The Race to the U.S. Presidential Election: A Conversation with Ambassador Patricia L. Herbold

The POD, National Library Building
July 3, 2008

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I'm privileged to be here today to talk about this year's U.S. presidential election.  Thank you to the National Library Board for having me here to speak in this beautiful setting. We're fortunate to work with the National Library Board through our American Connections program, which donates materials and brings American programming to libraries throughout Singapore.

As you know, the U.S. presidential election campaign has been going on for quite some time.  And it’s not even close to being over.  The next U.S. president will take office next January 20th, a bit more than six months from today.  The new twists to this election cycle have been – and will continue to be – of great interest, and in some cases, highly entertaining to political observers and pundits.

A Unique Election Cycle

This year's election cycle is unique for several reasons. 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.  As a result, the election campaign began with no clear-cut favorite, which led to one of the most unpredictable and wide-open campaigns in the past century.  To prove that point, in both the Democrat and Republican races, several different candidates won early primaries and caucuses.

In the 2008 election, several of the 19 candidates who started out in the race were hoping to become “firsts” in the White House.  Barack Obama seeks to become the first African-American president.  Hillary Clinton, who has since suspended her campaign, hoped to become the first woman 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, given that the voting age in the United States is eighteen.

An example of this phenomenon is a website called 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, one can register to vote, compare presidential candidates and their views, listen to podcasts, vote in polls, and discuss politics with other young people interested in the election.

The trend toward increased involvement of younger people in presidential politics is not entirely new.  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.  Both candidates are courting votes with techniques targeted to the online generation.

How Does the Presidential Election Work?

I thought it would be helpful to give you a brief description of the process of electing a President in the United States. We've finally reached the end of the “primary season” and are currently in limbo between the end of the primary elections and the general election.  Multiple candidates in each of the major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, have fought it out over the past many months to become their party’s candidate, the person who will stand for the general election in November.

Each party will hold a convention late in the summer to officially select their candidate.  At the moment, it is presumed that John McCain will be the Republican candidate, and Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate.

Although the primary season has ended, I'd like to take a minute and point out an interesting fact about the primaries, which has made a significant difference this year.  Most state Republican parties assign delegates using a “winner-take-all” system, while Democrats use a proportionate system.

So even though John McCain won less than 40% of the vote in Missouri, he still got all of Missouri’s Republican delegates, because he got more votes than any other candidate.

On the other hand, the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton competition lasted a long time because Democrats assign delegates based on the proportion of votes won. So when Hillary Clinton won California, she only got 52% of the delegates, proportional to the percentage of the popular vote that she won.  Obama got 43% of the delegates, proportional to the percentage of the votes he received.

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 turned out to be.  And given the long, drawn-out nature of this year's Democratic primary, you might see the Democratic Party revisit this issue of proportional allocation before the next Presidential primary season in 2012.

This year's primary season, even more so than usual, has been a period of vigorous debate and disagreement among the candidates.  The intent of the presidential primary season is to provide 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 share their views in a wide variety of ways.  They run advertisements in television, print, and electronic media.  They give speeches and participate in formal debates.  They also hold “meet the candidate” sessions where members of the public can question them about their platforms and stances on hot-button issues.

The American media play a crucial role during this process, putting the candidates under metaphorical microscopes.  They report on the daily events of the campaign trail, analyze the candidates' statements or actions, compare their current positions to past positions, point out inconsistencies, or state their opinions.

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.

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 had, a friendly relationship with the press are susceptible to attacks, as when John McCain was accused of an improper relationship with a lobbyist which, it turned out, was unsubstantiated and resulted in a lot of criticism of the newspaper that printed the article.

Political pundits have a field day during both primary and general elections in the United States.  Many analysts, both in the United States and around the world, are making a lot of money right now for simply giving their opinions.  And in this Internet age, their opinions are repeated ad nauseam on blogs and politically focused websites, where they are dissected, championed, and challenged.  And these pundits can definitely shape the views of the voting electorate.

