DOCSLIB.ORG

Front-Runner Gary Hart's Support Is Thin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Front-Runner Gary Hart's Support Is Thin The Harris Survey For release: Monday All, January 12, 1987 1987 # 2 ISSN 0273-1037 FRONT-RUNNER GARY HART'S SUPPORT IS THIN By Louis Harris Gary Hart is far and away the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988. Be runs well ahead of Vice President George Bush, and yet he is far less appealing to the American people than he was in 1984. This strange combination in turn indicates just how weak a candidate Bush is and also portends qUite a wide open contest in both parties for the nominations next year. At last count, Hart, the former Colorado Senator who chose not to run for reelection in order to spend full time campaigning for the White House, was the first choice of 31 percent of all Democratic and independent voters, followed by Governor Mario Cuomo of New York at 19 percent and Senator Bill Bradley at 9 percent, according to the October 29th to November 1st Harris Survey, taken by telephone among 731 Democratic and independent voters. This is a good though not commanding lead for Hart. At the same time, Hart is leading Vice President Bush by 50-42 percent among a cross section of 909 likely voters, interviewed by the Harris Survey by telephone between November 21st and 24th. Significantly, Hart is ahead of Bush in the East by 52-40 percent, in the Midwest by 52-37 percent, and in the West by 53-37 percent, although he trails the Vice President by 50-46 percent in the South. Translated into electoral college votes, this would mean a relatively easy Hart victory over Bush. Despite all this heartening news for Gary Hart, when people are asked about him in detail, he does not score nearly as well as his front-runner status would indicate, according to the latest Harris Survey of 1,250 adults, taken by telephone between November 26th and December 2nd: By only a bare 39-38 percent, a plurality holds the view that he "has an attractive, forceful personality, and is a real leader." This is usually a reliable indicator of the basic voter set on a candidate. Back in 1984, a highly positive 57-29 percent majority felt that Hart had these attributes. Therefore, since the '84 campaign, Hart has declined by 18 points in the number of voters who share this basic confidence about him, hardly a reassuring sign. Perhaps even more serious for Hart is the fact that when asked directly if they feel more positive than negative or more negative than positive about Gary Hart, a 44-41 percent plurality of the national cross section feels more negative than positive. Basically, the best that can be said on an overall basis is that Hart splits the electorate down the middle, indicating that if people voted pro or con on him alone, they would split roughly 50-50. Thus, the fact that he runs ahead of Bush means that the Vice President loses that pairing more than Hart wins it. -- A 57-26 percent majority feels that Hart was "disappointing when he ran in 1984 and lost the Democratic nomination to Mondale." A significant 55-29 percent majority of Democrats share this view. -- By 48-30 percent, a clear plurality is convinced that Gary Hart "is too cool and lacking in commitment to get me excited by him." -- By a narrow 37-34 percent, a plurality goes along with the charge that Hart "seems to make too many mistakes and changes his stands too much to be trusted to be president." Back in 1984, a 47-34 percent plurality rejected this charge against the former Colorado Senator. -- By 57-23 percent, a majority also adheres to the view that "he says he's different from the others, but what he says doesn't sound very new or original to me.· Back in 1984, a slightly larger 62-26 percent majority shared this same view of Hart. (over) THE HARRIS SURVEY -2- January 12, 1987 On three items, Hart comes off with positive reactions from the voters themselves: -- By 50-27 percent, a sizable plurality believes that "he isn't tied to all the entrenched power interests and is a young, new, vigorous voice in politics." Two years ago, an even larger 64-22 percent majority felt this way about Gary Hart. -- By 43-37 percent, a plurality nationwide believes that Hart "should have been the Democratic nominee for president in 1984 and deserves a chance to get that nomination in 1988." A higher 48-35 percent plurality of Democrats feels this way. -- Finally, by 45-38 