Class notes as of July 20, 2017. Any updates will be noted here.

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL PARTIES: (Week 1)

Political party definition-- a group of people united on a common purpose, who band together seeking to elect their supporters to public office, to enact public policies that promote their common purpose.

Three major functions of parties are stressed by this definition:

• 1) To propagandize on various issues, and promotion of various policy alternatives
• 2) Contesting elections, electing their backers to office
• 3) Organizing the government, enacting public policies into law

Other important functions of parties, according to Frank Sorauf (see Party Politics in America, 5th edition, Little, Brown, and Co, 1984, pp. 6-18):

• 1) Serve as intermediaries between citizens and government, relating public views to public officials, and explaining officials' positions to public.
• 2) Aggregating power- giving power to average citizen. A group is more powerful than a single, isolated person.
• 3) Socialization- imparting citizens' party identification, promoting political activity.
• 4) Nominating candidates, parties are listed on ballot, usually have separate primary elections.
• 5) Recruiting political leadership. Governor Barbour was state GOP executive director around 1980, ran for senate against Stennis in 1982, served as national Republican chair in 1994 GOP landslide. Former governor Fordice was a Vicksburg party activist supporting Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980.
• 6) Simplifying (reducing) number of alternatives for voters- from numerous people seeking a party's nomination, we typically end up with only two to choose from in the general election--a Democrat and a Republican. This makes it easier for simplistic voters to make decisions.
• 7) Providing public accountability of government. If conditions are bad in the country, people can vote for the party not in power. Examples of 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008.
• 8) Managing conflict- many discontented groups, such as gays and liberal African-Americans nevertheless find a home in a party (in these examples, the Democrats). Pro-life and pro-guns groups typically prefer the Republicans.
• 9) Unifying force for fragmented nation and government branches. The two major parties exist in all states, thereby holding the nation together. This is unlike the late 1850s, when regional parties led to Civil War.
• 10) Policy coordination- a President and Congress of the same party can accomplished many laws, such as F.D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, and Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s. (The latest example is Obama's health care law.)

Three different parts of a party, according to Frank Sorauf's (1984) theory of a political party.

• 1) Party in the electorate
• 2) Party organization
• 3) Party in government

Samuel Eldersveld (see 1964 book, Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis, Chicago, Rand McNally Co.) studied the party organization in Detroit in the 1950s. Were American parties hierarchical and closed such as the Soviet system, or very open and democratic? He discovered that:

• 1) Party organizations are open accordians, welcoming outsiders.
• 2) Alliance of subgroups comprises a party-- party is a coalition of groups (Democrats-New Deal coalition, poor, labor union, blue collar workers, blacks, Jews, intellectuals, white South).
• 3) Precinct leaders were Autonomous Agents with great freedom of activity, rather than mere subordinates to higher level party leaders.
• 4) Stratarchy characterizes American parties, not hierarchy. There is a diffusion and proliferation of control throughout the party structure; there is no hierarchy. There is a great tolerance for inefficiency and autonomy in task performance at the precinct level.

Why United States has a two-party system, instead of a multi-party system as exists in many European countries:

• 1) Institutional reasons- single-member districts with plurality elections and winner-take-all; electoral college system with winner-take-all by state; single national executive unlike coalition governments in Parliamentary systems. Such institutions discourage third parties, since they typically fail to come in first in any state or district, and hence win no congressional seats or electoral votes.
• 2) Dualist, always two different points of view. Hamilton vs. Jefferson at outset; pro and anti-slavery; Northeast versus South; liberal vs. conservatism; ins vs. the outs (Andrew Jackson)
• 3) Cultural reason- Americans are politically mature, are tolerant, see the need for compromise into only two major alternatives (perhaps elites rather than masses are mature, however)
• 4) Social Consensus- America lacked fundamental disagreements that Europe had, such as feudalism and class divisions. American frontier provided great opportunity. Hence, compromise into two broad parties was possible. (Yet U.S. had slavery.)
• 5) Adaptiveness and inclusiveness of major parties. Major social movements (anti-slavery, populism, socialism, George Wallace) have been absorbed into the two major parties.

Public Distrust of Parties in the late 20th century:

• 1. People do not evaluate parties or their functions favorably.
• 2. People vote for the candidate, rather than the party.
• 3. Split-ticket voting is frequent.
• 4. Public may prefer divided control of government.
• 5. Rise of independents, decline of partisan identifiers.
• 6. People sometimes see little difference between the parties in policies or effectiveness in dealing with issues.

Are there real policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans?

The textbook provides a nice summary of important policy differences between the Democratic and Republican national party platforms.

Daniel Elazar's political culture theory provides a broad theory involving political parties. (The following table is drawn from chapters 5 and 6 of his book, American Federalism: A View from the States, 3rd edition, Harper and Row publishers.)

POLITICAL CULTURE	RELIGION	NATIONAL ORIGIN	MOTIVES
Moralistic	Puritans	North Europe, Britain, Scandinavia	Establish Earthly Version of Holy Commonwealth; Political Concern
Individualistic	Catholics; Methodists	England; Germany; West Europe	Individual Opportunity
Traditionalistic	Baptists	Anglo-Saxon British	Individual Opportunity thru Slavery, Plantations; Elitist; Landed Gentry
POLITICAL CULTURE	REGION	POLITICAL VALUES	POLITICAL OUTCOMES
Moralistic	North; Northeast; Pacific Coast	Good Society, Public Good 1) Active gov 2) High public participation 3) Distrust of parties	1) High welfare spending 2) High public participation 3) Weak parties
Individualistic	Mid Atlantic; due West settlements	Private concern: 1) Limited government 2) Low public participation; specialized politics 3) 2 party competition strong	1) Strong parties 2) Hi inter-party competition 3) Lo intra-party competition
Traditionalistic	South	Elitist, paternalistic 1) Limited government 2) Low public participation 3) Weak parties	1) Low welfare spending 2) Little innovation 3) Low public participation 4) High intrapty. lo interpy cmp

AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM HISTORY
(Weeks 2-3)

(Source of lecture notes on the history of the American party system: American Political Parties: Social Change and Political Response,, Everett C. Ladd Jr., 1970, W.W. Norton and Co; Transformations of the American Party System, 2nd edition, Everett C. Ladd and Charles D. Hadley, 1978. W.W. Norton and Co; Dynamics of the Party System, James L. Sundquist, 1973, Brookings Institution)

A) EARLY DISTRUST OF POLITICAL PARTIES-

• 1) Benevolent rule by the elite- rich felt they were obligated to rule (their civic duty to serve in office), and believed they promoted interests of everyone. Elitist rule with property holding requirements for voting and officeholding. Politics was not a profession, small salaries.
• 2) Parties were distrusted, called "factions." Madison in the Federalist Papers defined a faction as "citizens united by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or the community's interests."
• 3) President Washington in Farewell Address warned against the rise of political parties, believing they inflamed the public passion and let foreign powers exert influence over us
• 4) There was no concept of a party as being a regular, necessary instrument to organize citizens views and to express them

B) RISE OF THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM

• 1) Washington unified Americans, committed all factions to the federal constitution
• 2) Parties arose at the federal level first. Factions formed around Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton (Federalists), and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (Republicans). Factions arose in Congress by 1792
• 3) Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury was pro-industrialization and desired: government led by elite of rich, well born, intelligent; a strong national government under a strong President; the national government would back business and help industry; he established the national bank. Jefferson opposed Hamilton's policies, since he preferred a nation of small farmers, where people would own land and have a stake in government and society.
• 4) Washington's retirement was a spur to party building, since he had been above parties, while President John Adams was criticized by Jefferson. The 1796 election was the last one where most candidates ran without party labels. Congressional caucuses chose candidates to run for President. By 1800 modern parties were on the scene, and diligent Republican organizations helped Jefferson win the Presidency in 1800.

C) FIRST PARTY SYSTEM: FEDERALISTS VS. REPUBLICANS (unrelated to current Republican party)

• 1) Federalists were party of national idea and nation-building. Republicans represented parochial idea of state autonomy.
• 2) Federalists wanted the government to promote business expansion, while Republicans desired an independent agricultural economy.
• 3) Established elites in most states were Federalists; they had old wealth, respected occupations, and education. Their challengers were Republicans.
• 4) Factionalism split both parties. Moderate Federalists were headed by President John Adams; High Federalists led by Hamilton were more elitist and clearly anti-democratic. Republicans had moderates such as President Jefferson, who after becoming President in 1801 defended the national union, and granted legitimacy to some manufacturing elements; extreme states' rights Republicans desired pure agrarianism.
• 5) Federalists viewed the French revolution as a lower class revolution that was a menace to mankind; they were pro-British in foreign policy, and Hamilton wanted war against France. Republicans were sympathetic to revolutionary France, desired a pro-France foreign policy.
• 6) Federalists had a New England base of support, while Republicans were based more in the South. Republicans became the majority party in America in 1800, and Federalists began to disappear. Federalists nominated last Presidential candidate in 1816, who won only three states. After 1819, Federalists competed on statewide basis in only two states.

D) WHY FEDERALISTS DIED OUT

• 1) Elitist party, slower to respond to democratic style
• 2) Bad image, viewed as anti-democratic. Hamilton desired a government of the elite, had a monarchist and aristocratic image.
• 3) Alien, Sedition, and Naturalization Acts of 1798 gave party an anti-democratic image
• 4) Party split in 1800 between Adams and Hamilton
• 5) Party organization was weak and incomplete
• 6) Absence of inherited party identification among public
• 7) Public distrust of parties, viewed as necessary evil
• 8) Majority of public was agricultural
• 9) Anti-war Hartford Convention of 1814 gave party an image of disloyalty

E) ORDERLY TRANSITION OF POWER (1800)

• 1) Federalist principles continued after 1800, as Federalist federal judges had life terms; Chief Justice of Supreme Court was John Marshall, a Federalist.
• 2) Marshall Supreme Court from 1801 thru 1835 promoted policies of national power and business interests: Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review; Fletcher vs. Peck upheld property rights and sanctity of contracts; McCulloch vs. Maryland upheld national bank; Gibbons vs. Ogden used interstate commerce clause to increase federal power.
• 3) Moderate Republican Presidents adopted some Federalist policies. Jefferson kept the national bank, used federal power to purchase Louisiana, and instituted an embargo prior to the War of 1812. Later Presidents backed a protective tariff to help U.S. infant industries.

F) BRIEF ONE-PARTYISM UNSTABLE

• 1) After 1819, nearly all politicians flocked to the broad Republican party, causing the ideological and programmatic distinctiveness of the party to be blurred.
• 2) Era of Good Feelings was 1820 election, when Monroe was re-elected President without opposition. But party as an instrument for discipline or for faithful to rally about was not operative. Hence, Monroe couldn't influence Congress, and Congress was too fragmented to act coherently.
• 3) Multi-factionalism arose within the Republican party in 1824. Treasury Secretary Bill Crawford was Congressional caucus nominee, but only 20% of Congressmen participated. Some states were now providing for popular election of presidential electors, and the caucus appeared undemocratic. Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson were nominated by their state legislatures. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was chosen by a Boston public meeting.
• 4) Corrupt Bargain- House of Representatives selected President as nobody received majority of electoral votes. Clay backed Adams, was made Secretary of State, Jackson backers were enraged as Jackson had led in popular vote.
• 5) Bifactionalism. Jackson's allies opposed Adams during his term, and called themselves Democratic Republicans. Adams followers were called National Republicans, having policies resembling the old Federalists.
• 6) Jackson defeats Adams in 1828, ushering in new era: Jacksonian democracy, characterized by direct democracy, popular will, any common man can hold office, liked mediocre, log cabin President. Jackson liked political parties, felt the majority will would be expressed through them, and minority party would also have to cater to people. Jackson liked laissez-faire free competition, since he felt all people had equal talent and gifts. The 1828 election saw the full democratization of the presidency, as the popular vote tripled and all states eventually provided for popular election of presidential electors. Democratic- Republicans shortened their names to Democrats.

G) SECOND PARTY SYSTEM: DEMOCRATS VS. WHIGS

• 1) Jackson is powerful President, takes actions that anger various groups, hence diverse anti-Jackson forces unify to oppose him and call themselves Whigs. Jackson's actions: vetoed extension of the national bank (even withdrew federal deposits from it despite congressional opposition; fired his unwilling Treasury Secretary; was censured by senate); defied Supreme Court decision and opposed Georgia Indians; opposed internal improvements (at least, those that didn't cross state lines); backed the union, opposed John C. Calhoun and South Carolina's state nullification of federal tariff (supported gradual reduction of tariff, though).
• 2) Party differences: Democrats. Democrats were pro-agriculture and liked state autonomy, desiring minimal national intervention and power; they resisted nativism and anti-Catholicism, and welcomed Catholic immigrants into their northern parties; they backed territorial expansion and Manifest Destiny, and under Democratic President Polk the U.S. acquired Southwest territory after war with Mexico; Democrats were strongest in the South, and Jacksonian Democracy philosophy is reflected in numerous elective offices in Mississippi.
• 3) Party differences: Whigs. Whigs were a diverse coalition of anti-Jackson forces, became an alliance of Northern businessmen and Southern planters; Whigs were pro-business, supporting federal government aid to business and commerce, and use of federal gov't to promote national growth; Whigs were more nativist and anti-Catholic, and in 1844 struck an alliance with nativists to back their local and congressional candidates while nativist party backed Whig presidential candidate; Whigs were stronger in New England states.
• 4) Party strengths. Democrats were the majority party, being pro-agriculture in a nation where most people were farmers. Democrats won congressional majorities in 9 of 11 elections from 1832 to 1853, and won all presidential elections from 1828 to 1856 except for two races won by popular Whig war heroes. Both parties were national parties, having significant support in all regions of the nation; both parties avoided divisive slavery issue, or backed compromises on slavery.

H) JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY-- political changes from 1828 thru 1860

• 1) More widespread and more direct democracy provided by states: property holding and religious qualifications were abolished, so all adult white males could vote and hold office; presidential electors were elected by popular vote; governors and other states offices now popularly elected; laws against Jews and Catholics holding office were abolished.
• 2) Nomination process made more democratic- convention replaces the legislative caucus. Conventions saw more activist participation, enacted platforms, saw rise of professional politicians.
• 3) Modern campaign forms developed: torchlight parades and mass campaigning by candidate supporters; campaign symbols like the log cabin; intense inter-party competition in all regions stimulated higher voter turnout; rise of public party identification.

I) THIRD PARTY REPUBLICANS REPLACE WHIG PARTY

• 1) Democratic Party becomes more associated with the South and pro-slavery position. Democratic Presidents of the 1850s--Pierce and Buchanan--and called "northern men of Southern principles"
• 2) Kansas-Nebraska Act, backed by Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas who had presidential ambitious, repealed Missouri Compromise and angered anti-slavery North. Republican Party grew in North, as party of compromise Whigs died and as northern Democrats were unelected.
• 3) Dred Scott decision rendered by a Southern Democratic-controlled U.S. Supreme Court completely upheld Southern pro-slavery philosophy. Republicans pledged to change composition of Supreme Court
• 4) South was angered by: northern states sometimes refusing to return runaway slaves; abolitionist John Brown's seizure of Harper Ferry, Virginia arsenal, and some northerners applauding his actions; northern Democrat Stephen Douglas supported popular sovereignty in the western territories, but he opposed Kansas' pro-slavery convention because he said it didn't reflect the views of a majority of the territory's residents; even those northerners who supported slavery remaining in the southern states would dream of its eventually dying out if it couldn't expand into the western territories.
• 5) Republican Lincoln wins Presidency in 1860 in a multi-candidate race. Five Deep South states, plus Florida and Texas immediately secede; four other Rim South states secede after Lincoln takes office. Regional parties replace national parties, and Civil War occurs.

