Speeches

April 30, 2008

Good afternoon, and thank you for the introduction.  I'm delighted to be here at Temasek Junior College this afternoon to talk about the U.S. presidential elections.  The U.S. Embassy has a strong partnership with TJC through our American Connections program.  We donate a wide variety of American materials to the TJC library, and over the last few years we've brought a distinguished lineup of speakers to TJC to speak on a range of topics.  I'm proud to become part of that lineup today.

As you know, the U.S. presidential election campaign began more than a year ago.  The next U.S. president will take office next January 20th, less than nine months from today.  The new twists to this election cycle have been – and will continue to be – fun to watch.  And you’ll likely be excited to learn that the youth in the United States – those twenty-five years old or younger – are expected to have a prominent role in determining our next president.

The 2008 election is the first U.S. presidential election since 1928 in which neither a sitting president nor vice president is running for election or re-election.  In other words, the election campaign began with no clear-cut favorite, which has led to one of the most unpredictable and wide-open campaigns in the past century.  In both the Democrat and Republican races, several different candidates won early primaries and caucuses.  Now we’re down to three remaining candidates, with the Republican nominee determined and two Democratic candidates still vying for their party’s nomination.

2008: A Year of Potential “Firsts”

In the 2008 election, a long line of candidates have attempted to become “firsts” in the White House.  Hillary Clinton is campaigning to become the first woman President.  Barack Obama seeks to become the first African-American president; Mike Huckabee would have been the first Baptist Minister elected to our highest office; Mitt Romney would have been the first Mormon President; and Bill Richardson would have been the first Hispanic President.

The 2008 election will see more voters under the age of 25 than previous elections, due to a boom in birth rate in the United States that began in 1989.  This makes a large group of potential voters eligible to cast ballots for the first time in the 2008 elections because citizens must be 18 in order to vote.  For an example of this phenomenon, take a look at www.18in08.com, started by a group of young people who wanted to encourage their peers to participate in this crucial election year.  On the website, other young people can register to vote and compare presidential candidates and their views.

In the last presidential election in 2004, university-age voters drove the increase in voter turnout nationally, with the number of voters younger than 25 jumping eleven percent, compared with only a four percent increase for voters 25 and older.

In 2004, campaigns learned that reaching younger volunteers and voters – through new technologies and organizations like the non-partisan group called “Rock the Vote” – is less expensive than connecting with older voters through more traditional methods like television advertising.

Data from Rock the Vote show that in 2004, voter turnout by voters under age 30 rose faster than among any other voting group; however, young voters turned out in lower proportions than any other age group – 49% for those under 30 compared with 73% of those aged 60 to 74.  Senator Obama has attracted waves of newly-registered young voters, and these younger voters could make the difference in the election results this year.  Candidates have definitely been courting their votes with techniques targeted at the online generation.

How Does the Presidential Election Work?

Right now, we are nearing the end of what is known as the “Primary Season.”  Multiple candidates in each of the major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, have fought it out over the last few months to become their party’s candidate, who will stand for the general election in November.  Each party will hold a convention late in the summer to officially select their candidate.

During the primary season, the candidates are competing for delegates to vote for them at the convention.  State parties use a variety of methods to select delegates, but the most common method is a primary, in which voters simply choose which candidate they like best and mark their choice on a ballot.  A party caucus is also a very well-known method.  In a caucus, voters gather at a community location, declare their choice, and then try to persuade others to change their vote.  At the end of the caucus session, a final count takes place, and each candidate gets delegates according to how many people chose them.

One interesting contrast between the Republican and Democratic primaries, which has made a real difference this year, is that most state Republican parties assign delegates using a “winner-take-all” system, while Democrats use a proportionate system.  In other words, John McCain won less than 40% of the vote in Missouri, but he still got all Missouri’s Republican delegates, because he got more votes than any other candidate. 
On the other hand, the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton competition has lasted a long time because Democrats assign delegates based on the proportion of votes won.  So even when Hillary Clinton won California, she only got 52% of the delegates.  Obama got 43% of the delegates, because that’s the percentage of the votes he got.  You can see where this system allows for more Democratic candidates to stay in the race longer, in a race as tight as this one.

In any event, the important thing about the primary process or the primary season is that it is a period of vigorous debate and challenge among the candidates.  It’s an opportunity for the electorate to find out what the candidates stand for, and to test the candidates on their views and their leadership.  Candidates use advertising, speeches, formal debates, and “meet the candidates” events where members of the public can question them.  The press will analyze what the candidates are saying, and how they’ve voted or acted, point out inconsistencies, or state their opinions.

For example, when Hillary Clinton stated that she was under sniper fire when she landed at an airport in Bosnia in 1996 - and news footage showed otherwise - many observers were quick to jump on her mistake.

Even candidates who have, or thought they have, a friendly relationship with the press are susceptible to attacks, as when John McCain was accused of an improper relationship with a lobbyist.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, which was held on April 22^nd, Barack Obama made a remark about small-town Pennsylvania voters clinging to their guns and religion because they’re frustrated by their economic situation.  The backlash was immediate and intense and cartoonists had great fun.