percent, a plurality nationwide is also convinced that Hart "gained the experience in the U.S. Senate, and it is right for him to concentrate full-time on running for president in 1988." All in all, these results add up to a rather pale and not robust public profile of Gary Hart. It is not so much that he stirs up deep resentment or d i s l ike. But, instead, he seems incapable of arousing much deep and positive sentiment. Basically, he emerges as a kind of residual candidate who does relatively well when pai red against George Bush or other Democratic contenders for the nomination, but also does not evoke solid and unswerving support. Of course, Gary Hart has not officially undertaken his campaign and has not commanded the front and center attention usually accorded other front-runners. In 1984, he emerged from obscurity and caught fire. The reaction to him back then was exciting and dramatic. Whether Gary Hart can reignite that sense of discovery again is probably the acid test of his presidential quest for 1988. TABLES Between November 26th and December 2nd, the Harris Survey asked a nationwide cross section of 1,250 adults by telephone: PROFILE OF GARY HART "Now let me ask you some statements that have been made about Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. For each, tell me of you tend to agree or disagree." Agree Disagree Not Sure % % % POSITIVE STATEMENTS He isn't attached to all the entrenched power interests and is a young, new, vigorous voice in politics TOTAL 50 27 23 Democrats 57 23 20 He gained the experience in the U.S. Senate, and it is right for him to concentrate full-time on running for president in 1988 TOTAL 45 38 17 Democrats 51 36 13 He should have been the Democratic nominee for president in 1984 and deserves a chance to get that nomination in 1988 TOTAL 43 37 20 Democrats 48 35 17 He has an attractive, forceful personality, and is a real leader TOTAL 39 38 23 Democrats 45 34 21 (continued) THE HARRIS SURVEY -3- January 12, 1987 PROFILE OF GARY HART (cont'd) Agree Disagree Not Sure % % % NEGATIVE STATEMENTS He says he's different from the others running for president, but what he says doesn't sound very new or original to me TOTAL 57 23 20 Democrats 54 27 19 He was disappointing when he ran in 1984 and lost the Democratic nomination to Mondale TOTAL 57 26 17 Democrats 55 29 16 Somehow, he is too cool and lacking in commitment to get me excited by him TOTAL 48 30 22 Democrats 44 36 20 He seems to make too many mistakes and changes his stands too much to be trusted to be president TOTAL 37 34 29 Democrats 35 39 26 "All in all, do you feel more positive than negative or more negative than positive about Gary Hart as a prospective candidate for president in 1988?" FEELINGS ABOUT GARY HART AS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE More positive than negative 41 More negative than positive 44 Not sure 15 Between November 21st and 24th, the Harris Survey asked a nationwide cross section of 909 voters by telephone: "Now suppose in the 1988 presidential election, it is between Vice President George Bush for the Republicans and Senator Gary Hart for the Democrats. If you had to choose, would you vote for Bush or for Hart?" PREFERENCE FOR HART OR BUSH IN 1988 Bush 42 Hart 50 Not sure 8 Between October 29th and November 1st, the Harris Survey asked a nationwide cross section of 731 Democratic and independent voters by telephone: "Now let me read you the names of some people who have been ment ioned as possible Democratic candidates for president in 1988. If you had to choose who would be your first choice from that list?" (over) THE HARRIS SURVEY -4- January 12, 1987 PREFERENCE FOR 1988 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION Senator Gary Hart of Colorado 31 Governor Mario Cuomo of New York 19 Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey 9 Governor Charles Robb of Virginia 4 Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia 3 Senator Paul Simon of Illinois 3 Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts 2 Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas 2 Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona 1 Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware 1 Governor James Blanchard of Michigan 1 Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri 1 None 7 Not sure 16 MET HOD 0 LOG Y These Harris Surveys were conducted by telephone within the United States between October 29th and November 1st, among a cross section of 731 Democrats and independent voters nationwide, between November 21st and 24th, among 909 voters nationwide and between November 26th and December 2nd, among 1,250 adults nationwide. Figures for age, sex, race and education were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. In samples of these sizes, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the results have a statistical precision of plus or minus 3.7, 3.3 and 2.8 percentage points respectively of what they would be if the entire adult population had been polled.