DOCSLIB.ORG

Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 2000 Including the Manner of Selecting Delegates to National Party Conventions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 2000 Including the Manner of Selecting Delegates to National Party Conventions 106th Congress 2d Session S. Doc. 106±16 Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 2000 Including the Manner of Selecting Delegates to National Party Conventions By L. Paige Whitaker, Jack Maskell, Margaret M. Lee, Robert B. Burdette, John Contrubis, T.J. Halstead, and Jon Shimabukuro, Legislative Attor- neys, and Gloria P. Sugars, Paralegal and Coordinator, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate January 2000 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 2000 Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 2000 106th Congress 2d Session S. Doc. 106±16 Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 2000 Including the Manner of Selecting Delegates to National Party Conventions By L. Paige Whitaker, Jack Maskell, Margaret M. Lee, Robert B. Burdette, John Contrubis, T.J. Halstead, and Jon Shimabukuro, Legislative Attor- neys, and Gloria P. Sugars, Paralegal and Coordinator, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate January 2000 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 2000 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Chairman JESSE HELMS, North Carolina CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN WARNER, Virginia DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California DON NICKLES, Oklahoma ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey TRENT LOTT, Mississippi CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas TAMARA S. SOMERVILLE, Staff Director G. HUNTER BATES, Chief Counsel KENNIE L. GILL, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel SENATE RESOLUTION 236 In the Senate of the United States November 19, 1999 Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration shall prepare a revised edition of the document entitled Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, Senate Document 102±14, and that such document shall be printed as a Senate document. SEC. 2. There shall be printed, beyond the usual number, six hundred additional copies of the document specified in the first sec- tion for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration. Attest: GARY SISCO, Secretary (II) III FOREWORD This document is a compilation of the constitutional provi- sions, federal and state laws, and rules of the two major po- litical parties governing the nomination and election of the President and Vice President of the United States. It lists the states holding presidential preference primaries and the dates of such primaries; it also describes the manner of se- lecting delegates to the national conventions, the dates such selections are to be made, and the number of delegates to be selected. Two surveys of the rules of the major political par- ties and of the election laws of the fifty states and the Dis- trict of Columbia are included relating to the selection of del- egates to the national nominating conventions and to the nomination and election of electors of the President and Vice President. Abstracts of the laws relating to minor and new parties and independent candidates are also included in the surveys. The information contained here is based on the federal and state laws in effect as of October 1, 1999. There have been many changes in the election laws of the states since the 1992 presidential election. Various state laws referred to in this document may have been amended subsequent to publi- cation; similarly, political party constitutions, rules and dele- gates selection plans may also have been amended. Every ef- fort has been made to provide the latest statutes, party rules and delegate selection plans. The analysis of election laws and party rules was prepared by L. Paige Whitaker, Jack Maskell, Margaret M. Lee, Rob- ert B. Burdette, John Contrubis, T.J. Halstead, Jon Skimabukuro, legislative attorneys, and paralegal Gloria P. Sugars, coordinator, of the American Law Division, Congres- sional Research Service, Library of Congress for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, under the super- vision of Ellen M. Lazarus Deputy Assistant Director, and Richard C. Ehkle, Assistant Director of the American Law Division. V CONTENTS Foreword, III Table of Contents, V Important Dates, VII Part I. Federal Constitutional Provisions and Laws Governing the Election of the President and Vice President of the United States, 1 A. United States Constitution, 1 B. Election of the President (Title 3, United States Code), 5 C. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970ÐResidence Requirements (Title 42, United States Code), 13 D. Campaign Financing Reporting and Disclosure (Title 2, United States Code), 16 E. Financial Disclosure Requirements of Executive Personnel, Including Candidates for Nomination or Election to the Office of President or Vice President (Title 5, United States Code Appendix), 61 F. Political Activities: Federal Employees (Title 5, United States Code), 87 G. Political Activities: State and Local Employees (Title 5, United States Code), 91 H. Criminal Code Provisions (Title 18, United States Code), 96 I. Internal Revenue Code, Political Campaign Debts and Contributions (Title 26, United States Code), 106 J. Public Financing of Presidential Elections (Title 26, United States Code), 113 K. Communications Media (Title 47, United States Code), 139 Part II. Nomination of the President and Vice President, 141 A. Calendar for Party Caucuses/Conventions and Presidential Primaries, 141 B. Background, 142 C. Significant Court Decisions Affecting Delegate Selection Procedures and the Convention System, 146 D. FEC Regulations on Delegates and Delegate Committees, 150 E. 1992 Democratic Party Delegate Selection Rules, 157 F. Rules of the Republican Party Relating to the Convening of the 2000 National Convention, 216 Part III. Survey of State Laws and of Party Rules Regulating the Selection of Delegates to the National Nominating Conventions, 233 A. Delegate Selection for the States, 233 B. Delegate Selection for Citizens Abroad and the Territories, 308 VI Nomination and Election Part IV. State Laws Relating to the Nomination and Election of Presidential Electors, 310 A. Table of State Electoral College Votes, 310 B. Background, 310 C. Summary of State Laws Relating to Presidential Electors, 313 Part V. Presidential Succession, 395 A. Death or Disability of a President, 395 B. Death of a President-Elect, 399 Part VI. Tables Relating to Various Aspects of the Nomination and Election of the President and Vice President, 409 1. Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States and the Congress Coincident with Their Terms, 410 2. Electoral Vote for President and Vice President, by Major Political PartiesÐStates: 1956 to 1996, 411 3. Vote for PresidentÐPopular Vote Cast for President, by Political PartiesÐRegional and States 1976 to 1996, 412 VII IMPORTANT DATES August 14±17, 2000ÐDemocratic National Convention in Los Angeles, California. July 29±August 4, 2000ÐRepublican National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. November 7, 2000ÐGeneral Election in all States. December 18, 2000ÐDate of meeting of electors (Electoral College). January 6, 2001ÐCounting of electoral votes by joint session of Congress. Dates for Party Caucuses/Conventions and Presidential Primaries in 2000 Dates Caucus/Convention Presidential Primaries January 24 Iowa .................................................. February 1 ........................................................... New Hampshire February 5 ........................................................... Delaware (D) February 8 ........................................................... Delaware (R) February 19 ........................................................... South Carolina (R) February 22 ........................................................... Arizona, Michigan February 26 American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Is- lands (Republican only). February 29 North Dakota (R) ............................ Virginia, Washington March 5 ..... ........................................................... Puerto Rico (R) March 7 ..... American Samoa (D), Hawaii (D), California, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota (D). Maine, Maryland, Massachu- setts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont March 9 ..... ........................................................... South Carolina (D) March 10 ... ........................................................... Colorado, Utah, Wyoming March 11 ... Michigan (D) .................................... Arizona (D) March 12 ... ........................................................... Puerto Rico (D) March 14... ........................................................... Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas March 21 ... ........................................................... Illinois April 1 ........ Virgin Islands (D) ........................... April 4 ........ ........................................................... Kansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin May 2......... ........................................................... District of Columbia, Indiana, North Carolina May 6 ......... Guam (D) ......................................... May 9 ......... ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and All Delegates to the Democratic National Convention
    Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and all delegates to the Democratic National Convention: The undersigned organizations hope that all Democrats agree that the will of the voters should be decisive in determining the Democratic nominees for the country’s highest offices. We therefore urge the Democratic Party – via action at this month’s Democratic National Convention – to eliminate the concept of so-called “superdelegates.” This change would not impact the ongoing nomination proceedings, but would take effect for all future national nominee selection processes and conventions. The superdelegate system is unrepresentative, contradicts the purported values of the party and its members, and reduces the party’s moral authority. • The system undermines representative democracy and means that the electorate is not necessarily decisive in determining who will be the Democratic nominees for president and vice president and dilutes the voters’ say over the party’s platform and the rules under which it operates. Astonishingly, these unelected delegates have essentially as much weight as do the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined. • The system undermines the Democratic Party's commitment to gender equity. While the party’s charter rightfully mandates that equal numbers of pledged delegates be male and female, a near super-majority of superdelegates are men. • The Democratic Party prides itself on its commitment to racial justice and the racial diversity of its ranks. Yet the superdegelates appears to skew the party away from appropriate representation of communities of color: Proportionately, approximately 20% fewer of this year’s superdelegates hail from communities of color than was true of the 2008 and 2012 pledged delegate cohorts, or of the voters who supported President Obama in those years’ general elections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charter the Bylaws
    THE CHARTER & THE BYLAWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES As Amended by The Democratic National Committee August 25, 2018 CONTENTS CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 1 PREAMBLE 1 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ The Democratic Party of the United States of America 2 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... National Convention 3 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Democratic National Committee 5 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... Executive Committee 5 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... National Chairperson 6 ARTICLE SIX.......................................... Party Conference 6 ARTICLE SEVEN ................................... National Finance Organizations 6 ARTICLE EIGHT..................................... Full Participation 7 ARTICLE NINE ....................................... General Provisions 9 ARTICLE TEN ........................................ Amendments, Bylaws, and Rules 9 RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION BYLAWS Adopted Pursuant to the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States 11 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ Democratic National Convention 11 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... Democratic National Committee 20 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Executive Committee 22 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... National Finance Organizations 22 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... Amendments i CHARTER CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE
    [Show full text]
  • The Economist/Yougov Poll
    The Economist/YouGov Poll Sample 2000 General Population Respondents Conducted April 8 - 11, 2016 Margin of Error ±2.8% 1. Some people seem to follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t that interested. Would you say you follow what’s going on in government and public affairs ... ? Most of the time . 48% Some of the time . 30% Only now and then . .13% Hardly at all . 9% Don’t know . .1% 2. Would you say things in this country today are... Generally headed in the right direction . 26% Off on the wrong track . 62% Not sure . 11% 3. Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the following people? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t favorable favorable unfavorable unfavorable know Hillary Clinton 21% 20% 12% 44% 2% Ted Cruz 11% 23% 19% 36% 12% John Kasich 7% 28% 24% 18% 23% Bernie Sanders 23% 28% 17% 26% 7% Donald Trump 18% 16% 11% 52% 3% 1 The Economist/YouGov Poll 4. How would you feel if the person listed below was the 2016 Democratic nominee for President? Asked of registered voters Satisfied Dissatisfied but not but not Enthusiastic enthusiastic upset Upset Not sure Hillary Clinton 22% 20% 12% 43% 3% Bernie Sanders 22% 29% 20% 23% 6% 5. Who do you think is the most likely candidate to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2016? Hillary Clinton . .60% Bernie Sanders . 21% Not sure . 20% 6. Regardless of who the Republicans select as their nominee, do you think the Democratic presidential candidates listed below could possibly win or could never win the general election in November if he or she was to become the Democratic nominee? Could possibly win Could never win Not sure Hillary Clinton 74% 14% 11% Bernie Sanders 58% 24% 18% 7.