J) THIRD PARTY SYSTEM, 1860-1896, REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS

• 1) The Republicans were started not merely as an anti-slavery party, but as a party that would promote the interests of northern industrialists. Hence, they were a very pro-business party, and during this era the Supreme Court protected businesses from state regulations. Republicans were strong in the north, and had little support in the South.
• 2) The Democrats were the more pro-agriculture party, and they were sympathetic to the white South's dislike of Radical Reconstruction. Hence they were strongest in the South, but also remained a competitive minority party in much of the North.
• 3) Neither party was the majority party. Republicans won all of the presidential elections except two, but after Reconstruction the popular vote totals were very close with the GOP benefiting from its "efficient" distribution of electoral votes. After Reconstruction ended in 1876, party control of Congress was generally split (Democrats usually controlled the House, and Republicans usually controlled the Senate).
• 4) Events and conditions had clearly helped convert the 3^rd party Republicans into a major party: their anti-slavery posture, and their leadership for an industrializing nation.

K) FOURTH PARTY SYSTEM, 1896-1932, REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS

• 1) Populist movement and party arose in the 1890s, calling for government regulation of railroads and other businesses, and the free coinage of silver. Democratic party absorbed the 3^rd party populists by nominating the populist William Jennings Bryan as their presidential candidate in 1896. However, this development made the party appear to be too agricultural, the party wasn't able to attract blue-collar worker support, and business leaders threatened their workers with firings. Republicans became the clear majority party by increasing their vote totals in various northern states such as the middle atlantic and midwestern states, while Democrats became more confined to the South.
• 2) Party differences: Republicans were the pro-business party, the party of an industrializing nation, and were strong in the North; Democrats were the more pro-agriculture party, nominated Bryan three times for president, and were strong in the South.
• 3) Republicans were the majority party, winning every presidential election except two. Democrats won in 1912 because of a GOP split, and Democrat Wilson was then reelected. Republicans generally controlled Congress as well.
• 4) Progressive movement of middle class reformers failed to upset the party balance, since both parties absorbed the progressives. Progressive Presidents included Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Progressive policies enacted: party registration stops fraud; party primary elections; 16^th amendment federal income tax; 17^th amendment popular election of U.S. Senate; 19^th amendment women vote.

L) FIFTH PARTY SYSTEM, 1932-1968, DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS

• 1) Major issue, Great Depression occurs during Republican Herbert Hoover presidency. Hoover and GOP opposed federal government action; Democrats in Congress favor federal relief efforts, unemployment insurance rise, welfare. Public votes Democratic because of dissatisfaction with Depression.
• 2) Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt implements New Deal programs, including relief, recovery, and reform. Relief- AFDC, CCC, PWA, WPA. Recovery- help industries recover, NRA, ICC. Reform- Wagner Act and NLRB protect labor unions, minimum wage, social security. Public hurt by Depression approve of liberal economic programs, reelect FDR three times, maintain Democratic-controlled Congress, and majority of public identifies with Democratic party. Democrats become party of an industrialized nation that recognizes that business must be regulated so that workers and consumers are not hurt by business excesses.
• 3) Historic Democratic base of white southerners and some Catholics is now expanded to include blue collar workers, more Catholics, poor people, African-Americans, intellectuals, Jews, and many average Americans. Republicans become confined to higher income and businessmen, and consigned to minority party status.
• 4) Republicans are a more conservative, pro-business, higher income party. Democrats are a more liberal, pro-labor, lower income party, boosted by the New Deal coalition.
• 5) Democrats win every presidential election during this era except two, when Republicans nominated war hero Eisenhower. Democrats controlled Congress consistently except for four years. Democrats also controlled great majority of state and local offices. Mississippi and the South voted Democratic even during the Eisenhower elections.

M) SIXTH PARTY SYSTEM, 1968-PRESENT, DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS, DEALIGNMENT ERA

• 1) The White South exits from the Democratic party. Civil rights issue causes 1948 States' Rights Party and 1968 George Wallace bid, but white southerners also like general conservatism of GOP (Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan).
• 2) Dealigning era, as neither party is the majority. From 1969 thru 1980, Democrats controlled the House and Senate, but Republicans usually had the presidency. Since 1981, control of both houses of Congress and of the Presidency has been pretty evenly divided between the parties. See p. 150 of text.
• 3) Parties are weakened by: progressive era reforms, such as: primary elections; Democratic Party presidential delegate selection reform; civil service; campaign financing oriented towards candidates not parties; television rise; pollsters; modern campaign consultants; younger generation; education rise; deaths of party bosses; rise of federal welfare state.
• 4) Republicans are the conservative party, Democrats nationally are the liberal party. Note Reagan's conservative policies and Bush Jr.'s conservative federal judges. Also note how pro-choice and anti-Iraq war Democratic presidential hopefuls and party leaders are, with pro-life Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey denied the right to address the 1992 national Democratic convention, and with pro-Iraq war and 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman denied renomination as Connecticut senator in 2006 by his own party.
• 5) With each party era lasting 32 or 36 years, this suggests a new party era began in 2000 or 2004. However, while Republicans won the presidency and kept control of congress in those years (except for a two-year senate period due to a party split), they actually lost the presidential popular vote in 2000, and then lost control of congress in 2006. Meanwhile, dissatisfaction over the financial crisis, a worsening economy, and foreign policy setbacks produced a Democratic President Obama in the 2008 elections, though Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections and of the Senate in the 2014 midterms. Perhaps the concept of party eras is irrelevant today, as both parties have become so weakened in this era of dealignment that neither can gain consistent majority support. Perhaps this next party era will just be a continuation of the era of dealignment of the late 20th century.

POLITICAL PARTY ERAS

First- 1796-1828	Second- 1828-1860	Third- 1860-1896	Fourth- 1896-1932	Fifth- 1932-1968	Sixth- 1968-
Federalists	Whigs	Republicans	Republicans	Republicans	Republicans
National Power	Anti-Jackson coalition	Anti-slavery	Pro-business	Conservative	Conservative
Pro-business	Pro-business	Pro-business	North base	Pro-business	dealignment
Elitist	Nativist	North base	Majority pty.	High income	South base for pres.
Pro-Britain	New England base	Wins pres. elections
New England
Republicans	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats
States Rights	Agriculture	Agriculture	Agriculture	Liberal economics	Liberal
Agriculture	Catholics welcome	Anti-Radical Reconstructn	South base	New Deal coalition	dealignment
Less Elitist	Territorial expansion	South base		Workers and low income
Pro-France	South base	Sometimes controls Congress		Majority pty.
South base	Majority pty.
Majority Pty.

(Source of lecture notes on the history of the American party system: American Political Parties: Social Change and Political Response,, Everett C. Ladd Jr., 1970, W.W. Norton and Co; Transformations of the American Party System, 2nd edition, Everett C. Ladd and Charles D. Hadley, 1978. W.W. Norton and Co; Dynamics of the Party System, James L. Sundquist, 1973, Brookings Institution)

PARTY IN THE ELECTORATE (Week 4)

Demographically, who are Democrats and Republicans in the electorate?

	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
Men	47%	13%	40%
Women	55	9	36
18-31 Age	57	10	33
32-52 Age	51	10	39
53-62 Age	50	11	39
63 and older Age	50	12	38
White Race	44	12	44
Black Race	86	9	5
High School Dropout	63	14	23
High School Graduate	51	16	33
College Graduate	50	5	45
Lowest Third Income	55	15	30
Middle Third Income	56	10	34
Highest Third Income	46	9	45
Jewish Religion	81	0	19
Catholic Religion	51	11	38
Protestant Religion	48	9	43
White Protestants	36	11	53
South	46	12	42
Non-South Region	56	10	34
National Average	51	11	38

These percentages total 100% across each row. Table source for data is Party Politics in America, 14th edition, Marjorie Randon Hershey, Longman, 2011, p. 122. Data other than for age groups are from the 2008 American National Election Study. Age group data are from a Pew Research Center poll (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems). Independents leaning toward a party are included in that party's category, therefore Independents are pure independents closer to neither party.

More Democratic groups are: African Americans; lowest income; high school dropouts; Jewish, Catholics to a slight degree; the non-South.

More Republican groups (given that 2008 was a bad year for Republicans, just approaching a tie with Democrats makes a group relatively more Republican): whites; highest income; college graduates; Protestants, especially white Protestants (like those fundamentalists or "born again"; the South.

What about region? Southern puzzle- liberal African-Americans cancel out conservative whites.

What about Mississippi? Convergence with nation, as similar patterns emerge. We combine independent leaners with partisans since they behave in as partisan a manner as weak partisans.

White Mississippians' party identifications. Following is a chart of party differences among white Mississippians, drawn from 2008 and 2010 Mississippi Polls. Independents leaning to a party are classified with that party, since their voting behavior is similar to that of weak partisans. Among whites and blacks, 43% of Mississippians were Democrats, 47% were Republican, and 10% were pure Independents.

Among Whites Only	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
Liberal Self-identification	42%	23%	35%
Moderate	33	19	48
Conservative	13	5	82
18-35 Age	21	12	67
36-55 Age	18	14	68
56-100 Age	29	8	63
Hi School Dropout	34	20	46
Hi School Graduate	27	8	65
Some College	19	9	72
College Graduate	12	10	78
Under $20000 Family Income	40	16	44
$20-40000	24	11	65
$40-60000	15	12	73
Over $60000	16	7	77
Male Sex	21	8	71
Female Sex	25	14	61
All Whites	23%	11%	66%
All African-Americans	82%	6%	12%

Percentages total 100% across each row.

Note that Democratic and Republican groups in Mississippi are similar to those that exist nationally. Note the strong race effect. Also note conservatives oriented towards GOP, and liberals toward Democrats.

Shifts in party identification over time. At national level, Democrats had about a twenty percentage point advantage over Republicans up to and including the year 1980. From 1984 to present, the Democratic advantage has shrunk to only about 10%. Importance of Reagan, booming economy, dying New Deal memory to rising GOP hopes. Among likely voters, the party id gap is even less (a CNN 2008 exit poll had the gap at 7%, with 39% being Democrats, 32% Republicans, and 29% Independents; a CNN 2010 exit poll had the gap at 0, with 35% being Democrats, 35% Republicans, and 30% Independents). Therefore, factors other than party identification, such as issues and candidate factors, tend to shape the outcomes of elections.

Shifts in Mississippi party identification. Democrats had a twenty point advantage over GOP from 1981 to 1990. In 1992-1996, Democrats had only 6 point advantage (Fordice and Clinton years). Since 2002, the parties have been essentially equal (as in the rest of the modern South). Indeed, by 2008-2010 Republicans had a slight lead with 43% of state public calling itself Democratic, 47% being Republican, and only 10% being truly pure Independent.

Rising Republicanism is because of whites. In the 1980s, whites were evenly divided between the parties. In the 1990's, whites were more Republican than Democratic by about 20 percentage points.(In 1996, for example, 58% of Mississippi whites called themselves Republicans, 31% Democratic, and 11% Independent. In 1999-2000, whites were 35% Democrat and 55% Republican with 10% being Independent.) In the 21st century, whites have been more Republican than Democratic by about 40 percentage points. (In 2002-2004, whites were 25% Democratic and 65% Republican, with 10% Independent. In 2008-2010, whites were 23% Democratic and 66% Republican with 11% Independent.)

Rising white Republicanism is because of realignment of self-identified conservatives away from Democratic party and toward Republican party. As late as 1990, 41% of white conservatives were Democratic and only 54% Republican. By 1996, 73% of white conservatives were now Republican and only 21% Democratic. In 2008-2010, 82% of white conservatives were Republicans and only 13% were Democrats. Why the change: long term change, versus Fordice effect and maybe Clinton also.
(Source of most data: Return of the Solid South, Southeastern Political Review, Shaffer and Johnson, December 1996.)

African-American Mississippians are heavily Democratic. In 2008-2010, 82% were Democratic, only 12% Republican and 6% Independent. Even among conservative blacks, 67% were Democratic and only 24% Republican (but only 3% of liberal blacks and 8% of moderate blacks were Republicans). Among high income blacks with family incomes over $60,000 annually, 87% were Democrats and 9% Republican (Republicans did equally poorly among the lower SES, comprising 11% of the under $20,000 group and 12% of the $20-40,000 group).

Studying the demographic composition of the two parties in Mississippi, using the combined 2008 and 2010 polls.
Race- among Democratic party identifiers (including leaners), 65% were African-American and 35% were white. Among Republican identifiers in the public, 92% were white and only 8% were black.
Ideology- Democratic identifiers are very ideologically diverse with 40% being moderate, 28% liberal, and 32% conservative in 2008-2010. Republican identifiers are pretty conservative; 75% are conservative, 20% moderate, and only 5% liberal.

Turnout of one's supporters is an essential function of political parties. Who is most likely and least likely to vote? Strong partisans, and Republicans, are most likely to turnout.

• 1) Gender. No difference today. Previously, men were more likely to vote than women. Educational levels and employment levels of women have risen in recent decades.
• 2) Race. Whites generally are 5-10% more likely to vote than African-Americans. Reasons are discrimination history, lower SES of blacks. No racial differences in 2008 and 2012 due to Obama candidacy.
• 3) Age. Turnout is higher among older people, lowest among young. Young are less attached to community, less politically experienced, have other interests. Older have more political power, social security sacred cow.
• 4) Education and income. The more education, the higher the turnout. Major barrier to turnout.
• 5) Region. Historically, lowest in South due to discriminatory voting devices and lower SES. Today, South is only 2% lower than nation. A previous edition of a Bibby parties textbook noted that Mississippi was 36^th in the nation in turnout, not last. Both whites and blacks have been energized politically, maybe some racial polarization.

Other factors affecting turnout.

• 1) Political efficacy- Those believing they lack ability to make a difference, or that officials don't care what they think are less likely to vote.
• 2) Partisan intensity lacking- Independents and weak partisans are less likely to vote than strong partisans.
• 3) Those lacking interest in campaign, or perceiving a landslide election outcome are less likely to vote.
• 4) Those relying on more intellectually demanding and partisan medium of newspapers are more likely to vote, compared to those dependent on television.

Why turnout declined from 1960 till 2000 (but turnout rose in 2008). Shaffer February 1981 article in American Journal of Political Science addressed the 1960-1976 turnout decline. Rising educational levels should cause turnout to rise. But four factors depressed turnout:

• 1) Rising numbers of young and old
• 2) Decreasing political efficacy since 1960
• 3) Decreasing partisan intensity since 1960
• 4) Decreasing newspaper readership since 1960

Cyclical turnout pattern:

Note that turnout is always higher in presidential election years, compared to midterm years.

President's party tends to lose congressional seats in midterm years. Reasons: Surge and Decline theory; presidential unpopularity; poor economy.

Does it matter who votes?

Conventional wisdom is that non-voting hurts Democrats.

Shaffer's two journal articles suggest few differences in issue positions between voters and non-voters. Discuss the greater turnout of the more educated. More educated are more conservative on some economic issues, but are more liberal on civil liberty and race issues.

PARTY ORGANIZATION (Week 5)

A) The party organizations nationally

The Hershey textbook makes some very good observations:

• The traditional political science literature argued that the strength of American party organizations was hurt by 20th century reforms, such as the progressive movement and national Democratic party rules changes governing the selection of delegates beginning in 1972. Revisionist political science literature now argue that the party organizations have become stronger in recent decades.
• Local party organizations (county level) have become stronger since 1980, as there are more with year-round office space and a full set of officers, and more are heavily engaged in campaign activities (canvassing, lawn signs, fund raising, funding candidates).
• State party organizations have become stronger since 1980, with larger budgets and more campaign activity (fund raising, funding candidates, polling, and voter ID programs).
• Party fundraising at all levels has increased since 1975, and while Republicans continue to outraise Democrats, the gap narrowed after the turn of the century.
• The national parties after the turn of the century have greatly increased their independent expenditures on behalf of congressional candidates (see anti-Harold Ford ad in Tennessee in 2006, "Call Me").