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4. IOWA Iowa Is the State Famous for Holding Presidential Caucuses Rather Than a Presidential Primary. There Is a Good Reason F
    4. IOWA Iowa is the state famous for holding presidential caucuses rather than a presidential primary. There is a good reason for that. The state of New Hampshire has a tradition of holding the first presidential primary. In fact, New Hampshire has a law requiring that the New Hampshire primary be one week before the presidential primary of any other state. By scheduling caucuses rather than a primary, Iowa is able to hold its caucuses ahead of New Hampshire and thereby escape the political ire of New Hampshirites. Iowa also thus prevents New Hampshire from scheduling its primary one week ahead of the presidential caucuses in Iowa. That is what that famous New Hampshire law would require if Iowa held a primary. It was in 1972 that Iowa first scheduled its "First In The Nation" presidential caucuses. Four years later, in 1976, the Iowa caucuses were propelled to major importance when Jimmy Carter, a little-known former governor of Georgia, devoted virtually a year of his life to campaigning in Iowa. Carter's surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses made him the instant front-runner for the Democratic nomination. It was an advantage which Carter exploited so well he was eventually elected president of the United States. But there is also a downside to the Iowa caucuses for presidential hopefuls. Iowa can be the burial ground for a candidacy instead of the launching pad. That is what happened to U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1980 when he challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. President Carter polled 59 percent of the Iowa caucuses vote to 31 percent for Kennedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Name Photo Bio Aaron Jaffee Aaron Jaffe Is a Current Senior at Columbia
    Name Photo Bio Aaron Jaffe is a current senior at Columbia University where he studies political science and applied mathematics. He is particularly passionate about the intersection of data and politics, through both policy and the electoral system. He’s worked and is working as a data Aaron science fellow on multiple democratic campaigns through Bluebonnet Data, ranging from school board elections in Florida to congressional Jaffee campaigns in Texas. Aaron has proudly represented the Democratic values of the state of Connecticut since his junior year of high school when he was chosen as a Senator to represent the state at American Legion Boys Nation. He was elected to lead the Senate as President Pro Tempore where he was responsible for introducing more legislation than in the programs 70 year history. I was born and raised in Fairfield County and am the former DTC Chair in Weston. My political experience in Connecticut started as the Campaign Manager for the 2002 Congressional Candidate, Stephanie Sanchez. Prior to that when I lived in LA, I was a member of the Amy Hollywood Women’s Political Committee and was the Volunteer Coordinator for all of LA on Gary Hart’s 1984 campaign. I have lived in Shapiro Weston since 2004 and have been a DTC member since 2005. I am the head of Programming for an entertainment startup and was a VP at Universal Pictures. I am passionate about electing VP Biden and would love to be a delegate to the convention. I started off my career in politics by joining the Town Committee at the age of 18.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Strategies in Political Campaigns
