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.