Political Families - oh the Curse!

The Question is - " How can presidential candidates' families be a help or hindrance on the campaign trail."

The Answer:

There has always been interest in candidate's or president's families.

Jackeline Kennedy was a huge asset to JFK. Glamorous, tolerant of his infidelity, a media personality who spoke several languages and was the "Princess Diana" of her time - adored by crowds around the world.

Senator Ed Muskie "...became the favorite to win the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination. But being the front-runner for over a year proved difficult. During the New Hampshire primary, Muskie choked with anger and seemed to cry because of a couple of nasty articles in the "Manchester Union Leader." One article proved to be a hoax. The other attacked Muskie's wife. Muskie then attacked publisher William Loeb.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE: (February 1972) By attacking me, by attacking my wife, he has proved himself to be a gutless coward. And maybe I said all I should on it. It's fortunate for him he's not on this platform beside me. A good woman--
CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The episode came to symbolize the collapse of Muskie's Presidential campaign because of the perception that he was weak (he cried - or it was so cold in New Hampshire that his eyes were watering). Muskie then went back to the Senate and headed the powerful Budget Committee until President Carter tapped him to be Secretary of State in 1980." (see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/muskie_3-26.html)

Mitt Romney's wife and sons are a swarm of activity, picture perfect, the kids love their dad and mom. Mitt has been married to the same woman all his life. She has Lou Gherig's disease and so is a survivor and in the US fighting an illness is a positive mark of courage.

Rudy Giuliani's kids won't speak to him. His is daughter may be an Obama supporter but she doesn't have the spine to come right out and admit it. Rudy has been married three times and his latest wife the former Judith Nathan, who was the subject of lot's of media attention when, as mayor of New York, he had an affair with her, has gotten some very, VERY rough coverage.

John Edwards is pulling his kids from school in the fall to accompany him and his sick wife on the campaign trail. His wife has been used as a surrogate to attack Hillary Clinton on such issues as "Edwards is stronger on women's issues than Hillary" is sometimes seen as a better politician as John and he's gotten some criticism for "hidig behind her skirt" in attacks against Hil.

Fred Thompson is married to a woman, Jeri Thompson, 24 years younder than he is. Before his rumored campaign began (i.e. when he was just a former Senator and a high priced lobbyist) she was a "hotttie", very attractive and sexy - the New York Times called her a "trophy wife". The question came up as to how she'd work out as a first lady? Comparisons to the French President's wife have been made (she is very independent, has her own foreign policy, often skips dinners and other social events where she (and he) were invited, for example at the Bush family compound in Maine. Here is one analysis of Mrs. Thompson:

"Campaign sources described Jeri Thompson as firm, straightforward and assured of what she wants to do, but unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of campaigning. Many decisions have been held up awaiting her approval, they say, from routine matters such as travel schedules and car manifests to weightier ones including direct-mail efforts, personnel choices and the timing of the campaign kickoff."

Thompson's professional campaign staff has been very catty about he direct involvement in the day-to-day planning for his campaign launcg "from her kitchen table". see; "RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog, By Jay Cost"

And the qustion has come up what kind of a presidential spouse Bill Clinton would make. Rmember he is still reviled and hated by many Americans for his behavior in the White House and for his ignoring the first World Trade Center attack and treating it like a criminal event not the first of a terrorist plot against the United States.

Pat Nixon (Pres Nixon's wife) was a sad figure with bouts of heavy drinking.

Ronald Reagan's kids trashed him for most of his eight years as president and people felt sorry for him and Nancy. Reagan was also divorced. Nancy consulted an astrologer for important advice for the pres.

Hillary was not exactly a tranquil pond during the eight years of Bill Clinton.

So, presidential spouses (all women so far) are a mixed blssing. Candidate spouses and children are also something to work into the equation.

How Wrong We can be!

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/ had a post just before the 2004 Iowa caucuses. The table (inserted left above) showed Vermont Governor Howard Dean ahead.

The blogger on this poll said "I'll keep crunching the numbers, but I don't expect any real changes here before the Iowa Caucuses (barring unforeseen circumstances)."

The line chart (right top) showed Dean at the top of a trent rising and Mass Senator John Kerry in a plunging line. See screen snip.

Of course, Dean collapsed on caucus night and Kerry went on to win the nomination!

My warning to you is don' believe anything you read before caucus night is over.