    MEDIA STRATEGIES IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS Week 10 – Comm1A; Nov. 18-Dec. 4 Rational Candidates Historical Development Media Strategies Going Negative Effects of Campaigns on Election Outcomes Candidates as Rational Actors 3 Reaching Goals Anticipation Voters “Retail politics” – face to face campaigns for What will To receive one national office ended in journalists do to more vote than any the 1940s keep you honest? other candidate How do you Since 1950s, main respond? media platform = TV where all the voters are What will your Maximize turnout among opponent do and supporters and minimize TV ads and televised how to counter her turnout among potential debates as major messages? opponents forms of campaign media; web audience not yet competitive From Party- to Candidate-Based Campaigns 4 In the era of de-polarized parties, candidates were selected by party leaders; most voters were moderates and candidates converged on the median voter With party polarization and the adoption of primary elections and the need for $$ in the 1970s, candidates now converge on the extremes Party ID is the most important determinant of voter behavior, imperative that you “hold the base” (i.e. receive at least 90 percent of the vote from co-partisans Two Channels of Campaign Communication 5 Advertising and News = “Paid vs. free” channels • Mix depends on newsworthiness • Presidential campaigns generate considerable news coverage • Statewide and local races generate none at all Advertising > news coverage in sub-presidential contests • For referenda and initiatives, advertising is the only media Distinction between ads and news is now blurred • Ad watches, fake ads, and news about ads and ad strategy Top Press Strategy 6 Avoid feeding frenzies that sound alarm bells over your candidacy: Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden case studies More recent instances – Sarah Palin interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H2574
    H2574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 19, 2021 Sewell (DelBene) Wilson (FL) Young (Joyce NAYS—208 Ruppersberger Slotkin (Axne) Wilson (SC) Slotkin (Axne) (Hayes) (OH)) (Raskin) Waters (Timmons) Aderholt Gohmert Moolenaar Waters Wilson (SC) Rush (Barraga´ n) Young (Joyce Allen (Barraga´ n) (Timmons) Gonzales, Tony Mooney (Underwood) Wilson (FL) Amodei (OH)) Gonzalez (OH) Moore (AL) Sewell (DelBene) (Hayes) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Armstrong Good (VA) Moore (UT) question is on the resolution. Arrington Gooden (TX) Mullin f Babin Gosar Murphy (NC) The question was taken; and the Bacon Granger Nehls NATIONAL COMMISSION TO INVES- Speaker pro tempore announced that Baird Graves (LA) Newhouse TIGATE THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK the ayes appeared to have it. Balderson Graves (MO) Norman Banks Green (TN) Nunes ON THE UNITED STATES CAP- Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speak- Barr Greene (GA) Obernolte ITOL COMPLEX ACT Bentz Griffith er, on that I demand the yeas and nays. Owens Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Bergman Grothman Palazzo The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Bice (OK) Guest Palmer Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution ant to section 3(s) of House Resolution Biggs Guthrie Pence 409, I call up the bill (H.R. 3233) to es- 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Bilirakis Hagedorn Perry tablish the National Commission to In- Bishop (NC) Harris Pfluger The vote was taken by electronic de- Boebert Harshbarger Posey vestigate the January 6 Attack on the vice, and there were—yeas 216, nays Bost Hartzler Reed United States Capitol Complex, and for 208, not voting 5, as follows: Brady Hern Reschenthaler other purposes, and ask for its imme- Brooks Herrell Rice (SC) diate consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Insurgent Campaigns Rarely Win the Democratic Presidential Primary in the United States
    Athens Journal of Social Sciences Volume 6, Issue 2 – Pages 139-154 Why Insurgent Campaigns Rarely Win the Democratic Presidential Primary in the United States By L. Jan Reid* The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines insurgent as "one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party." In this paper, an "insurgent presidential campaign" is defined as the campaign of a candidate who did not have the support of the United States of America’s (U.S.) Democratic Party establishment. A "populist campaign" is a subset of an insurgent campaign, because although all populist campaigns are insurgent campaigns, not all insurgent campaigns are populist campaigns. This paper