    [Show full text]
  • “Mcconnell Majorities” in Supreme Court Decision-Making
    PRESIDENT-SHOPPING FOR A NEW SCALIA: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF “MCCONNELL MAJORITIES” IN SUPREME COURT DECISION-MAKING J. Stephen Clark* WASHINGTON, June 29—By the slimmest of margins, the Supreme Court today ended its decades of protecting abortion rights and overruled Roe v. Wade,1 the 1973 decision that established abortion as a constitutional right.2 The breaking news one day in June 2019 is the demise of Roe v. Wade. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court has overruled the precedent and left the protection of abortion rights to the sole discretion of lawmakers. There had been no majority for such a decision until President Trump had the chance to make two appointments to the Court. One of those appointees wrote the majority opinion. Perhaps fittingly, the author of the opinion was the successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who strove for this goal more vigorously than any member of the Court since 1973. Of course, every supporter of abortion rights realizes that the Trump appointee now sits on the High Court only because President Obama’s nominee for the same seat was ignored by the Senate for eleven months. The overruling of Roe is directly traceable to that stonewalling and its mastermind—the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Why should supporters of abortion rights accept the legitimacy of a Court decision handed down by a bare majority that owes its fifth vote to Mitch McConnell’s Supreme Court Justice? The answer is that they would not, nor should they. Contrary to McConnell’s repeated claims, his posture of determined inaction * Professor of Law, Albany Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Nancy Green Speech February 3 2009
    Nancy Greens Campaign Speech for the election of Chapter Chair of the Berlin Chapter of Democrats Abroad Germany on February 3, 2009 Barack Obama has been elected president …Wow… How did this happen? It was no accident!! Of course there are many factors that lead to the outcome of this historic election … which will be analyzed at the local Stammtisch and by scholars and institutions far into the future. One thing I can say from my perspective here in Berlin is. We had something to do with it. And people like us had something to do with it. From Berlin and Munich, Heidelberg, and Landstuhl, to Rome, Vancouver, London, Madrid, Ukraine, Lebanon and Israel, to Denver…. Democrats all over the world had something to do with the outcome of this election. We also had some help …. George Bush…. Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld John McCain… I could go on and on, but I only have 10 minutes… The missteps of the Republican Party are one major factor. Other factors include the Organization of the Democratic Party the Obama Campaign, The leadership of Howard Dean and people like us at the grass-roots. Then there is Barack Obama himself, who has inspired millions. Change has come about because we have had leadership. We are here because we care about our country and, adhering to the basic principles of the Democratic Party, we want to bring about changes in our nation’s policies regarding, to name only some the economy, health care, education, the environment, equal rights, scientific research, support for the arts, foreign policy, Iraq, Quantanemo and Habeus Corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers: a Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library
    441 Freedom Parkway NE Atlanta, GA 30307 http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers: A Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library Collection Summary Creator: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee. Title: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers Dates: 1977-1980 Quantity: 171 linear feet, 1 linear inch open for research, 391 containers Identification: Accession Number: 80-1 National Archives Identifier: 593160 Scope and Content: This collection contains letters, correspondence, memoranda, handwritten notes, studies, speeches, recommendations, position papers, press releases, briefing books, notebooks, proposals, studies, voter lists, reports, political statements, publications and news clippings. These records document various aspects of President Carter’s 1980 re-election campaign. This includes the formation of political strategy; polling data; legal and procedural issues; administrative items such as finance, fundraising and budget matters; statements on issues; scheduling; speeches; field staff operations in states and regions; polling data; voter lists; public correspondence and materials relating to press issues. Creator Information: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Restrictions: Restrictions on Access: These papers contain documents restricted in accordance with Executive Order 12958, which governs National Security policies, and material which has been closed in accordance with the donor’s deed of gift. Terms Governing Use and Reproduction: Copyright interest in
    [Show full text]
  • Bloomberg Politics Ohio Poll
