And what i know here, if we look at the democratic races, a great deal of their competitive races have occurred when the candidate is leading in National Polls readers for the election. So right now doesnt run. Ted kennedy in 1972 and again in 1970s pics three years before the primaries he was the leading candidate. He didnt run. Gary hart dropped out in 1997. Mario cuomo didnt run in 1992. Hillary clinton didnt run in 2004. And each of those democratic years wound up being more competitive. We see a whole lot less agreement among party insiders. Im not showing it in this paper, but the endorsement data for these elections is a lot less consensus among democrats. They are dividing their support among different candidates, but also importantly much more of the Democratic Party establishment spits out. They dont make an endorsement at all. We see that in the republican side of it in 2008 and 2012. For republicans in those years mitt romney, for example, was the consensus pick of the esta
Next, a discussion about National Political party nominations, scandal, and comebacks, as well as rules changes for the 2016 election. This is part of the state of the parties conference. It runs just under two hours. We have four papers to be presented. We hope you will have great interest in what they present. More than anything else, we hope you will have Great Questions because this group of individuals have not only studied what has been, but are giving us perspective of what is to come. I think youll find their perspectives very interesting. About party a paper power and the causal effects of endorsements. Seth is at the university of denver and eric is at the public posse institute of california. I will shut up and let them talk. Whats were here presenting this on behalf of our other co authors. We are trying to come up with a measurement of the impact of a Party Endorsement in a primary, which is traditionally a tricky thing to measure. Study toing a fun case do this. This is t
Nominations i dont have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. Versus incumbent renominations that rarely are these things competitive. Betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Campaigns contents are bit more competitive overall. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Intraparty trends. This is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. Haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. This is suggesting democratic a couple of things. One, the Democratic Party is a little more unified. It also could mean perspective candidates are little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. Republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. Ray nagin reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in
Congressional, but generally, you know, voters dont have a ton of familiarity with the people on that ballot. So i think for the voters it was actually a pretty typical election. There and you remind me what the other questions were . So the others were would you expect a similar effect in a higher visibility race, and would you expect the parties really to start weighing in this more often in primaries, primaries and higher level races such as for congress . So they, these endorsements were for congress as well. So we actually have a pretty broad distribution state assembly, state senate and congress. Its just a general mix. And so i would expect them to continue doing that. I think one of the key questions is how much primary competition will there be in the future, how much of what we saw in the 2012 was a function of the redistricting which was also pretty radical in california in the basic sense that it moved the lines a lot. Theres a lot of uncertainty about who with am i represe
Im more troubled by the fact that other republican officials who clearly know better are going along with this, are humoring him in this fashion. Its one more step in delegitimizing not just the Incoming Biden Administration but democracy generally. And that is a dangerous path. Harris however, legal expert Jonathan Turley pushed back on the former president s comments saying the legal battles are actually helping preserve our democracy. Its a rather odd comment that confirming the validity of the votes is delegitimizing democracy. You would think that the way to uphold democracy is to assure that, well, democracy happened. We also dont see the great harm to democracy in guaranteeing that votes were counted. Harris youre watching outnumbered. Im harris faulkner. Here today town hall editor and the Fox News Contributor katie pavlich. Attorney and Fox News Contributor cam emily campano. Fox news contributor marie harf. In the Center Virtual couch seat is guy benson. Happy friday, everybo