B) History of Mississippi political parties- race and class

1) Before 1860, class issues dominated during Jacksonian Democracy, during the 2nd party system. Rural Democrats favored Jacksonian Democracy. They opposed the business interests of wealthy planters, urban bankers, and merchants, who backed the Whigs. Blacks were slaves and couldn't vote, so whites were free to split between the two major parties, based on their economic class interests.

2) 1860-1900, race issues were important. The Civil War and Reconstruction resulted in blacks being freed, gaining the vote, and temporarily uniting with white Republicans to control state government. Conservative white Democrats used fraud and violence to regain control of Mississippi state government, and disfranchise some African-Americans. The 1896 state constitutiion instituted voting devices to officially prevent over 90% of voting age blacks from registering to vote, and such practices across the South caused a solid Democratic South to emerge. This was during the 3rd party system nationally. Race dominated this era in Mississippi because blacks were viewed by whites as posing a threat to their political dominance.

3) 1900-1948, class was important. Because blacks were no longer a threat to whites, since blacks were prevented from voting, whites were able to divide along economic class lines. It was the time of the Delta vs. the Hills, written about by V.O. Key in Southern Politics. The Delta planters were economic conservatives but paternalistic on race issues, while "hill" whites farmed less productive soil and were neo-populists who were liberal on economic issues. Neo-populists like Bilbo and Vardaman were elected governor after using racist campaign rhetoric, but they pursued economically progressive policies while in office.

4) 1948-1976, race was important. The federal government began to oppose racial segregation in the South, so whites felt threatened by rising black political power. President Truman backed federal civil rights measures, and the 1948 national Democratic Party adopted a civil rights platform, causing some southern states to vote for the States' Rights Party of South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond. President Eisenhower backed school integration in Little Rock, Arkansas, sending in federal troops. President Kennedy and his Attorney General Bobby Kennedy fought for desegregation in universities, like Ole Miss and University of Alabama. President Johnson led the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Mississippi governors Ross Barnett and Paul Johnson of the 1960s were segregationists. The all-white regular Democratic Party of Mississippi was challenged by the all-black Freedom Democrats and then by the biracial loyalist Democrats.

5) 1976-present, back to class and economics being dominant. Black voting rights was now a reality, white Mississippians acknowledged the death of segregation, and the rising Republican party threatened the political power of the Democrats. Southern moderates rose in Democratic Party, such as state governor Cliff Finch and President Jimmy Carter, who stressed economic issues that united the two races. A biracial Democratic coalition arose, which backed liberal economic issues, and it opposed a largely white conservative Republican party.

C) Democratic state party history- centrality of race

1) All white, segregated, Democratic "regulars" rule until 1964. All public officials in Mississippi are white. All 122 state house representatives and all 52 state senators are white.

2) Freedom Democrats (FDP) formed by civil rights groups challenged regulars at 1964 national Democratic convention. African American Fannie Lou Hamer testified about how she had been beaten by state troopers when she had tried to register to vote, the national Democratic convention voted to outlaw racial discrimination in the selection of delegates to future conventions. They engineered a compromise between the Freedom Democrats and the regular Democrats of Mississippi, but both delegations rejected the compromise and sat out the convention. The FDP elects Robert Clark in 1967, the first African American in the state legislature since Reconstruction.

3) Loyalists form in 1968, comprising the black FDP, and the white AFL-CIO and Young Democrats. Loyalists attended district and state party conventions and comprised about 10% of these bodies. Governor John Bell Williams opposed more black representation at national convention. Loyalists held own conventions in 72 counties, documented election irregularities of "regulars", and unseated regulars at national convention. Both Democratic National Committee members from Mississippi were now loyalists, so national party recognized the loyalists as the legitimate Democratic Party of Mississippi, though all-white regulars still held nearly every elected office in the state.

4) Racial moderate Bill Waller was governor in 1972, offered loyalists 40% of positions in county, state, and national party and in delegation attending the national convention. Loyalists feared non-guaranteed "promise", wanted 50%. Again, national convention seated loyalists, not regulars.

5) Racial moderate governor Cliff Finch, Carter running for President in 1976. Both factions hold simultaneous precinct caucuses, unify state party under two co-chairs: black loyalist Aaron Henry and white regular Tom Ridell. Party establishes quota for race and gender in party offices.

6) Racial liberal governor William Winter in 1980 ends co-chairmanship, backs white supporter and former loyalist Danny Cupit as Chair. In return, party rule requires all party committees and committee chairs to reflect state's racial composition; in 1981 African-American Ed Cole, a Stennis-Eastland aide, named Vice-Chairman. So cooperative, biracial party continued.

7) Racial moderate Bill Allain gets supporter Steve Patterson (a white) named chairman in 1984. Patterson beats former black FDP leader, but Patterson sought key black support. Governor Allain also had strong black support, and he thanked the state NAACP convention for backing his election after Allain was attacked by an unknown GOP gubernatorial candidate for allegedly frequenting male prostitutes.

8) Ed Cole in 1987 becomes state party chair, first black state party chairman in the nation. State executive committee rejects Governor Ray Mabus' effort in 1988 to unseat Cole and appoint a white female campaign supporter of Mabus'. Cole had angered Mabus by opposing him in the Democratic primary. The state executive committee meeting was very emotional, with some black members invoking the memory of Martin Luther King. In 1989 Lisa Walker, a white female, was hired as a full-time executive director. This kept the party leadership biracial. The executive director is an important position, since it is a full-time paid position, while party chairs are typically part-time and unpaid, though they are still viewed as the top leadership post.

9) African-American lawmaker Johnnie Walls replaces Ed Cole in 1994. Executive director Alice Skelton, a white female, hired in 1995. Party remains biracial in leadership. (During this time a Republican Fordice is governor.)

10) Divisive 1996 state party convention. White labor union national committeeman undermined by Congressman Thompson because of his union's lack of support of Thompson's reelection campaign, convention replaces him with an African-American. Now, both national committeepersons are African-American, plus the state party chairman, causing some white Democrats to feel discriminated against. However, a white who challenged Walls for Chair becomes Vice-Chairman. Furthermore, all statewide elected Democrats remain white. African-American Democrats in state legislature take lead in torpedoing Governor Fordice's all white male College Board nominees.

11) In the 21st century (since the late 1990s), less racial divisiveness. Rickey Cole, a white male, replaced one of the two African-American national committeepersons. A white male friend of Governor Musgrove's became state party chairman in 2000 and resigned in 2001-- Jon Levingston, a Clarksdale furniture store executive. Cole, a liberal white male, became the state party chair after him, and he started a party newsletter and website; he resigned in 2004. Wayne Dowdy, a white male and former moderate Congressman, was the next chair, who served until 2008. Speaking to state audiences, he compared party politics to a car's transmission: "You put it in D to go forward, and put it in R to get backwards." The chair in 2009 was Jamie Franks, a former two term white state representative with a working class background, who had lost the 2007 lieutenant governorship race; the vice chair was Barbara Blackmon, a liberal African American and a former state senate, who lost the 2003 lieutenant governorship race after insinuating that pro-life Republican opponent Amy Tuck had had an abortion. The party's website in January 2015 listed Rickey Cole as the Chairman, and included pictures of three other party officers, two of whom were women and one another white male. In 2016 Bobby Moak, a white male and former state house minority leader, became state party chair (Rae Shawn Davis is Vice Chair). In 2020 after Democratic electoral defeats the previous year, two African Americans faced off against each other with state representative Earle Banks losing; victorious retiree Tyree Irving had been elected three times to the state Court of Appeals, and had been the first African American assistant U.S. attorney and previously clerk at the state Supreme Court.

D) Republican State Party History- purist conservative versus moderate conservative wings

1) Before 1960, factions of Black and Tans led by black lawyer Perry Howard, and the Lily Whites. Federal patronage, national party recognition, state law filing. By the 1950s Lily Whites had become dominant.

2) 1960s events- Goldwater popularity boosted party. Moderate Jackson businessman Rubel Phillips lost twice for governor, got FDP endorsement. Congressman Prentiss Walker tries to outsegregate Eastland. Goldwater supporters were the purist conservatives, while Phillips' 2nd campaign embodied the moderate conservatives.

3) Clarke Reed impressive Chairman of party, 1965-1976. Backed women, blacks, young party groups. Campaign assistance provided to candidates. In 1976 national convention he ended the party unit rule, splitting the state delegation; he himself backed moderate conservative Gerald Ford over consistent conservative Ronald Reagan.

4) Gil Carmichael, progressive businessman and candidate of the 1970s; backs Ford over Reagan in 1976. He ran for senate against Eastland in 1972, ran for governor in 1975 and 1979, losing to Finch and Winter. He backed gun control, equal rights amendment for women, rewriting the 1890 state constitution, blamed Democrats for Mississippi being last.

5) Charles Pickering state party chair, 1976-1978. He was a two term state senator, then got 48% vote for attorney general. He backed Reagan in 1976. His son was former Congressman Chip Pickering. Haley Barbour named executive director till 1982, became RNC chair in 1994.

6) Mike Retzer, a white male businessman, was state chair, 1978-1982. Cochran elected Senator; Reagan popularity helps party.

7) Ebbie Spivey, 1982-87 chair. Homemaker, personable.

8) Evelyn McPhail, 1987-1993, chair. Palmer Home humble background. Party building activities, blasts liberal national Democrats. Becomes RNC Vice-Chair.

9) Billy Powell, chair, 1993-1996, Fordice ally. Probably a purist conservative, given Fordice's staunch conservatism.

10) Mike Retzer returns, 1996-2001.

11) Jim Herring, 2001-2007. Herring was a Democratic DA and unsuccessful candidate for Democratic nomination for governor and lieutenant governor, he turned Republican in mid-1980s. He served until 2008. His primary issue was support for "limited government," a government doing as little as possible, spending little, taxing little. He was a more purist conservative.

12) Brad White, 2008-2011. He was a Teenage Republican leader. He worked with governor Barbour, was active in campaigning in the 2007 state elections in GOTV (get out the vote) effort, when Republicans won every statewide office except for one.

13) Arnie Hederman was chair in 2011. He worked for RNC during 1994 GOP congressional landslide, did grassroots work and headed Political Education and Training. He was Deputy Campaign Director for Barbour's 2003 gubernatorial campaign. He was executive director of state Republican Party, then Treasurer.

14) Joe Nosef became chair in 2012, and was a supporter and government appointee of former governor Barbour and of the then Governor Phil Bryant. He resigned in 2017.

15) Lucien Smith became chair in 2017 as Governor Bryant's choice, and resigned in 2020. He was an attorney at a major law firm, and previously chief of staff to governor Phil Bryant and before that budget adviser to former governor Barbour.

16) Frank Bordeaux became chair in 2020 as Governor Reeves choice. He is a Gulf coast insurance executive, and was chair of Reeves' Harrison County campaign committee (crucial to Reeves' strong Coast vote showing); he was also the governor's appointee on the state flag change commission.

E) Party Organizational Matters in Mississippi

1) Precinct caucuses in presidential election years select county convention delegates, who select county executive committee members. County committee selects county chair. Party rules permit 36 Democrats and 36 GOP county committee members.

2) County convention selects Congressional District delegates. Congressional District conventions select state executive committee members. GOP has 13 from each of 4 districts (as of 2011), and Democrats have 20 from each. Congressional district conventions select delegates to attend the state party conventions. State executive committee formally selects state party chairman between state party conventions.

3) These congressional district and state party conventions also select delegates to attend national convention. Presidential primaries bind votes of national convention delegates.

4) Personnel of each party- chairman, executive director sometimes, finance director, office manager, sometimes political and communications director. In January 2007, a state election year, the state GOP had the following personnel: chairman, executive director, director for political affairs, director for legtislative affairs, communications director, director of human resources and administration, and a staff assistant. In January 2007, the state Democrats had a chair, vice chair, executive vice chair, secretary, treasurer, and parliamentarian as "official" party leaders; their paid staff members were an executive director, finance director, communications director, a coordinated campaign director, and two field representatives; of these six staff members, two were white males, two were black males, and two were white females. In 2009, an off-year except for local elections, the state Democratic Party website listed only the chairman and the executive director as personnel. The state Republican Party website listed: the chairman; finance director; political director; special events coordinator; human resources and administration director; and Amanda Young, whatever her position was. In mid-2011, state Democrats listed an Executive Director (Sam Hall), a Finance Director, and a Field Director, in addition to the six "official" party positions listed in 2007. In mid-2011 the state Republicans no longer listed their staff positions on their website. In 2017, the state Republicans listed on their website: an Executive Director, a Finance Chairman, Capitol Foundation Chairman, United Republican Fund Chairman, a Treasurer, and a General Counsel. Democrats in 2017 listed a: Vice Chairman, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Field Director, and a State Director.

5) Fund Raising. Democrats- Yellow Dog Democrats (small donors), Beans and Greens local dinners, Jefferson-Jackson day state dinner. Republicans- United Republican Fund, Capitol Foundation, state party dinners. In January 2007, Democrats had a Yellow Dog Democrats membership for $10 per month; a Finance Council membership required an annual $1,000; they renamed their dinner to Jefferson-Jackson-Hamer day dinner; they also had a Mississippi Democrats Mastercard program. In 2011 Democrats had three programs: contribute to Mississippi State Democratic Committee, either federal or state account, by website, using credit cards; Yellow Dog, website, added a $20 per month for family; Finance Council on web now had silver, gold, and platinum levels ranging from $50-$100 month. In 2011, Republicans had two programs: a website contribution that goes to the state party's federal account; the United Republican Fund required at least $20 per month, and it took credit cards and bank drafts. In 2017, Republicans still had a United Republican Fund and a Capitol Foundation; people could also contribute on-line on their website by credit card for any amount and any time period. Democrats in 2017 also had an on-line method of contributions on their website.

6) Constituency is more important to elected officials than party loyalty. Fordice education vetoes overridden thanks to progressive GOP senators, he at first publicly attacked "pseudo-Republicans," then just listed his supporters. Fordice-Briggs split hurt GOP Lieutenant Governor. Democratic party constitution requires party office dismissal for disloyalty, yet a few blacks years ago ran as Independents, and two whites were punished for backing Reagan-Cochran in 1984 or a local Republican candidate; one switched parties, the other won an appeal before the state party executive committee. In 2007 the state Democratic executive committee retaliated against the Democratic Insurance Commissioner George Dale for publicly backing President Bush's reelection; they dropped him from the Democratic primary ballot, forcing him to go to state court to be reinstated; he then lost the primary to an African American Democratic candidate Gary Anderson, and a Republican won the general election.

F)Mississippi Party Organizations Today

1) Democratic party organization members are ideologically split, and a more moderate party that leans toward a somewhat liberal orientation. White Democrats are moderate in ideological self-identification, while black Democrats are somewhat liberal (2001 NSF study). Democrats have shifted slightly to the left since a 1991 NSF survey, when 34% called themselves liberals, 35% moderates, and 31% conservatives. Democrats today are to the left-of-center on spending on health, education, the environment, and social security. Democrats are also to the left of center on favoring handgun control, federal aid for women and blacks, and opposing vouchers for private schools. Democrats are to the right-of-center in favoring school prayer and more spending on dealing with crime. White Democrats tend to oppose affirmative action and gay rights in employment, and favor the death penalty for first degree murder.