Iowa caucus participants are very private and independent. They also lie to pollsters. I have been told by many people over the years that they DELIBERATELY tell poll callers wrong information!

Of course many people have no land line - many have only a cell phone - and are not in the phone book anymore. Pollsters are scrambling to get good samples by other means - normally polls are done with a phone book or a list of people (for example likely caucus participants) and randomly choosing names and phoning them. What to do if folks are not listed anymore?

Caution folks!

More South Carolina Primary Stuff.

While I respect the comment of my colleague Todd Shaw, I still think that if the Europeans, Canadians and other democracies can do a pre-election candidate selection and a general election in 3 months with campaign finance limitations American voters are getting more time with more money spent to "inform" them about candidates than any nation on Earth.

We need to shorten (not lengthen and spread out)the election process!

GOP picks Jan. 19thS.C. keeps 1st in South primary
By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, August 10, 2007

COLUMBIA — A move Thursday to ensure South Carolina Republicans are the first in the South to vote in the 2008 presidential primaries might have Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani competing with Santa Claus.

State Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson set the GOP primary for Jan. 19, potentially pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to schedule their voting dates into mid-December and early January, respectively.

"We wanted to retain the integrity of the process," said Dawson, who made his announcement at the Statehouse in Concord, N.H. "We're firmly committed to being the first in the South."

Dawson said Florida precipitated the move by scheduling its primary Jan. 29, jumping ahead of South Carolina's GOP primary that had been tentatively scheduled for Feb. 2. Democrats in South Carolina will still vote Jan. 29.

However, by law New Hampshire's primaries and Iowa's caucuses must be first in the nation.
"Florida has really thrown everything into turmoil," said Iowa State University political scientist Steffen Schmidt,who was vacationing in Charleston. "Everybody wants to be first but everybody can't be first."

Schmidt said the timing will present unique challenges to the presidential candidates in a wide-open race that's already unprecedented by its early nature. In this race, there will be little time for the candidates to catch their breath between the first two contests, other early states such as South Carolina and Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, Schmidt said. Voters in as many as 20 states will head to the polls that day.

"Everything is happening so fast," Schmidt said. "I think some of them are going to be dead ducks by the time they leave Iowa."

University of South Carolina political scientist Todd Shaw said he's worried about what the schedule will mean for voters.

"All the more pressure it puts upon the voter to make up his or her mind early," Shaw said. "Traditionally, they can wait until after Christmas to really congeal their conclusions. Now, they have to worry about the holiday season and who they are going to select as their nominee for president, in some cases."

The 2008 Iowa Caucus is scheduled to be held Jan. 14, but state law requires it be set at least eight days before any other contest.

"Iowa will go first, that is the bottom line," Iowa Gov. Chet Culver said in a statement. Iowa Republican and Democrat parties said they would wait to see what action New Hampshire takes before considering rescheduling their date.

New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary has been widely reported to be scheduled Jan. 22. But Secretary of State Bill Gardner told The Associated Press no date's been set and that he has no plans to do so anytime soon. The state is required by law to hold its primaries a week before any other.

South Carolina Republicans could face sanctions by the Republican National Committee. According to the committee's rules, the states have a window between Feb. 5 and July 28 to individually schedule the caucuses and primaries. States that set the contests outside that window risk losing delegates at the convention.

Still, maintaining South Carolina's first-in-the-South GOP primary is wonderful news for the state, said Lin Bennett, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party.

"That's our legacy," she said. "We've been so successful in picking the presidential nominees, and it's a really a good thing for South Carolina voters."

They Moved the Cheese! The South Carolina Primary, that is!

Washington Post Posting.

Oh boy am I gonna enjoy including the decision by South Carolina to move it's primary up in my fall semester course on the Iowa Caucuses! http://www.iowacaucusclass.com

The media is all jiggly and jiggy about this unspeakable "front loading" of caucuses and primaries!

Don't you colleagues remember that IN THE US ELECTIONS ARE RUN BY THE STATES!

That's right, not the federal government!

And primaries and caucuses are in theory not run by government at all but by state political parties.

But now these caucuses and primaries have become "economic development' events or maybe they've been "Rodney Dangerfielded" - "WE GET NO RESPECT if we are later in the season".

The truth is that we have now opened a Pandora's box of undisciplined and ambitious states running the show.

