What does it take to win an election?

                This is an absolutely central question for any true politico to consider. Although elections do of course vary in terms of what issues decide them, there are certain generalizations one might offer. Perhaps the most important criteria is, somewhat predictably; money. It is simply impossible to win in the states without a sufficient level of campaign funding. American elections are expensive by international standards, even when one considers the size of the country/state/congressional district in question. Whilst money alone can never guarantee victory, all successful candidates ultimately need a sufficient war chest. There is also a minimum required in order to have any serious chance of victory. As Mark Hanna once remarked; “there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.”

                Once elected, a candidate should benefit financially from the incumbency effect as they will usually accumulate a greater level of funds than their opponent. There is simply no logical reason why a donor would provide dollars to a challenger with absolutely no prospect of victory. In elections to the House, the incumbency effect is particularly noticeable. However, the incumbency effect can also be observed at other levels of governance (such as gubernatorial elections and for those to the Senate). The incumbency effect also relates to the provision of pork-barrel politics, something that only an incumbent can use to their favor. Money is also the key reason for the failure of third parties and independents to break through the present system. When compared to other liberal democracies, the absence of a major third party is quite striking. To use economics parlance, the cost of electoral campaigns acts as a barrier to entry that keeps out potential entrants.

                The second quality required in order to win an election is a telegenic persona. Candidates need to be charismatic in order to connect with the average voter. Whilst difficult to quantify, that does not in any sense diminish its overall importance. Charisma is a prized asset in an environment where style tends to marginalize ideological substance. Opinion polls that ask seemingly innocuous questions such as “which candidate would you like to have a beer/coffee with?” allude to something that should be of interest to anyone who seeks a full understanding of the subject matter. An interesting contrast to consider is that between Romney and Obama. The former was considered dull and lifeless, whereas Obama showed far more charisma.

                Another related point to consider is the oratorical abilities of the candidates. One of the means by which a politician seeks to connect with the average voter is via the use of words. Politicians must hone their oratorical skills to an audience in which our attention span has fallen dramatically, and where social media is more pervasive than ever before. Possessing oratorical skills can however present something of a barrier between a politician and the public, particularly if it highlights a negative already associated with that party or that candidate. For instance, in 2004 John Kerry was perceived by many as the quintessential liberal elitist. This label was not helped by Kerry’s somewhat aloof persona, and his muddled response to questions about the use of guns. His fluency in French probably didn’t help him break through to ordinary voters either. The homespun corn-fed appeal of George W. Bush won out against Kerry; despite the linguist limitations of the 43^rd President. The 2004 presidential election is an excellent reminder that oratorical skills must enhance the ability of said candidate to connect with people, rather than increase the distance between them. In general, Americans do not vote for those who appear too intellectual. An Ivy League education definitely helps, but a candidate should avoid coming over as something of a Poindexter. An interesting contrast is presented by Clinton (who could easily 'dumb down' in public) and Obama (who has been dubbed by some as the “professor-in-chief”).

Behind every successful candidate is a veritable army of activists prepared to post messages online, work the phones, send e-mails and push that party’s/candidates message at every opportunity. No-one can hope to win an election without assistance from the grassroots. In one of the more telling images of the 2012 campaign, Obama was moved to tears when giving thanks to his campaign team. For a man not known for public displays of emotion, it was a poignant moment. Staying with Obama, it was he who mobilized an extraordinary number of activists in the 2008 campaign. This was one of the reasons for his victory against the Republican candidate John McCain.

A successful politician must be able to mobilize the party base whilst reaching out to a sufficient number of moderates. This is, by definition; a complex task. For many years, it was widely believed that the Democrats would find this task more difficult. Their party base was thought to be more belligerent than that of the GOP. However, it is the Republicans who are now associated with a more ideological base preventing their chosen candidate from reaching out towards the center. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney could have never compromised the party’s stance on emotive issues such as abortion and gun rights without provoking divisions between him and the party base. Obama however had greater freedom to reach out towards the center, thereby placing him in an advantageous position. Tellingly, Obama gained a clear victory amongst moderates over his Republican opponent. In contrast, Romney struggled to fully connect with social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP due to his Mormonism (which Evangelical Christians view with some suspicion) and his record as governor of a blue state (in which he effectively introduced the forerunner to Obamacare). The time and energy spent reassuring the conservative base would have been better used appealing to voters in the center-ground.