While all this scrutiny is taking place, some candidates decide to focus only on projecting their own views about issues.  They don’t directly address the other candidates or refer specifically to points of contention.  Others candidates choose to differ openly with their opponents.  In negative campaign ads run on television and the Internet, a candidate directly attacks an opponent’s record or political opinions.  The most offensive negative ads are personal attacks which attempt to smear a candidate’s character.   These types of campaign ads or statements have no place in political discourse and usually get widespread coverage in the press.

Sometimes, these ads backfire.  Instead of making the opponent look bad, candidates who place such ads draw criticism because they focus on the negative, not on the positive.   And when a candidate makes untrue or exaggerated claims to bolster his or her qualifications, the reaction from the media can be punishing.

When Hillary Clinton's campaign ran a television ad asking voters "who do you want answering the phone at 3 AM?", an attack on Obama’s lack of experience, the media responded promptly, 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 to accomplish if elected.

The point here is that candidates engage in vigorous debate, challenging each others' views and positions, sometimes even leveling personal attacks.  It’s part of the campaign process in the U.S., and as these political cartoons demonstrate, this was an especially competitive primary season.

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

The Primary Election v. The General Election

Let me mention another reason why this recently-ended primary process was unique. 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. With the front-loaded process we had this year, more than half of the country went to the polls on or before February 5th, 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 this year.

All of the caucuses and primaries over the last six months have had one purpose: to elect the delegates who will represent the Republicans and Democrats at their respective conventions this summer.  The number of delegates for each state is determined by various factors, but larger states usually have more delegates than smaller ones.  The two parties use different formulas, so Democrats generally have twice as many delegates as Republicans.

The Republican Convention will take place at the beginning of September in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.  As I said before, John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, meaning that he gained enough delegates during the primary process to be chosen by the Republican delegates to the convention with a simple majority of their votes.

The Democratic Convention will take place at the end of August in Denver, Colorado.  Since the beginning of June, when Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and announced her support for Barack Obama, he has been the presumptive Democratic nominee.  Obama's "presumptive" status, however, is slightly different than McCain's.

The term “superdelegate”, which you’ve probably heard many times during recent months in reference to the U.S. presidential election, may be new to some of you.  In fact, I imagine that many of the people here today had never heard this term prior to this year.  And I’d even guess that most Americans had not heard the term until recent months.

Superdelegates are current or former Democratic party 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 minds.

Usually the superdelegates go unnoticed.  But in a tight race, such as the one between Obama and Clinton this year, the superdelegates make the difference.  Right now, enough superdelegates have pledged their support to Obama to make him the presumptive nominee.  However, they have the right to change their mind up until the moment when they cast their ballot at the convention.  Therefore, it is conceivable – but not likely – that if Obama's campaign somehow went terribly wrong between now and the Democratic convention, superdelegates could change their minds and support Hillary Clinton instead.

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 become delegates automatically by virtue of their status as a party chair or a national party committee chairperson.

At the Conventions

Let me fast forward and talk a little about the conventions, which involve much more than just the final selection of the party's nominee.  Party conventions provide an opportunity for the parties to rally together, announce their platforms, and celebrate their candidates in front of the world.  They are definitely media circuses, drawing enormous press coverage.  Conventions also allow rising stars within the parties to gain traction and support from other party members.

On several occasions, a dazzling speech at a convention has resulted in a later victory in a Presidential race.  In recent years, this has been true for Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and it might be true again this year: Barack Obama's inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention catapulted him into the national spotlight and was the impetus for his presidential run.

The vice-presidential nominee is also officially announced at the convention.  Speculation about who might be chosen as this year's vice-presidential nominees has been going on for months now.  Possible choices include other presidential candidates who dropped out of the race, state governors (who might be able to carry their state for the presidential candidate), and other senior party leaders.

I won't add to the guessing game, except to say that given the many names that are being suggested, the majority of commentators predicting the vice-presidential nominees will be wrong!

The General Election

After the conventions, there are roughly nine weeks until Election Day.  During these nine weeks, the candidates will be on the road constantly, giving speeches, meeting voters, and elaborating on their platform positions.