Once the dam breaks it becomes a mob scene.

Ugly stuff but fun to watch as an analyst and as a journalist (17 years as Dr Politics on WOI at Iowa State).

Let the lions into the coliseum!

It's about to get interesting.

Southern Charm? Y'all.

Dr Schmidt:
"Can you speak at all toEdwards style - -how is Southern polite country charm goes over way betterin Iowa, or at least has in the past .. where as the Granite state hasgiven a much more frosty reception, they seem a bit more suspicious or cynical ... which may or may not give Edwards good reason to focus more on Iowa than New Hampshire..."

Answer: Yes - in Iowa Southern Charm and good looks, AND having lived in Iowa for 4 years, and having lobbied every politician in the state for that long, and having been the VP candidate for Kerry those have also helped in Iowa. (We'll have to see how long he stays on top - remeber Howard Dean?! He was on top, fund raising like krazee, had all the "deaniaks" working for him, had all the adrenalin, was on the attack against Bush full bore before any of the other Democratic candidates in 2004 started they attacks, and ... well he tanked in Iowa and then evaporated. :-D

But the Southern style is not going over well IN THE SOUTH EVEN! I am in Charleston as I blog this and African American voters in the South don't necessarily trust southern "charm" from white lawyers - they understand that it tells you little about what's inside. .. so Hillary and Barak are doing well with no Southern Charm.

The puzzle has always been why Edwards, from South Carolin and Senator from North Carolina does not "own" the South.

Reporter Question: "Is a more negative Edwards compared to the 2004 caucuses when he stood out as "the nice guy" who was all positive and did not attack his rivals fro the nomination, ... could that hurt him in Iowa and New Hampshire where people like "nice"?

My Answer: A more negative Edwards worries some people BUT this is not 2004 and you cannot run same campaign or be the same candidate you were the last time anyway! Just look at McCain!

So, Edwards supporters understand that with a huge field of Dems they need to start slashing each other.

I for one, think they need to accelerate the negative campaigning.

My advice to them: - "Just say what you are thinking about each other!" Such as:
Vegan Little Person - "Exploding Congressman - can you say shuffleboard?!" - "Conniving, slick trial lawyer - eight more years of THEM? Yuck!", "Hypocritical Trial Lawyer", "Christopher WHO?", or more generally from the top 3 "What are you "munchkins" doing in this race?", etc. etc.

Inscrutable Iowa Straw Poll?

Yes, there will be a GOP Straw Poll on Aug 11, 2007 in Ames Iowa.

Is it inscrutable? (For those of you from Mars that means "not easily understood, mysterious").

Not really.

Just follow me here!

No, it is not an official political event but it is still intriguing.One of the things I will be watching like a hawk is how well Rudy Giuliani and John McCain do in the poll. Oh, sure, I know they are not officially participating but that's tough cookies for them because they and Fred Thompson and all the other GOP wannabes are going to be on the straw poll ballot. So, by NOT participating they are in danger of "coming in last".

If you look at how John McCain did in the 1999 Straw Poll, the last time the White house race in the GOP was open, you will see what I mean.

McCain was 10th with 83 votes even though he was not participating. A BIG LOSER!

The Iowa Straw Poll is unique.

You (GOP prez wannabe) are going to be "running" whether you are running or not! McCain and Giuliani will either come in very low on this list or they will encourage a stealth campaign in order to pump up those numbers and being able to spin it as "an amazing result since I was NOT a candidate" or dismiss the low numbers by insisting "I was not a candidate".

An interesting problem!

I will also be carefully scrutinizing how well the new front runner Mitch Romeny does. Will he blow away the field the way W Bush did in 1999? Bush received 31% of the vote, bested Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole who came in second an third, and pin-pricked the balloon of Lamar Alexander, Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, Alan Keys, Pat Buchanan, Orrin Hatch, ... then dead last Kasich, and Smith (no one remembers who they were!). If Romney gets 31% he will have won.

Finally, I will be watching the "munchkins" - the low ranking candidates who hope to break through with a better than expected placing - Huckabee in third place would be huge!

So, I feel very str9ngly that we should not dismiss the Iowa Straw Poll as a gimmick or "just" a fund raiser for the GOP.

There are nuances and very interesting side stories that we should watch as we examine the road to the White House 2008. The Straw Poll is one of those.