Political pundits have a field day during elections.  Many so-called political analysts in the United States and elsewhere are making a lot of money right now simply for talking about the election on television.  These pundits definitely shape the views of the voting electorate in the United States.

During this time, some candidates decide to focus only on projecting their own views about issues and do not directly address the other candidates or directly refer to points of contention.  Others might choose to differ openly with another candidate.  You might have heard of “negative campaign ads” where a candidate will directly attack an opponent’s record or political opinions.   These types of campaign ads or statements usually get widespread coverage in the press, and can certainly stir the political pot.

Sometimes, these ads backfire.  Instead of making the opponent look bad, the ads draw criticism because they focus on the negative, not on the positive.   When Hillary Clinton's campaign ran a television ad asking voters "who do you want answering the phone at 3 AM?" she drew plenty of backlash, including this political cartoon.

There is no doubt that such ads can be counterproductive with a certain portion of the electorate, yet at the same time they can also serve as a positive force for others, by clarifying for them what a candidate’s position is on a certain issue.  It's important for the electorate to understand what the candidates stand for and what they propose.
The point here is that candidates go through a period of vigorous debate and challenge, without being concerned about defamation suits, as they compete for their party’s nomination.  This year is proving to be an especially competitive primary season, as these political cartoons demonstrate.

Being President of the United States is a tough job, and it's a tough job to get.

The Rest of the Calendar

Since the 1970s, the primary system has dominated the process of selecting each party’s nominee.  Traditionally, Iowa and New Hampshire hold the first presidential caucus and primary, in late January and early February of a presidential election year, with other states scheduling their polls in succeeding months, and with most states finished by June.

But this year, the other states didn’t line up to follow in an orderly fashion.  Instead, states moved their primaries earlier in the year to give their residents a more meaningful voice in the nominating process.  The front-loaded process this year means that more than half of the country went to the polls on or before February 5^th, which was dubbed “Super Tuesday.”   Only nine states had chosen nominees by the first Tuesday in February in 2004, our last presidential election year.

By comparison, thirty-two states conducted their caucuses and primaries on or before February 5.

At this point in time, the race is not yet over.  For the Republicans, John McCain will be the candidate, which will be confirmed at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis at the beginning of September.  In the Democratic race, it is impossible to tell at this point who will end up as the candidate.  With only a few state primaries remaining, Barak Obama has more of the popular vote and more regular delegates, but Hillary Clinton is refusing to concede and is trying to convince the “super delegates” (a term I’ll explain in a minute) that Obama can’t win the general election.

Both Clinton and Obama have expended incredible resources and energy vying to be the Democratic candidate.  Before Super Tuesday, most commentators predicted that Obama would be out of the race within a week.  Before the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4th, they said the same thing about Hillary Clinton.  After the Pennsylvania primary last Tuesday, attention now turns to Indiana and North Carolina, which have their primaries next Tuesday, May 6.

It is conceivable that upcoming primary contests could result in neither Obama nor Clinton being the clear front-runner for the Democrats.  Although many leaders in the Democratic Party are trying to encourage Hillary to give up, she isn’t so inclined and it appears likely that the candidates will continue to battle on until the formal nomination process at the party convention in Denver in August.  In the past thirty years or so, the conventions have been just a formality, because the primary elections have resulted in a clear winner for the party nominations, which may not be the case this year.

I mentioned the term “super delegate” a minute ago and you have probably heard it many times during recent weeks in reference to the U.S. presidential election.  Super delegates are current or former Democratic office holders or party officials who are also seated as delegates at the Democratic National Convention.  They comprise about one-fifth of all the Democratic delegates.  Superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish – they are not committed to any particular candidate, and even if they’ve come out in favor of one candidate, they can change their mind right up until the last minute.

Usually the superdelegates go unnoticed – in fact, up until a few weeks ago, most Americans had probably never even heard the term.  But in a tight race, such as the one between Obama and Clinton this year, the superdelegates can make the difference.  Many observers have asked whether superdelegates are truly “democratic,” since their choice doesn't necessarily have to reflect the popular vote.  Others have asserted that the Democrats are not likely to choose a candidate who didn't win the popular vote, since the backlash from such a decision would certainly cost them votes in the general election.  Like so much else about this Democratic primary, the effect of the superdelegates on the nomination process has yet to be determined.  One possible solution came last month from the governor of Tennessee, himself a Democratic superdelegate, who suggested a "superdelegate primary" in June.  That way, the Democrats could choose their nominee sooner than the party convention, and have more time to unite their party.

The Republicans also have unpledged delegates comprising about one-fifth of all the Republican delegates (463 unpledged vs 1,917 pledged delegates).  As is the case with the Democratic superdelegates, the Republican unpledged delegates are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate until the convention.  Unlike the Democratic superdelegates, however, a majority of Republican unpledged delegates are elected just like the pledged delegates and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate.  Other unpledged Republican delegates became delegates automatically by virtue of their status as a party chair or a national party committee chairperson.

In either case, the parties will formally nominate a single candidate at the party conventions this summer.  From that point until the general election in November, the nominees and the parties will continue to campaign. This will culminate with the general election on November 4.  And the new President will take office next January 20.

