Primary Chat 1 Questions and Responses

Dean Spiliotes
Dean Spiliotes is Visiting Scholar at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. His research focuses on presidential politics and policymaking, and on campaigns and elections, with a particular emphasis on presidential primaries. He previously taught at Dartmouth College.

Q. What is the significance of the Electoral College for electing our president? Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. The Electoral College was established by the U.S. Constitution to serve as a means of preserving the decentralized, federal nature of our representative democracy. It provides for the indirect election of our president through a system in which each state is assigned a number of electors, equivalent to the size of its Congressional delegation. Electors cast their ballots in their home states shortly after the results of the popular vote are known, in accordance with procedures set by their state legislatures. Faced with criticism from opponents of the Constitution that the new federal government it established would deprive states of much of their individual sovereignty, the Founders saw the Electoral College as a workable compromise between local and national political forces. The Founders were also concerned that direct election of the president by popular vote would be too volatile an experience for the young nation and could deprive the system of the stability necessary for the new government to succeed. Under the rules, 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency, with ties being broken in the House of Representatives. While the Electoral College continues to provide an important role for state government in selecting our national leaders, it is also the case that on occasion (as in 2000), one candidate wins the popular vote, yet a different candidate wins the presidency based on electoral vote count. One obvious result of the Electoral College is that candidates seeking the presidency must assemble an electoral victory on a state-by-state basis, rather than by simply focusing on the largest population centers in our country.

---

Q. How are President Bush’s recent difficulties in Iraq helping the Democratic candidates with their campaigns?
Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. In light of recent difficulties in stabilizing Iraq, President Bush’s foreign policy has become a lightning rod for criticism by the Democratic presidential candidates. While a number of the candidates who are also members of Congress (including Senators Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman, and Congressman Gephardt) voted last year for a resolution empowering President Bush to pursue the war in Iraq, all nine candidates have been outspoken in their criticism of the administration’s problems with postwar stability and reconstruction. Candidates have also focused more generally on the difficulties that President Bush’s policies have created with our European allies, and with Member countries in the United Nations. As president Bush’s poll numbers on Iraq and on his general handling of foreign policy have dropped in recent months, the Democratic candidates have become much more vocal in their criticism. It is likely that the Democratic candidates will continue to be outspoken on this issue for as long as the Bush Administration continues to struggle with it.

---

Q. What types of qualities and qualifications make a good presidential candidate?
Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. A number of intangible qualities, like vision, leadership, and charisma help make a good presidential candidate. These qualities are difficult to measure, but most voters feel that they have a “gut-level” sense of what these qualities should look like in a presidential candidate, and that they will, “know it, when they see it.” A candidate who can claim that he or she is a political outsider or insurgent, and thus not captive to “inside-the-Washington beltway” politics may also succeed on the campaign trail. As a result, it is no surprise that a number of recent presidents, including Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, were all governors before becoming president, and were able to claim the mantle of outsider during their campaigns. In contrast, Members of Congress with extensive legislative and policy experience often have little success in presidential elections. With John F. Kennedy in 1960, as the last president to go directly from Congress to the White House, it is often argued that Congressional politicians are so carefully schooled in the culture and techniques of legislative deal-making that they have difficulty articulating a broad set of themes for their presidential campaigns.

---

Q. What role will the recent war in Iraq and the current proposed legislation for the reconstruction of Iraq play in the 2004 election?
Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. National security issues, and particularly the Bush Administration’s relative ability to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, will be a central point of contention in the 2004 election. The Administration will likely portray its $87 billion request for military support and reconstruction in those countries as being essential for the success of its broader war against terrorism. The Democratic candidates will continue to argue that the high price tag for rebuilding is largely due to the Bush Administration’s ineffectiveness in “pursuing the peace,” and that the money would be much better spent on domestic projects. With polls showing that a majority of Americans are unhappy with the size of the $87 billion request, Democratic candidates have stepped up their criticism of the Bush Administration, and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have relentlessly grilled Administration officials on the specifics of the budget request. It is likely, however, that Congress will ultimately approve President Bush’s request for the additional funding.

