign spending might be tempered and more honesty in politics might be encouraged as a result.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Office of Vice President
Over the course of my lifetime, the prestige of the office of vice president has increased considerably. The first VP I can remember is Dan Quayle, one of the most ridiculed men in politics of his era. In retrospect, most of Quayle's gaffes seem relatively slight; misspelling "potato" seems positively wholesome compared to some of the actions other politicians of note have gotten into trouble for in recent years. Still, Quayle was a weak vice president who clearly played second fiddle to his president, George H. W. Bush. At the other extreme stands Dick Cheney, who has been a serious political force in Washington through two terms as vice president. Indeed, some consider him to be in practice even more powerful than the president, a claim which I will leave to the historians to investigate.
Which of our living models for vice president, Quayle or Cheney, actually fits the office better? The Constitution allots relatively little power to the position, which is necessary primarily to ensure that the void in the power structure created by the president's death or incapacitation can be quickly filled. An acting vice president's most important duty is to serve as President of the Senate, but it seems to be relatively unusual for the vice president to actually attend Senate meetings unless a vote is expected to be very close and perhaps might require the vice president's tie-breaking vote. Given that the vice president needs to be in a position to assume the presidency at any time, I think it is unwise for any vice president to take on any extra duties of importance for those duties may have to be pushed aside at any moment. Thus, it makes sense to me that the office of vice president should be of rather limited importance in and of itself. While some may justly argue about whether Quayle was ever fit to be president (and that is the most vital qualification for any vice president), I nonetheless think he was a "better" vice president than Cheney is simply because Quayle fulfilled his role without usurping presidential power or prestige. Cheney is more useful to the president than Quayle was, perhaps, but the power vacuum created by the death of either Cheney or George W. Bush might be quite considerable.
Which of our living models for vice president, Quayle or Cheney, actually fits the office better? The Constitution allots relatively little power to the position, which is necessary primarily to ensure that the void in the power structure created by the president's death or incapacitation can be quickly filled. An acting vice president's most important duty is to serve as President of the Senate, but it seems to be relatively unusual for the vice president to actually attend Senate meetings unless a vote is expected to be very close and perhaps might require the vice president's tie-breaking vote. Given that the vice president needs to be in a position to assume the presidency at any time, I think it is unwise for any vice president to take on any extra duties of importance for those duties may have to be pushed aside at any moment. Thus, it makes sense to me that the office of vice president should be of rather limited importance in and of itself. While some may justly argue about whether Quayle was ever fit to be president (and that is the most vital qualification for any vice president), I nonetheless think he was a "better" vice president than Cheney is simply because Quayle fulfilled his role without usurping presidential power or prestige. Cheney is more useful to the president than Quayle was, perhaps, but the power vacuum created by the death of either Cheney or George W. Bush might be quite considerable.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Where Does Tancredo Stand?
Niche marketing can be effective in politics as well as business. Tom Tancredo is perhaps the best of the niche marketers currently running for president. The large group of Americans who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration has not exactly been courted assiduously by either the Democratic or the Republican parties. Tancredo has taken advantage of this neglect by making opposition to illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. It is the one issue he talks about constantly, and he frequently attempts to link other issues, such as the high cost of health care and homeland security, to the illegal immigration issue. Indeed, Tancredo has focused on illegal immigration to the extent that anyone who does not share his views on that issue would probably be very reluctant to vote for him. However, even those whose views do mesh with Tancredo's must wonder about the Colorado Congressman's other political stances. Discovering just what those are is not necessarily a simple process.
For all second-tier candidates like Tancredo, having a strong Internet presence is vital. Tancredo is definitely online, but I think he could take better advantage of the opportunities the Internet provides him to get his message out there. His campaign web site's On The Issues page summarizes his points of view on various topics and provides some links to text, audio, and video related to those topics. Unfortunately, these links do not do a good job of covering issues in depth. I don't quite know what to think about a candidate who links to a two sentence PDF file on an issue like abortion; is that really all he has to say? That said, Tancredo does have some strengths as a candidate which his web site and his online videos do demonstrate. His conservatism on abortion, gun control, and government spending matches the beliefs of the base of the Republican Party. Tancredo, however, has also shown a willingness to buck the party line on other issues: he wants to reduce troop numbers in Iraq by changing the military mission there, and he has opposed No Child Left Behind from the start. Of course, his stance on illegal immigration is also an example of his willingness to take on the big names of his party. There is a lot of popular support for nearly all of Tancredo's stances, so theoretically he ought to be able to win votes both among stalwart Republicans and disaffected conservatives.