The final aspect to consider is the avoidance of costly verbal gaffes. The media has a tendency to reduce images and messages to a crude level. Taken out of context, it is quite easy to raise doubts about a politician’s ability to govern. Any verbal gaffe will be repeated ad nauseum, and over time the mud may stick in the minds of voters. That said; it is still possible to gain victory even when a candidate has slipped up. For instance, Obama’s comment that the private sector was "doing just fine" didn't prevent him gaining a second term. Moreover, his predecessor in the White House accumulated a vast array of verbal slip-ups. The term Bushisms has genuine resonance; and yet his record via the ballot box is a positive one. Not only did Bush gain a second term, something his father failed to do; his party also gained seats in both chambers during the 2002 mid-terms. Verbal gaffes therefore need not be fatal to a candidacy. Indeed, they can sometimes add a little human warmth to voter’s perceptions. There is no better illustration of this point than Ronald Reagan, a President with a very impressive electoral record despite a number of verbal slip-ups.

When considering what it takes to win an election, one must recognize that such qualities do not necessarily make for a successful politician once in office. The qualities required to gain victory at the polls are quite different to the qualities needed to wield power effectively. Some politicians have a very impressive record in terms of winning elections, and yet their time in office may be something of a disappointment. This observation could be applied to Bill Clinton, a man who managed to secure a historic second-term when all seemed lost after the Republican revolution of ’94. However, few would rate Clinton as a great President. He was a transactional figure who oversaw an era of economic prosperity. Clinton was not a game-changer in the manner of say FDR or Reagan. His personal demons ultimately let him down, a comment that could also apply to the Republican Richard Nixon. Whereas Clinton was a philanderer whose lack of personal responsibility caused his undoing, Nixon was haunted a complex psychology that caused him to retreat into paranoia and at times a degree of self-pity. 

The role of the media

                Politics is primarily consumed via the distorting lens of the media. The media is a term that incorporates a number of sources ranging from television stations to footage uploaded onto You Tube. Yet whatever the context, the media is a hugely important player within the electoral process. Moreover, the proliferation of the media has grown rapidly since the 1990s. Millions of people have the technology to upload recorded images onto the net, thereby enabling the public to view images and access information it might otherwise have missed. Politicians therefore have very few hiding places left. Perhaps the stand-out example from recent times is the “macaca” moment. Senator George Allen was being video tracked by an activist working for his opponent. Rather than keeping calm and aloof, he delivered an outburst that could at best be described as gibberish and at worst be considered a racial insult. Either way, it cast doubt upon his ability to govern and George Allen subsequently lost the election. Being shown to flip-flopping on an issue by the media can also be very damaging. For instance, in 2004 John Kerry was quoted as saying that he voted for the $87 billion raised to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he actually voted against it. That said; a verbal gaffe does not always spell disaster for a leading politician. In terms of dependent factors, the ability to spin the news is absolutely crucial.

Each party has their own cheerleaders within the media. For the Republican Party, Fox News does an invaluable job. It provides airtime for conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, its political stance is supportive of the Republican brand and its reporting has a pro-conservative bias. However, conservatives routinely claim that this is necessary in order to counter the liberal bias within the mainstream media. Those on the right of the political spectrum see themselves as standing up for the ‘truth’ against the forces of liberal-secular America. Quite frankly, it is always possible for conservative figures to rail against the liberal ‘lamestream’ media. Whether this is exaggerated or an accurate depiction is of course debatable.

                Liberals also have their supporters within the media. In terms of television stations, MSNBC leans towards the liberal side of the fence. In terms of newspapers and periodicals one might consider the Huffington Post, the Nation and Mother Jones (or MoJo). It was the latter that published Romney’s ill-judged remark that 47% of Americans would never support him because they see themselves as “victims.” However, the US is a pluralist society with many sources of information. It is possible to gain information from all possible perspectives, even those on the political margins. Unlike an autocracy, no one ideological perspective entirely dominates the airwaves or blogosphere within the states.

The tone of political debate within the states can be vitriolic and unbalanced. Right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh routinely denounce liberals in quite personal terms. Occasionally, this has slipped into unpleasant racial connotations in the case of Barack Obama. Similarly, those who express their opinions via The Young Turks such as Cenk Uygur depict right-wing conservatives in bitter language. For example, Sarah Palin has been subject to a level of character assassination that highlights a degree of double standards from liberals in regards to sexism (Pearlman, 2012).

               

The absence of balance within the American media may be explained via simple market forces. There is little financial incentive to offer a balanced assessment when the target audience is content with a skewed version of events. Commenting on politics is comparable to gossip magazines, in that it centers upon hearsay and OMG moments rather than objective journalism. This lowering of the tone is also mirrored in congressional debates. Moreover, it is very difficult to reach out beyond the aisle except for those rare occasions when the nation feels under threat in some way. Increasingly, Americans have their own (pre)judgments confirmed rather than challenged via their choice of media. The problem is exacerbated further by a predilection towards residing in areas with other ideological soul-mates. Liberals will tend to locate around the North-East, the Great Lakes, the West Coast, Universities and inner-cities. By contrast, Republicans tend to gravitate towards Middle America and rural areas. The public are thereby retreating into their political tribe; making them less inclined to listen to the other side of the political fence.

The nature of the media has fundamentally changed in recent years. Firstly, the media is more fragmented than previous generations. People gain their news from a wide number of sources at a time and in a format which suits them. This means that if a politician does not take a pro-active approach to a potential story, the gap may be soon filled by his/her vociferous opponents. If a politician does not exert control over the media in some way, then they can very easily be blown off course by the prevailing winds. Secondly, the media has become much more biased. It exists to provide exactly what its customers expect. The impartiality of a Walter Cronkite-figure is little more than a distant memory. Thirdly, the news is presented in a more sensationalist fashion (Gardner, 2009). In order to grab the public’s jaded attention, politicians and pressure groups routinely engage in deliberate exaggeration or distorted half-truths.

The media is self-evidently an important agent of secondary socialization and a key influence on voting behavior. When seeking to fully understand the impact of the media upon voting behavior, there are two contrasting theories to ponder. Both offer a convincing explanation of the way in which the media shapes voting behavior in the states. As one might anticipate, there is evidence to support both theories.

Beginning with the more traditional account, the hypodermic syringe theory suggests that images are injected into the body politic by the media. This theory implies that the media is a powerful agent of secondary socialization. The time spent by politicians portraying their positives, neutralizing the negatives, ‘spinning’ stories and so on would certainly imply that politicians perceive the media to be a significant determinant of voting behavior. It seems implausible that any politician could ever be elected without mastering the media. Political consultants such as Dick Norris, Karl Rove (nicknamed ‘Bush’s brain’), David Axelrod and Joe Novak (nicknamed ‘Low blow Joe’) truly are the new Kingmakers of modern politics.

The two-step theory offers a more nuanced perspective. Whereas the hypodermic syringe theory implies that the role of the public is largely passive, the two-step theory suggests that the public also play a role. The two-step theory is based upon the assumption that individuals are social beings and react to stimulus around them. As such, most people formulate their political views via the influence of opinion leaders (such as celebrities who adopt a political stance); who in turn are influenced by the mass media. This has arguably been exacerbated by new social media, where political campaigns can be launched through Facebook and Twitter. According to this theory, ideas flow from the media to opinion leaders to the general population.

The media could be said to both reflect and reinforce the divide between red America and blue America. Red America tends to listen to conservative talk-shows on the radio, watch Fox News and reads newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post. Blue America however watches MSNBC, listens to NPR, has a high opinion of PBS and is more likely to read the Washington Post. One of the defects within the American system is that there is no equivalent of say the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In the United Kingdom, the BBC is legally required to be neutral. Those media sources that are funded by the US government (such as PBS) are widely perceived to be pro-liberal. This assumption may well be centered purely on the source of funding, which certainly implies a liberal approach rather than a free-market perspective.

Soft money and hard money

                The American political system is awash with money, and no understanding of the electoral process would be possible without a detailed examination of campaign finance. When seeking to properly understand campaign finance, it is important to distinguish between soft money and hard money. The distinction rests upon three elements; the purpose of the contribution, the extent of federal regulation involved and how the campaign team uses the money. Soft money consists of campaign finance used to endorse a particular cause. Hard money however is campaign finance used to endorse a particular candidate for office. This distinction matters because hard money is regulated by the Federal Electoral Commission (FEC), an organization that aims to ensure that money raised to fight federal contests (such as the race for the presidency) is subject to federal law passed by Congress. For instance, individuals may contribute a limited amount whereas corporations and unions cannot directly fund a candidate. Contests for non-federal offices are governed by state and local law.

                Candidates running for office have always found ways around campaign finance laws. For example, campaign teams organize what are known as bundlers in order to circumvent the limits placed on individual donations. Campaign teams then seek to coax smaller donations out of a much larger number of donors in a process akin to pyramid selling. Bundlers therefore gather finance from a high number of individual donors (such as the Bush Pioneers during the noughties). In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama was particularly successful at raising money via this particular route.

Most of the finance raised during a campaign derives from soft money and the overall importance of soft money was exacerbated by the Citizens United ruling in January 2010. Citizens United are an advocacy group that fought against the ban placed on advertising a documentary highlighting the manner in which Hillary Clinton raised funds. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, claiming that corporations have the same first amendment rights as individuals and are therefore free to use their own money as they see fit. In a subsequent case, the District Court of Appeal in Washington DC ruled that all limits on contributions to Political Action Committees (PACs) should be null and void.

As one might expect, PACs were a major source of finance during the 2012 elections with both presidential candidates gaining significant funds from wealthy backers. On the Republican side alone, the Koch brothers supplied around $270 million to various candidates. It is also worth noting that candidates managed to circumvent tighter regulations stemming from the McCain-Feingold Act (2002) with relative ease. Provided the PAC does not co-ordinate its campaign directly with a particular candidate, it can operate quite effectively without intrusive action from the authorities.

                Whilst money is self-evidently an important feature during a campaign, simply spending more money than your opponent does not guarantee victory. Even in the US, there is no direct relationship between money and electoral victory. This may raise the question ‘can money be at times a hindrance?’ For instance, an excessive level of wealth may actually deter potential voters because said candidate may appear disconnected from the concerns of ordinary voters. For instance, in 2012 Mitt Romney came across as a plutocrat at a time when millions of Americans were experiencing financial worries. The dependent factor here may well be the ability of a candidate to connect and empathize with the average Joe. Although Obama raised a massive amount of money, he appeared more interested in the problems facing ordinary people than his Republican opponent. This was particularly evident during Hurricane Sandy, where his personable character came across quite well.

                The potential downside of raising a great deal of money is probably greater on the Republican side. The GOP is sometimes seen as the ‘party of the rich,’ which may therefore require a candidate that appears ordinary and down-to-earth in the eyes of the electorate in the order to neutralize the negative. In recent years, George W. Bush is a good case in point. His folksy charm and compelling backstory connected with millions of voters. His battle with alcoholism and his commitment to Christianity allowed ordinary people to feel some kind of association with him. Ronald Reagan is another interesting example to consider. The ‘Gipper’ also put forward a compelling narrative, having come from the wrong side of the tracks in order to live out his own version of the American Dream. The ‘great communicator’ used his acting skills to devastating effect. He even managed to reach out towards blue-collar Democrats, thereby securing a landslide re-election victory in 1984. This objective was definitely helped by the Democrats being too closely aligned with vocal minority groups and the liberal intellectual elite.

                Having said all this, the whole messy business of raising campaign finance will always place the Democrats in a difficult position. Central to the party's brand is a concern for the less well-off in society, and yet the brutal reality is that the party needs money in order to beat their Republican opponents. There are however two consequences that stem from this. Firstly, it enables the Republican Party to portray Democrats as hypocritical. Secondly, the source of that money can at times embarrass the Democrats.

                In essence, candidates must raise a significant amount of money whilst appearing unaffected by the potential influence of wealthy donors. Frankly, this is one of the more problematic balancing acts facing any politician. Donors will inevitably seek something for their ‘investment.’ This could cover anything from favorable legislation to close access to important decision-makers. One should also note that there is often a strong correlation between wealthy donors and those appointed as Ambassadors for the US. The consequences of these investments may not necessarily be obvious, but they are surely there. For example, during his 2013 tour of Africa President Obama declared that “America wants to sell i-Pads to middle-class Africans.” It is surely no coincidence that the high-tech company Apple donated a major amount of money to Obama’s re-election campaign. Obama also gave an on-line interview (the first ever by a sitting President) to Google; another major supplier of funds for his campaign. Similarly, wealthy donors have been rewarded by Republican Presidents. For instance, George W. Bush instigated substantial tax cuts for the wealthy during his administration. He also gave seats in his Cabinet to wealthy backers when he first came to office. Frankly, neither party is absolved of blame on this issue. Politicians rarely pick a fight with wealthy figures with the power to publish either, as in the case of Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post).

                The level of money provided by multi-national companies raises questions concerning tax avoidance and tax evasion. It could be argued that such companies get away with not paying their fair share of taxation due to favorable treatment from policy-makers. Indeed, their donation may well be offset by the level of tax that company can successfully avoid paying. For instance, General Electric donated around $ 500,000 to the Obama campaign in 2008 and managed to avoid paying taxation in the 2010 fiscal year. This is one of many examples that exacerbate the gap between ‘them’ and ‘us’ within American politics. It once again gives substance to the claim that wealthy corporations and individuals (the fabled 1%) have effectively captured the political process. This issue has been raised by pressure groups from both the left and right of the political spectrum.

                Before leaving this section, it is worth noting that the amount of campaign finance raised by candidates from the two main parties serves as a significant barrier towards the progress of minor parties. The US is one of the clearest examples of a two-party system in the world. There is no major third party in the states, and there seems very little chance that any party or candidate will break the duopoly that dominates the political marketplace. There are of course several reasons for the continued dominance of the two main parties, but it must be noted that money is certainly one of them. Donors are highly unlikely to waste their investment on candidates with little or no chance of gaining elected office. Mounting a serious challenge to the ‘Republicrat’ duopoly requires an eye-watering level of personal wealth. Indeed, it seems fitting to note that the last third party candidate to gain any real level of support from the electorate (as distinct from the Electoral College) was the Texan billionaire Ross Perot.

Some quotes about US Elections

“[America has] the best democracy money can buy.” Greg Palast

“A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.” Everett Dirksen

“A striking visual context can overwhelm the intended verbal message entirely.” Frank Luntz

“Campaign spending is driven by the same logic that governs a military arms race.” Robert H. Frank

“Each election [in the US] is an occasion to promise to reverse whatever small steps the preceding government has taken.” Jeffrey Sachs

“Elections ensure that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors.” Thomas Paine

“I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams.” Barack Obama

“I know nothing grander … than a well-contested American national election.” Walt Whitman

“It must be so sick and so depressing in Washington, where a man’s word no longer counts.” George W. Bush

“It takes three things to win [an election in America]: the first is money, the second is money and the third is money.” Joseph Kane

“The buck stops here!” Harry Truman

“The Electoral College is a political wisdom tooth – a historical relic that stays largely out of sight yet causes no small pain when it pops up.” Matthew Daneman

“The United States is the only democracy that organizes its national election campaign around the news media.” Thomas Patterson

“There are no white suits in a mud fight.” Samuel Popkin

“There are two winners in every presidential election campaign: the inevitable winner when it begins and the inevitable victor after it ends.” Samuel Popkin

“You can’t do nothing if you ain’t got nothing to do nothing with!” Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” Harry Truman

Insider and outsider candidates

                The inherent paradox of American politics is the need to be a Washington outsider on the campaign trail, and yet act like a Washington insider once elected (what Samuel Popkin memorably called "an experienced virgin”). The public tend to associate Washington DC with a cynical, self-serving political elite utterly removed from the concerns that face people trying to make a living on Main Street. As a result, any connotation with the Beltway mentality can be toxic on the campaign trail. For instance, during the race for the Republican nomination in 2012 those tainted by association with Washingtonian politics all lost out to Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House, Rick Santorum served as a Senator and Ron Paul resigned from his seat in the House. In most cases, former governors tend to win the presidential election. Americans have more respect for those who have implemented decisions as a governor in contrast to those who work in the "broken branch" of Congress. The former requires people to make tough calls whereas the latter are tainted with pork-barrel politics, back-room deals and partisan point-scoring. Since 1976, every President bar Bush senior and Obama has at one time been a state governor. This is a striking statistic for those seeking to understand American politics. However, in 2008 both main candidates had previous experience of Washington in their role as Senators. This was very much against the recent trend.

               

The inherent problem within the insider-outsider notion is that once a candidate has won the election, their lack of Washington experience can be a major flaw. This is made worse by a tendency to bring in those whom they have worked with in the past. Governing one of the states, even a large state such as California; is no adequate preparation for the challenges presented in the Oval Office. Some Presidents suffer a great deal more in this area than others (most notably Jimmy Carter). Frankly, one needs some experience of Washingtonian politics – or at the very least a team around you with an insight into how things are done in DC. Without the ability to pull the right strings, the task of governing this nation can be very difficult indeed. This may entail some familial connections (as in the case of George W. Bush). Unless a newly-elected President can stamp his authority upon the Oval Office and the associated bureaucracy, he will inevitably struggle to govern in an effective manner.