    EMBARGOED Bloomberg Politics Ohio Poll SELZER & COMPANY Study #2144 802 Ohio residents who are likely voters in the 2016 general election September 9-12, 2016 Margin of error: ± 3.5 percentage points 1,138 general population contacts weighted by race and age Poll Questions Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. If the general election were held today, and the candidates were [Hillary Clinton for the Democrats] and [Donald Trump for the Republicans], for whom would you vote? (Alternate candidate names every other interview.) (If not sure or would not vote, ask:) Toward which do you lean? Q.2a Q.2b Total Hillary Clinton 39 4 43 Donald Trump 44 4 48 Other/would not vote (VOL) 9 6 6 Not sure 8 3 3 Would you say your vote for Hillary Clinton is more a vote to support her for president, or more a vote to stop Donald Trump from becoming president? (Asked only of Clinton voters; n=329.) 56 More to support Clinton 37 More to vote against Trump 7 Not sure Would you say your vote for Donald Trump is more a vote to support him for president, or more a vote to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president? (Asked only of Trump voters; n=403.) 49 More to support Trump 45 More to vote against Clinton 7 Not sure If the general election were held today, and the candidates were [Hillary Clinton for the Democrats], [Donald Trump for the Republicans], [Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party], and [Jill Stein for the Green Party], for whom would you vote? (Rotate candidate names in brackets.) (If not sure, or would not vote, ask:) Toward which do you lean? Q.5a Q.5b Total Hillary Clinton 38 1 39 Donald Trump 43 1 44 Gary Johnson 10 - 10 Jill Stein 3 - 3 Would not vote (VOL) 1 1 1 Not sure 6 4 4 EMBARGOED If the elections for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Open-Primary Reform Leaves Open Questions As to Its
    Issue 1603 California’s Open Primary Primer May/June INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS California’s Open-Primary Reform Leaves Open Questions as to Its Effect on Golden State Politics INTRODUCTION By Bill Whalen California’s Open-Primary A funny thing happened to California on the way to its moment of glory as the decider of the fate of the next Republican presidential nominee. Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Reform Leaves Open Questions Governor John Kasich abruptly quit the race in early May, a month before California’s as to Its Effect on Golden State June 7 vote, leaving the California landscape wide open to Donald Trump. Politics by Bill Whalen Quicker than you can say “Lucy pulls the football away,” the Golden State found itself flat on its back, once again without a significant role in the selection process. (The Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie POLL ANALYSIS Sanders has been pretty much a given going back to March.) California’s June Primary: The last time California was a real player in primary season? Ronald Reagan needed the Laying the Foundation for What Golden State to stay alive, in 1976, during his challenge to Gerald Ford. Otherwise, we’re is to Come looking at 1968 and Robert F. Kennedy’s fabled run that ended in tragedy—and 1964 and by Carson Bruno the GOP ideological rift that pitted the conservative icon Barry Goldwater versus the decid- edly moderate Nelson Rockefeller. FEATURED COMMENTARY This isn’t to suggest that California is irrelevant in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • The Visible Primaries
    THE VISI PRIMARIES BLE The Rhodes Cook Letter December 2003 The Rhodes Cook Letter DECEMBER 2003 / VOL. 4, NO. 6 Contents Enter the Voters . 3 Chart: Democratic Success Index. 3 Chart: Republicans Nominate Early Front-Runners, Democrats often Don’t . 4 Map & Chart: 2004 Nominating Season at a Glance . 6 Chart: 2004 Democratic Delegate Selection by Month . 8 Chart: 2000 Democratic and Republican Primary Results. 10 Chart: Iowa, New Hampshire and the Road to Nomination . 12 Map & Chart : A Thumbnail Look at the ‘Kingmakers’ . 13 Chart : Gephardt’s 1988 Presidential Run . 14 Chart : At the End of the Third Quarter: Money and the Polls . 15 Chart: The Ups and Downs of the ‘Invisible Primary’ . 16 Map & Chart: Bush and the Electoral College Map . 18 Looking Back, Looking Ahead . 19 What’s up in 2004 . 19 2003 Gubernatorial Elections: The Constant is Change . 20 Changing Composition of the 108th Congress . 21 Subscription Page . 22 The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” and rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design by send it, along with your e-mail address, to P.O. Box 574, Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” is Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of this newsletter for published on a bimonthly basis. A subscription for six issues a subscription form. All contents are copyrighted ©2004 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material is welcome with attribution, although the author retains full copyright over the material contained herein. The Rhodes Cook Letter • December 2003 2 Enter the Voters he Democratic presidential nominating campaign is about to move from the political equiva- Tlent of tryouts in New Haven to the make-or-break of Broadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Red and Blue America Redux
