An elephant and a donkey?

As we get closer to Presidential Election in the United States (well, not that close yet), and banners, pins, bumper stickers emerge with names, symbols, etc., one critical question emerges?  Why do the parties use animal images for the respective parties.  As most of us know, Republicans use an elephant, and Democrats a donkey.

As you see from the images below, the donkey on the left (Democrats), the elephant on bottom(Republicans), and together for the 2016 campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

So, let's do a quick look back at where these iconic symbols began, and how/why they continue to be utilized.

 

The  Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.

 

That same cartoonist, Thomas Nast invented another famous symbol—the Republican elephant. In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

Democrats today say the donkey is smart and brave, while Republicans say the elephant is strong and dignified.  I'm not sure any of us agree with those narratives, but that's where they came from.

 

The Confederate flag during campaigns.

Quick question to start off.  Which state flag is this:



I don't mean to offend anyone from the great state of Mississippi, but that state actually has the confederate flag INSIDE their flag. 

South Carolina, which of course has been in the news due to recent the racist murders and controversy over having the Confederate flag fly (separately) over the State Capitol, has a much more tranquil flag (White Palmetto tree).



Everyone of course is entitled to their own opinions on this, but since South Carolina is an early primary state in the Presidential elections (3rd after Iowa and New Hampshire, and first in the South), it's a critical state.  Many campaigns have come to South Carolina and either rode to victory or folded up after the vote.

Now, and I promise just a few more examples below.  Not picking on the Democrats, but take a look at these election pins from recent campaigns and note the background.



The point here is, most candidates, as we know, pander to their audiences.  Almost without exception, most candidates either skirted the issue of the flag in South Carolina (should it come down), or said the state should decide themselves.

Well, it's now a national issue.  Yes, Walmart, Amazon and others have stopped selling merchandise with the confederate flag on it, but most candidates (with a few exceptions as noted) have not been willing to take this issue head on for fear of alienating the early, critical primary state of South Carolina.

That, finally, appears to be changing.  Most candidates have come out strongly against the appearance in the State Capitol, or anywhere for that matter. 

For a detailed breakdown of where each candidates currently stands on this important issue, please see the attached:

 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2016-candidates-stand-confederate-flag-issue/story?id=31947516

Where does all that campaign cash actually go?

As we have documented in prior posts, there are now billions of dollars washing through the Presidential campaign.  With the election still some 17 months away, let's take a closer look at where those billions go.  While there may be slight differences in some candidates spending, the models, over time, are amazingly similar, as political operatives/consultants have become more prevalent and follow the same playbook.

A few caveats prior to digging in:

Volunteers are not free:

• There are a myriad of costs associated with volunteers, mostly around recruiting and training.  Thus, this cost will be folded under payroll and consultants.
• Media spend includes all forms of media, from television, print, blogs, radio, etc.
• It costs money to get more money.  As we will see, the fundraising cycle doesn't end until election day, and it costs a lot of cash to make more cash.
• These statistics are averages from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Now, onto the actual percentages:

• Media accounts for approximately 57% of the pie, and growing.  Media buys are targeted into early primary states, and then nationally for general election.
• Fundraising accounts for 17% of the pie, and also growing.  This include mail, phones and time. 
• Overhead accounts for 13%, and the trend here is shrinking.  This includes rent for campaign staff, insurance, equipment, etc.
• Travel/events account for 6%.  While some travel is by bus/van, most are chartered flights (no coach seats for them)!
• Finally, payroll chews up 6%.  This figure is mostly for consultants, and the volunteers as noted above.

As campaigns become more social media aware, the trends are pointing towards more on line ads, as they experiment with non traditional (TV, radio, etc.).  This is not your grandparents, and even parents campaigns!

Do you know your candidates?

Even for those that aren't following the Presidential campaign (despite it still being 17 months away), we already have 16 candidates that have formally declared, and 6 that most likely will declare soon.  As we have covered in previous posts, most of these candidates are pressed to enter due to fund raising concerns, and by waiting too long, they risk being locked out from large donors and the political cash machine.

So, I thought we would do a list of each candidate, with a thumbnail for each (background, claim to fame, etc.) by party (Republican or Democrat), and see if you are able to match the face to each candidate!

These are listed in no particular order.

Republican candidates that have formally declared:

1.)  Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida, son and younger brother of former Presidents.
2.)  Ted Cruz, currently Junior Senator of Texas, born in Canada.
3.)  Rand Paul, currently Junior Senator from Kentucky, son of former Presidential candidate.
4.)  Marco Rubio, currently Junior Senator from Florida, parents immigrated from Cuba.
5.)  Ben Carson, retired surgeon and author.
6.)  Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, defeated in California Senate race (2010).
7.)  Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, and Presidential Candidate in 2012.
8.)  Rick Santorum, former Senator of Pennsylvania, and Presidential Candidate in 2012.
9.)  George Pataki, former Governor of New York.
10.)  Lindsay Graham, currently Senior Senator from South Carolina.
11.)  Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas, and Presidential Candidate in 2012.
12.)  Donald Trump, Real Estate and Business Executive, television personality.