defines a "populist campaign" as one that seeks to mobilize an unrepresented segment of the population against an institution or government, usually in defense of the unrepresented. Whether left-wing or right-wing, populist candidates seek to unite the supposedly uncorrupt and unsophis¬ticated unrepresented against supposedly corrupt dominant elites. Insurgent campaigns have rarely been successful in capturing the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the United States. Only three insurgent campaigns have been successful over the past 50 years: the campaigns of George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Barack Obama in 2008, all of which were populist campaigns. The paper analyzes U.S. presidential campaigns for the period 1968- 2016; reviews books and academic literature; and makes conclusions concerning the success and failure of insurgent campaigns. Finally, the paper recommends ways in which future insurgent campaigns could be more successful. Keywords: Insurgent Campaigns, Populism, Presidential Campaigns.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION E·
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION e· May 1988 009 E Street NW Washington DC Volume 14. Number 5 FEC APPROVES MATCHING FUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Lyndon H. LaRouche, a Democratic candi­ date, was declared eligible to receive primary matching funds for his 1988 Presidential primary campaign. After finding LaRouche eligible, the FEC TERMINATES MATCHING FUND Commission certified his first payment to the ELIGmlLITY FOR EIGHT CANDIDATES U.S. Treasury on March 24, 1988. This certifica- During recent months, the Commission deter­ tion, supplemented by certifications to eight mined that four Republican candidates and four other eligible candidates on March 30, raised to Democratic candidates were no longer eligible for $48,101,890.40 the total amount of payments the primary matching funds under the Presidential agency had certified to the Treasury by the end Primary Matching Payment Account. The of March. candidates became ineligible for primary match­ The summary chart below provides cumula­ ing funds when each candidate announc:d publicly tive information on certifications of primary that he would no longer actively campaign for his matching funds made to fifteen eligible Presi­ party's Presidential nomination. II CPR 9033.5­ dential candidates between January I and March (a)( I). The chart below lists each candidate and 30, 1988. The chart also indicates the most his date of lneligiblity, recent certifications.made to eligible candidates. The Presidential primary candidates listed During 1988, an eligible Presidential candi­ below became ineligible for public funds on the date may submit requests for primary matching date each candidate ceased to be an active funds on the second and fourth Mondays of each candidate for the Presidency.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, June 6, 1984 Jackson Resurrecting Ike's Ploy 1 Percent Ur by DAVID S
    Opinion Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, June 6, 1984 Jackson resurrecting Ike's ploy 1 percent Ur By DAVID S. BRODER delegates were seated, “the nomination would be seating. Taft resisted, as he was hound todoif jm ^ati Columnist lor The Los Angeles Times Syndicate - tarnished,” as the Times put it. “The ‘steal’ there­ hoped to be nominated, and the first natioj :aiiy ur WASHINGTON — With some prompting from fore was reinforcement of the basic Eisenhower television audience ever to see a nominatingcn Tuesday landslides Gary Hart and the ghost of Dwight Eisenhower, vention heard hours of oratory from the Esc Ihe state slogan, ‘Taft can’t win.’” Jesse Jackson has put his finger on the tactic that Hart launched the same tactic against Mondale hower side on the theme, “Thou shall not steal oldie ait Every time an election comes around, could create a national television drama this sum­ several weeks ago by claiming that 587 Mondale Pressured by this propaganda assault plii ^a’^ ^ people are reminded to get out and mer, destroy Democratic hopes for a calm con­ delegates are “tainted” by the fact that they were public opinion it generated, the delegates it budge vote. Some candidates call you on the vention, and conceivably frustrate Walter Mon­ chosen in states where union political-action com­ rowly approved the “fair play” rules amendmet ,ear’s en phone and ask if you’ve voted yet. Cam­ dale’s plan for neatly nailing down the party mittee (PAG) money was used to finance the and then forced Taft to yield most of thedi ; In ar paign workers may knock on your door presidential nomination.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full PDF