2) Republican organization members are more ideologically cohesive, and an essentially conservative party. Today, their average ideological self-identification score ranges between somewhat and very conservative. Republicans have become slightly more conservative since 1991, when 85% called themselves conservative, and only 12% were moderate and 3% liberal (of those conservatives, 48% were somewhat conservative and 37% very conservative). Republicans are most conservative in opposing affirmative action and welfare spending, and favoring school prayer. They are also to the right of center on being pro-life and for the death penalty, and against gay rights and handgun control. They are more moderate on health and education spending. (See Spring 2003, American Review of Politics article, page 83)

3) Today, both parties are ideologically divorced from average voters in Mississippi and the South more generally, as Democratic activists are more liberal than voters and Republican activists are more conservative. For instance, the average Republican activist is a whole point (on a five point scale) more conservative than Mississippi voters, while the average Democratic activist is a half point more liberal than voters. Mississippi Republican activists are too conservative on affirmative action, black aid, and women's rights and aid to women. Democratic activists are too liberal on abortion and school prayer. In the South as a whole, Republican activists are too conservative on opposing spending for public schools, social security, the environment, and even welfare programs. Democratic activists regionally are too liberal in opposing the death penalty. (See Southern Political party Activists' book, pages 119, 124). The 1991 NSF study found Republican activists even more out-of-touch with average Mississippians than today, threatening to make the party too conservative for voters.

4) Demographics of party organization members in 2001. Both parties' organization members have a higher socioeconomic status than average Mississippians. Republican party activists have especially higher SES levels. 20% of Democratic activists had annual family incomes over $75,000, as did 45% of Republican activists. Blacks and women tended to be underrepresented by the party organizations. Only 30% of Republicans were women, and while 48% of Democratic committee members were women, only 22% of Democratic county chairs were women. About half of Democratic organization members were black, but only 1% of Republican activists were black and none was a county chairman. These race-sex problems for Republicans have increased since 1991, as the party is 8% more male and 5% more white since then. (See ARP article)

5) The role of age in the party organization across the South. Young are more ideologically extreme with Democrats more liberal and Republicans more conservative than other partisans. Young have more purposive motivations, while older activists are more professional. Young impact is limited by their concentration into campaign role, while party elders dominate organization maintenance and strategic concerns. Young are also less politically experienced, though have more education and higher expectations than older activists. Religion has become somewhat less important to the young of both parties, but particularly the Democrats (Newman et al., 2002 SPSA convention paper).

6) Campaign activities in Mississippi. Hierarchy of commitment- county chairs were nearly always more active than county committee members. A majority of committee members of both parties had been active in recent campaigns in distributing campaign literature and contributing money to campaigns. Majorities of Republicans and Democratic committee members also distributed posters or yard signs. County chairs were especially active in these activities, and unlike committee members also organized campaign events. (ARP article)

7) Other party activities in Mississippi. Majorities of both parties listed the following activities performed even between campaigns: party meetings; recruiting workers; candidate recruitment; voter contact and registration; public relations.

8) Top-down strategy of Mississippi Republicans. GOP indicated greater activity in national elections, while Democrats were more active in local elections.

9) Motivations for activism: purposive (influence policy), solidary (friendship, family, partisanship), and material (money, job). Purposive and solidary incentives were mentioned most frequently, and material incentives were seldom noted. Purposive incentives were most frequent among Republicans, especially very conservative Republicans. Solidary incentives were somewhat more important to Democrats and to county chairs of both parties. Being motivated by each of these three incentives had a behavioral impact on party organization members, as it made them more active in campaigning, in their party organizational position, and in communicating with other party members. Similar results found throughout the South. (See Southern Political Party Activists' book, Chapter 10)

10) Amateur-professional orientation in Mississippi. Is being right more important than winning, or is winning everything? Republicans were more likely to be amateurs (also known as purists), while Democrats were more professional. GOP purism may help explain Fordice nomination, while Democratic professionalism may explain continued dominance of many local offices.

PARTIES IN THE MODERN SOUTH: (Week 6)

A Top Down Process of Republican Gains

Republicans made their first gains at the Presidential level, and the GOP gains gradually trickled down to the congressional and then state levels (see tables in Chapter 3 of Shaffer book).

• Presidential elections
• Civil rights protests caused most Deep South states to vote for 3rd party, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party in 1948, as well as vote for 3rd party George Wallace in 1968, and Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964.
• Relative conservatism caused most Rim South states to vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and Richard Nixon in 1960 and 1968.
• Relative conservatism caused entire South to vote for Republican Nixon over liberal George McGovern in 1972. First time the South was unified behind the Republican presidential candidate.
• Some southern states voted for fellow southerner Democrats, helping to elect them. Jimmy Carter in 1976 carried all except one southern state; Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 won four southern states each time.
• Relative conservatism led to virtually every southern state (except for Georgia in 1980) voting Republican for president in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, helping to elect Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
• Short-term forces of dissatisfaction permitted Democrat Obama to pick off three of the least Republican southern states in 2008. However, Obama was able to win two of those states once again in 2012, suggesting that the modern South will not be as monolithically Republican as it was Democratic before World War 2. In 2016 Democrats carried only one southern state- Virginia.
• The Deep South is slightly more Republican in presidential voting than is the Rim South, and that has been most evident since 2000.

• U.S. Senate elections
• Republicans gained their first three senators in the 1960s (John Tower, Texas, 1961; Strom Thurmond, party switcher, South Carolina, 1964; Howard Baker, Tennessee, 1966).
• Republicans generally held less than one-third of the South's 22 senate seats, until 1980
• Ronald Reagan clearly helped Republicans make senate gains in the South, as the GOP held about half of southern senate seats for the first six years of his terms.
• Republicans lost these gains in Reagan's last two years in office, as well as during Bush's one term presidency
• The Clinton years caused big Republican gains in the senate in Dixie. Republican went back up to nearly half of southern senate seats in 1992, and in 1994 they gained a permanent significant majority of seats in Dixie.
• The 21st century (beginning in 2004) has seen Republicans hold at least two-thirds of southern senate seats.

• U.S. House elections
• The pre-Reagan years saw the GOP consistently hold under 35 House seats in the South, which is less than one-third of the seats.
• The Reagan and Bush 1 years saw the GOP increase its number of seats to 35-45, which is still a significant minority.
• Republicans made their breakthrough in the Clinton years, gaining a majority of seats in 1994. They then steadily increasing the number up to 2004, but dropped back to the level of the late 1990s after the 2008 elections. The 2010 midterm election of dissatisfaction under Obama's presidency saw Republicans reach a new high of over two-thirds of southern U.S. house seats.

• Governor elections
• Pre 1994, Republicans held less than half of gubernatorial offices.
• Reagan years (plus 1988) saw GOP governors spike three times up to 5, only one short of a majority.
• Republicans made their big breakthrough in Clinton year of 1994, as they gained a majority. Since then, Republicans have generally held 6 or 7 of the governorships of the 11 southern states. Republicans reached an historic high of 9 after the 2010 midterm elections (Democrats now retained only Arkansas and North Carolina governorships.). In 2017, Democrats held only 3 governorships- North Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana.

• State Legislative chambers control
• Democrats had control of a majority of all 22 of the southern states' bicameral legislative chambers until 1992.
• In the 1992 Clinton election, Republicans had a tie with the Democrats in one chamber (Florida senate), their first breakthrough.
• In the 1994 national GOP tsunami, Republicans now controlled 3 of the 22 legislative chambers in the South.
• In 1996 and 1998, Republicans now held 5 chambers.
• In the 2000 election of Bush as President, Republicans now held 7 chambers, about one-third of the 22 chambers.
• In 2002, Republicans now held 9 chambers.
• In the remaining years of the Bush presidency in 2004-2008, Republicans now held majority control of 11 chambers, half of the region's 22 chambers.
• In the 2010 midterm election defeat for President Obama's Democrats, Republicans now held an historic high of majority control of 16 of the 22 chambers, over two-thirds of them.
• In the 2014 midterm election, Republicans now controlled all 22 of the South's state legislative chambers.

• Sub-Gubernatorial Statewide Elected Offices
• In 1994, Republicans scored their first breakthrough, winning a majority of non-gubernatorial elected state offices in one state, South Carolina.
• In 1996, Republicans scored their second breakthrough with Alabama, so they now controlled two of the ten states (Tennessee has no statewide elected offices other than governor).
• From 1998-2004, Republicans had a majority of three or four states' subgubernatorial offices, so Democrats still controlled a majority of the states.
• In 2006-2010, Republicans broke through, and now controlled most of the states' subgubernatorial offices. Democrats held a majority of such offices in only Arkansas and North Carolina (they lost Louisiana after Katrina)(in the 2010 elections, they now controlled only half of the subgubernatorial offices in Arkansas). After the 2016 elections, Democrats now controlled a majority of sub-gubernatorial state offices in only one state- Virginia.

Why Republicans Made These Big Gains in Dixie

• The national Democratic Party and Democratic presidents expanded the scope of their liberalism from the popular social welfare programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt to more controversial liberal programs involving civil rights (Johnson), civil liberties (Clinton's gays in military, Carter and Clinton's affirmative action hiring), and foreign affairs (Carter's human rights, Clinton's nation-building). See Table 2-4 in Shaffer's unpublished book. Republican presidents Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 offered a consistently conservative posture on national defense issues (anti-USSR, 2 wars against Iraq, Afghanistan war). See Table 2-5 in Shaffer's unpublished book.
• Southern Democratic congressmen (U.S. House) used to be more ideologically diverse and more conservative. In 1970, they tended to range from moderate to conservative in voting records, with more conservatives than moderates and very few liberals. By 2004, southern Democratic congressmen ranged from liberals to moderate liberals with very few moderates and nobody who was to the right of center. Consequently, Republicans now controlled a majority of southern congressional seats, and all of them were to the right of center. See Table 15-1 in Shaffer's unpublished book.
• Southern Democratic Senators used to better reflect the moderate conservative values of the average southern voter. In the 1970s, the center of gravity (median value) of southern Democrats was moderate conservative in voting record. In the 1980s, that center of gravity for southern Democrats had shifted to the left, and was now between moderate liberal and moderate. In the 1990s the center of gravity for southern Democrats' voting record was now moderate liberal, where it remained in the new century. As Democratic senators moved to the left, the number of Republican Senators from the South grew steadily. See Table 15-2 in Shaffer's unpublished book.
• Democratic local party activists from the South (county party committee members) have moved to the left ideologically. In 1991 the southern Democratic party organization was ideologically diverse, with 37% liberal, 35% moderate, and 28% conservative. By 2001, the Democratic organization even in Dixie had become a liberal one; 57% were liberals, 28% moderates, and only 15% conservative. Republicans, already a conservative organization in 1991, became even more conservative by 2001, but not by as great a rate as the Democrats became liberal. See Table 15-5 of Shaffer's unpublished book.
• Democrats were hurt in Dixie by a string of divisive Democratic primary battles with both liberals and conservatives sitting out the general election after their favorites lost the party primary. See Table 15-4 in Shaffer's book.

PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS

Old era of party bosses dominating a closed system, 1968 and previously:

1) Most delegates selected in caucus-convention system, rather than primary elections.

2) Party bosses dominated caucus-convention system, often backed "favorite sons" or kept delegation uncommitted.

3) Little participation by average citizen in presidential nomination process.

4) Most delegates were middle-aged to old white males.

5) Delegates generally had a "professional" stylistic orientation, wanted a "winning" candidate.

6) Conventions were deliberative bodies, often requiring multiple ballots to nominate a president.

7) As late as 1968, Vice President Humphrey was nominated by Democrats without entering any primaries.

(An excellent source of information is The Party's Choice, by William Keech and Donald Matthews, the Brookings Institution, 1977)

National Democratic Party Rules Changes.

Since 1968, national Democrats have tried to reform their party and make it more open and "democratic," and have imposed more rules on the state parties. The national Republicans are more supportive of states' rights, so they generally do not require as many rules. However, state laws enacted by Democrats can bind Republicans as well.

1) Affirmative action in representing minorities, especially African-Americans; quota system for women. Racial discrimination was outlawed in the 1960s, and a 1972 quota for women, blacks, and young adults created dissension. Beginning in 1976 Democrats used a more flexible affirmative action system for African-Americans, but used a strict quota for women. Today they require each state party to submit information on the representation of numerous "disadvantaged" groups. By 2016 state parties were required to institute "outreach" programs for historically underrepresented groups based on "race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." To promote affirmative action in 2016, priority in at-large delegation would be given to "African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and women." Equal division between men and women required. Party seeks to represent these groups as indicated by their "presence in the Democratic electorate" of the state.

2) Open delegate selection system, open to the public rather than a closed-door process dominated by party bosses. State parties must publicize how, when, and where delegates will be selected, and permit all Democrats to participate in the process.

3) PR, Proportional Representation, replaces winner-take-all systems in 1972. States must allocate delegates across candidates based on the candidates' vote totals.

4) Primaries are used by most states by 1970s instead of caucus-convention system; demonstrates an open process. In 2016, Democrats had only 14 caucuses (GOP had only 12); all other states used primaries.

5) Closed party system-- only Democrats can select Democratic delegates, started in 1970s. Some exemptions. By 2016, this national rule defined Democrats as those who "publicly declare their party preference and have that preference publicly recorded," and state parties were entrusted with interpreting that rule.

6) A 3 month window, whereby delegates must be selected from early March to early June. Shortens the lengthy campaign season. Traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire got exemptions. This system had granted many exceptions by 2004, when 9 primaries and 6 caucuses were held in February after the first two traditional early states. By 2008 it had become a 4 month window, from early February to early June, with South Carolina and Nevada joining Iowa and New Hampshire getting exemptions for early contests. In 2008 both Florida and Michigan got in trouble by violating this rule and holding early delegate selection contests. In 2016 it went back to a little over a 3 month window with contests from March 1 till June 7, with four states receiving exemptions for February dates (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina).

7) Superdelegates-- 14% of Democratic delegate seats are reserved for public and party leaders, starting in 1984. Many officials weren't willing to run against average citizens for delegate positions, and conventions dominated by amateurs nominated losers like McGovern in 1972 or "outsiders" like Carter in 1976.

8) Super Tuesday, Southern Primary. Southern Democrats got tired of liberal presidential candidates, and most southern states held primaries on the same Tuesday in early March, starting in 1988. This system had broken down by the 21st century; in 2004, only 4 states still conducted Super Tuesday on 2nd week of March, while 4 states came earlier and 3 later; in 2008, 4 southern states held primaries on Super Tuesday, 2 went earlier and 5 voted later (all on different days). In 2016, 6 southern states selected delegates on March 1 Super Tuesday; 1 state (South Carolina) voted in February; 4 states voted from March 5 till March 15 (Mississippi was March 8); all southern states selected delegates fairly early therefore, beating half of the American states.

9) Front Loading-- Front Loading-- most delegates are now selected by the end of March, as states seek to increase their power by holding early contests. In 1996, after Iowa and New Hampshire in February came the New England primaries the first week of March, the Southern primaries the second week, Midwestern primaries the third week, and California and two western primaries the last week. This process benefits well-known frontrunners, like Dole. In 2000 the process was even more front loaded, with New York, Ohio, and California joining the New England primaries in the first week (Illinois was the sole midwest primary in the third week and the fourth week no longer existed). In 2004 it was even more front loaded: Iowa caucus was in 3rd week of January, New Hampshire primary was in 4th week; in February were 9 primaries and 6 caucuses; the first week of March had 4 New England states plus 3 large states of California, New York, and Ohio, plus 4 other state contests; the 2nd week of March had 4 southern states, including Mississippi, Florida, and Texas; the rest of March had 4 more contests; April had 2 contests; May had 8 contests; June had 4 contests. The 2008 contest was the most front-loaded yet, with 7 states voting in January, 21 voting on the first Tuesday of February, 9 voting later in February, with the remainder voting in later months; no regional patterns existed, though South Carolina now joined the earliest states, right after Iowa and New Hampshire. In the 2012 GOP nomination battle, 4 states voted in January and 7 voted in February, with most states voting in March, and 21 voting in April, May, or June, as the party sought to cut back a little on the front-loading process. The process remained pretty front loaded in 2016: 4 voted in February; 28 in March; 18 in April, May, and June.