That doesn't necessarily mean Tancredo's campaign will be going anywhere anytime soon. He has two major problems as I see it. Firstly, his presentation of his campaign hasn't been great. He has established himself as the anti-illegal immigration candidate, but has looked like a demagogue in the process. Whenever a politician uses all his time in the public eye to speak about one issue it creates doubts as to whether the politician has anything else to offer. Tancredo has often looked to me almost bored when speaking about issues other than illegal immigration. Secondly, Tancredo's virulence in discussing the immigration issue has made him susceptible to accusations of being xenophobic, and, given America's long history of welcoming immigrants, even anti-American. Actually, America has a long history of opposing as well as welcoming immigration, so I definitely consider Tancredo to be as American as any other candidate running for president. However, I cannot brush aside the xenophobia argument quite so easily; I've not made my mind up on that score just yet. One thing I have made up my mind about is this: Tancredo could continue to make noise in the primaries, but he needs to become more effective in promulgating his views on issues other than illegal immigration to be taken seriously by the country at large.
For all second-tier candidates like Tancredo, having a strong Internet presence is vital. Tancredo is definitely online, but I think he could take better advantage of the opportunities the Internet provides him to get his message out there. His campaign web site's On The Issues page summarizes his points of view on various topics and provides some links to text, audio, and video related to those topics. Unfortunately, these links do not do a good job of covering issues in depth. I don't quite know what to think about a candidate who links to a two sentence PDF file on an issue like abortion; is that really all he has to say? That said, Tancredo does have some strengths as a candidate which his web site and his online videos do demonstrate. His conservatism on abortion, gun control, and government spending matches the beliefs of the base of the Republican Party. Tancredo, however, has also shown a willingness to buck the party line on other issues: he wants to reduce troop numbers in Iraq by changing the military mission there, and he has opposed No Child Left Behind from the start. Of course, his stance on illegal immigration is also an example of his willingness to take on the big names of his party. There is a lot of popular support for nearly all of Tancredo's stances, so theoretically he ought to be able to win votes both among stalwart Republicans and disaffected conservatives.
That doesn't necessarily mean Tancredo's campaign will be going anywhere anytime soon. He has two major problems as I see it. Firstly, his presentation of his campaign hasn't been great. He has established himself as the anti-illegal immigration candidate, but has looked like a demagogue in the process. Whenever a politician uses all his time in the public eye to speak about one issue it creates doubts as to whether the politician has anything else to offer. Tancredo has often looked to me almost bored when speaking about issues other than illegal immigration. Secondly, Tancredo's virulence in discussing the immigration issue has made him susceptible to accusations of being xenophobic, and, given America's long history of welcoming immigrants, even anti-American. Actually, America has a long history of opposing as well as welcoming immigration, so I definitely consider Tancredo to be as American as any other candidate running for president. However, I cannot brush aside the xenophobia argument quite so easily; I've not made my mind up on that score just yet. One thing I have made up my mind about is this: Tancredo could continue to make noise in the primaries, but he needs to become more effective in promulgating his views on issues other than illegal immigration to be taken seriously by the country at large.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Office-hopping and the Ineligibility Clause
Section 6 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution restricts the ability of members of Congress to hold other government posts. This clause, sometimes unofficially called the ineligibility clause or the emoluments clause, accomplishes at least two worthy goals. Perhaps most importantly it prevents senators and representatives from seeking to draw multiple salaries for holding multiple offices; greed would likely encourage many members of Congress to spread themselves too thin and would undoubtedly make all government appointments more contentious affairs (for instance, it might be hard for a worthy presidential appointee to be approved by members of Congress if those members happened to all be hungry to hold the office in question themselves!). Because a member of Congress who also holds other government offices would wield great influence, the clause also limits the power a Congressman can wield at a given time.
Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution effectively discourages office-hopping. Just as people climb the corporate ladder by changing positions, so too do politicians move from office to office, a process that in practice makes a mockery of the concept of terms of office. I've written previously about my concern about whether members of Congress and governors can do their jobs properly and run for president at the same time. While John McCain or Hillary Clinton would not be able to be both a senator and a president at the same time, nothing prevents them from running for president while still in office. In a particularly egregious violation of the spirit of the Constitution, Joe Lieberman in 2000 sought the offices of vice president of the United States and senator of Connecticut simultaneously, though he could not hold both simultaneously. In my opinion, members of Congress should have to fulfill their terms of office or resign their offices before running for another federal office. An expanded ineligibility clause could encourage more members of Congress to concentrate on their present jobs before seeking higher offices and, once these Congressmen had either filled out their terms or resigned, they would be able to devote themselves entirely to the important process of running for higher office. While this might encourage more Fred Thompson-like "shadow campaigning" as potential candidates attempted to gauge whether or not they should resign their present offices, I think in the long run this would lead to better representation in Congress for the citizens of the United States as well as more focused presidential campaigning.
Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution effectively discourages office-hopping. Just as people climb the corporate ladder by changing positions, so too do politicians move from office to office, a process that in practice makes a mockery of the concept of terms of office. I've written previously about my concern about whether members of Congress and governors can do their jobs properly and run for president at the same time. While John McCain or Hillary Clinton would not be able to be both a senator and a president at the same time, nothing prevents them from running for president while still in office. In a particularly egregious violation of the spirit of the Constitution, Joe Lieberman in 2000 sought the offices of vice president of the United States and senator of Connecticut simultaneously, though he could not hold both simultaneously. In my opinion, members of Congress should have to fulfill their terms of office or resign their offices before running for another federal office. An expanded ineligibility clause could encourage more members of Congress to concentrate on their present jobs before seeking higher offices and, once these Congressmen had either filled out their terms or resigned, they would be able to devote themselves entirely to the important process of running for higher office. While this might encourage more Fred Thompson-like "shadow campaigning" as potential candidates attempted to gauge whether or not they should resign their present offices, I think in the long run this would lead to better representation in Congress for the citizens of the United States as well as more focused presidential campaigning.
Friday, August 17, 2007
The Popular Election of Senators
The framers of United States Constitution were so concerned over the prospect of one entity, be it a person or branch of government or some other group, becoming too powerful that they sought to employ checks and balances on power wherever it was convenient. Contrary to Lincoln's vision of a government being "of the people, by the people, for the people," the founders thought that the people needed to be kept from gaining too much power just like any other group. One way the power of the people was to be balanced was through the creation of two houses of Congress that were to be different not only in composition and powers but also in how they were to be selected. The House of Representatives was to be the people's body and so representatives were to be popularly elected. Senators, however, were to be elected by the vote of their state legislatures. In practice, this organization of the legislative branch may have done what the founders intended, but combative, inexpedient legislatures and corrupt senators continually called into question the wisdom of having state legislatures elect the Senate. In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified; it stripped the power of electing senators from the hands of the legislatures and gifted it to the people. Whether or not this was a good idea is still widely debated today.
My personal philosophy on this issue is influenced both by the Lincoln ideal of government and by the founders' distrust for all potential abusers of power. Certainly, it is true that a tyranny of the majority is just as capable of oppressing individuals as a tyranny of one, so the individual does need to be protected from the majority just as it is protected from the state itself. However, I don't think protecting the individual from the majority should result in the majority being silenced for the sake of the individual. Ultimately, the legislatures which were to elect senators were themselves chosen by the people; why is it that legislators, once enshrined in office, may be trusted to choose better senators than the voting public would themselves? Are not the state legislators men and women like other men and women rather than a part of some elite group of people who were born to rule? I tend to think that the Lincoln definition of government fits popularly elected bodies like Congress and state legislatures as well as executive offices like president, governor, and mayor very well -- members of Congress and mayors are alike in that they represent and serve the people. However, not all government officials are beholden to the people. The judiciary follows another authority: the law. It is the law which is best able to protect the individual from whatsoever threatens his or her rights, given vigorous enforcement. To me, it makes sense to have a Senate that is elected and a Supreme Court that is appointed, because it is much easier for the people to decide if a candidate is fit to represent them than it is for them to decide if a candidate will uphold the law. Even so, Supreme Court appointments have become extremely politicized; this is perhaps because the president and the Senate are not particularly well suited to the job of selection, either.