    THE VIDEO CAMPAIGN Network Coverage of the 1988 Primaries ~ S. Robert Lichter, Daniel Amundson, and Richard Noyes rrJ T H E S 0 "Everybody talks about campaign journalism. Bob Lichter studies it and rrJ has for years. This time around, he studies it more closely and system­ 0 atically than anybody else in the field." -Michael Robinson Georgetown University "Bob Lichter and his team are the one source I know who are system­ atically studying the campaign news. I rely on them again and again." -Tom Rosenstiel i 0 Los Angeles Times :z nc Network Coverage :r R'., • of the ~ c :1 Co (I) 1988 Primaries 0 :1 :z• ~ ~ (I) ~ C'":l :::E US $12.00 :: u ~ ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-3675-4 ISBN-l0: 0-8447-3675-9 51200 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR P<lBUC POUCY RESEARCH @ CENTER FOR MEDIA AND P<lBUC AFFAIRS 9 780844 736754 eM K T * H * E VIDE CAMPAIGN CAMPAIGN Network Coverage of the 1988 Primaries s. Robert Lichter Daniel Amundson Richard Noyes AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBUC POUCY RESEARCH CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBUC AFFAIRS Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the'&-qJ Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lichter, S. Robert. The video campaign. (AEI studies ; 483) 1. Television in politics--United States. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • '-OI"6' Ii-<.~ Vi.- a '0'“ ".\ -. Technician North Carolina State University's S
    'r‘V‘V‘I>&‘-OI"6‘ iI-<.~ vi.- a ’0’“ ~".\ -. Technician North Carolina State University’s Student Newspaper Since 1920 Volume LXV. Number80 Monday, April 9. 1984 Raleigh. North Carolina Phone 737-2411/2412 V '9. .‘7' State hosts ‘3‘ pollution workshop Lecturers discuss Central Campus Craze gave students the opportunlty to let it all hang out decontaminatlng before exams start next month. Tucker leach hosted most of the NC ground water students and sunbathers while they were entertained by the Pressure Freeing North Carolina's ground water from pollution will be the focus Boys, Destiny and Street Heart. of a workshop titled “Managing Contaminated Ground Water" which will be held on April 10 and 11 at State‘s McKimmon Center. Key lecturers will be John Cherry. professor of the sciences at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. and George Pinder. chairman of the civil engineering department at Princeton University. They are two of North America's leading engineers in ground water management and modeling of underground flow. The two-day program will include discussions on specific ground water Staff photo by Attila Horveth pollution problems in the state and how they occurred and were de~ tected. Program coordinators are Charles Smallwood and Ralph Heath of Whittenburg remembers the good times and the bad State's civil engineering faculty and Jerome Kohl. State's senior nuclear engineering extension specialist. Tim Medlin “We were 17-5 going down to the court “was such a tremendous So why is such a highly-talented. While he was waiting to be Smallwood said the program will Staff Writer Clemson.
    [Show full text]
  • May 10, 1988 Primary Election
    PR 1988 Official Report Hall County Primary Election Presidential (May 10, 1988) Republican Ticket President of the United States (vote for 1) George Bush 4009 Bob Dole 1176 Jack Kemp 189 Pat Robertson 398 WRITE-IN Total 5772 U.S. Senator (vote for 1) Hal Daub 2155 Dave Karnes 3891 WRITE-IN Total 6046 U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 3 (vote for 1) Virginia Smith 5715 WRITE-IN Total 5715 Hall County Supervisor Dist. 2 (vote for 1) Margaret Landis 694 WRITE-IN Total 694 Hall County Supervisor Dist. 4 (vote for 1) Louise M. Miller 457 WRITE-IN Total 457 Public Defender (vote for 1) Barry Ward 4159 WRITE-IN Total 4159 Delegates to National, County conventions available upon request 1 of 10 PR 1988 Democratic Ticket President of the United States (vote for 1) Michael S. Dukakis 2857 Richard Gephardt 92 Al Gore 58 Gary Hart 120 Jesse Jackson 992 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 13 Paul Simon 26 Uncommitted 121 WRITE-IN