Ripon Forum


Vol. 48, No. 4

View Print Edition

In this edition

According to the latest polls, trust in government is at an all-time low. Depending on who you talk to, this may either be a good thing or a bad thing. For some on the right, it may be a good thing because it is consistent with their core belief that government has gotten too big […]

“We cannot achieve great things alone.”

We need to bridge the ever-growing chasm between the American people and their elected leaders – a rift that has been exacerbated by the Administration’s flagrant executive overreach, a loss of opportunity for middle-class Americans, and a lack of transparency that pervades the federal government.

“Republicans need to show that we can deliver.”

American voters were spectacularly supportive of Republican candidates in this year’s elections. We have 54 Republican Senators and we’ll have more Republicans in the House than at any point since Harry Truman was President. And, it could all be for nothing if we as a Party squander the opportunity we have been given by failing […]

“We can restore the trust and confidence by coming together to find common ground.”

If there is one thing that members on both sides of the aisle can agree on, it is that our country is divided politically. Members of Congress approach issues from different perspectives and come to different conclusions about the best solutions to the problems we face.

“Washington needs to be recalibrated so that it is smaller, less intrusive, and more accountable.”

While it will take substantial time to reverse the problems described above and to restore our country’s exceptionalism, we need to first focus on creating an environment for economic growth. Every piece of legislation and every federal regulation should be judged by its impact on an overarching goal of creating “more jobs and better paychecks […]

Q&A with Michael Dimock

The President of the Pew Research Center discusses the low-level of trust Americans have toward the federal government and how it compares to past years. “The perception of dysfunction in Washington, along with a persistent sense of economic insecurity, is clearly weighing down views of government. And just as with interpersonal relationships, trust in government […]

Want to Improve Trust in Government?

“Should we be surprised that so many Americans hold Congress in such low regard?” The veteran political strategist and former House leadership aide says the public’s view of government is not surprising given the vitriol they are exposed to during political campaigns.

Restore Regular Order

Regular order is Congress doing the basic work of legislating which includes deliberating in committees, engaging with stakeholders, offering and voting on amendments and ultimately passing or rejecting legislative proposals. These cornerstones of the democratic process were not hallmarks of the 113th Congress.

The Michigan Example on Immigration

Our country needs a long-term, comprehensive solution to an immigration policy that everyone knows is broken and continues to hold back our economy. It’s essential that the White House and Congress work together on an innovative approach that will address our country’s present needs as well as those long into the future.

Where Consensus Exists

Was the end of this election the beginning of a period committed to governance or merely the beginning of the 2016 campaign season, with all of the gridlock and divisiveness that implies? More to the point, can the Congress and the White House earn back the trust our citizens deserve to have in their government?

Frontrunners, Dark Horses, and the Presidential Nomination Contest

Frontrunners don’t always win, but presidential nomination contests are rarely wide-open races. Dark horses don’t emerge from the back of the pack. The 2008 winners were in second place in their respective party’s poll.

REMEMBERING BILL FRENZEL

If there are wise men left in Washington, then Bill Frenzel was most assuredly one of them. He was both a scholar and a statesman who served his country in many important ways.

Ripon Profile of Mia Love

“I ran for Congress because I believe this country is in real trouble, and it’s up to We the People to fix things before it’s too late. The people of America want a government that is transparent. Our citizens deserve to know and understand the ‘hows and whys’ for decisions made at every level of […]

Frontrunners, Dark Horses, and the Presidential Nomination Contest

Lara BrownIn February 2007, Gallup’s survey showed, “Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani widening their leads in national support for their party’s respective presidential nominations…both are now at their high point in support since last year’s midterm elections — the unofficial kickoff for the 2008 campaign.”

Clinton had a 19 percentage point lead over her nearest competitor, then-Senator Barack Obama (40 percent to 21 percent). Giuliani had a 16 percentage point lead over his nearest competitor, Senator John McCain (40 percent to 24 percent).