Opponents of the 17th Amendment often prefer the older system of selecting senators not on the basis of checking and balancing the power of the people, but instead on the basis of either senatorial freedom or states' rights. I don't disagree with those who claim that a senator who does not face a popular election will be more free to legislate in the manner that he or she thinks best, but I'm not sure a representative of the people should feel free to act independently of the will of the populace at all times. A senator of conscience will vote his or her conscience when it matters regardless of how that senator came to be a senator; in terms of everyday matters, though, I think senators should defer to the will of the people if their conscience and political philosophy does not lead them strongly in one way or the other. As for the states' right issue, it might seem as if letting the people of a state directly elect their senators in no way jeopardizes the position of that state with relation to the federal government. However, states' rights are often concerned with the interplay of state governments with the federal government; if senators are chosen by the state legislatures, this means that state governments have direct influence on the federal government. Is giving state governments more influence worth locking the people out of the process of electing senators, though? At this point, I'd say no.
My personal philosophy on this issue is influenced both by the Lincoln ideal of government and by the founders' distrust for all potential abusers of power. Certainly, it is true that a tyranny of the majority is just as capable of oppressing individuals as a tyranny of one, so the individual does need to be protected from the majority just as it is protected from the state itself. However, I don't think protecting the individual from the majority should result in the majority being silenced for the sake of the individual. Ultimately, the legislatures which were to elect senators were themselves chosen by the people; why is it that legislators, once enshrined in office, may be trusted to choose better senators than the voting public would themselves? Are not the state legislators men and women like other men and women rather than a part of some elite group of people who were born to rule? I tend to think that the Lincoln definition of government fits popularly elected bodies like Congress and state legislatures as well as executive offices like president, governor, and mayor very well -- members of Congress and mayors are alike in that they represent and serve the people. However, not all government officials are beholden to the people. The judiciary follows another authority: the law. It is the law which is best able to protect the individual from whatsoever threatens his or her rights, given vigorous enforcement. To me, it makes sense to have a Senate that is elected and a Supreme Court that is appointed, because it is much easier for the people to decide if a candidate is fit to represent them than it is for them to decide if a candidate will uphold the law. Even so, Supreme Court appointments have become extremely politicized; this is perhaps because the president and the Senate are not particularly well suited to the job of selection, either.
Opponents of the 17th Amendment often prefer the older system of selecting senators not on the basis of checking and balancing the power of the people, but instead on the basis of either senatorial freedom or states' rights. I don't disagree with those who claim that a senator who does not face a popular election will be more free to legislate in the manner that he or she thinks best, but I'm not sure a representative of the people should feel free to act independently of the will of the populace at all times. A senator of conscience will vote his or her conscience when it matters regardless of how that senator came to be a senator; in terms of everyday matters, though, I think senators should defer to the will of the people if their conscience and political philosophy does not lead them strongly in one way or the other. As for the states' right issue, it might seem as if letting the people of a state directly elect their senators in no way jeopardizes the position of that state with relation to the federal government. However, states' rights are often concerned with the interplay of state governments with the federal government; if senators are chosen by the state legislatures, this means that state governments have direct influence on the federal government. Is giving state governments more influence worth locking the people out of the process of electing senators, though? At this point, I'd say no.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
One Man, Two Votes
One of the disturbing facts about the coming election year is that the primary season is going to be very scrunched together, with state after state holding primaries and caucuses in quick succession. In practical terms, this means that the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be known fairly quickly and the general election will begin for all intents and purposes quite early. Even if the season was not scrunched together, there would still be criticism as there always is about the early primaries exerting too much influence on the outcome of the nomination process. It is surely in the country's best interest to have a primary season that lasts long enough for the American people to get to know the candidates. Spreading out the primaries and caucuses more is something that is needed, but I have another idea which also might help make the nomination process interesting right up until the conventions. This idea was inspired by George Washington and the men who elected him, so you know it's going to be good!