                The disjuncture between running as an outsider alongside the need to act like an insider to exert influence is hardly unique to American politics. In several democracies, the candidate who presents themselves as ‘normal’ and therefore different to the political class can often be very appealing. The most common examples range from populist parties (such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the Five Star Movement in Italy and the UK Independence Party) and those candidates with a certain charm and charisma. However, this in no way mitigates the need for the winning candidate to act like an insider once faced with the realities of political life. It would be very difficult to establish an effective governing strategy without mastering the decision-making machine.

                Thus far, the 2016 campaign has done little to suggest that Washington insiders will become popular with the American people anytime soon. As such, a future President may well have to present a persona that sits outside the conventional expectations of a Beltway politician. On the Republican side, the front-runner remains Donald Trump - the very epitome of a Washington outsider. As for the Democrats, the outsider tag is thus far held by Bernie Sanders (although he is of course a member on Capitol Hill).

                The need for a candidate to present themselves as a Washington outsider may also be applied to the choice of vice-presidential candidate. Indeed, it can make for good politics to place an insider and an outsider on the same ticket. For instance, the GOP did this in both 2008 and 2012. However, as with the broader issue of a balanced ticket; this is not always necessary as the Democrats demonstrated with Obama (former Senator for Illinois) and Biden (former Senator for Delaware). On reflection, the need for a balanced ticket probably outweighs the need for an insider-outsider offer to the electorate. Indeed, it was the Democrats that won both those elections whereas the Republicans were convincingly beaten.

National Party Conventions

                The National Party Convention is a curious mix of a glorified television broadcast and a serious political gathering. Held once every four years, it is a time when party activists come together in order to promote the party’s image and the presidential candidate. All parties hold a convention, even the third parties. Delegates from each state are sent to the convention in order to officially nominate the party’s ticket. However, the name of those on the ticket is usually known well in advance by the public and the media.

In 2012, the two main parties held their conventions in swing states. As is tradition, the challengers for the White House went first. The Republican convention was marred by two damaging events. Firstly, there were allegations that a reporter had been racially abused by some delegates. Secondly, the actor Clint Eastwood delivered a bizarre rambling speech to an empty chair where an ‘invisible’ Obama was supposedly sitting. For his part, Romney offered a robotic and predictable speech that did little to whip up a post-convention bounce. As for the Democrats, there were no embarrassing gaffes in evidence. The best speech however was not Obama’s but that of Bill Clinton. Still very much a star performer, Clinton energized the party faithful and presented a unified picture for the wider public after long-standing rumors of tension between him and the President. However, the Democrats also failed to create a meaningful bounce in the polls (although they did gain a slightly higher figure than the GOP). Given the expensive nature of the campaign, the DNC and RNC may well re-evaluate their conventions given the limited impact they had upon voting behavior. At the very least, the length and sheer cost of the convention may well have to be reconsidered. There are surely better ways of promoting a candidate that a lengthy and (for many Americans!) boring convention.

The importance of National Party Conventions to a presidential campaign is on the wane. Once a key event in the political calendar, they have been reduced to bland corporate affairs with the sole intention of upholding that party’s brand. They are carefully choreographed (as in 2008 when Hillary Clinton demanded that the convention nominate Barack Obama … a man she had earlier heaped “shame” on during the primary season!) and devoid of any genuine debate within the party. Unity is prized above all else by party managers; and a vigorous exchange of ideas between the leadership and rank-and-file is now a relic of the past. There seems little or no chance that the drama of the 1968 Democrat convention will ever be repeated, when the television cameras presented a party at war with itself. The thousands of journalists who descend upon conventions rarely gain much of a story, and seem unlikely to ever capture a genuine scoop.

                Once again, the last election in which National Party Conventions really made a difference was back in 1992. The Republicans appeared divided after a bruising campaign for their party’s nomination, where Pat Buchanan (who began as a possible contender but ultimately became a spoiler) led a "pitchfork rebellion" against the patrician figure of George Bush senior. The key dividing line centered upon abortion. Buchanan energized the floor with his opening night speech on the culture wars, touching upon issues that in retrospect were a sign of things to come for the GOP. Bush senior had also reneged on his commitment not to levy any new taxes, which greatly angered fiscal conservatives within the party. In contrast, the Democrats convention was a real success. After the wilderness years of the 1980s, they finally presented a credible presidential candidate. Clinton’s persona came across well, with his upbeat message resonating with a country mired in recession. Clinton also managed to present himself as tough on crime in contrast to the ill-fated Dukakis campaign.