On hearing the news, Washington’s political pundits seemed delighted: “Imagine — an all New York presidential race!  It would be historic!” (No, Thomas Dewey took on Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.)  In short, speculation abounded.

But when votes replaced opinions, Obama and McCain had each won his party’s 2008 nomination.

What should we glean from this?

Frontrunners don’t always win, but presidential nomination contests are rarely wide-open races. Dark horses don’t emerge from the back of the pack. The 2008 winners were in second place in their respective party’s poll.

Said another way, nomination winners typically arise from the handful of viable candidates at the outset of the race. Whether the winner had been the frontrunner or another aspirant in the top-tier largely depends on three contextual variables: structure, unity, and the competition.

Nomination winners typically arise from the handful of viable candidates at the outset of the race. Whether the winner had been the frontrunner or another aspirant in the top-tier largely depends on three contextual variables: structure, unity, and the competition.

Structure refers to whether it is an open-seat contest, or includes an incumbent or “heir apparent” (i.e., a sitting vice president). It also refers to whether the party is “in” or “out” of the White House. Generally speaking, if there’s no incumbent running, it’s better to be the “out” party because since 1952, only George H.W. Bush has managed to win his party a third term in the Oval Office.

Whether or not a party is unified is difficult to ascertain. Both parties contain many factions and it seems that on most days, there’s a report of a “civil war” breaking out within one of them.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, unity is easiest when the party holds the White House and the incumbent president is running for re-nomination. Since the start of the modern nomination system in 1972, only two incumbents have faced serious intra-party competition: Jimmy Carter by Ted Kennedy in 1980 and George H.W. Bush by Pat Buchanan in 1992. Even though Buchanan did not win a single contest, scholars view his challenge as being emblematic of an ideologically divided party.

Structure and unity are related to the third variable: the competition. As a rule, open-seat elections spur nomination races with several credible aspirants. And when an “out” party is divided, the number of viable candidates and the competitiveness of the contest tends to grow.

That was the position of the Democrats in 2008. It is also the position of the Republicans in 2016.

Aside from Clinton and Obama, the 2008 Democratic nomination race included in its top tier former vice presidential nominee John Edwards, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Not an amateurish crowd. That Obama bested them also raises the fact that uncertainty often increases with competition. Similarly, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter upset an even-more qualified field in 1976.

The key to 2008 (and 1976): Iowa and the momentum that Obama’s unexpected win produced. It sparked his party to unite around his candidacy. In sum, dark horses need bright lights to be seen.

As a rule, open-seat elections spur nomination races with several credible aspirants. And when an “out” party is divided, the number of viable candidates and the competitiveness of the contest tends to grow.

Looking to 2016, the Republicans have numerous credible potential aspirants, from Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to Governors Scott Walker and Chris Christie to former governors Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, naming only a few. With this much competition across what is considered a divided party, the aspirant most likely to secure the nomination will be the one with an early win.

Observers should watch Iowa and New Hampshire closely, and trust that whoever “skips” these contests, isn’t really running (e.g., Giuliani).

As for the Democrats, Clinton appears to be an heir apparent. While the sitting president has not bequeathed this unofficial title to her with an endorsement, she seems fine without it. Her minimal competition (Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, and Martin O’Malley) resembles the weak effort made by Senator Bill Bradley against Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

Since the 2014 midterm elections, however, the unity of the Democratic coalition has been fraying. Were a substantive progressive candidate (e.g., Senator Elizabeth Warren or even Howard Dean) to leap into the race, it’s possible that Clinton would experience a 2008 flashback. Still, that dark horse candidate would have to win in Iowa to have any chance of staving off Clinton’s likely momentum.

Could it be done? Yes.  Is it likely? No.

Taken together, Clinton seems more likely to follow McCain’s jagged path, then her own from 2008.  Frontrunners and top tier aspirants win presidential nomination races. Don’t place a bet on any dark horse too far down the list.

Lara M. Brown, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at The Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University.