No Big Changes in National Delegate Composition:

• Demographically, both parties' delegates in 2008 had higher incomes and more postgraduate education than did average voters. Women remained underrepresented in the Republican Party. African American representation among delegates reflected the racial composition of actual voters, as blacks voted heavily Democratic. (Hershey book, previous edition).
• Attitudinally, Democratic delegates were the most liberal group, while Republican delegates were the most conservative group. Voters fell in the middle, with Democratic voters usually to the left and Republican voters usually to the right. The party delegates were most unrepresentative of the average voter on three issues: Republicans were too conservative on health care and gun control; Democrats were too liberal on illegal immigration. See p. 211 of Hershey book.

Recent Presidential Nomination Battles:

1968 Democratic- President Johnson withdraws; liberal "amateurs" McCarthy and Kennedy win primaries; "professionals" support Vice President Humphrey; anti-war platform defeated, party split; ticket- Humphrey/Muskie.

1968 Republican- party loyalist and centrist Nixon defeats liberal Rockefeller and conservative Reagan; ticket- Nixon/Agnew.

1972 Democratic- leader, centrist Muskie, weak 1st in New Hampshire after crying; anti-war liberal "amateur" McGovern strong 2nd in N.H., wins Wisconsin; McGovern narrowly wins California despite Humphrey extremist attack; centrist Humphrey, conservative Wallace lose to McGovern "amateurs"; ticket- McGovern/Eagleton (resigns- shock treatment)/Shriver.

1972 Republican- incumbent Nixon/Agnew renominated.

1976 Democratic- field of little known candidates; centrist Carter wins Iowa and New Hampshire after liberals split up leftist vote; bandwagon-media coverage of Carter; Udall, Brown stay in race; Carter wins Ohio, "professionals" unify behind him to win in November; ticket-Carter/Mondale.

1976 Republican- centrist President Ford challenged by conservative Reagan; seesaw primary battle, as momentum shifts back and forth; liberal Northeast and Midwest support Ford, conservative South and West like Reagan; Reagan seeks Northeast support by announcing Pa. liberal Senator Schweiker as V.P.; uncommitted back Ford as winning candidate; ticket- Ford/Dole.

1980 Democratic- centrist President Carter challenged by liberal Kennedy; international crises boost Carter popularity, but Kennedy stages a comeback as Carter's popularity declines; Kennedy loses bid to free delegates from 1st ballot pledge; ticket- Carter/Mondale.

1980 Republican- frontrunner Reagan refuses to debate in Iowa, loses to Bush; Reagan debates Bush in New Hampshire, Reagan wins N.H.; N.H. victory reverses Bush bandwagon, starts Reagan bandwagon, Reagan wins; ticket-Reagan/Bush.

1984 Democratic- frontrunner Mondale loses to "new ideas" Hart in N.H. after a weak 1st place win in Iowa; Mondale wins southern states (Ala., Ga.) due to "regulars", organization, conservatism, and "where's the beef" attack; Jackson wins black support; Mondale bandwagon starts; ticket- Mondale/Ferraro.

1984 Republican- incumbent Reagan/Bush renominated.

1988 Democratic- field of little known candidates; centrist Dukakis wins home state area of New Hampshire, northern industrial states; South split between Gore (TN), Jackson, and Dukakis; Dukakis defeats liberal Jackson; ticket-Dukakis/Bentsen (TX).

1988 Republican- two, strong candidates, Bush and Dole; frontrunner Bush loses in Iowa, stages comeback victory in New Hampshire ("mean" Dole issue); Reagan- associated Bush carries South, causing bandwagon in other states; ticket-Bush/Quayle.

1992 Democratic- Harkin carries Iowa home state; Tsongas (Mass.) carries nearby New Hampshire; centrist Clinton sweeps native South; Clinton beats liberal Jerry Brown in rest of country; ticket-Clinton/Gore.

1992 Republican- Incumbent Bush/Quayle renominated after Buchanan gets 37% in New Hampshire and Duke loses the South.

1996 Democratic- Incumbent Clinton/Gore renominated without opposition.

1996 Republican- Front-loaded process helps party loyalist and front-runner Dole win 39 primaries, despite losing New Hampshire to Buchanan, and Delaware and Arizona to Forbes. On next two weeks, Dole wins New England and Southern primaries. Ticket- Dole/Kemp.

2000 Democratic- Incumbent Vice President Gore is a party loyalist who wins every primary, though liberal Bill Bradley posts a strong second in New Hampshire. Ticket is Gore/Lieberman.

2000 Republican- Front-runner Bush wins Iowa, reformer John McCain wins New Hampshire, both split other early states. McCain criticizes religious right, loses GOP primary voters, wins only Northeastern states on Titanic Tuesday while Bush wins all other regions. Bush is viewed as more of a party loyalist. Ticket- Bush/Chenney.

2004 Democratic- Kerry is a party loyalist, a war hero, a 20-year Senate veteran, backed by prominent liberal/party leader Ted Kennedy; he sweeps all except three states. Early front-runner Howard Dean, an angry, anti-war, liberal governor wins only Vermont, after losing Iowa after he publicly screams (Dean's image makes Kerry look moderate to voters). Clark wins only Oklahoma, and Edwards wins only South Carolina.

2004 Republican- Incumbent Bush/Cheney are renominated without opposition.

2008 Democratic- frontrunner Hillary Clinton stumbles in early state of Iowa, losing to Obama, but she comes back in New Hampshire. Obama wins in early southern state of South Carolina with strong black support, Clinton comes back in non-binding Florida race. Obama's consequent backwagon ties him with Clinton in polls, upsetting her expectation to wrapup nomination on Super Tuesday, which they end up splitting. Obama then wins 9 straight contests, which he had more fully contested than she had, thereby taking a delegate lead. They split the remainder of the contests, the superdelegates move towards Obama, and he wraps up the nomination. Obama's charisma, inspirational speaking ability, and focus on change are an unexpected campaign event for the frontrunner, as was Clinton's overconfidence and failure to fully contest states immediately after Super Tuesday.

2008 Republican- John McCain was a senator for 22 years, runner up for GOP presidential nomination eight year earlier, and was a perceived party loyalist by strongly backing Bush's Iraqi war surge strategy. McCain won prominent early primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Huckabee wins Iowa, and Romney wins four of the lesser-known early contests. Guiliani withdraws after losing Florida, which he had concentrated on. On Super Tuesday, McCain wins 9 of the primaries, Huckabee 4, and Romney only 2 (he does win 5 caucuses), so McCain wraps up nomination.

2012 Democratic- President Barack Obama, the incumbent, is renominated without opposition.

2012 Republican- Former Massachusetts Governor and former social issues moderate Mitt Romney is the frontrunner with money and organization, and is the more centrist candidate. Conservatives Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have less money and fail to contest all of the delegate slots. Gingrich wins only his home state and a neighborning southern state, while Santorum is initially boosted by winning Iowa (while Romney wins New Hampshire and Florida) and 3 of the 7 states voting in February. Santorum wins only 3 states on Super Tuesday versus 7 for Romney, but Santorum then wins 3 Deep South states. Romney wins all three states in early April (including Wisconsin and Maryland), and Santorum withdraws.

2016 Democratic- Hillary Clinton started as the front-runner, being a party leader as former First Lady, former U.S. Senator from New York, the former Secretary of State under Obama (who had defeated her for the nomination 8 years earlier). Clinton won Iowa, but Sanders upset her in New Hampshire, forcing Clinton to come back and win in Nevada and South Carolina. On Super Tuesday March 1, Clinton won all 6 of the southern states, plus Massachusetts; Sanders won only 4 states. These early victories plus a 90% edge among Super Delegates made the difference for Clinton, since Sanders won half of the remaining states that came after March 1.

2016 Republican- Donald Trump was an unexpected event himself, as he skillfully played the role of an angry outsider and labelled his opponents as lying Ted, little Marco, and low-energy Jeb Bush. Cruz won Iowa, but Trump won the other three early states. Trump won 7 states on Super Tuesday, Cruz won 4 and Rubio only 1. Cruz won 6 later states, but none were large states, and Kasich won only one state (Ohio, his home). Trump swept the rest, including Rubio's home state of Florida.

Who wins the presidential party nomination:

1) Incumbent Presidents- Usually Presidents are easily renominated, such as Clinton in 1996, Reagan in 1984, Bush in 2004, and Obama in 2012. But even when facing economic and international problems such as Carter in 1980, or a strong challenger such as Ford in 1976, they still get renominated. So did Hoover during the Great Depression in 1932.

2) Vice-Presidents- Vice-Presidents have built up political IOU's by speaking to party groups across the nation and backing political candidates. Vice Presidents nominated included both parties in 1968 (Nixon had been Eisenhower's VP), Mondale in 1984 (Carter's VP), Bush in 1988, Dole in 1996 (Ford's VP choice in 1976), and Gore in 2000.

3) It pays to be moderate- Pat Buchanan was too extreme compared to Bob Dole in 1996; Carter in 1976 was a southern moderate compared to his liberal opponents, as was "New Democrat" Clinton; Ford won the uncommitted delegates in 1976 who feared Reagan was too conservative; Humphrey beat the liberal reformers in 1968. Gore was more moderate than Bradley in 2000. Hillary Clinton was a liberal but tough on Russia, while opponent Bernie Sanders was a "socialist," so Clinton won in 2016. Exceptions to this rule were McGovern in 1972 and Reagan in 1980.

4) Being a party loyalist helps. Johnson's loyal Vice President and Vietnam policy supporter Humphrey won in 1968, as did Republican campaigner in 1964 and 1966 Nixon. Vice President Mondale in 1984 had history of backing of labor and civil rights, while Senate Republican Leader Dole in 1996 won. Both nominees in 2000 were more in the mainstream of their parties than their chief opponents. Exceptions to rule are liberal McGovern in 1972 and outsider Carter in 1976. McCain in 2008 was loyal to Republican President Bush's Iraqi war, had come in second in 2000 presidential nomination battle, and had been a senator for 22 years. Hillary Clinton was former First Lady, former New York Senator, and former Secretary of State, so she won nomination in 2016.

5) Being the front-runner helps, particularly in the age of front-loading. In 2000, Gore won every primary, and Bush dominated Titanic Tuesday after McCain split the early states with him. In 1996 Dole's national organization swept his opponents' scattered victories. Frontrunners Bush in 1988, Mondale in 1984, and Reagan in 1980 came back from early defeats. Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner in 2016. Exceptions include unknown Carter nominated in 1976 and McGovern in 1972.

6) Winning early states can create a bandwagon, increasing fundraising and name identification. Anti-war McGovern in 1972 won a strong second place in New Hampshire; Carter's victories in Iowa and New Hampshire caused a massive bandwagon; Dukakis won his home state area of New Hampshire in 1988. Exceptions are numerous, with Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988, Mondale in 1984, and Reagan in 1980 losing early states but reversing the bandwagon effect by winning later states. Obama won early states of Iowa and South Carolina in 2008, slashing frontrunner's poll lead nationally, and upsetting her strategy to wrap up nomination with a sweep on Super Tuesday. McCain in 2008 won three early primaries of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

7) Unexpected events can be a killer. Kennedy led Carter in 1979, but international crises caused voters to rally behind the President, and Carter was renominated. Bush lost New Hampshire after his Iowa victory in 1980, because he refused to debate all of the candidates, and after that it was all downhill. In 2004, Dean's "yell" after losing Iowa torpedoed his campaign. In 2008, Obama's charisma, inspirational speaking ability, and adroit focus on change successfully unseated frontrunner Hillary Clinton, while Clinton's overconfidence in failing to fully contest the states immediately after Super Tuesday was disastrous. Trump in 2016 was a reality TV star who talked like common people, and effectively appealed to voter distrust of politics by being an "outsider."

8) The South was important in two decades, due to Super Tuesday. Mondale in 1984 stopped Hart bandwagon in the South; Bush, being Reagan's VP, won the South in 1988; Clinton swept his native South in 1992. But the earlier start of a New England primary in 1996 and the frontloading generally in 1996 reduces the South's importance. However, Hillary Clinton won every southern state in 2016, giving her the lead over Sanders.

A nice chart summarizing how these eight factors have operated in each presidential nomination battle in both parties from 1968 through 2016 is found here.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND THE PARTIES (Weeks 10-11)

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

2 Models of explaining the outcomes of Presidential elections: 1) Long term (party identification) versus short term factors (issues and candidates); majority party usually wins unless short term factors significantly benefit minority party candidate. (See: Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes The American Voter, John Wiley and Son, Inc, 1964) 2) Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction; satisfaction helps incumbent party's candidate, while dissatisfaction helps the challenger.

Presidential Election Outcomes and Causes

1948- Truman (D) - 50% - New Deal domestic issues (I), Democratic majority (P).
Dewey (R) - 45%- popular governor (C), dissatisfaction (I).
2 Independents: Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace- 2% each- divided Dems

1952 - Eisenhower (R) - 55% - war hero (C). (Checker's Speech-Nixon)
Stevenson (D) - 45% - Korea, Communism, corruption hurt (I). Dissatisfaction

1956 - Eisenhower (R) - 57% - personal popularity (C); peace and prosperity (I). Satisfaction
Stevenson (D) - 43% - Democrat (P).

1960 - Kennedy - (D) - 50% - young, charismatic (C); time to move ahead (I); Democrat (P).
Nixon - (R) - 50% - popular VP (C); knowledgeable (C). (Debates hurt him)

1964 - Johnson (D) - 61% - Democrat (P); centrist (I); incumbent (C).
Goldwater (R) - 39% - too conservative (I); extreme, impulsive (C). (Convention divided)

1968 - Nixon (R) - 44% - Vietnam, unrest, crime, inflation (I). Dissatisfaction
Humphrey (D) - 43% - Democrat (P). (Divided Chicago convention)
Wallace (I) - 13% -

1972 - Nixon (R) - 61% - world leader, prosperity (I); popular (C). Satisfaction.
McGovern (D) - 39% - extreme liberal (I). (V.P. resigns-shock treatment)

1976 - Carter (D) - 51% - Democrat (P); stagnant economy, pardon (I). Dissatisfaction
Ford (R) - 49% - Conservatism helps (I). (Ford debate blunder-E. Europe)

1980 - Reagan (R) - 51% - Iran, Afghanistan, inflation, recession (I). Dissatisfaction
Carter (D) - 41% - poor leadership (C). (Reagan debate win-"there you go again")
Anderson, John (Indep)- 7%-

1984 - Reagan (R) - 59% - peace and prosperity (I), likeable person (C). Satisfaction
Mondale (D) - 41% - Democrat (P). (1^st woman VP-Ferraro)

1988 - Bush (R) - 54% - peace and prosperity (I). Negative campaigning.
Dukakis (D) - 46% - too liberal (I); uninspiring (C). (Debate-anti-death penalty, iceman)

1992 - Clinton (D) - 43% - moderate "New Democrat" (I). Dissatisfaction
Bush (R) - 38% - recession hurts (I). ("It's the economy, stupid"; Bush aloof at debate)
Perot (Indep) - 19% -

1996 - Clinton (D) - 50% - Good economy, domestic (I) Satisfaction
Dole (R) - 41% - Old, uncaring (C). (Reps. Keep Congress)
Perot (I) - 9% -

2000- Bush (R) - 50% - personable (C), compassionate conservative (I)
Gore (D) - 50% - arrogant (C), Clinton scandal (I), too liberal (I).

2004- Bush (R) - 51% - Decisive terrorist fighter helps Bush (I)
Kerry (D) - 48% - Flip-flopping liberal charge hurts Kerry (I)

2008- Obama (D) - 53% - Charismatic, articulate speaker (C)
McCain (R) - 46% - Financial Crisis, recession hurts (I)

2012- Obama (D)- 51%- middle class theme, people like me empathy (I); 38-32 Democratic exit poll advantage (P).
Romney (R)- 48%- rich man, takers 47% comment lacks empathy (C).

2016- Trump (R)- 46%- outsider, dissatisfaction (I); trade protectionism (I)
Clinton, Hillary (D)- 48%- basket of deplorables (racists, sexists, Islamaphobic) comment shows elitism (C).

