The evening of September 9 saw the Hamilton College Chapel crowded with students listening to "A Conversation about the 2006 and 2008 Elections" from two accomplished Hamilton alumni. Alicia Davis '97 and Marc Elias '90 had different perspectives on the causes of the recent Republican defeat, but agreed on the importance of new media and the closeness of the upcoming campaign.
Both alumni have extensive experience in election politics. Davis formerly worked as regional political director for the Republican National Committee, and currently works with Targetpoint Consulting, a company that analyzes likely voters' household data, buying habits, and voting behavior to develop profiles of "political DNA" that political campaigns can use to find favorable voters in close elections. She entered into politics because of her experience in several election campaigns, relishing the chance to work with candidates she believed in. Elias approached politics from an interest in the political process, writing passionate papers at Hamilton critiquing the effects of term limits. His later career as a lawyer continued this focus on procedural issues, as he served as general counsel for the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 and helped convince Federal Election Commission officials to treat political blogs as journalistic unrestricted speech. Both panelists also credited Professor of Government Theodore Eismeier's classes as a reason for their interest in politics.
Professor Eismeier, one of the two moderators, opened the debate by soliciting the panelists' opinions about the best and worst lessons from the election of 2006, which he called "as great a political cataclysm as the 1994 election" in which Republicans gained power as Democrats did more recently. Davis responded that the Republican loss was mostly explicable by scandal and by history, since the incumbent party has lost 45 House seats and five Senate seats on average in second term midterm elections since 1860. The second moderator, James S. Sherman Professor of Government Phil Klinkner, queried about whether Republicans were unduly surprised by the 2006 defeat; Davis pointed out that 22 of the House races in 2006 were within a 2% margin of victory, and that based on the more accurate polls available to campaigns, many of the elections were toss-ups that Republicans could have won.
He believed that Republicans needed to return to their core values of an "ownership society" that empowers individuals and political reform in order to gain traction in 2008. Elias responded with a warning against an overtly historical comparison, saying that "only losers and political scientists" evaluate elections purely based on history. Winning parties tend to credit the strength of their campaigns, which he believed accounted for the Democratic victory.
While they disagreed on the interpretation of the last election, the speakers agreed on the power of the "new media," such as blogging and Internet video, to influence campaigns. Davis pointed to the fact that an "e-campaign" is now considered one of the most important early steps in a candidate's preparation to run, because of the power of the Internet to attract new grassroots organizers and donations. She also pointed to the role of new media in providing new perspectives, as illustrated by Mitt Romney's use of blogging to humanize his candidacy, and the Internet's power to draw in 18-29 year-old voters who traditionally are less interested in political events.
Elias discussed the power of online video to disrupt candidacies, such as in the 2004 "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry's military record or in the Virginia Senate race in 2006 where George Allen narrowly lost after being caught on camera uttering a racial epithet; according to Elias, "YouTube was more important in [that race] than the New York Times and Fox News put together." He suggested the Internet has eroded the exclusive privilege of old media outlets to endorse candidates, allowing ordinary individuals to take more overtly political positions without fear of sanction by campaign finance laws. In Elias's view, this is a benefit, because he doubts that "Chris Wallace [the CNN debate moderator] has more insightful questions" than the ordinary citizens who probed the Democratic presidential candidates in the recent CNN/YouTube debate.
Professor Klinkner probed the panelists on the role of online groups in initiating intra-party conflicts (such as the Democratic debate on the future of the Iraq War or the Republican debate on immigration). This turned into a discussion of the "netroots," or politically active Democratic bloggers who Elias described as both journalists and interest groups. Elias suggested that the interest in the netroots was "well-deserved," because these liberal bloggers have proven powerful in fundraising for candidates who share their values. He discounted the role of the netroots in creating problems for the national party, stating that their influence is no more problematic than any other interest group such as organized labor for Democrats or evangelical Christians for Republicans. Davis agreed that Republican bloggers (who she said are "active") also represented both sides in the immigration debate; the major issues taken up by bloggers are simply conflicts, whether inter-party or intra-party.
The final topic of discussion concerned the 2008 presidential candidate field. Elias remarked that the Democratic field has been relatively "static," with Senator Hillary Clinton holding a considerable national lead for some time. However, in Iowa (the first state to vote for the Democratic nomination), Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards have formed a three-way tie. He argued that the "second tier" of candidates, such as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Chris Dodd (for whom he works as general counsel) are currently waiting for a reevaluation from early Democratic voters. The second tier's hope is that the first tier of candidates will be eventually be dismissed as a media circus, as happened in 2004 when Howard Dean, the clear Democratic frontrunner, was overtaken in Iowa by the fourth-ranked John Kerry on account of a desire to "get serious" about electing a president.
Davis pointed to the role of an experienced political staff in establishing a primary victory, and underscored the importance of a strong ground campaign in the early states. She named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Senator Fred Thompson (who would have to catch up to the more established candidates) as possible strong contenders, and described Senator John McCain as a "fighter" who is not yet consigned to defeat. She dismissed Eismeier's suggestion that Giuliani's liberal positions on abortion and gay marriage would hurt him in the Republican primary, arguing that the open primary in New Hampshire (where Independents can vote) and the importance of the economy in voting would allow Giuliani to succeed in the nomination despite the opposition of social conservatives.
The panel closed with a question from the audience on the morality of the primary system in which a few votes in early states can decide a party's nomination. Elias described the situation as a "historical accident" that remained unchanged because winners of the system have no incentive to make changes to a system that gave them success. He argued that the system is not necessarily undemocratic, because it allows candidates with less money to compete in early states on par with better-funded candidates; however, he also noted that the front-runners Clinton and Giuliani both have strategies to lose the early states and win their parties' nominations by carrying large states such as New York and California. Davis added that the compression of the nominations helps or hurts candidates differently, depending on how they invest their human resources and direct mail efforts.
Ultimately, the debate provided an insider's analysis of the upcoming election, and showed that many factors in elections are perceived identically by both Republicans and Democrats. It also showcased the ability of Hamilton students to use their liberal arts education as an entrance to a broad and complex political world.
-- by Kye Lippold '10
Both alumni have extensive experience in election politics. Davis formerly worked as regional political director for the Republican National Committee, and currently works with Targetpoint Consulting, a company that analyzes likely voters' household data, buying habits, and voting behavior to develop profiles of "political DNA" that political campaigns can use to find favorable voters in close elections. She entered into politics because of her experience in several election campaigns, relishing the chance to work with candidates she believed in. Elias approached politics from an interest in the political process, writing passionate papers at Hamilton critiquing the effects of term limits. His later career as a lawyer continued this focus on procedural issues, as he served as general counsel for the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 and helped convince Federal Election Commission officials to treat political blogs as journalistic unrestricted speech. Both panelists also credited Professor of Government Theodore Eismeier's classes as a reason for their interest in politics.
Professor Eismeier, one of the two moderators, opened the debate by soliciting the panelists' opinions about the best and worst lessons from the election of 2006, which he called "as great a political cataclysm as the 1994 election" in which Republicans gained power as Democrats did more recently. Davis responded that the Republican loss was mostly explicable by scandal and by history, since the incumbent party has lost 45 House seats and five Senate seats on average in second term midterm elections since 1860. The second moderator, James S. Sherman Professor of Government Phil Klinkner, queried about whether Republicans were unduly surprised by the 2006 defeat; Davis pointed out that 22 of the House races in 2006 were within a 2% margin of victory, and that based on the more accurate polls available to campaigns, many of the elections were toss-ups that Republicans could have won.
He believed that Republicans needed to return to their core values of an "ownership society" that empowers individuals and political reform in order to gain traction in 2008. Elias responded with a warning against an overtly historical comparison, saying that "only losers and political scientists" evaluate elections purely based on history. Winning parties tend to credit the strength of their campaigns, which he believed accounted for the Democratic victory.