Republican candidates that most likely will declare:

13.) Scott Walker, current Governor of Wisconsin.
14.) Chris Christie, current Governor of New Jersey.
15.)  Bobby Jindal, current Governor of Louisiana.
16.)  John Kasich, current Governor of Ohio and former Congressman of Buckeye State.

Democratic Candidates that have formally declared:

17.)  Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and former Junior Senator of New York.
18.)  Bernie Sanders, currently junior Senator from Vermont.
19.)  Lincoln Chafee, former Senator and Governor of Rhode Island.
20.)  Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Maryland.

Democratic Candidates that most likely will declare:

21.)  Jim Webb, former Secretary of Navy and Senator of Virginia.
22.)  Joe Biden, current Vice President and former Senator of Delaware.

Now for the quiz - attempt to match each face with the thumbnail attached: 










If you were able to match 15 or more, you are an ace political student and deserve an A.  12-14 is solid B, and for others, well, there are still 17 months to go so plenty of time to study up!

Thank you Wikipedia - our money no longer really matters.........

The Wikipedia entry titled "Presidential election campaign fund checkoff" provides a thumbnail  and an very brief overview of an important role for society in Presidential elections. For your convenience, I am including a link to the Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff

The section under Primary election (approximately 2/3 down the page) provides the following information:

In 2008, many of the top candidates chose not to accept the primary matching funds. Tom Tancredo,^[3] John Edwards,^[4] Chris Dodd,^[5] Joe Biden,^[6] Dennis Kucinich,^[7] and Duncan Hunter^[8] qualified for and elected to take public funds in the primary. John McCain qualified^[9] for public funds in the primary, but later decided to reject them.^[10] Barack Obama declined public funds for both the primary and the November election. Ironically, McCain later accepted public funds for the November election, prompting an October 2008 article on NPR in which both candidates were scorned. "Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds." Other major candidates have eschewed the low amount of spending permitted and have chosen not to participate.

 Given what has occurred with the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision (noted in earlier blog), I was surprised this was not noted.  Therefore, this section was yearning for an update so I decided to make a short addition to this Wikipedia entry. Below is my contribution to the Widipedia page:

The first crack in the public financing system began in 1999-2000, when then candidate, George W bush opted of public financing in the primaries.  That crack was shattered when Barrack Obama opted out of both primary and general election public financing

Why are these candidate opting out?  Simply because there is more money to made (and matched) by opting out.  With the limits/caps in public financing, it simply makes no sense to apply for matching funds, when you can raise much, much more of their own

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court allowed unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of or opposition to a candidate. Groups were freed to say pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want about candidates and to do so with unlimited sums of money bankrolling their expenditures.

          Thus, if you can raise unlimited funds, why bother with public financing?

As you can see, I added some of the recent changes from fund raising that has significantly altered fund raising and how the general public's influence is diminishing.

48 hours in The Queen City

Let's start this post with a trivia question:  Where is the Cincinnati airport located?  (answer at bottom of page).

I spent a few days in Cincinnati last week (moniker indeed is the Queen City, coined from a Longfellow poem), and would like to share with you some highs and low's from my quick trip to the Midwest.

Let's start with the positives.  I was in downtown Cincinnati, and it's a beautiful skyline:

Cincinnati is home to three (3) of the largest consumer companies in the United States; Kroger (supermarket/pharmacy), Proctor and Gamble (Crest, Tide, etc.) and Macy's.  Cincinnati is the third largest city in Ohio (behind Cleveland and Columbus) and is the 65th largest city in the United States.

The center of the city is dominated by Fountain Square, a stunning gathering place with festivals year round.  There is large German heritage here, so many events have a German theme, dominated by the Oktoberfest in September.  Cincinnati is also an art/culture filled city, with various galleries sprinkled throughout the downtown area.

The largest Universities are the University of Cincinnati (Bearcats, public, enrollment 40,000) and Xavier (Musketeers, Jesuit, enrollment 5,000).  The two schools are fierce rivals, as they are separated by just 3 miles, and you see many alumni walking the streets proudly wearing their respective school colors.

No visit to Cincinnati would be complete without visiting Skyline Chili, founded and prominent throughout the city.  Skyline is not traditional chili, rather it's a sauce usually spread over hot dogs or spaghetti; I promise it's worth trying.

The riverfront (Ohio River) is a great place for a long walk, where you will run into the baseball stadium of the Reds(Baseball, Great American Ballpark), Bengals (Football, Paul Brown Stadium) and US Bank Arena (concerts, etc.), all within a short walk of each other.  No car needed to get around the city, and plenty of shops, restaurants and bars.

The city is full of activity during the evening hours, but the downtown area still has progress to make.  Most people remain indoors, as there is a large homeless/panhandler population, which you will encounter at least every other block.  Also, there are not many residences downtown (although you can see construction on apartment buildings), thus, you feel touristy and a bit unsafe.  Cincinnati has the feeling of a city on the rise, but a few steps left to navigate.

