By Nick Li

2008 will be a big year for political junkies in the United States (not to mention those around the world who think that the US empire might actually be run by democratic elections and not the same cabal of corporations, lobbyists and other special interests). It promises very competitive races in the Republican and Democratic Presidential primaries as well as a competitive general election. The Iowa caucus has already provided a few big surprises. National frontrunner Hillary Clinton finished third behind Barack Obama and the substantially less funded John Edwards for the Democrats, while Mike Huckabee finished ahead of the better funded favorite of the party establishment Mitt Romney and Rudy 9u11ani (sorry, stole that from www.dailykos.com). If you watch any American news channel, the airwaves have been oversaturated with the usual shallow media analysis – covering personality not policies or records, covering the process as a spectacle or sporting competition rather than a chance to educate the public about serious ideas and issues, he said/she said instead of evaluating the veracity of claims, and of course, rampant speculation masquerading as expert prognostication (such as: "Hillary will drop out if she does not win New Hampshire"). And the "hope" and "change" and "experience" messages are a little tiresome. So I will mention a few things that are new or interesting about this election year. One notable this year is how early the election process has started. This is partly due to the wide open nature of the race, but also due to the demands of increased fundraising. From Wikipedia:

The reported cost of campaigning for President has increased significantly in recent years. One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns are added together (for the Presidential primary election, general election, and the political conventions) the costs have more than doubled in only eight years ($448.9 million in 1996, $649.5 million in 2000, and $1.01 billion in 2004). In January 2007, Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner estimated that the 2008 race will be a "$1 billion election," and that to be "taken seriously," a candidate will need to raise at least $100 million by the end of 2007.

In the first three months of 2007, Clinton, Obama, and Romney raised over $20 million while Edwards, 9u11ani and McCain raised over $12 million. By the end of the third quarter, Clinton had raised $91 million, Obama $80 million, Romney $63 million, 9u11ani $47 million, McCain $32 million, Edwards $30 million (Ron Paul, despite all the hype on the internet, had raised only $8 million). To put this in perspective, the legal spending limits of the 2006 election in Canada for the four major parties came to $72 million. The 2005 British general election lasted just thirty days and spending per party was capped at £19.77 million. And we’re just talking about the leadership campaign – Kerry and Bush spent over $600 million only on advertising in the 2004 general election. [A better comparison is with the Canadian Liberal leadership contest in 2006, where Stephane Dion spent $1.8 million and Michael Ignatieff spent $2.3 million.] While the U.S. is a bigger country, this is totally out of proportion and shows the unique influence of money in U.S. politics. There can be no doubt that the length of the leadership campaign and general election is related to the need to raise huge sums of money to run for office. And sadly campaign finance reform is not even being debated this year. It’s not immediately clear to me whether the longer election season is a good or bad thing for democracy – it subjects the candidates to greater scrutiny and allows them to get their message across to more people, but it also requires far more fundraising (sometimes to fund ads that distort their opponents’ messages) that leads to a strong influence of special interests on the political process. It has also led to a much larger number of debates than we are used to – 21 for the Democrats and 18 for the Republicans. This seems high by historic standards (though I easily find data on how many debates were held for previous primaries, there were only 3 debates between George W. Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 general election). There may be a question of quality versus quantity though, as some of the debates this year have been terrible and/or repetitive – in particular the (rightly) maligned YouTube/CNN debates. The debate formats have tended to emphasize quick responses and sound-bites (or the now infamous show of hands – thank you Wolf Blitzer), though now that many candidates have dropped out of the race (just 5 serious Republicans and 4 serious Democrats left) the prospects are better for a more serious conversation. The ABC debates hosted yesterday were much better than the previous debates in terms of allowing a more free-flowing conversation between candidates. Another problem with the early electioneering is that it has resulted in extreme front-loading, with most of the resources and campaigning devoted to the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. This has led to the ugly spectacle of other states clamouring for earlier and earlier primaries and the national parties punishing individual states for attempting to move their primaries earlier – one can hardly blame other states, especially the big ones that ultimately drive the American economy, of wanting a piece of the action, but like so much in the American political system, there are conventions and rules that favor certain interests and seem to be maintained by tacit collusion between the two parties (for example, the secret negotiations and memorandum of understanding between the two parties that excludes third party candidates from televised debates and regulates the number, format, and content of the nationally televised general election debates). Though it’s still early, one of the most interesting trends in this election cycle is the potentially record-setting turnout, driven in part by a large number of youth voters. 57% of the Iowa Caucuses participants were first-time voters. From the Des Moines Register :

Thirteen percent of eligible Iowans in the under-30 group took part in the caucuses overall, according to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. The turnout rate rose to 13 percent in 2008 from 4 percent in 2004 and 3 percent in 2000. Romney finished with 25 percent of the vote in the Republican caucuses. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson edged Arizona Sen. John McCain for third place by about 350 votes as GOP officials neared the completion of their statewide count from 1,781 precincts. Iowans turned out in record numbers for the 2008 caucuses, and in the process altered the nation’s political landscape overnight by favoring a pair of upstart candidates over contenders with longer pedigrees. Iowa Democratic officials reported 239,000 caucus attendees, which was nearly double the number of 2004. Attendance at the GOP caucuses was about 118,000, with some precincts still to report. That eclipsed the 87,666 total for 2000, the last year of contested caucuses on the Republican side. "The real shock of the night isn’t Obama winning. It isn’t Huckabee winning. It’s the unbelievable turnout on the Democratic side. Nobody was thinking above 150,000, wildest dream. It’s just astounding," said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Iowa who backed Edwards.

This bodes very well for the general election, and could continue an upward trend – the percentage of eligible adults voting was 49.1% in 1996, 51.3% in 2000, and 55.3% in 2004. The 2004 election saw higher turnout as the bases of both parties were very energized, but 2008 will have higher turnout in large part because larger numbers of independent, first-time and youth voters will participate. By comparison, in Canada 65% of registered voters voted in the 2006 Federal election, but since there are 22,812,683 registered voters and 27,273,014 adults aged 20 or over (and an even larger number that are 18 or older and so "voting age") we have to multiply this by a factor of 83.6% to get a comparable number yielding 54%. Another interesting dimension of this year’s race is the appearance, for the first time ever in American politics, of two serious Presidential contenders who break the white male mould. There are some signs that identity politics will play a large role in the upcoming elections – in national polls there is a strong bias against Hillary Clinton from men, including men who are registered democrats, and there seems to be a stronger anti-woman than anti-Black bias in general , though this is eclipsed by the anti-Mormon bias that delivered Mike Huckabee his win in Iowa thanks to the Evangelical vote. It is promising that Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton among women voters in Iowa (35 to 30%) but since he got 38% to her 30% of the overall vote, there is clearly still a bias against Hillary Clinton amongst men. Barack Obama mentioning the football score during the debate on Saturday couldn’t have hurt his cause either – as George W. Bush’s success has shown, the "drink a beer with at the local pub" quality is very important in U.S. elections (though Bush, Romney, and Huckabee are all non-drinkers by religion or AA). Huckabee’s popularity amongst men also seems to have helped him recently, though I cannot fathom why a Chuck Norris endorsement or minimal competency with the electric bass could have such an effect .First, he is an Evangelical minister, so he can’t be that much fun at parties. Second, come on, the electric bass ? If you’re gonna use your musicianship to get elected, at least have the balls to play a song that actually showcases your instrument – I’d like to hear his take on this. At least Clinton played a lead instrument. You’re the leader of the free world, not that dude in Metallica or Nirvana whose name people barely remember, whose solo act was bust, and is easily replaced by a much more competent studio musician. – Nick