Note: R denotes Republican candidate, and D denotes Democrat.
I denotes issues, C is candidate, and P is party factor.
Numbers denote percentage of popular vote received.

Campaign Financing

• Campaign financing issues in federal elections are thoroughly discussed in the Hershey textbook. Note how total campaign spending has increased over the years in presidential, U.S. house, and U.S. Senate elections. Notice how so many unions and trial lawyers donate the great majority of their money to Democratic candidates. The federal campaign finance laws are discussed. Go to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website for more information about campaign laws and who donates to federal candidates.
• Each state has its own campaign finance laws, and rules that govern candidate reporting of donations. Mississippi's state laws are on the Secretary of State's website. Go to the webpage governing candidates, and study the numerous forms that candidates for public office must complete.

CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE CAMPAIGNS
AND THE PARTIES (Weeks 12-13)

The following real-world examples of important themes are drawn verbatim from my unpublished book. The references cited are on-line at:

http://sds17.pspa.msstate.edu/classes/southern/references.htm

1)      A divided majority party, especially in the face of public discontent, can permit the minority party to win (Mississippi's Ray Mabus' defeat). Over the last few decades of the 20th century, the Republican Party in the South repeatedly won their first gubernatorial or senate elections because of Democratic divisions.

Facing a recession necessitating painful state budget cuts in 1991, the dominant Democratic party in Mississippi state government proceeded to unravel. Harvard educated, Governor Ray ("Mississippi will never be last again") Mabus was adamant about convincing the "buckle of the Bible Belt" to enact a lottery to pay for education improvements and to impose "user fees" that affected powerful interest groups. The state legislature balked and showed some willingness to enact a general tax increase to minimize the budget cuts, but Mabus opposed this alternative. The resulting stalemate between the Democratic governor and the Democratic-controlled legislature produced two years of painful budget cuts and no raises for teachers and state employees. Expecting the real contest to be within the Democratic party, some education supporters urged the pragmatic and flexible Wayne Dowdy (a former moderate U.S. House member) to challenge the incumbent governor. And then the fun began! Both Democratic titans stirred up their supporters when speaking at the Neshoba county fair, Mississippi's giant "house party" attended by working class whites. Mabus in his white shirt and tie appeared a little out-of-place, and a section of the fairground roped off for his supporters merely illustrated how so many of his backers were "yuppie" types. Mocking Mabus' campaign slogan of four years ago, the "populist" (country-persona) Dowdy pledged that if elected, "Mississippi will never be lost again." Laughing at the "arrogant" and wealthy "tree farmer's" claim of a humble background, Dowdy quipped, "The 'ruler' claims to be the only farmer in the governor's race. I guess he was president of the Future Farmers of America chapter, up there at Harvard." Mabus for his part accused his fellow Democrat of saying that Mississippi could not compete with California and chided him: "Be ashamed. Wayne, be ashamed. Dowdy the doubter. Wayne, you stayed in Washington too long. You've given up on Mississippi" (Shaffer, Sturrock, Breaux, and Minor 1999: 253 both quotes). When the dust had cleared, Mabus was able to pull off a bare 51% majority victory in the primary, but instead of being gracious to his defeated opponent on election night he gloated, "This victory shows that Mississippi doesn't want to go backward (paraphrased). Enter Republican Kirk Fordice, a blunt-speaking construction company owner who had been a Republican party activist since the Goldwater era. Some state Republican party operatives tried to "anoint" as their gubernatorial candidate Pete Johnson, a close relative to two Democratic governors who after election as auditor in 1987 had switched to the GOP, exciting the party with their first statewide officeholder since Reconstruction. Blasting "Petey" as a "career politician," Fordice made his conservatism clear to Republican voters, opposing racial quotas and all tax increases, and upset Johnson in the Republican runoff primary. Fordice's primary victory is understandable in view of the less than 10% of Mississippi voters casting ballots in the Republican as opposed to Democratic primary. One poll showed that 37% of Republican activists described themselves as "very" conservative, 48% as “somewhat” conservative, and only 15% labeling themselves as liberal or moderate (Shaffer and Breaux 1995: 171). In the general election campaign, as newspaper articles daily decried the painful state budget cuts, Fordice unleashed television ads depicting himself as merely "a private citizen, just like you," and challenged voters to "take Mississippi back from the political hacks" (Shaffer, Sturrock, Breaux, and Minor 1999: 254-255). With polls showing voters increasingly disillusioned with the performance of the governor, the state legislature, and even with the overall quality of life in the state, Fordice stunned political observers with a narrow 51% popular vote victory to Mabus' 48%. Significantly outspent by the incumbent, Fordice's visibility was so low that on election night one veteran reporter on ETV turned to another and asked, "Who is Kirk Fordice?" The wave of voter dissatisfaction also claimed the three-term Democratic lieutenant governor (and president of the state senate) Brad Dye, who was replaced with state senator Eddie Briggs, another historic GOP first (Nash and Taggart 2006: 271, 272).

2)      Short-term factors such as a popular candidate who is non-ideological can help the minority party win an election (Mississippi Thad Cochran's wins).

Mississippi Democrats received a shock with the election of Republican congressman Thad Cochran to the U.S. senate in 1978 to replace retiring senator Eastland. After the notorious segregationist Eastland apparently handpicked his successor, Democratic nominee Maurice Dantin, the African American Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, ran as an independent (Nash and Taggart 2006: 80). Complaining that Democrats "took blacks for granted," Evers offered African American voters "somebody that looks like you and talks like you and has suffered like you," brought in black heavyweight world champion boxer Muhammad Ali, and carried ten majority black counties (Nash and Taggart 2006: 82 quotes, 83). Cochran's 45% popular vote plurality win did include some black support, however. Cochran's personal popularity might have won him a bare majority in a two-way race, as he had twice won reelection as congressman, capturing 71% and most recently 78% of the vote. Political observers described his "evident braininess" serving as a congressman, his personality as being "engaging, articulate," and his style as being "soft-spoken" and "even-handed" (Barone, Ujifusa, and Matthews 1979: 475).

That the historic first of an election of a Republican in a statewide vote was not a "fluke" is further suggested by Cochran's easy 61% reelection victory in 1984 over popular former governor William Winter. While building a conservative roll call record in the senate, Cochran also backed programs that helped a poor state like Mississippi, such as food stamps, rural housing, and aid to black colleges. Most memorable was an advertisement he ran featuring an elderly woman who had trouble getting her Social Security check. "And she looked to Thad, and Thad delivered," concluded the announcer (Krane and Shaffer 1992: 102). Voters came to the same conclusion, with one statewide poll showing that an overwhelming 96% of the comments that voters offered about the incumbent were favorable. His seniority, experience, and work for the state were decisive in his easy reelection (Krane and Shaffer 1992: 102). Remember that these GOP victories occurred despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans in party identification by a 3-1 margin at that time in the state's history!

Cochran's popular ideologically-inclusive style that had served him so well in his political career was quite evident in his last 2014 election. Facing a Tea Party challenger in the GOP primary, state senator Chris McDaniel, 77 year old Cochran stressed "his status as a top member of the Appropriations Committee to support federal projects such as military bases, university research and agricultural projects in Mississippi," while McDaniel blasted Cochran's allegedly liberal votes and labeled him as a "senator who's been in Washington so long, he's forgotten his Mississippi conservative values" (Pettus 2014a, 2014b). Aggressively campaigning across the state, McDaniel shocked the political establishment by leading the first primary with 49.5% of the vote to Cochran's 49.0% with a minor candidate, forcing a runoff race. Cochran supporters quickly became energized, with the aging senator personally campaigning across the state, with Republican establishment leaders urging a Cochan vote to help ensure a GOP-controlled senate, and with many African American leaders praising Cochran�s support for some programs that benefitted minorities. One kiss of death for the spunky challenger was that his call for cuts in education prompted pleas for Cochran's reelection on the part of the chairmen of all three of the state's public education bodies (elementary and secondary, community colleges, and universities). The Cochran forces reversed their initial first primary deficit with a narrow 51% runoff victory, prompting a bitter McDaniel to spend months in court challenges over allegedly illegal Democratic crossover votes in the GOP runoff. Cochran easily bested Democratic former congressman Travis Childers, whose supporters had hoped in vain for a McDaniel GOP upset, as polls had shown a tossup or even Childers victory if he had faced the Tea Party favorite (exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/MS/senate).

3)      The minority party's candidate can win an upset with an effective campaign that focuses on job performance or issue differences between the two candidates (Mississippi Trent Lott's win).

Trent Lott's victory in the 1988 senate race was a bit of a surprise to political observers, as the bright, articulate Republican with the "slick," "well-kept" hair provided the most entertaining political theater during the campaign war (Lott 2005: 106). Seeking to represent the poorest state in the nation with the highest proportion of African Americans, Trent Lott was initially viewed by political observers as too conservative (typically receiving liberal ADA scores of absolute 0) and too partisan (serving as House GOP Minority Whip). Indeed, he represented the "whitest" and most Republican house district in the state (the Gulf Coast). Furthermore, he faced "folksy" populist congressman Wayne Dowdy, a popular Democrat who combined a progressive record on public works and entitlement programs with a conservative record on national defense and "moral" issues. Outspending his Democratic rival by over $1 million, Lott hired a campaign consultant whose trade name was "Dr. Feelgood," and proceeded to launch a series of visually appealing television ads that depicted the Republican "leader" as a supporter of such popular programs as Social Security, college student loans, environmental protection, and highway construction. Entertaining and educating voters, Dowdy launched a television ad blasting Lott's use as minority leader of a "chauffeur." Lott's camp responded with an ad featuring his chauffeur-guard George Awkward, an African American, who explained that he had been a Washington D.C. police veteran for 27 years and that, "I'm nobody's chauffeur. Got it?" In a televised debate, Dowdy kept trying to depict Lott as being out-of-touch with the average Mississippian and exhorted voters to "cut George." Reminding voters of Dowdy's low attendance record on house roll call votes, Lott deadpanned: "I've got a better idea. Let's cut Wayne. At least George shows up for work and he makes less than you do" (Shaffer 1991: 103). With Stennis and four other southern Democratic senators stumping for him, Dowdy was able to close the gap in the polls, but Lott still pulled out a 54% popular vote victory.

A more current example of a minority party's candidate ability to win by stressing his job performance is the only statewide elected Democrat, Attorney General Jim Hood. He was first elected in 2003 with 63% of the vote, and then gained 60% and 61% reelection margins with the closest race being a 55% victory in 2015. Hood had previous experience as a District Attorney, and as an Assistant Attorney General. As Attorney General, "Hood established a Vulnerable Adults Unit, a Domestic Violence Unit, an Identity Theft Unit, and a Crime Prevention and Victims Services Division" (Wikipedia). He ran campaign ads stressing his fight against those using the Internet "to come after our children" (paraphrased). Hood also gained widespread acclaim for helping homeowners recover after Hurricane Katrina by suing prominent insurance companies, and for successfully prosecuting the Klansman who murdered three civil rights workers in 1964 in Philadelphia, MS (of Mississippi Burning film fame). Hood and former Democratic attorney general Mike Moore are two rare modern day Democrats who are viewed by average Mississippi voters as very "moderate" in ideology (a 3.0 on a 5 point liberal-conservative ideology scale).

4)      Usually, the majority party's candidate wins the election, if the short term forces of candidate and issue factors balance out evenly (Mississippi Roger Wicker; Tennessee's Bob Corker; Texas' Rick Perry wins).

Republicans continued to romp in the 2008 federal elections in Mississippi, winning both senate seats as well as the presidential race. Governor Barbour had appointed 1st district GOP Congressman Roger Wicker as the interim Senator after Trent Lott's resignation, and Democrats promptly nominated former governor Ronnie Musgrove as their candidate for the November special election. Wicker proceeded to paint Musgrove as a "liberal," blasting him for accepting money from a national PAC that was "the largest gay rights group in the country," and accusing the Democrat of promising to support the "liberal Democratic leadership" in Washington (Pettus 2008). Both camps quickly turned negative with Musgrove claiming that Wicker had voted repeatedly to raise his own pay and that he had gone "to Washington promising change, but Washington politics changed him," while Wicker reminded voters that they had rejected Musgrove's gubernatorial reelection bid and had given "him his walking papers" (Todd 2008). With Republicans outnumbering Democrats by 6% in the exit polls, Wicker kept Lott's seat in the Republican ranks. Meanwhile, Republican Cochran won his usual landslide reelection, beating a former state legislator who had lost to Lott two years earlier, African American Erik Fleming.

In Tennessee in 2006, Republican Bob Corker's Democratic senate opponent was African American congressman, Harold Ford Jr., who had been elected in 1996 to the same seat held by his father for 22 years. Ford was a moderate liberal who sought to avoid the Liberal tag by highlighting his conservative and religious values, such as his opposition to gay rights, partial birth abortion, and illegal immigration (York, 2006). The Republican National Committee nevertheless ran a devastating ad that painted Ford as a liberal, as a string of respectable citizens mocked his alleged liberal record by saying such things as, "Terrorists need their privacy," "When I die, Harold Ford will let me pay taxes again," "Ford's right, I do have too many guns," and "I'd love to pay higher marriage taxes." Most controversial in possibly injecting race into the campaign was the inclusion of a bare shouldered attractive white female who bragged, "I met Harold at the Playboy party," and who ended the ad by winking into the camera and saying, "Harold, call me." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjK1Ar4ksvY&feature=related, accessed July 19, 2017). While at first evasive about the charge that he had attended a Playboy Super Bowl Party, the handsome young black congressman finally quipped, "I was there. I like football, and I like girls" (de la Cruz, 2006). Meanwhile, Corker desperately sought to divorce himself from the anti-Republican sentiment sweeping the nation because of the seemingly endless war in Iraq, as the Republican businessman (and former Mayor of Chattanooga) stressed that he was "an accomplished, experienced Tennessean who would take Tennessee values to Washington" (Locker 2006: A4). Exit polls showed both candidates winning over 90% of the identifiers of their respective parties and splitting the Independents, so the slightly greater number of Republican than Democratic voters (38% versus 34%) proved the difference in helping Republicans keep this senate seat (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TN/S/01/epolls.0.html; accessed November 26, 2006). Corker was able to pull out a squeaker, winning 51% of the total vote to Ford's 48%.

In Texas in 2006, Republicans reelected Governor Rick Perry despite his sagging popularity. Perry found himself facing two Independents as well as a Democrat, all exploiting public discontent with the political situation. They included state comptroller and Republican Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who promised to place a high priority on public education funding and to expand the CHIP healthy children program, and who blasted Perry for making cuts in both areas (Chron.com 2006). The other independent was comedian Kinky Friedman, who mocked his opponents' political experience by reminding audiences that the letters "ticks" in the word "politics" stood for "blood-sucking parasites," but soon found himself on the defensive for the racial slur of referring to Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston as "crackheads and thugs" who had raised the crime rate (Ratcliffe and Robison 2006). Democrats offered Chris Bell, a man who had a record of losing bids for the state legislature and for mayor of Houston, who after only one term had been redistricted out of his U.S. House district by the GOP-controlled legislature, but who was idolized by partisan Democrats for filing a successful ethics complaint against GOP House leader Tom Delay (Ratcliffe 2006). With Independents splitting relatively equally among the four candidates and with about 70% of the identifiers of the two major parties backing their party's candidates, Perry's 39% share of the popular vote compared to Bell's 30% mirrored the 9% edge that Republicans held over Democrats in the exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TX/G/00/epolls.0.html).
Perry was reelected once again in 2010 over Democratic Houston mayor Bill White. Though both candidates received at least 90% of their own party identifiers' votes, Republicans outnumbered Democrats among exit poll voters by an 11% margin.

5)      A non-ideological campaign of effective job performance and constituency service is a winning recipe for an incumbent Governor (Alabama's Bob Riley's, Mississippi Haley Barbour's wins).