While they disagreed on the interpretation of the last election, the speakers agreed on the power of the "new media," such as blogging and Internet video, to influence campaigns. Davis pointed to the fact that an "e-campaign" is now considered one of the most important early steps in a candidate's preparation to run, because of the power of the Internet to attract new grassroots organizers and donations. She also pointed to the role of new media in providing new perspectives, as illustrated by Mitt Romney's use of blogging to humanize his candidacy, and the Internet's power to draw in 18-29 year-old voters who traditionally are less interested in political events.
Elias discussed the power of online video to disrupt candidacies, such as in the 2004 "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry's military record or in the Virginia Senate race in 2006 where George Allen narrowly lost after being caught on camera uttering a racial epithet; according to Elias, "YouTube was more important in [that race] than the New York Times and Fox News put together." He suggested the Internet has eroded the exclusive privilege of old media outlets to endorse candidates, allowing ordinary individuals to take more overtly political positions without fear of sanction by campaign finance laws. In Elias's view, this is a benefit, because he doubts that "Chris Wallace [the CNN debate moderator] has more insightful questions" than the ordinary citizens who probed the Democratic presidential candidates in the recent CNN/YouTube debate.
Professor Klinkner probed the panelists on the role of online groups in initiating intra-party conflicts (such as the Democratic debate on the future of the Iraq War or the Republican debate on immigration). This turned into a discussion of the "netroots," or politically active Democratic bloggers who Elias described as both journalists and interest groups. Elias suggested that the interest in the netroots was "well-deserved," because these liberal bloggers have proven powerful in fundraising for candidates who share their values. He discounted the role of the netroots in creating problems for the national party, stating that their influence is no more problematic than any other interest group such as organized labor for Democrats or evangelical Christians for Republicans. Davis agreed that Republican bloggers (who she said are "active") also represented both sides in the immigration debate; the major issues taken up by bloggers are simply conflicts, whether inter-party or intra-party.
The final topic of discussion concerned the 2008 presidential candidate field. Elias remarked that the Democratic field has been relatively "static," with Senator Hillary Clinton holding a considerable national lead for some time. However, in Iowa (the first state to vote for the Democratic nomination), Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards have formed a three-way tie. He argued that the "second tier" of candidates, such as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Chris Dodd (for whom he works as general counsel) are currently waiting for a reevaluation from early Democratic voters. The second tier's hope is that the first tier of candidates will be eventually be dismissed as a media circus, as happened in 2004 when Howard Dean, the clear Democratic frontrunner, was overtaken in Iowa by the fourth-ranked John Kerry on account of a desire to "get serious" about electing a president.
Davis pointed to the role of an experienced political staff in establishing a primary victory, and underscored the importance of a strong ground campaign in the early states. She named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Senator Fred Thompson (who would have to catch up to the more established candidates) as possible strong contenders, and described Senator John McCain as a "fighter" who is not yet consigned to defeat. She dismissed Eismeier's suggestion that Giuliani's liberal positions on abortion and gay marriage would hurt him in the Republican primary, arguing that the open primary in New Hampshire (where Independents can vote) and the importance of the economy in voting would allow Giuliani to succeed in the nomination despite the opposition of social conservatives.
The panel closed with a question from the audience on the morality of the primary system in which a few votes in early states can decide a party's nomination. Elias described the situation as a "historical accident" that remained unchanged because winners of the system have no incentive to make changes to a system that gave them success. He argued that the system is not necessarily undemocratic, because it allows candidates with less money to compete in early states on par with better-funded candidates; however, he also noted that the front-runners Clinton and Giuliani both have strategies to lose the early states and win their parties' nominations by carrying large states such as New York and California. Davis added that the compression of the nominations helps or hurts candidates differently, depending on how they invest their human resources and direct mail efforts.
Ultimately, the debate provided an insider's analysis of the upcoming election, and showed that many factors in elections are perceived identically by both Republicans and Democrats. It also showcased the ability of Hamilton students to use their liberal arts education as an entrance to a broad and complex political world.
-- by Kye Lippold '10