The first few American presidential elections were ultimately determined as presidential elections are determined today: by the votes of a small number of people who served as electors. These electors had two votes which had to be cast for two different candidates. The Twelfth Amendment made it so that these two votes were distinct from one another, one being cast for a presidential candidate and the other for a vice-presidential candidate. In the elections of 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800, there was no distinction between the two votes of the electors; the chosen vice president was simply the candidate who received the largest number of electoral votes after the president. In practice, this system caused some difficulties, particularly to Thomas Jefferson who ended serving as vice president to a president of a very different political persuasion and then nearly lost the presidency to the man who was supposed to be (and ultimately was) his own vice president. Does this mean two votes are one too many? With all sympathy to Thomas Jefferson, I think the answer to that question may well be no -- perhaps, instead, this is an American political tradition that should be revived to help fix America's primary problem. (Talk about a confusing use of the word "primary" -- I apologize, but I do not edit.)
Suppose, for instance, that primary voters were required to cast two votes of equal value for two different candidates instead of one. This would certainly make landslide primary victories difficult to obtain since for every vote cast for one candidate there would be another cast against that candidate. It would also encourage voters to give more than one candidate a chance; some, undoubtedly, would exercise their democratic right to throw their second vote away by casting it for an unlikely candidate, but surely some others, if not the majority of voters, would choose to vote for the two candidates they like the best. There are some downsides to this idea, as well, but I don't think they are particularly serious. For one thing, this idea would make it possible for a popular second-choice candidate to defeat several more popular first-choice candidates. Chris Dodd is not many people's first choice for president right now, but a lot of people like him; in a two-vote system, a Chris Dodd could win a primary just by being the second choice of a lot of Hillary and Obama voters. Is the victory of a candidate many people like but most people do not like a lot a triumph for democracy? Another unfortunate aspect to this might be the dimming of enthusiasm people feel for their particular candidate of choice; I don't think this impact would be huge, but I would expect to see more people divide their energy, time, and contributions between at least two candidates that they like through the primaries.
The first few American presidential elections were ultimately determined as presidential elections are determined today: by the votes of a small number of people who served as electors. These electors had two votes which had to be cast for two different candidates. The Twelfth Amendment made it so that these two votes were distinct from one another, one being cast for a presidential candidate and the other for a vice-presidential candidate. In the elections of 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800, there was no distinction between the two votes of the electors; the chosen vice president was simply the candidate who received the largest number of electoral votes after the president. In practice, this system caused some difficulties, particularly to Thomas Jefferson who ended serving as vice president to a president of a very different political persuasion and then nearly lost the presidency to the man who was supposed to be (and ultimately was) his own vice president. Does this mean two votes are one too many? With all sympathy to Thomas Jefferson, I think the answer to that question may well be no -- perhaps, instead, this is an American political tradition that should be revived to help fix America's primary problem. (Talk about a confusing use of the word "primary" -- I apologize, but I do not edit.)
Suppose, for instance, that primary voters were required to cast two votes of equal value for two different candidates instead of one. This would certainly make landslide primary victories difficult to obtain since for every vote cast for one candidate there would be another cast against that candidate. It would also encourage voters to give more than one candidate a chance; some, undoubtedly, would exercise their democratic right to throw their second vote away by casting it for an unlikely candidate, but surely some others, if not the majority of voters, would choose to vote for the two candidates they like the best. There are some downsides to this idea, as well, but I don't think they are particularly serious. For one thing, this idea would make it possible for a popular second-choice candidate to defeat several more popular first-choice candidates. Chris Dodd is not many people's first choice for president right now, but a lot of people like him; in a two-vote system, a Chris Dodd could win a primary just by being the second choice of a lot of Hillary and Obama voters. Is the victory of a candidate many people like but most people do not like a lot a triumph for democracy? Another unfortunate aspect to this might be the dimming of enthusiasm people feel for their particular candidate of choice; I don't think this impact would be huge, but I would expect to see more people divide their energy, time, and contributions between at least two candidates that they like through the primaries.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll Thoughts
The Iowans who voted in today's straw poll in Ames generally rewarded those who invested the most time and energy into courting their votes. Mitt Romney, the candidate who spent the most money courting (and sometimes transporting) Iowa voters, won the poll comfortably as expected. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, two candidates who have made Iowa one of the major focuses of their campaigns, finished second and third in the race. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain performed dismally following their decision to not actively compete in Iowa: Giuliani finished eighth and McCain tenth. Tommy Thompson was the one candidate whose performance did not match his effort level; despite campaigning in every county in Iowa, Thompson finished in the disappointing sixth position. Thompson probably handicapped his own chances by announcing that he would drop out of the race if he did not finish first or second in the poll; it appears that the former Wisconsin governor's presidential campaign is coming to an end.