In Alabama, Governor Bob Riley in his first term proved to be an ideologically pragmatic chief executive, who benefited from an improving economy that produced an historic low 3% unemployment rate and was helped by an image of organized and authoritative leadership in responding to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath (Associated Press 2005; Montgomeryadvertiser.com 2006). Touting the creation of over 100,000 new jobs by expanding existing businesses as well as attracting new businesses to Alabama, Riley spent much of his 2006 reelection campaign attending groundbreaking ceremonies for new businesses and being praised by mayors in the affected cities (Rawls 2006a; Reeves 2006). His ideological pragmatism was reflected in his unsuccessful effort in 2003 to close the budget gap and increase education funding by raising taxes on the rich and lowering income and property taxes for the poor, an exercise in leadership that won him a Profile in Courage award by nationally-respected Governing magazine (Gurwitt 2003). In 2006 Riley worked with Democratic legislators to raise the threshold for a family to pay state income taxes, producing a tax cut for the working poor, and was blasted by the conservative Cato Institute for failing to reign in a "big-spending Legislature" that appropriated money for such programs as public education (Rawls 2006b; quote in Rawls 2006c). Endorsed by all 18 of the state's daily newspapers, Riley won reelection in 2006 with 57% of the vote to Democratic lieutenant governor and former two-term treasurer Lucy Baxley's 42% (Rawls 2006d). Baxley had tried to paint herself as the "working class candidate," backing a $1 increase in the state minimum wage (Kizzire 2006a). Republicans in 2006 also won four of the six executive offices below governor (Kizzire 2006b).

Haley Barbour was easily reelected Mississippi governor in 2007 with 58% of the vote over social conservative John Arthur Eaves, who backed "voluntary, student-led school prayers" and promised to throw the "money changers" out of the state capital (Nossiter, 2007). In endorsing Barbour, the Clarion-Ledger pointed out that he had "done a good job of attracting new jobs as shown in his personal role in helping land the new Toyota plant" (the Clarion-Ledger, 2007: 4G). Barbour's decisive and confident leadership after Hurricane Katrina devastated the coast, when he publicly vowed that the coast would rebuild to be "better than ever," and his active fight for federal disaster funds won him the prestigious Governing magazine's award of Public Official of the Year. Even Mississippi's first African American congressman since Reconstruction, Mike Espy, ended up backing the Republican, as did other Democratic former officeholders, lieutenant governor Brad Dye and governor Bill Waller (Rupp, 2007: 1A, 6A).

Phil Bryant's reelection as governor in 2015 in Mississippi also showed the importance of stressing economic development. Throughout his term, he had attended many business openings and expansions throughout the state, including in the northern cities of Baldwyn, Burnsville, Columbus, Ecru, Guntown, New Albany, Pontotoc, Starkville, Verona, and West Point. Democratic electoral futility was reflected in their gubernatorial nominee, Robert Gray, being a truck driver, who admitted that he had been too busy to even vote in the party primary. Gray presumably won because his name was listed first on the ballot, and his two opponents also lacked name visibility and any previous elected office experience and were women.
Bryant had first been elected governor in 2011. His first state office had been state legislator and then auditor, where he was known for a non-partisan approach, promoting "transparent government," and recovering funds from "corrupt officials." He then served as lieutenant governor, where he touted his close work with popular Governor Barbour recruiting new jobs to the state and "being responsible with taxpayers' dollars by not spending money we don't have" (Harrison 2011).

6)      A folksy, ideologically-inclusive candidate can keep a diverse majority coalition together (Louisiana Edwin Edwards; Georgia Zell Miller; Arkansas David Pryor wins).

As the Second Reconstruction began to transform Louisiana society and the race issue became less salient to whites, Louisiana Democrats were successful in creating a governing biracial coalition of working class whites, Cajuns, and the vast majority of the state's sizable African American population. The leader of this coalition for much of the last three decades of the 20^th century was four-term governor Edwin Edwards. Edwards, a French-speaking Catholic from south Louisiana and the first governor of Cajun descent in the century, came from a humble background as a tenant farmer's son. Growing up during the Great Depression, his hero was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he praised governmental programs that provided him bus service, electricity, a free school lunch, and school books, as well as the "butter, beans, flour, and other staples" that kept his family alive (Bridges 1994: 198 quote, 199). Edwin Edwards was especially known for being a "witty and charismatic campaigner" (Lamis 1990: 110). When reporters at the start of his first reelection campaign asked him whether he would be able to keep his New Year's resolution to stop gambling, Edwards joked: "The odds are eight to five" (Bass and DeVries 1977: 175). Responding to stories about his alleged womanizing during his third successful gubernatorial election campaign, the handsome Edwards quipped that the only way he could lose the election was if he was caught "in bed with a dead girl or a live boy" (Bridges 1994: 200). Seeking a third term as governor, Edwards in 1983 unseated Republican Governor Treen in a landslide (Table 6-2). The well-funded Edwards skillfully played on public dissatisfaction with the economic problems plaguing the state, ushered in by the 1982 national recession. Blasting Treen as an inept, "do-nothing" governor, Edwards described the Republican governor as "having a lack of anything between your ears," and of being "so slow, it takes him an hour and one-half to watch Sixty Minutes" (Lamis 1990: 118, 1^st quote; Renwick, Parent, and Wardlaw 1999: 285, 2^nd quote). Treen touted his black appointments to state government and tried to contrast his own integrity with Edwards' image of corruption, but was swamped by the Democrats' powerful biracial coalition of whites with modest incomes and of blacks, and by the public perception of being a failed leader in this economic crisis (Parent 1988: 212; Parent and Perry 2003: 128; Parent and Perry 2007: 135). Edwards won his fourth term as governor in 1991 after only narrowly leading the first "open" primary with 34% of the vote to former white supremacist David Duke's 32%, setting up "the race from hell" between the "crook" and the "bigot" (Bridges 1994: 194 1^st quote; 217 other quotes). With Louisiana political and economic leaders terrified that a victory by Duke would produce a massive national boycott by lucrative conventions and businesses (considering where to locate), bumper stickers backing Edwards jokingly urged: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important!" (Bridges 1994: 220-221, 232 quote). In a televised debate, Edwards effectively compared his own record of public service with Duke's controversial history: "While David Duke was burning crosses and scaring people, I was building hospitals to heal them. When he was parading around in a Nazi uniform to intimidate our citizens, I was in a National Guard uniform bringing relief to flood and hurricane victims" (Bridges 1994: 229). Needless to say, Edwards won with a sizable 61% of the vote, as one poll found that fully 60% of voters believed that Duke's racial views hadn't changed since his days with the KKK and that an overwhelming 91% of those voters ended up backing Edwards (Rose and Esolen 1992: 229-230). The Edwards era in Louisiana politics ended with his retirement from public life after serving this last term, his subsequent indictment and conviction for a federal crime, and his commitment to a federal prison.

Democrats retained the Georgia governorship in 1990 with four-term Lieutenant Governor Zell Miller, a "moderate liberal" who beat Republican businessman Johnny Isakson, a 14-year state representative who had risen to the house minority leadership position. A country music fan from rural north Georgia, Miller hired political consultants James Carville and Paul Begala and waged an aggressive television campaign that portrayed himself as a political "outsider" who had stood up to powerful long-time house speaker Tom Murphy. Miller focused on economic issues that Democrats had been associated with since the New Deal instead of on divisive social issues, urging adoption of a lottery to better fund education innovations and calling for repeal of the regressive sales tax on food that hurt poor people (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 109-113). Democrats were able to reelect Governor Zell Miller in 1994, but his mere 51% victory was a disappointment. Miller as governor had amassed an impressive, ideologically inclusive record of accomplishment, enacting the lottery-based HOPE program providing full college scholarships for high school students with B averages, and being tough on crime by backing a tough DUI law, boot camps, and a 2 strikes and you're out law (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 120). The Republican challenger was successful businessman Guy Millner, whose political inexperience was highlighted by his off-handed comment that he would avoid campaigning in small towns because the votes weren't there, and whose wealth was constantly highlighted by the governor. The Republican did effectively tie Zell Miller to President Clinton, as his ads played the governor's keynote address at the Democratic national convention praising Clinton as the "only candidate who feels our pain" (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 119). Miller may have also lost some voter support because of his effort to have the Confederate battle emblem removed from the state flag (an effort defeated in the legislature), and the cuts he made in state spending when faced with a national recession (Miller 2003: 47, 50-53). In 1998 the once segregationist Peach State elected African Americans Thurbert Baker and Michael Thurmond as attorney general and secretary of labor, respectively, with significant white support (Binford, Baxter, Sturrock, 1999: 134; Bullock 2007: 64). Both had first been appointed to state government positions by Governor Miller, with Thurmond directing the state's welfare-to-work effort and Baker appointed to complete his predecessor's term as attorney general.

In Arkansas, Congressman David Pryor had built up a moderate voting record that earned him two successive reelections without opposition, and he had gained notoriety by working anonymously as a nursing home attendant on weekends to expose abuses to the elderly in nursing homes (Barone, Ujifusa, and Matthews 1972: 39-40). Pryor won the governorship in 1974 after being nominated by a 51% majority over segregationist Orval Faubus, and then winning a 66% landslide over Republican Ken Coon, former executive secretary for the state GOP, after prominent and wealthy businessmen threw their support to the Democratic nominee (Bass and DeVries 1977: 97; Lamis 1990: 125; Barone, Ujifusa, and Matthews 1975: 38). As governor, Pryor strove to attract high wage industries to the state, appointed an historic number of blacks and women to state offices, and was a fiscal conservative who held spending down (Bass and DeVries 1977: 98; Fenno 1996: 293; see Website http://www.oldstatehouse.com/exhibits/virtual/governors/). Pryor was so popular among voters that he won 83% of the vote in his 1976 reelection over a virtually unknown Republican, Leon Griffith, a plumber and building contractor (Lamis 1990: 125). Governor Pryor went on to multiple terms in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1978. His voting record varied in his first term between moderate and moderately liberal with some conservative positions on issues like food stamps, flag desecration, and a balanced budget. He was reelected senator in 1984, defeating three-term conservative Republican congressman Ed Bethune with 57% of the vote (Ehrenhalt 1983: 82; Ehrenhalt 1985: 76; Fenno 1996: 303). The GOP challenger had futilely charged that the centrist Pryor was "part of the old liberal Democratic coalition that always spent too much and collected too much in taxes" (Lamis 1990: 256). Meanwhile, Senator Pryor had been campaigning tirelessly for a year before the election with his "person-to-person tours throughout the state" (Lamis 1990: 256). With the campaign slogan "Pryor Puts Arkansas First," the Democratic incumbent responded to the charge that he had failed to support President Reagan's policies by pointing out that he dealt with "issues that affect Arkansas and Arkansas people," and that his opponent's "rigid ideology overrides compassion and gets in the way of representing real people with problems" (Fenno 1996: quotes on 317; 319). Prior's great popularity in Arkansas was reflected in his winning his last reelection to the senate in 1990 without any opposition. Pryor's roll call record in the 1990s proceeded to move more towards the liberal to moderate liberal ideological pole (Duncan and Lawrence 1995: 66). Some of his major accomplishments as senator, though, were above ideology, as he fought waste in the federal government's use of outside consultants, enacted a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, and defended the Rural Electrification Administration which benefited Arkansas (Fenno 1996: 295, 299, 300). Pryor truly appeared to like people and to show a "genuine interest in whatever is on the minds of his constituents" so that voters regarded him as "one of us" and trusted him (Fenno 1996: quotes on 283; 62, 286). State reporters described him as "personable," "folksy," "unassuming," and a "real nice guy," who was decent, never made enemies, and who knew many constituents on a first name basis (Fenno 1996: quotes on 284; 286-287). Indeed, Senator Pryor was so humble and accessible that he could sometimes be found early in the morning serving as receptionist and catching the early phone calls (Fenno 1996: 288).

7)      Short-term forces, such as effective and ineffective candidates, are decisive when no party is the clear majority party (North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole; Virginia's George Allen's defeats).

By 2008 the two parties in North Carolina were tied in party identification. Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole began her reelection campaign with Democrats and the major state newspaper calling her a "backbencher," and a "silent senator" who had accomplished little for the state (Barrett 2008a). A hilarious national Democratic ad took a swipe at her age, alleged ineffectiveness, and loyalty to the unpopular President Bush, with two elderly men on rocking chairs arguing over whether the 72 year old Dole was "92 or 93" in her effectiveness ranking and in her vote loyalty to Bush's proposals (Barrett 2008b). Democratic challenger Kay Hagan, a 10-year state senate veteran proceeded to relate to voters by describing herself as a "working mom" who would carpool her kids to soccer practice, and stressed the performance issue by boasting her three-time rating as one of the state's ten most effective senators by a non-partisan research center (see website: http://www.kayhagan.com/about/about-kay). Hagan received timely support from popular former Democratic governor Jim Hunt, who blasted the worst mess in Washington "since the Great Depression," and derided Dole as "a nice woman, but I have never seen anyone go to Washington and do as little as she's done" (Shaw 2008). Meanwhile, Dole continued to stumble, airing an ad accusing the sunday school teacher and presbyterian elder Hagan of taking "godless money" because of a fundraiser held for her by a member of a "Secular" group (Zagaroli 2008). With Democratic identifiers outnumbering Republicans among exit poll voters and with Hagan beating Dole by a nearly two-to-one margin among moderates, the "soccer mom" challenger proceeded to polish off the consummate Washington insider (website: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NCS01p1).
Hagan was herself unseated in her 2014 reelection bid after Republican businessman and state house speaker Thom Tillis effectively linked the Democratic incumbent to President Obama (who had a 56% disapproval rating): "Whether it's the IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA, the Secret Service, it just really raises a question about this president's ability to lead... People can only absorb so much, so you really have to focus on her failure with jobs and economy, her failure on the safety and security issues" (Roarty 2014).

The parties are also pretty evenly divided in party identification in Virginia. In the 2006 elections, incumbent Republican Senator George Allen was narrowly unseated by Democrat Jim Webb. Webb, a former Marine whose Vietnam service had earned him several medals, was a former Republican who had served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. The Democrat immediately ran an ad where President Reagan at a 1985 Naval Academy commencement address had praised his service, and he also wore his son's combat boots on the campaign trail to honor his son's continuing the family military tradition by serving in Iraq (Boyer 2006; Richmond Times-Dispatch 2006). The challenger proceeded to play on the public's dissatisfaction with the Iraqi war and other problems facing the nation, as he blasted President Bush's "incompetence" for hindering "our ability to fight international terror," and called for the election of a "new team in Congress," "a Democratic Congress," which would provide "a new direction in Iraq" (Whitley 2006). Meanwhile, an overconfident Allen, touted by some Republicans as a likely presidential hopeful, ribbed a Webb staffer of Asian-Indian descent who was filming him at a campaign rally: "This fellow here, over here, with the yellow shirt, 'Macaca', or whatever his name is, he's with my opponent. So, welcome, let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America, and the real world of Virginia" (Boyer 2006). Allen suddenly found himself on the defensive against charges of racism, as he denied any awareness that the word 'macaca' was a racial slur used by whites in some French-colonized African nations to refer to a type of monkey, a macaque. The embattled Republican also found himself rejecting charges that as a college football player decades ago, he had used the N word to describe blacks (Stallsmith 2006). In pulling off a narrow upset with 49.6% of the vote to 49.2% for the incumbent, exit polls found Democrat Webb winning the votes of 56% of Independents, 60% of self-identified moderates, and even 42% of whites (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/VA/S/01/epolls.0.html).

Arkansas by 2014 had become very competitive in partisanship despite a very Democratic history. President Obama now had a 68% disapproval rating and the Democratic party advantage in the state had disappeared (33% of exit poll voters were Republicans while 28% were Democrats). Desperately fighting to save his seat, Senator Mark Pryor ran an ad featuring his father, popular former governor and senator David Pryor, who defended his son's support for Obamacare by citing his son's own battle with insurance companies when he had had cancer. After Pryor attacked his opponent, Republican congressman Tom Cotton for having a "sense of entitlement" to the Senate job for having served in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Army, the 37-year-old Cotton ran a playful ad of himself standing at attention in front of his Drill Sergeant, George Norton, who had "taught me how to be a soldier: Accountability, humility, and putting the unit before yourself. That training stuck" (Camia 2014). Independents broke for the Republican challenger, with Cotton winning 62% of them and unseating Pryor.