    R AMERICAED AND BLUE REDUX The Rhodes Cook Letter October 2003 The Rhodes Cook Letter OCTOBER 2003 / VOL. 4, NO. 5 Contents Bush, The Democrats and ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ America . 3 Chart: Red & Blue America Summary . 4 Chart: Red & Blue USA ‘02 Results, ‘04 Action . 5 Map & Chart: Bush and the Map, 2000-04 . 8 Chart: The President’s Party at Midterm and Presidential Elections that Follow . 9 Chart & Graph: GOP Gains Separation in ‘02 House Vote . 10 California: The Cornerstone of ‘Blue’ America . 11 Chart : Turnout Comparison: The Recall vs. High Profile Races of ‘02 . 11 Map & Chart: The Recall Vote by County. 12 Chart: Ronnie & Arnold: Boffo Political Debuts . 13 Tentative 2004 Democratic Primary Calendar and Delegate Count . 15 Other 2003 Elections: Gubernatorial, House Candidates at Ballot Box . 16 Changing Composition of the 108th Congress... And Governorships . 17 Subscription Page. 18 Looking Ahead: The next issue in December will focus on the fast-approaching presi- dential nominating season, the state of the Democratic campaign, and the varied terrain of primaries and caucuses the party’s candidates will face. The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: tion for six issues is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design by Cook Letter” and send it, along with your e-mail address, to Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” is P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of this being published on a bimonthly basis in 2003. A subscrip- newsletter for a subscription form.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination
    The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination Thomas R. Marshall, University of Texas at Arlington The 1996 presidential nominations process will not begin with the first state primaries and caucuses. By January 1996 the candidates had already spent millions of dollars and thousands of days campaigning during the "in­ visible primary." The 1996 nominations race features several new prac­ tices—such as the front-loading of delegate-selection events, and the re- emergence of Washington insiders as the early GOP leaders. For the first time since 1964 the Democrat Party did not face a spirited nominations race. This article reviews the prenomination season for the 1996 presidential race with evidence available by early January 1996. Public Opinion Public opinion remained relatively stable during the 1995 "invisible primary," just as it typically has in recent presidential contests.1 Heavy spending in key primary and caucus states, debates among the candidates, and the entry and exit of candidates all failed to move public opinion polls during 1995. In the absence of saturation media coverage and media labeling of "winners" and "losers" in the early caucuses and primaries, few dramatic poll shifts appeared. The Republicans Throughout 1995, the Gallup Poll reported only slight changes in the first-choice preferences of self-identified Republicans and independents leaning Republicans. Between April 1995 and January 1996, front-runner Bob Dole’s support varied only from a low of 45 percent to a high of 51 percent. Support for Senator Phil Gramm varied only from a low of seven percent to a high of 13 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of a GLOBAL PARTY? American Party Organizations Abroad
    PARTY POLITICS VOL 9. No.2 pp. 241–255 Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications London Thousand Oaks New Delhi THE RISE OF A GLOBAL PARTY? American Party Organizations Abroad Taylor Dark III ABSTRACT In discussions of party organization, scholars have generally assumed that such organizations operate exclusively on the domestic level, seeking to alter electoral results by raising votes and money from constituencies at home. This research note shows that this assumption is outdated, because the US Democratic and Republican parties now maintain overseas branches in dozens of different countries. These branches seek through a variety of means to mobilize the votes and financial resources of Americans abroad in an attempt to change domestic political outcomes. An analysis of the rise of these groups demonstrates the value of the concept of globalization in an area where it is usually not considered relevant, and raises new normative and practical questions about how to regulate overseas political activity by US citizens and parties. KEY WORDS American politics globalization party organization One of the oldest and most resilient ways of conceptualizing political party activity has been to divide it into three components: the party in the elec- torate, the party in government and the party as an organization. The last of these components was, of course, defined in reference to the leaders and activists who worked through the party apparatus to gain members, finan- cial contributions and votes on behalf of party nominees. Naturally enough, this activity was assumed to take place entirely within the territorial bound- aries of the country where the party contested elections – American party organizations mobilized within the USA, British parties within Britain, and so on.
    [Show full text]