DOCSLIB.ORG

The Visible Primaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Finally over will be the long period of message testing, fund raising and organizing. Under way in a matter of days will be the much shorter but more decisive period when voters finally get to weigh in on who they want as their party’s nominee. Since 1984, every Democratic and Republican candidate that has raised the most money by the start of the presidential election year has captured their party’s nomination. That makes the situation look quite rosy for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is certain to be the Democratic fund- raising leader in year-end reports, as well as the front-runner in nationwide surveys of Democratic presidential preferences. Yet it is premature to call it game, set, match for Dean. Every presidential nominating campaign is a bit different than the one before it, with its own set of variables and unknowns, and the 2004 edi- tion has already entered uncharted waters. For the first time, a dark horse candi- Democratic Success Index for the ‘Invisible date (Dean) has moved to the front of the pack before a single ballot has Primary’ Season: Quarterly Rankings for 2003 been cast. Of the nine Democratic presidential candidates, Howard Dean made For the first time, more than one major the biggest gains during the first three quarters of 2003. Wesley Clark candidate has elected to decline fed- started strong. And John Kerry, Richard Gephardt, John Edwards and Joe eral matching funds in order to be free Lieberman have stayed positioned near the top of the Democratic leader of spending limits during the presiden- board. tial primary season. Democrats Dean At least that is the case when each candidate’s ranking in campaign and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, fund raising and poll surveys of Democratic presidential preferences are combined at the end of each quarter of the year into a single score. A along with President George W. Bush, candidate who was first in both categories, for instance, would have a who is running unopposed for renom- score of two, so the lower the total score, the better a candidate’s ranking. ination on the Republican side, are Dean’s score at the end of the fourth quarter presumably will be two, all opting out of the taxpayer-funded although fund-raising totals for all Democratic candidates covering the final public financing system. three months of 2003 are not yet available. And Democratic candidates must Fund raising is measured by the cumulative total of receipts at the end of each quarter. Democratic presidential preferences are based on the prepare for a larger than ever glut of results of the Gallup Poll taken nearest the end of each quarter. The Gallup primaries in the first 10 weeks of 2004 surveys are samplings of registered Democratic voters and those leaning that could settle the party’s nomination Democratic. long before the ides of March. (The lower the score the better) 3rd Quarter 2nd Quarter 1st Quarter Some Contrary Thoughts Howard Dean 3 7 11 John Kerry 5 4 4 here is a chance the Democratic Wesley Clark 7 - - Trace could last longer. Unlike Richard Gephardt 7 6 4 the Republicans, which allow states to John Edwards 9 8 6 award all their delegates to the state- Joe Lieberman 10 6 7 wide winner, the Democrats require that delegates be divided among all Al Sharpton 15 15 14 candidates that win 15 percent of the Dennis Kucinich 16 16 16 (Continued on Page 5) Carol Moseley Braun 16 16 13 The Rhodes Cook Letter • December 2003 3 Republicans Nominate Early Front-Runners, Democrats Often Don’t A quick glance at recent Gallup Polls reveals a stark difference in the basic nature of Democratic and Republican presidential politics. While Republicans tend to nominate their early front-runners; Democrats often do not. At least that is the case when one looks at the first Gallup Poll of each presidential election year since 