Total 4279 U.S. Senator (vote for 1) Bob Kerrey 3983 Ken L. Michaelis 367 WRITE-IN Total 4350 U.S. Representative in Congress Dist. 3 (vote for 1) John D. Racek 3096 WRITE-IN Total 3096 Hall County Supervisor Dist. 4 (vote for 1) Robert Leslie 430 WRITE-IN Total 430 Hall County Supervisor Dist. 6 (vote for 1) Barney McGahan 226 Bill Wright 419 Della Hoffman 64 WRITE-IN Total 709 New Alliance Ticket President of the United States (vote for 1) 2 of 10 PR 1988 Lenora B. Fulani 0 WRITE-IN Total 0 Independent Republican Ticket U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Times-Call # Title of File Folder Photo # Brief Description Boulder County Judge (1971 - 1975)
    Times-Call # Title of File Folder Photo # Brief Description Boulder County judge (1971 - 1975). Boulder District judge (1975 - P.40.10 Dana, Richard - Political 1971 - 1988 3 1984). P.40.10 Daniels, Bill - Political 1974 0 Republican candidate for Colorado Governor (1974) P.40.10 Darby, Lorena (Mrs. John) - Political 1972 - 1976 7 Democratic Colorado State Senator from 24th District (1972 - ?). P.40.10 Davidson, Janic Burnett - Political 1990 0 Colorado Court of Appeals Judge. P.40.10 Davis, Richard - Political 1976 - 1978 1 Independent candidate for Fourth Congressional District (1976 & 1978). P.40.10 De Nier, Robert - Political 1982 3 Republican candidate for Colorado Lieutenant Governor (1982). Boulder City Attorney, was nominated for Boulder County Judge position P.40.10 de Raismes, Joseph N. - Political 1984 0 but it was given to Joseph John Bellipanni. Republican candidate for Colorado's 1st Congressional District. P.40.10 Decker, Arch - Political 1982 1 Opposing Rep. Pat Schroeder (1982). P.40.10 Dick, Nancy - Political 1978 - 1986 12 Colorado Lieutenant Governor (Democrat) (1979 - 1987). P.40.10 Dietze, Peter C. - Political 1984 - 1990 1 University of Colorado Regent (1984 - 1990). P.40.10 Dietze, Peter C. - Political 1978 - 1979 2 University of Colorado Regent (1978 - 1984). P.40.10 Dillon, James - Political 1987 0 St. Vrain Valley School Board candidate (1987). P.40.10 Dino, Mike - Political 1988 1 CU Board of Regents candidate (1988). P.40.10 Dittemore, Betty Ann - Political 1977 - 1978 2 Republican candidate for Colorado Lieutenant Governor (1978). Republican member of Colorado House (1976 - 1980) & Colorado Senate P.40.10 Dodge, Cliff - Political 1987 0 (1980 - 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Stepping Stone to the White House Or Tombstone on Presidential Ambition: Why Senators Usually Fail When They Run for the White House
    Stepping Stone to the White House or Tombstone on Presidential Ambition: Why Senators Usually Fail When They Run for the White House Wayne P. Steger Studies divide over which offices are the best position from which to seek the presidency. This study looks at how candidates from various backgrounds perform in the competition for resources and votes in presidential nomination campaigns. The study also sheds light on Burden’s (2002) “candidate pool” and “candidate investment” hypotheses. As a group, senators are found to be relatively weak fundraisers, receive less campaign news coverage, and attract less public support than presidential candidates from most other backgrounds. Senators as a group are more variable than other groups of office-holders, but not significantly so. Most but not all senators who enter the race appear to invest themselves in their campaign. What is the best position from which to run for the presidency? The U.S. Senate has long been viewed as a “presidential incubator” and as “the major launching pad for presidential contenders” (Schlesinger 1966; Pea- body and Lubalin 1975; Peabody, Ornstein, and Rohde 1976; Hess 1986; Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde 1987). It is generally believed that nearly all U.S. senators aspire to be president (e.g., Doherty 1999; Berke 2002). More presidential candidates come from the Senate than any other office.1 Yet senators usually fail when they run (Peabody, Ornstein, and Rohde 1976; Burden 2002). One observer refers to the Senate as, “a graveyard of failed White House ambition” (Zuckman 2003, 1). If the Senate is such a strong position to run from, why do senators so often fail when they run? In portraying the Senate as a strong place to run from, all of these studies assume that senators are advantaged in raising money and attracting media coverage.
    [Show full text]