But the United States is an enormous country, and it would be impossible for Presidential candidates to meet every potential voter.  Some states nearly always vote Republican or Democrat, while others vary depending on the year and the particular candidates.  The candidates tend to visit these “battleground” or "swing states" more often and spend more money on advertising there.  You can bet that between the conventions and Election Day, the candidates will be spending a great deal of time in the purple states shown on this slide.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4, 2008.  At this point, the Electoral College comes into play.  A bit of historical background will help explain what the Electoral College is and how we arrived at the system we use today.  The U.S. Constitution puts the power of selecting the President in the hands of electors, not voters.  The drafters devised the role of electors as part of their plan to share power between the states and the national government.

We don’t elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote, but rather by the combined results of 51 state elections (in this context, the term “state” includes the District of Columbia).  Each state has a certain number of electors, based on its population and is equivalent to the number of Senators and Representatives the state has in Congress.

In all states except two, just like the Republican primaries, the winner takes all.  So, even if a candidate wins a state by the slimmest of margins in the popular vote – as George W. Bush did in Florida in the 2000 election – that candidate gains all of the electors for that state.  270 electors are needed to win the Presidency.

Forty-one days after the general election, the electors will cast their votes, meeting in their state capitol buildings.  The tallies are signed by each elector and mailed to Washington D.C.  There, in a joint session of Congress, the electoral votes are counted, and the candidate receiving 270 or more votes is declared to be the President-elect.

The process is repeated for the Vice-President.  On January 20, 2009, the inauguration of the new President of the United States will take place, and this long campaign will – finally – be over.

Technology in the Presidential Election

So what should we look out for as we follow this year's exciting election?  Political analysts cite several groups of voters that are in flux and will provide the leading indicators of where the general election is heading.  These groups include working-class males; rural and small-town Americans; young, single, college-educated women; and Hispanics.  Most commentators agree that in addition to these categories, young people will play a crucial role in the outcome of the election.  For this reason, the candidates are doing everything they can to reach these voters.

In the Digital Age, the Internet gives candidates a new way to reach voters.  Internet sites such as YouTube and Facebook have already influenced this year's election process and will certainly affect the outcome of this campaign.

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.

Many of the effects of new technology on the electoral process 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.

One negative impact of technology is the speed with which inaccurate information can spread, via blogs, e-mails, and news aggregators such as Digg.com.  Recognizing this trend, Barack Obama's campaign has just created a website where supporters can report and counter misinformation and e-mail their friends and neighbors with Obama campaign messages.  The website is called Fight the Smears.com.

Candidates have an online presence devoted to their campaigns 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, that is 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.  Senator Obama has raised $265 million since January, 2007, almost half of which comes from people giving less that $200 each over the internet.

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 the candidates 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.  As an example, the campaign for a candidate for U.S. Senator in 2006 was completely derailed when he was filmed making an off-the-cuff comment about an opponent’s staff member that was perceived to be a racial slur, and that video went viral on the Internet.  The opposing candidate won the election.  Given that control of the Senate hinged on just one Senator in 2006, it is not a stretch to say that a viral video changed the course of U.S. politics.

YouTube also serves as an online echo chamber for structured elements of the electoral cycle.  For example, relatively few Americans 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.  User-generated videos in support of or attacking a particular candidate draw thousands, even millions, of hits, as these examples demonstrate.

Many user-generated videos juxtapose a candidate's statements with seemingly contradictory comments he has made.  The creator of this video attempts to show that John McCain cannot decide whether he will follow in President Bush's footsteps or not.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg ("John McCain debates himself on supporting Bush," 1 minute 32 seconds)

In the same vein, this video makes it obvious that Hillary Clinton misspoke when she talked about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfjJi2qjR8 ("Under sniper fire in Bosnia," 1 minute 22 seconds)

Other videos are much more blunt, accusing candidates directly of flip-flopping or not being in touch with the common voter, such as this video attacking Barack Obama.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfjJi2qjR8 ("The Obama shuffle," 49 seconds)

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.  John McCain's daughter has her own blog where young people can see life on the campaign trail through her eyes: McCain Blogette.com.

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.  However, 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 has been common in more traditional grassroots campaigning in the United States.

Conclusion

The 2008 election is exciting to watch, from timing to technology.  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.