8)      Perceived ideological extremism is a killer for any party (Texas George Bush's and Rick Perry's victories; Florida's Katherine Harris' defeat).

Texas governor, Democrat Ann Richards had taken such liberal actions as opposing a bill requiring parental consent for teenagers to receive abortions, vetoing a concealed weapons bill strongly backed by the NRA, and appointing more blacks and women to state commissions and boards than any previous governor. She also had backed NAFTA, worked to bring and keep industry in the state, and dealt with a budget shortfall by enacting a state lottery and signing a corporate income tax bill (Murray and Attlesey 1999: 323; Ivins and Dubose 2000: 92). Richards also showed her partisan nature even in presidential politics by mocking President Bush during the 1992 campaign, a somewhat questionable strategy since Texas has voted Republican in each presidential election beginning in 1972 (except for Carter's narrow win in 1976)(Feigert and Todd 1994: 173). Richards and the legislature also dealt with the problem of unequal funding across school districts by enacting a controversial "Robin Hood" law that "took from the rich districts to give to the poor districts" (Ivins and Dubose 2000: 22). Republicans in 1994 won the governorship, despite increasing job growth in Texas that boosted Ann Richards' reelection hopes. The GOP rallied behind the candidacy of George W. Bush, who was popular in Republican circles as the former President's son and as part owner of the Texas Rangers' baseball team. Bush skillfully exploited Richards' liberal record, as he supported the concealed weapons bill and the parental notification of teenagers' abortions bill that Richards had opposed. Bush also projected a likeable image as a "compassionate conservative" on education matters, as he criticized a school funding equalization plan that had hurt some wealthy suburban districts and argued that all of the proceeds of the lottery enacted by Governor Richards and the legislature should go to enhancing education funding (Murray and Attlesey 1999: 323, 325-327; Thielemann and Elliott 2005: 238 quote). On the issues of crime and welfare, Bush claimed that "juvenile crime is out of control," and promised to get tough with welfare recipients by cutting off the additional benefits provided for any extra child that a woman gave birth to (Ivins and Dubose 2000: 93 quote, 95). Bush was also a very personable candidate, speaking a little Spanish before Mexican American audiences and projecting a "non-threatening, affable, well-mannered" impression to voters (Ivins and Dubose 2000: 91 quote, 19). The Democrat Richards was especially doomed by her inability "to hold the urban Anglo women against Bush" (Richards 2002: 246). The Republican's 54% popular vote victory was the highest winning margin for a Texas governor in twenty years. Bush was reelected governor four years later in a landslide.

Lieutenant governor Rick Perry assumed the Texas governorship when George W. Bush immediately resigned after winning the presidency. Perry went on to win the governorship in his own right in the 2002 elections with 58% of the vote over Democrat Tony Sanchez's 40%. Sanchez, a Mexican-American millionaire businessman from Laredo, was reportedly hurt by his lack of campaign experience, his inadequate knowledge of state issues, a party primary battle that was so bitter that the runner up ended up campaigning for the GOP governor, by a failed savings and loan scandal in his past, and by claims that he wasn't a real Democrat because of his past campaign donations to George Bush and his appointment by Bush to the University of Texas Board of Regents (Cooley and Lutz, 2002). Sanchez did, however, win the endorsement of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus Political Action Committee by reportedly supporting "domestic-partner benefits," an "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," and an "education bill banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation in Texas schools," and opposing "bills that would outlaw gay and lesbian parenting and foster parenting" (Bagby 2002).

Florida Democratic U.S. senator Bill Nelson has veered to the left, typically receiving liberal ADA scores of about 80 and conservative ACU scores of about 20. He has, for example, voted to extend a ban on assault weapons and to limit the size of President Bush's tax cut, as well as voted against a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, against a ban on partial birth abortion, and against criminalizing harm to the fetus in an attack on the mother (Koszczuk and Stern 2005: 224). He nevertheless won reelection in 2006 with a landslide 60% of the vote, benefiting from the GOP nomination of a candidate viewed as too conservative for most Floridians, Katherine Harris, who won only 38% of voters. Republican Harris, the controversial secretary of state during the disputed 2000 presidential race in Florida, was elected to congress in 2002 and had compiled a conservative voting record (Koszczuk and Stern 2005: 252). Republican leaders in Florida had desperately tried to find a candidate to challenge her senatorial nomination bid, fearing that her "erratic behavior and irrational tirades to the press" would spell defeat in November, though Harris refused to bow out, "insisting that God wants her to be a senator" (Chait 2006: 14). Upon nomination Harris proceeded to alienate everyone except the Christian Right when she proclaimed that: "If you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin" (Wheeler 2006). Praised in a prominent newspaper endorsement for his "lifetime of public service" and for being a "middle of the road" incumbent "who doesn't blindly vote the party line," Nelson proceeded to win reelection by racking up the votes of 55% of whites, 68% of Independents, 70% of moderates, and even 32% of conservatives (quotes in Tallahassee.com, 2006a; exit polls in http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/FL/S/01/epolls.0.html)
Nelson won reelection yet again in 2012, as he emphasized his moderate reputation and his desire to end the bitter ideological divide between the parties in Washington. He defeated conservative congressman Connie Mack who sought to link the incumbent with President Obama and his health care law (Klas and Sanders 2012). Nelson's bipartisan message won him 61% of moderates and 57% of Independents in exit polls (see website: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/senate/exit-polls?state=fl).

In 2016 the North Carolina governor was Republican Pat McCrory, and the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful was four-term state attorney general Roy Cooper, who had also previously been a state legislator for fourteen years. One controversial issue in the race was HB2, the bathroom bill, which prevented local governments from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances that permitted people to use public bathrooms based on their gender identity (rather than their biological gender stated on their birth certificates), which was signed into law by GOP governor McCrory. Democrat Cooper called the bill a "national embarrassment" and as attorney general refused to defend it in court (Stracqualursi 2016). With fully 65% of state voters opposing HB2 and 64% of them voting for Cooper, the Democrat narrowly unseated the Republican.

Congress is best example. It organizes into party caucuses, elects its leaders and recommends committee chairs. Party-line vote on first day of congress results in majority party winning every committee chair, Speaker, Senate Majority Leader positions. There are clear differences in the ideologies of the parties and party leaders in the Congress. In the House of Representatives and Senate, Democratic institutional leaders vote liberal about 90% or more of the time, while Republican leaders vote conservative about 90% or more of the time. (see Honors American Government class notes, find Paul Ryan name, examine ideological voting records of all House and Senate Republican and Democratic leaders)

Such legislative organization by party exists in most state legislatures, but not in historically one party states such as Mississippi. In Mississippi, House Speaker appoints committee chairs from both parties. Our lieutenant governors does the same for the state senate. The first GOP lieutenant governor, Eddie Briggs in 1992, continued Democrat Brad Dye's bipartisan committee chairs appointment. Majority party Democrats in senate did not strip subsequent Republican lieutenant governors, Amy Tuck and Phil Bryant, of committee appointment power. Mississippi House Democrats was the first to form a party caucus, but it only discussed public issues. The only break from this bipartisan tradition was when House Republicans in 2007 joined with a few conservative Democrats to back a conservative Democratic challenger to the House Speaker, who after narrowly winning appointed only Democrats as committee chairs. Republicans gained control of both state legislative chambers in Mississippi in 2011, and the new Republican House Speaker appointed 8 black Democrats and 2 white Democrats along with 30 Republicans as committee chairs. The same year, Republican lieutenant governor Reeves appointed 10 black Democrats and 5 white Democrats along with 23 Republicans as committee chairs. Partisanship arose in chamber leadership positions, however, as floor votes gave Republicans the two top positions of House Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore, and Democrats elected one white as House Democratic Leader and one black as House Democratic Deputy Leader; and the state senate elected Republican Terry Brown president pro tempore, who joined the GOP lieutenant governor. Bipartisanship suffered even more after the 2015 elections gave the GOP a super majority in both chambers. House Speaker Gunn, seeking to promote a more conservative agenda, reduced Democrats to chairing only two committees (African Americans chaired Energy and Youth and Family Affairs committees), with Republicans chairing the other 42 committees. Lieutenant Governor Reeves preserved a more bipartisan partnership, appointing 8 African American Democrats, 5 white Democrats, and 25 Republicans as chairs. Frustrated House Democrats reacted against the desire of the GOP House leadership to promote more conservative policies by repeatedly resorting to legislative delaying tactics (on a judicial redistricting bill, the transferal of control of an airport from Jackson to a regional board, and over a GOP-led tax cut bill that resulted in budget cuts).

Legislatures often have party differences in voting on roll call bills. In Congress, both parties have become very ideological, with Democrats voting more liberal and Republicans voting more conservative. Democrats especially vote more liberal than Republican on economic regulation and social welfare programs, while Republicans are especially conservative on national defense issues. Clinton impeachment issue was a near party line vote in House, but some Senate Republicans bucked their own party. Partisanship is a little less evident in the Senate than the house. Partisanship was quite evident on Obamacare, which passed Congress without any Republican support; efforts to repeal it have received no Democratic support.

Party differences in state legislative voting also often occur. In Mississippi, Democrats have been more willing to back revenue measures for education at all levels than have Republicans. Democrats have also backed affirmative action and other race issues more than Republicans. Republicans are more conservative on crime measures, though white Democrats often break party ranks with black Democrats on crime issue. Very few ratings of Mississippi state legislators exist, but a business group rated the 2013 legislative session, and in the Senate for example all Republicans received A grades while Democrats received grades of B, C, or D. Their latest ratings for the 2016 legislative session are also available. The national conservative ACU has started rating state legislatures. View Mississippi's ratings for 2016.

Chief executives also have the ability to organize part of the executive branch of government through their appointment power, though upper branch of legislature must confirm many of their appointments. President nominates cabinet positions subject to senate confirmation. Governors of many states, including Mississippi, lack ability to appoint many key positions, as they are elected statewide. Chief executives often select appointees from the ideologically dominant wing of their party, as did Reagan and George W. Bush. Chief executives can broaden their appointments to be more inclusive, as seen with George W. Bush choosing dovish African American Colin Powell as Secretary of State, and Governor Barbour reappointing an African American to lead Corrections and initially appointing an African American to lead Medicaid. President Obama was praised for his inclusive appointments, keeping the Bush-appointed Defense Secretary (Robert Gates) and appointing a "hard-liner" as Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton).

Chief executives do not always behave in a very partisan manner. Reagan was the most ideologically consistent President, being very conservative. Democrat Carter pioneered deregulation of many industries. Clinton after flirting with gays in the military and "socialized" medicine, backed welfare reform, more police on the streets, and a balanced budget. Republicans George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush presided over massive deficits, as both refused to cut domestic spending; George W. Bush even spent more on education and health, while cutting taxes.

U.S. Supreme Court and state courts are the least partisan bodies. At the federal level, judges are appointed by President, but confirmation by Senate prevents very ideological judges, and lifetime appointments gives them considerable independence. Judges who think of themselves as Democrats are nevertheless more liberal in their decisions than are Republicans. The 2000 Florida election dispute decision was especially led by Supreme Court judges appointed by Republican Presidents. There are nevertheless some ideological differences in the decisions of Supreme Courts, as Presidents are able to appoint ideologically-consistent judges. By 1987 President Reagan's appointments of conservatives Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy tilted the court to the right, as the court permitted the execution of minors and the mentally retarded, and permitted some restrictions on abortions. By the 1990s President Clinton's appointments of liberals Ginsberg and Breyer tilted the court to the left, as the court outlawed the execution of minors and the mentally retarded, struck down some abortion restrictions, defended the 1st amendment establishment of religion clause, and protected the right of gays to have sex. By the second term of the George W. Bush presidency, after he had appointed conservatives Roberts and Alito, the court tilted back to the right, as it upheld lethal injection, upheld a Congressional partial birth abortion ban, struck down a reverse discrimination practice, and upheld gun ownership rights in the nation's capital. Two of Obama's appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, replacing moderates moved the court back to the center after 2010, as the court outlawed executing the mentally retarded, outlawed life without parole for minors, upheld Obamacare, and struck down the part of the federal anti-gay rights law that barred federal benefits to same-sex marriages; the court nevertheless upheld 1st amendment rights, permitting companies whose owners had religious objections to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage under Obamacare, permitted town boards to start meetings with prayers, and permitted individuals to ignore overall aggregate limitations on their campaign donations to federal candidates. See my Honors American Government notes (Section starts at Earl Warren Court). You can also view how each modern U.S. Supreme Court justice has voted on important cases. Notice how from 2010 thru 2017, every Republican appointed justice (names in italics) except for Kennedy tended to vote together, while every Democratic justice tended to vote together. Scalia's death therefore resulted in 4 liberal justices and only 3 conservative justices (plus swing voter Kennedy, and one vacancy), prompting a GOP majority Senate refusal to consider Obama's nomination; Trump's elevation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court restored the 4-4 ideological tie.

A Responsible Party System is like Great Britain's Parliamentary system, where the branches of government are unified in policy terms and implement their policy programs into law.

Why a Responsible Party System would not be good for the United States:
• It would increase conflict; constituents and interest groups would lose influence.
• It wouldn't work in the U.S., because separation of powers between the governmental branches was intended to prevent tyranny, and because divided government has often prevailed.

When has the U.S. had Aspects of a Responsible Party System:
• When Strong Presidential Leadership occurs, such as Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and Ronald Reagan's national defense build-up and tax cuts.
• In Times of Crisis, such as the Great Depression (New Deal program).
• After party realignments, when one party has controlled the Presidency and both chambers of Congress for ten years or more. Examples included: 1st party era of Democratic-Republican dominance from 1800-1826; 2nd party era of Democratic dominance from 1828-1840; 3rd party era of Republican dominance from 1860-1874; 4th party era of Republican dominance, from 1896-1910 and 1920-1932; 5th party era of Democratic dominance from 1932-1946.
• We potentially could have such a system today, as the percentage of Republican voters who call themselves conservatives and the percentage of Democratic voters who call themselves liberals has risen since 1972. The percentage of conservative Republicans shot up at two time points- 1994 and 2008. The percentage of liberal Democrats has risen since 2000, and shot up in 2008.

Party Renewal is now taking place, reversing the party decline of the 1960s:

• The parties have become more ideologically cohesive over the past two decades, as white southerners and religious conservatives have moved more into the Republican Party.
• The numbers of strong partisans have increased recently back to the levels of the 1960s. The numbers of independent leaners remain at historically high levels, but independent leaners vote for President in as partisan a manner as the partisans do.
• Party identification affects the presidential vote as strongly today as it did in the 1950s. Indeed, only isolated elections have produced party disloyalty. Democrats were more disloyal to their party's presidential candidates in 1968, 1972, and 1980. Republicans were more disloyal to their party's candidates in 1964 and 1992.
• Split-ticket voting (voting for different parties for president and U.S. House) hit a 50-year low in 2004.
• The parties have become more cohesive and united in Congress in recent years. Since 1980 congress members have increasingly voted more frequently with a majority of their party colleagues. Also since 1980, congressional Democrats and Republicans have increasingly become more ideologically polarized.
• The national parties in recent years have become more heavily involved in financing their candidates' election campaigns.
• Ways to make the parties even stronger: perform constituent services, such as by using mobile units in districts represented by the other party's congressman; provide low-cost health insurance or other benefits to party members; air campaign ads that promote the party as a whole instead of just individual candidates (Republicans actually did this in 1980 and 1994). (ideas provided by Sabato and Larson, cited by Hershey text)