1972, the year the current primary-oriented nominating system began. Every front-runner for the GOP nomination at that point has gone on to win it, while on four different occasions (1972, 1976, 1988 and 1992) a Democratic candidate back in the pack in the first Gallup Poll of the presidential election year has claimed the Democratic nomination. A truer measurement of eventual success of late has been fund raising. In both parties, the candidates that have raised the most money by the end of the year prior to the election have won their party’s nomination in every contest since 1980, when John Connally topped the GOP fund-raising leader board at the dawn of the election year. In the chart below, the eventual nominees are indicated in bold type. An asterisk (*) denotes an incumbent. A pound sign (#) indicates a potential candidate who ended up not running. A dash (-) denotes that fund-raising totals for the end of the pre-election year were not readily available. Democratic Contests since 1972 … at start of presidential election year Gallup Poll Nominee’s Fund Raising Election Leaders PercentageLead or Deficit Leaders Receipts 2000 AL GORE 59% Up 29% AL GORE $27,847,334 Bill Bradley 30% Bill Bradley $27,451,329 1996 BILL CLINTON --- Unopposed BILL CLINTON* $25,844,495 1992 Jerry Brown 21% BILL CLINTON $3,293,862 BILL CLINTON 17% Down 4% Tom Harkin $2,169,168 1988 Gary Hart 25% MICHAEL DUKAKIS $10,641,519 MICHAEL DUKAKIS 10% Down 15% Richard Gephardt $5,891,973 1984 WALTER MONDALE 37% Up 17% WALTER MONDALE $9,745,604 John Glenn 20% John Glenn $6,223,053 1980 JIMMY CARTER* 51% Up 14% JIMMY CARTER* $5,708,619 Edward Kennedy 37% Edward Kennedy $3,733,272 1976 Hubert Humphrey# 29% - - JIMMY CARTER 4% Down 25% 1972 Edmund Muskie 39% - - GEORGE McGOVERN 3% Down 36% Republican Contests since 1972 … at start of presidential election year Gallup Poll Nominee’s Fund Raising Election Leaders PercentageLead or Deficit Leaders Receipts 2000 GEORGE W. BUSH 62% Up 41% GEORGE W. BUSH $67,567,934 John McCain 21% Steve Forbes $33,942,652 1996 BOB DOLE 55% Up 43% BOB DOLE $24,616,811 Steve Forbes 12% Phil Gramm $20,758,058 1992 GEORGE BUSH* 85% Up 75% GEORGE BUSH* $9,959,845 Pat Buchanan 10% Pat Buchanan $707,106 1988 GEORGE BUSH 44% Up 21% GEORGE BUSH $18,744,604 Bob Dole 23% Pat Robertson $16,108,197 1984 RONALD REAGAN --- Unopposed RONALD REAGAN* $3,568,116 1980 RONALD REAGAN 33% Up 6% John Connally $8,968,365 Gerald Ford# 27% RONALD REAGAN $7,078,129 1976 GERALD FORD* 39% Up 6% -- Ronald Reagan 33% 1972 RICHARD NIXON* 83% Up 77% -- Paul McCloskey 6% Sources: Gallup Poll, Federal Election Commission. The Rhodes Cook Letter • December 2003 4 (Continued from Page 3) vote statewide or within a congressional district. That could slow down any rush to judgment. So too could the nearly 20 percent of all Democratic delegates who are “superdelegates” – promi- nent party and elected officials such as Democratic governors, members of Congress and the Dem- ocratic National Committee (DNC), who are guaranteed automatic delegate seats by virtue of their position. They are free to support whichever candidate they want, regardless of the primary or cau- cus vote in their state. And in the early weeks of the 2004 primary season, Democratic candidates will be tested in all parts of the country. Regional appeal could give a candidate a base, but national appeal will be required for one of them to break from the pack. Still, the trend in recent elections has been for a brief period of unpredictability before one candi- date catches fire and reels off a string of primary victories that enables him to wrap up his party’s nomination in short order. Dean has the inside track to do that this time. His skilled use of the Internet and tough anti-Bush rhetoric - built around opposition to the war in Iraq - has enabled him to raise more money and organize a more passionate cadre of supporters than any of his Democratic rivals in 2003.
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]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [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]
  • Cbs News/New York Times Poll the Democratic Nomination
    CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION September 28 – October 1, 2003 q14 How much attention have you been able to pay to the 2004 Presidential campaign -- a lot, some, not much, or no attention so far? *** REGISTERED VOTERS ** Democratic **** Party ID **** Primary Total Rep Dem Ind Voters Aug03b % % % % % % A lot 18 21 16 16 18 15 Some 41 41 41 42 43 34 Not much 29 23 32 33 31 29 No attention so far 12 15 10 9 8 21 DK/NA 0 0 1 0 0 1 q1520 (I'm going to name some possible Presidential candidates and ask what you think of them. If you haven't heard much about someone I name, just tell me.) Is your opinion of Carol Moseley Braun favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Carol Mosley Braun yet to have an opinion? Is your opinion of former Senator Carol Mosley Braun favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about former Senator Carol Mosley Braun yet to have an opinion? Favorable 5 2 8 5 8 Not favorable 16 23 9 17 9 Undecided 15 13 18 13 19 Haven’t heard enough yet 64 62 64 65 63 Refused 0 0 1 0 1 q1621 Is your opinion of Wesley Clark favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Wesley Clark yet to have an opinion? Is your opinion of General Wesley Clark favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Wesley Clark yet to have an opinion? Favorable 16 17 19 11 19 Not favorable 14 24 6 13 7 Undecided 22 18 19 30 23 Haven’t heard enough 48 42 56 46 51 Refused 0 0 0 0 0 q1722 Is your opinion of Howard Dean favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Howard Dean yet to have an opinion? Is your opinion of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hilltop 11-2-2004 Magazine
    Howard University Digital Howard @ Howard University The iH lltop: 2000 - 2010 The iH lltop Digital Archive 11-2-2004 The iH lltop 11-2-2004 Magazine Hilltop Staff Follow this and additional works at: https://dh.howard.edu/hilltop_0010 Recommended Citation Staff, Hilltop, "The iH lltop 11-2-2004 Magazine" (2004). The Hilltop: 2000 - 2010. 199. https://dh.howard.edu/hilltop_0010/199 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the The iH lltop Digital Archive at Digital Howard @ Howard University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The iH lltop: 2000 - 2010 by an authorized administrator of Digital Howard @ Howard University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Hilltop THE BATTLE: IN AN EPIC BA TILE FOR --:J:n~.r l!liiM1 STANDING BY YOUR MAN: ALWAYS AGREE WITH THEIR RUNNING MATES, BUT THEY MUST STAND BEHIND IHEIR~- . PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND SUPPORT THEM IF THEY WILL BECOME VICE PRESIDENT. Bush and Kerry battle II out for the iob • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t Kerry and Bush t i J:ompared. •' 'I l •I •I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FILEPHOTO -1<now who else ~ Is on the ballet. •• ••••••••• The second in Charge: THE VICE PRESIDENT FILE PHOTO • • • • • • • • The money Find out how • • Spent on the The Electoral • • Campaign College Vote • • Works • FILE PHOTO • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 't ... • • • • Do you know • • Who your • • Senior is? • • FILE PHOTO FILE PHOTO • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Three US Supreme Justices to retire soon MAGAZINE DESIGNED BY ARION JAMERSON I ~ • • • • • •I ,• • • I • I • • • I I • • • • • t .... .. .... FILE PHOTOS The Battle to Become President of the United States ofAme rica • BY NAKIA HILL to the Republican and Democratic Bush had four years to do some­ Conventions and both candidates thing anything to make life bet­ Millions of United States positions.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process
    To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process August 2001 The National Commission on Federal Election Reform Organized by Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia The Century Foundation Supported by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Miller Center of Public Affairs University of Virginia P.O. Box 400406 2201 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville VA 22904-4406 tel 804-924-7236 fax 804-982-2739 web http://millercenter.virginia.edu The Century Foundation 41 East 70th Street New York NY 10021 tel 212-535-4441 fax 212-879-9190 web http://www.tcf.org www.reformelections.org The Commission Public Hearings Honorary Co-Chairs March 26, 2001 President Gerald R. Ford Citizen Participation President Jimmy Carter The Carter Center Co-Chairs Atlanta, Georgia Robert H. Michel April 12, 2001 Lloyd N. Cutler Election Administration Vice-Chairs The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Slade Gorton Simi Valley, California Kathleen M. Sullivan May 24, 2001 Commissioners What Does the Law Require? Griffin Bell Lyndon B. Johnson Library and Museum Rudy Boschwitz Austin,Texas John C. Danforth Christopher F. Edley, Jr. June 5, 2001 Hanna Holborn Gray The American and International Experience Colleen C. McAndrews Gerald R. Ford Library Daniel Patrick Moynihan Ann Arbor, Michigan Leon Panetta Deval L. Patrick Diane Ravitch Bill Richardson John Seigenthaler Michael Steele Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process August 2001 The National Commission on Federal Election Reform Organized by Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia The Century Foundation Supported by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The John S.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting Representative and Qualified Candidates for President
    Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 This report was researched and writen during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic, where students developed non-partsan recommendatons to strengthen the naton’s insttutons and its democracy. The clinic was supervised by Professor and Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick and Visitng Clinical Professor John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the individuals who generously took tme to share their general views and knowledge with us: Robert Bauer, Esq., Professor Monika McDermot, Thomas J. Schwarz, Esq., Representatve Thomas Suozzi, and Jesse Wegman, Esq. This report greatly benefted from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Flora Donovan’s editng assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report. Table of Contents Executve Summary .....................................................................................................................................1 Introducton .....................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]