Two of the big stories surrounding the events in Ames did not have anything to do with a particular candidate. First, the voter turnout was smaller than some had expected. Frankly, it was smaller than some had hoped; the Iowa straw poll is a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party, so the more people who pay to vote in it the more money the local Republicans will rake in. It is also common practice for campaigns to foot the cash for their supporters. Given that Romney has been the predicted victor for weeks now and his was the only campaign with significant cash to pour in to Iowa, it's not surprising that people were reluctant to fork over their cash to participate in a political event that seemed increasingly lacking in influence. Secondly, the results of the poll were delayed due to some technical problems; evidently, one of the voting machines used at the event malfunctioned, forcing a recount of some of the votes. That certainly is not a promising sign for next year's election!
At least two candidates performed significantly better than they were expected to. Tom Tancredo finished a very strong fourth, winning 13.7% of the vote. This is huge for his campaign -- take him off the list of people expected to drop out of the race very soon. Ron Paul finished 5th, showing that he can perform decently even in what is considered to be a very traditional state. I think many of the votes for Tancredo were protest votes cast by those upset about illegal immigration. It will be interesting to see if the leading Republicans try to take a harder stance on illegal immigration in the coming months to win these voters over to their camps.
The Iowa straw poll should give more candidates hope than it does despair. I don't think we're going to see as great a weeding out of the lower-tier candidates as some were expecting. Yes, Tommy Thompson is out. Duncan Hunter performed very badly (finishing 9th...even Giuliani beat him!), but I'm not sure this event was a huge deal to him -- he is probably the next most likely guy to drop out, but he might just stay in a little longer, too. The other Republican candidates (apart from the 41 vote wonder John Cox) have no reason to drop out now; this is a time to savor their victories over Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson and attempt to carry the momentum they've picked up in Iowa elsewhere. Most significantly, I think the straw poll was a big statement on the part of Christian conservatives. Huckabee and Brownback were finally given the support from their base that they've struggled to win thus far and I expect their campaigns will continue to pick up steam at least until Fred Thompson finally enters the race officially. If the second Thompson bombs like the first one, then Huckabee and/or Brownback could become top-tier candidates.
Two of the big stories surrounding the events in Ames did not have anything to do with a particular candidate. First, the voter turnout was smaller than some had expected. Frankly, it was smaller than some had hoped; the Iowa straw poll is a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party, so the more people who pay to vote in it the more money the local Republicans will rake in. It is also common practice for campaigns to foot the cash for their supporters. Given that Romney has been the predicted victor for weeks now and his was the only campaign with significant cash to pour in to Iowa, it's not surprising that people were reluctant to fork over their cash to participate in a political event that seemed increasingly lacking in influence. Secondly, the results of the poll were delayed due to some technical problems; evidently, one of the voting machines used at the event malfunctioned, forcing a recount of some of the votes. That certainly is not a promising sign for next year's election!
At least two candidates performed significantly better than they were expected to. Tom Tancredo finished a very strong fourth, winning 13.7% of the vote. This is huge for his campaign -- take him off the list of people expected to drop out of the race very soon. Ron Paul finished 5th, showing that he can perform decently even in what is considered to be a very traditional state. I think many of the votes for Tancredo were protest votes cast by those upset about illegal immigration. It will be interesting to see if the leading Republicans try to take a harder stance on illegal immigration in the coming months to win these voters over to their camps.
The Iowa straw poll should give more candidates hope than it does despair. I don't think we're going to see as great a weeding out of the lower-tier candidates as some were expecting. Yes, Tommy Thompson is out. Duncan Hunter performed very badly (finishing 9th...even Giuliani beat him!), but I'm not sure this event was a huge deal to him -- he is probably the next most likely guy to drop out, but he might just stay in a little longer, too. The other Republican candidates (apart from the 41 vote wonder John Cox) have no reason to drop out now; this is a time to savor their victories over Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson and attempt to carry the momentum they've picked up in Iowa elsewhere. Most significantly, I think the straw poll was a big statement on the part of Christian conservatives. Huckabee and Brownback were finally given the support from their base that they've struggled to win thus far and I expect their campaigns will continue to pick up steam at least until Fred Thompson finally enters the race officially. If the second Thompson bombs like the first one, then Huckabee and/or Brownback could become top-tier candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)