I would encourage all to take a visit; 2-3 days should be enough to see most of the Queen City

Finally, trivia answer; the Cincinnati airport is located in Hebron, Kentucky

How far left and right should they go??????????

First, a bit of a history reminder.  In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a center-left candidate, even adopting the line that era of big government is over (remember, Clinton was a Democrat).  In 2000, George W Bush ran with the bumper sticker of a Compassionate Conservative, and the uniter, not divider (as a Republican).  Most recently, Barack Obama vowed to cut through partisan politics/bickering and be President of One Nation, not one party.

Much has changed in eight (8) years.  Most campaigns face a critical challenge when running for their respective parties nomination.  Do I attempt to move to the middle of my parties base platforms, thus, potentially expanding my voting block, while not alienating my core.  Or, do I attempt to move far right and/or left of my base, thus, firing up my parties core and getting them in mass to not only vote, but recruit others.

While this second strategy may help win nominations, and potentially elections, it often means large governing challenges ahead.  If the next President wants to pass any legislation, they will most likely nee to work with the other party (Congress/Senate).  However, with the highly polarizing bases of today, it simply invites gridlock, and nothing will get done.

So, we get back to our central theme.  After all, if you don't get elected, you can't do anything, so it must be better to either move to the center or the extreme right/left, and after election day, slide back one way or the other to govern effectively.

Let's talk about another option.  How about a leader who says what He/She truly believes, frames debates as to what's better for the country, not their party, and a President who can build consensus? 

I realize in the era of MSNBC and Fox News it's not easy to be a non pandering candidate, but isn't it worth trying?  With all of the name calling, venom and general dislike, isn't it time for a new approach.  A candidate that reaches beyond parties and talks about what's best for us, not for the party?

How much $$$$ do you need to become President?

President Obama and Mitt Romney both raised over $1 billion for their respective Presidential campaigns in 2012.  And while most of us have short memories, this fund raising was done in the midst of one of the worst economies in American History. There is no recession in political fund raising!

As noted in my opening blog, the election is still 16 months away, and we have Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida, who has not even officially declared his candidancy, yet has already raised north of $100 million.  This, of course, is also a tactic, to potentially scare off other candidates who don't believe they could match that fund raising prowess.  As we know, it has not scared off anyone, as the list of candidates continues to expand (was 11 last week, now up to 14).

These astronomical figures are not (presumably) from You and I cutting checks directly to the candidates.  Most of the fund raising dollars are now raised via PAC's (Political Action Committees).  The limit of how much individuals can contribute is actually $2600.00, so after some quick math, one can determine the limits of individual donations in the race to $1 billion and beyond.

So how are campaigns able to raise so much cash?  The answer lies in a 2010 Supreme Court decision centered around campaign spending.

In essence, The Supreme Court decided (5-4 vote) that corporations and PAC's have the same right of political speech (and donations) as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics (via PAC's, which we will cover below - please keep reading).

After the Citizens United decision, any outside group can utilize corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote and why.  This has created PAC's (and super PAC's),  a species of political committee that wasn't possible before Citizens United. It can take contributions of any amount.  The heart of Citizens United is the notion that superPACs, and other outside groups, are completely independent of candidates. That underpins the Court's conclusion that unregulated money from big donors wouldn't be corrupting to lawmakers.

Every candidate, from both parties, now must play this game - raising money through PAC's, as its an arms race for cash.  Without money, campaigns would simply stop; fund raising is essential.

Some early estimates predict candidates must raise over $1.5 billion in order to win in 2016.  For some scale, Wendy's restaurants has over 6000 locations, over 30,000 employees and had just over $2 billion in sales last year?  That's a lot of burgers, but it would be just enough to run for President in the United States.

18 months away from election and already 11 candidates for President - who's next to announce?

Welcome to my blog, Race for the White House, 2016.  This blog will serve as a running commentary, analysis, issues review and more of the upcoming election.  While we are still a year and a half away from the actual election, we already have 11 candidates that have officially announced, with numerous others who have not yet made if official, but most suspect they will jump in (think Jeb Bush/Chris Christie, Joe Biden (perhaps) etc.).

Over the past dozen or so years, although I have never worked/volunteered in the public sector/government, I have become fascinated with politics and all that goes with it, specifically campaigns.  The book that triggered my interest is called What it Takes, by Richard Ben Kramer (http://www.amazon.com/What-It-Takes-White-House/dp/0679746498).

Kramer's amazing analysis of the 1988 Presidential campaign followed each of the candidates on the trail, from large events to lonely drives, dialing for dollars with donors, and the incredible strain it puts on these men (only men at that time), and their families.  It also tracks each of the candidates journeys to their current stations in life (Senators/Governors, etc.), and how smart and hungry each were.

We will also track the main issues that are driving this campaign, including fund raising, change issues, major topics and of course slip ups on the trail.

Please join me on this incredible ride.