---

Q. How can you explain Wesley Clark’s immediate success in the polls, and will the fact that he’s never held elective office hurt his candidacy?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. Much of General Clark’s initial appeal stems from the fact that as a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO he has strong national security credentials, yet is viewed as an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. The combination of these two qualities in a single candidate has caused much excitement among Democratic voters. It is also the case that Clark is typically viewed as a more moderate or centrist candidate than other critics of the war, such as Howard Dean, who has no prior military experience. This has helped Clark position himself as a centrist alternative to the other Democratic candidates, and as one who would have real credibility in debating President Bush on foreign and military policy. As such, Clark’s candidacy could also hurt John Kerry, who has strong military and foreign policy credentials, yet who has received some criticism for supporting the resolution on Iraq last year. The fact that Clark has never held elective office could hurt him, as he is not a seasoned politician with any real campaign experience. Clark’s campaign has already experienced some turmoil and confusion regarding the candidate’s true position on the Iraq resolution, on some of his earlier support for Republican presidents, and on the internal workings of his own campaign, resulting in the resignation of his campaign manager. Not since General Eisenhower became president in 1952, have we elected a president who has held no prior elective office. While there are some similarities in the biographies and moderate political stances of the two generals, Wesley Clark is running for president at a time when the glare of the media spotlight puts demands on a candidate that are much more immediate and extreme than was the case 50 years ago. As a late entry to the race, General Clark will not have a lot of time to learn on the campaign trail, without mistakes taking a toll on his political support. Other candidates, who have been on the campaign trail for a year or more, have had time to test their campaign themes and organizational strength without much early media scrutiny, and are now aggressively attacking General Clark’s candidacy.

---

Q. What impact would Hillary Clinton and/or Al Gore’s late entrance into the race have on the other Democratic candidates?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. While both Senator Clinton and Vice President Gore have firmly denied any intention of running for president in 2004, the entry of either individual into the race would certainly be a cause for some political drama. While Vice President Gore polled as the leading Democratic candidate for president in late 2002, at the time Democratic activists believed that he would not have the whole-hearted support of the party for a second run, and was thus better off not entering the race. The concern was that rerunning the 2000 race against George W. Bush would not help the Democratic Party move forward and generate sufficient excitement to help Democrats take back control of Congress in 2004. Senator Clinton’s hypothetical candidacy has also proved quite seductive for party activists, with the Senator well out in front for the party’s nomination in many polls of Democratic voters. While both Senator Clinton and President Clinton are tremendously popular with Democratic Party regulars, they are also lightning rods for Republican opposition, so any general election with Senator Clinton on the ticket would likely be a bitter partisan fight. Some still suggest that if the current field of nine Democratic candidates does not sufficiently distinguish itself by the summer political convention season there is the possibility of a “September Surprise,” in which Senator Clinton would accept the nomination as a ‘White Knight” candidate to rally the party to victory. Senator Clinton denies that she has any interest in playing this role in 2004, but many see her as a serious candidate for 2008 or 2012.

---

Q. Will the candidates participate in presidential debates during the campaign?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. The candidates have already been engaged in regular debates as far back as last spring in South Carolina, and as recently as last Thursday in Arizona. For the presidential primary season, the Democratic National Committee has scheduled a series of six debates around the country, several of which have already taken place. In addition, a number of non-DNC debates and candidate forums sponsored by other organizations in the public arena have been held and will continue throughout the primary season. A quick search on the web will produce a fairly comprehensive list of candidate debates and forums, as will visits to any of the candidate web sites. Once a Democratic nominee is selected, that nominee will likely have the opportunity to debate President Bush in some number of debates to be determined at a later date.

---

Q. In light of recent press accounts of the Bush Administration leaking the identity
of a covert CIA operative, what emphasis will the candidates place on the appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate the matter?
Mountain Valley School, Saguache, CO

A. Congress let the Independent Counsel law expire in 1999, so the most that the Democratic candidates could demand (and several already have) is that the Attorney General appoints a Special Counsel to look into the potential leak. A Democratic Congress originally passed the Independent Counsel law in 1978, in response to perceived abuses of power in the Executive Branch, particularly during the Nixon Administration and Watergate. After several decades in which an Independent Counsel investigated the Reagan Administration during the Iran-Contra Scandal, and Ken Starr investigated the Clinton Administration during the Whitewater/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal, both political parties decided that the Independent Counsel had become highly partisan and needed to be phased out. In contrast to the Independent Counsel, which was appointed by a panel of federal judges, the Special Counsel is appointed directly by the Attorney General. Congressional oversight is limited to those situations in which the Attorney General directly blocks action by the Special Counsel. Currently, the FBI has opened a criminal investigation into the leak, and some candidates have called on Attorney General Ashcroft to step aside. Given his close political ties to the Bush Administration, some critics argue that Ashcroft cannot be counted on to make an objective decision about the need for a Special Counsel to investigate. The Attorney General claims that the Justice Department is well equipped to conduct the investigation, yet critics argue that it is unrealistic to expect the Executive Branch to adequately police itself, particularly when the political stakes involved are so high.

---

Dante Scala
Dante Scala is an associate professor of politics at Saint Anselm College in
Manchester, New Hampshire. Scala is also a research fellow at the College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics. His book on the New Hampshire presidential primary, Stormy Weather: The New Hampshire Primary and Presidential Politics, will be out in December.

Q. What is your opinion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
What effect will campaign finance reform have on the next election?
Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. Most people equate campaign finance reform with the elimination of the apparently pernicious influence of money on politics, and with the leveling of the political playing field. Ironically, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 may do just the opposite in the 2004 elections.