Technology in the Presidential Election

The next slides give you an idea of how candidates have traditionally reached out to voters: media interviews, town hall meetings, debates, focus groups.

Some political analysts say that there are 4 groups of voters which are in flux and will provide the leading indicators of where the race is heading.  These groups are working-class males, young people, rural and small-town Americans and Hispanics, and the candidates will be doing everything possible to reach these voters.

These days, the Internet gives candidates a new way to reach voters.  Internet sites such as YouTube and Facebook will certainly affect the outcome of this campaign, and the way the candidates campaign.

Many of the effects of new technology are positive.  Technology expands the geographical base of volunteers and donors who can participate in a campaign.  New technologies also make recruiting, mobilizing, and retaining campaign volunteers more efficient and cost-effective.

The past two U.S. election cycles, in 2004 and 2006, saw prominent advances in the use of the Internet and new technologies by campaigns.  Technology has become even more central to political campaigns in the past two years, as communication becomes faster and less structured.  More than 215 million Americans use the Internet, and campaigns are eager to capture potential voters’ attention online.

Every candidate has an online presence devoted to their campaign on sites such as Facebook and MySpace.  Some observers question whether campaigns’ use of the Internet will make a significant difference in voting patterns this year.  But consider this fact: 86 percent of the 65 million U.S. residents who visit MySpace monthly are at least 18 years old – the legal voting age in America.  Additional MySpace users will turn 18 before the general election in November.

Studies of how candidates are using their web sites shows that all the candidates highlight issues and biography, rather than the tactical focus or comparison with other candidates which are common in traditional media coverage.  Candidate web sites emphasize a two-way conversation with voters and offer the opportunity for users to become grassroots activists for the campaign.  They also allow candidates to respond to attacks without the filter of mainstream media and with more substance than is permitted by a 30-second television ad.

In addition, candidates use the sites to raise funds through the “contribute” button placed prominently on almost every page.  But money raised online doesn’t necessarily translate into victory in the polls; for example, John Kerry raised ten times as much money online as President Bush in 2004, but he still lost.

Earlier this year, YouTube teamed up with CNN to host primary debates for both parties.  The debates featured questions posed to the candidates in video clips by ordinary Americans, rather than the traditional format of political commentators or news anchors posing the questions.  The advertising tag line for the debates – “This is your country, and your presidential debate” – emphasized citizen participation, and the debates were very popular.  From a talking snowman asking about global warming to regular citizens asking about the economy, the debates featured a wide range of subjects, and they were much more creatively addressed than they would have been by the average media personality.

The coming months may feature less planned YouTube moments, and any one of these moments may change the prospects of a candidate.

An off-the-cuff comment can become a voter-generated web video, available worldwide, in just moments.  The campaign for a candidate for U.S. Senator in 2006 was completely derailed when he was filmed making a racial slur against an opponent’s staff member, and that video went viral on the Internet.

YouTube also serves as an online echo chamber for structured elements of the electoral cycle; for example, relatively few folks watched the party debates live, but millions of voters viewed notable quips and exchanges from the debates on the site’s special campaign channel, YouChoose ’08 – as you did just a while ago.

The relative influence of television advertising continues to decline as voters tune out the flood of political ads – or use digital video recorders such as TIVO to skip them altogether.  As a result, campaigns are turning to new ways to reach specific groups of potential supporters who share similar interests and ideas.

For example, blogs are rapidly rising in readership, supplementing traditional news sources.  Recognizing the influence of this medium, campaigns are using blogs more and more, especially to reach younger voters.  Fifteen of the original 19 candidate web sites featured blogs, and seven sites offered users the chance to start their own.

Similarly, with an estimated 85 percent of American college students using the online social network Facebook, students active in campaigns or issues use the “political views” category in the site’s profile section to generate “buzz” within virtual communities of potential supporters.

The digital revolution is transforming message delivery in American politics.  The Internet and social software tools require users to surrender some control over the message, and those tools facilitate the dissemination of their opponents’ messages as well as their own.  This is a healthy phenomenon, but it does require advocates to remain alert to what is being said in cyberspace about their candidates or their issues.

The challenge for grassroots politics in America will be figuring out how to use the Internet to entice multi-tasked potential voters to linger on their message long enough to be persuaded.  After all, it’s a lot easier to click the delete button than it is to decline an invitation to stop by your neighbor’s house to meet-and-greet the candidate, as in more traditional grassroots campaigning.

Conclusion

The 2008 election is exciting to watch, from timing to technology.  For Singapore it is important in many ways.  For example, the President helps set economic policy in the United States and the U.S. is one of Singapore’s largest trading partners.

For the candidates, it’s still all about defining and getting out their message, and attracting dollars and voters.  Candidates still must translate high-tech methods into good old-fashioned ground troops, contributions, and connection with the voters.  The winner in November will likely be the candidate who best melds the new technology with the old techniques of campaigning.

As an American, I'm very proud of our tradition of vigorous political debate and the opportunity we have to participate in choosing our leaders.  Thank you for allowing me to share with you a little bit about our political system and our political culture.  I welcome your questions.