The major changes instituted by the BCRA are as follows:

What will be the effects of BCRA in the 2004 election? Some experts believe that overall, the new rules favor the Republicans. The Democratic Party was especially dependent on soft-money contributions, and now must scramble to put together networks of individual “hard money” donors. The Republicans, on the other hand, already have such networks of donors in place.

In addition, President George W. Bush is likely to reap a windfall from the increase in “hard money” contribution limits (see below), and will most likely shatter fund-raising records in 2004.

---

Q. President Bush hopes to raise $170 million for campaigning. Is that a lot or a little?
Deerfield High School, Deerfield, Illinois

A. $170 million is an enormous amount of money – and that figure may be a conservative estimate of how much President Bush will raise for his re-election efforts.

For the 2000 primary campaign, Bush succeeded in raising more than $100 million under the old $1,000 limit. What was the secret of his success? Fund-raising networks, his father’s and his own after two terms as governor of Texas.

Now that the limit individuals may contribute to presidential campaigns has been doubled to $2,000, the President may raise as much as $200 million for his re-election bid.

Bush’s ability to raise phenomenal amounts of money has Democrats concerned about how their eventual nominee will compete. They fear that fierce competition among the nine candidates for their party’s presidential nomination may leave the eventual nominee drained of cash.

The problem is this: If a Democratic candidate accepts public matching funds during the primary season, he or she will be limited to spending approximately $45 million until the nominating conventions toward the end of summer, when both the major-party nominees will receive an infusion of approximately $75 million in public funding for the general election campaign. In a hard-fought nomination contest, the eventual Democratic nominee may bump up against the $45 million ceiling by the end of the spring.

Surely the Democratic Party will try to help out their nominee by spending their own money on his behalf. But the fact is that President Bush faces no significant opposition in the Republican primaries, so he will be able to spend his enormous war chest to promote his re-election, while the Democratic nominee may be stuck on the sidelines, compelled by law to abide by the $45 million ceiling.

That’s why candidates like former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who has had much success raising money via the Internet, might give up public matching funds now, in order to be able to raise as much money as possible on their own in the hopes of competing with President Bush.

---

Q. Will Al Gore have any effect on the New Hampshire primary?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. Unless the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee changes his mind at the last minute and decides to run for the nomination again, Al Gore will have very little effect on the New Hampshire primary – or, for that matter, on who the 2004 Democratic nominee will be.

If Gore eventually makes an endorsement of one of the nine Democratic candidates, he might make a small splash -- especially if he chooses an unlikely candidate like the insurgent Howard Dean. But no one’s endorsement is going to make or break a candidate. Money, organization, and a compelling message are much more important assets. And the fact is that Al Gore is yesterday’s news, despite how close he came to winning the 2000 election.

---

Q. New Hampshire is always the first presidential primary. Why? How is the date of the election determined?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. New Hampshire began its presidential primary in 1916, toward the end of the Progressive Era, an age of reform in which many efforts were made to democratize American politics. One of these efforts was the primary, which allowed ordinary members of political parties to cast votes in deciding who their party’s candidates should be.

Back in 1916, New Hampshire actually was not first, but went after Indiana and Minnesota. Four years later, though, Indiana had moved its date to May and Minnesota discarded its primary, and so New Hampshire took over first by default. It’s important to keep in mind that at the time, primaries did not determine the party’s nominee as they do today; back then, the power of nomination still remained in the hands of state and local party bosses.

Going first started to mean something in 1952, when New Hampshire made a media splash by listing the candidates on the ballot so that voters could vote for their man directly, rather than voting for the candidate’s delegates to the convention. (This also was the year that General Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican primary despite never showing up in New Hampshire.)

The first-in-the-nation primary received another big boost in 1972, when the parties operated the nomination process under a new set of rules that made primaries the key events that determined the presidential nominees.

These days, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, William Gardner, is the official who ultimately decides on the date of the presidential primary. Gardner has scheduled the 2004 primary on Tuesday, January 27, eight days after the Iowa caucuses. This will preserve New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, which Gardner is mandated to do by New Hampshire law.

---

Q. How does the primary election system work?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. In a nutshell, the system works like this:

---

Q. What do the Democratic candidates plan to do about the war on terrorism if elected, taking into consideration that most or all of the current candidates have spoken out against President Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism?
Northern Cambria High School, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania

A. Predicting what a candidate will do if elected, based on what he says during a campaign, is a difficult task. During the 2000 election campaign, for instance, George W. Bush said he did not think the U. S. military should participate in nation-building around the world. Now, in the wake of September 11 and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is spending a lot of money doing exactly that.

That said, here is what current frontrunner Howard Dean said he would do if elected (from his web site, www.deanforamerica.com; I suggest looking at other candidates’ web sites for their particular positions):

I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.

My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th. In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world: