Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20140104

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 the state of california which just employed a new top two system of electing candidates to office as of last year. Every candidate of any party can participate starting in the june primary. All voters see the same ballot consisting of all the candidates of the parties per the top two vote getters go to a november runoff. This was one of the latest california innovations to make everything wonderful. What wases noticed happening and responded by issuing a series of endorsements voters insteer the the direction of one of their candidates. We wanted to see what kind of influence that might have. Is Main Research question what sort of impact Party Endorsements have. Do they help candidates in the primaries . This is a tricky area. There is a severe problem. Parties and other endorsers generally pick strong candidates. They pick the type of people likely to do well in the election anyway. If you look at every california candidate for assembly, state senate, and congress and compared those who got a Party Endorsement with those who did not, it looks like indoor sees more thanes that 54 those who did not. That is an absurd number. We do not think the endorsement is worth 54 points, but it might be worth something. The problem is it is hard to figure out what it is worth because they tend to do well in the first place. Question. Important if endorsements convey some benefit, parties can be influential in primaries. They can do some of the picking for us to help narrow the field of candidates. That would make them king or queen makers. They have an important effect on nominations. On the other hand, if there is no real value of the endorsement, parties do not have much power to pick people for us. They are just cheerleaders. They are jumping on and supporting whoever happens to look like a good candidate anyway. The answer to the question tells you whether we are living in a candidate centered or party centered political system. Get at the question using two Different Research designs within the same study. The first is a survey experiment in which we created three fictitious candidates and presented them to 1000 respondents in a survey. We had three candidates with bios of each. We randomized the endorsements between the two democrats. Isolates and controls for all other possible candidate factors. We are just looking to see what impact the endorsement had on peoples stated intentions. Second, we looked at the actual election results. We have a nice piece of data in that we have the endorsement votes done at the level of the county party. Howsee how much strong these candidates were, how much they were supported by county believes. We can compare those candidates who came short of the endorsements with those who got barely above the endorsement threshold. Theoretically, the candidates have similar strength and we can see how much the endorsement mattered. Themain hypotheses are that endorsements should provide some benefit for candidates. It should be a help. Whether the exact reason for that is something we are not sure about, it could be some sort of internalization of an elite norm among voters. The second hypothesis focused on the democratic Party Endorsement. We would expect a democratic Party Endorsement would matter more among democratic voters than among independents and republican voters. The third where we are unsure is it might benefits some types of candidates more than others. In california, you could say there are two main types of Democratic Candidates. Here is thee Traditional Democratic comes out of education or the labor union and there is the new democrat that might come out of the business world. We were wondering whether an endorsement might matter more for one type. Setfirst one provides some up for a survey experiment. I will just say these are three fictitious candidates for a status symbol he see that we came up with. The first is what we would call a traditional democrat. He is involved in the local school board and favors increased funding for schools. Candidate is a new democrat. He wants communitybased policing. Finally, we have our token republican who owns and operates a small business. He wants to cut taxes and red tape of all the standard republican stuff. Then, we randomized the endorsement in our survey. We contacted 1000 californians around the time of the june 24 primary. We gave people the short bios. 1 3 saw the traditional democrat getting the endorsement. New democrat getting the endorsement. What did the results look like . Here you go. Showse set sells the condition in which there was no endorsement for any of the candidates. Johnson, the traditional democrat, gets about 30 . Uthrie gets below 20 the other half of the sample goes to robinson, the republican. The move from the middle to the left where johnson gets the endorsement, you see the dark goes up. It gets a bump of about seven points. The traditional democrat getting the democratic endorsement seems to be worth seven points. If you go from the middle to the right where the new democrat gets the endorsement, that is only two or three points. This is suggestive of the idea that endorsements seem to be of greater help to the traditional democrat. I am going to turn you over to eric for the exciting conclusion of our talk. Stay tuned. We have one more graph about the experiment. As your Party Identification ofomes weaker, the effect whether or not your candidate is weaker, whichgets kind of makes sense. As you become less of a democrat, you will not be as responsive to democratic use cues. The second way we look at this because the survey experiment is sort of artificial and would not apply in the real world. We took observational data, otherwise known as real election. Ata of how muchasure showing up to conventions and caucuses, how much they supported a particular candidate. Imagine as support among elites got higher that the performance in the primary would be better because the elites are in part you can candidates who are good. The red line is the endorsement. This is roughly what you would expect to see. As party elite support grows, performance also grows. If the endorsement have some effect, you would expect those ,hat barely got the endorsement even though there is an underlying quality issue here, that those who barely got the endorsement would do better than those who barely did not get the endorsement. That is the logic of the discontinuity. If youre only looking at those near the cut point, you can make a case it is like flipping a coin whether they are on one side or the other. Sense, they are experimentally identical. Discontinuity at the point where zero is where you get the endorsement. There is a discontinuity of about 15 points, which is remarkably similar to the size of the effect we found in the survey experiment. We are not making any claims, but that is kind of cool anyway. What is always an issue with regression discontinuity design you are looking above or below, the candidate who is more skilled and who has more of some quality or resource will be able to manipulate the outcome. Maybe they have contacts with people making the vote, some kind of insider track, that they would always come out ahead. They would be able to manipulate the results and it would not be truly like flipping a coin. A would be awaited weighted coin. We looked at whether those above and below were different on other dimensions that do not have to to do with the underlying support measure. One. Is it turns out in the original graph going back one slide, there are more incumbents just above and below. There is some indication they might be manipulating. We are doing what we have. It turns out the effect is still there. We also went through and coded Democratic Candidates according to whether they had business experience or not. Very crude but roughly comparable to what we had in the survey experiment. We see basically the same difference. I am sure many in this crowd will look at the values and say a significantuals value. Es to stop using pvalu evaluate science. It is basically the same pattern. E saw before we also did the randomization inference test. Ofs is a very similar way catching leading the values. It is a similar idea. It tests more directly for the ,otion of the internal validity not worrying quite so much about whether they are representative of a broader sample, but then saying to the endorsement make a difference on this group of people in front of us . You see basically the same going down that table. You see placebo tests where we take something that should not differ above and below the threshold and compared those as well. We do not see any difference for those, but we do for the actual vote share. That is what you would want to see if it is having an effect. The experiment shows the endorsement matters. It helps the traditional democrat more than the business democrat. That is counterintuitive but interesting. All of our versions of regression discontinuity show around the same effect. Not a 54 point effect, but we never believed it was true anyway. Showing parties do not rule the roost, but they can have an important influence on so outcome of these races, we calling them constrained kingmakers. Thank you very much. Going a little further on the were going to, talk about the role of rules in the 2012 nominations, which means pretty much republicans. In 1968, the Democratic Party embarked on what is often referred to as one of the greatest Party Reforms in with thehistory commission that was the inning of an overall hall overhaul of how nominees were selected. Prior to this, party elites were choosing the candidates. Commission, the role of selecting nominees was shifted to voters. Ies and caucuses start to matter where voters can express preferences for a candidate and that culminates in the delegate selection at a National Convention. Starting with the commission, the Democratic Party made numerous reforms to the process. Tinkered with it almost every election cycle until the 1980s. The Democratic Party had no fewer than eight Reform Commission starting in 1968. While this was happening, the Republican Party was very hands off in the process and did not become actively involved in reforming the president ial nomination process. One of the most recent activities by the Republican Party is the creation of the temporary delegate Selection Committee in 2008 wave that reformed the most recent process. I look at the rules set in place by the National Parties and effect of those rules. I wanted to take a step back from that project and look at why republicans became involved after being so uninvolved for so long and what the consequences of their involvement were in the most recent nomination. There are four main reasons the Republican Party has been less involved in the president ial nomination process than the Democratic Party. The first is they have been more content with their success at. He president ial level another reason is in the Democratic Party, there was a strong section calling for reform of the process. That faction did not exist to the same extent in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is known for their position on states rights and limiting federal involvement, so it did not see the need to become involved by issuing national mandates as the Democratic Party did. Has been more it complicated to change the rules on the republican side than on the democratic side. Changesepublican side, have to be approved by four different bodies. That meant if republicans wanted the 1976hanges for nomination season, they had to implement reforms at the 1972 convention. It was a longer process and when they did not are taken like the democrats did. Regardless, the republican process did change along with the democratic process, in large part because of changes at the state level. As a result, many states switched to Holding President ial primaries. That was often the result of changes in state laws. When the states created these laws, they also did so for the republicans at the same time. Even though there was not the same involvement, the Republican Party process also changed. The Republican Party did not resist those changes. Again, for several reasons. This move was seen as a popular performed reform. The Republican Party was not willing to go against that reform the people had embraced. 1976, the first time the Republican Party was hosting a competitive nomination in the postreform era because in 1972 resident nixon was being the public accepted these reforms because they had seen it play out in 1972 on the democratic side. In 1976, there were two popular republican candidates running and party elites were willing to accept input from the public on which candidate they preferred. Finally, the Republican Party had seen in 1972 the National Attention from the media and voters that the democrats received and they were not willing to quietly nominate a candidate in 1976 while the Democratic Party got the spotlight. To thehanges happened republican process as well, but not because of their direct involvement. We see the first major attempt at reform on the republican side with the creation of a task force on primaries and caucuses at the 1996 convention. The republicans wanted to combat frontloading, which is states moving their contests up earlier in the nomination season to gain influence on the process. The Republican Party believed frontloading prevented voters from having meaningful participation and also harmed abilities to fund raise over the compressed calendar. To combat frontloading, the Republican Party offered bonus candidates to the states. That was supposed to be an incentive to the states to hold a later contest, have more delegates, and make the contest worth more to the candidates. We see the 2000 republican nomination was frontloaded. It started three weeks earlier was the 1996 calendar and more frontloaded. The Democratic Party was more Successful Holding states back and saying you cannot hold your contests in february than the Republican Party was. These reforms were seen as a failure. That brings us to the republican second major attempt at reform with the selection in many formed in 2008 to make reforms for 2012. The creation of this committee is significant not only because it is one of the rare instances where the Republican Party has become involved in the last 40 years, but also because they allow changes to go into effect for the previous nomination. These changes did not need to be approved by the National Convention and just needed to be approved by the National Committee in 2010 and would go into effect. The republicans once again tried to reduce frontloading, create a longer nomination season, and allow more voters a say in selecting the nomination. The nomination quickly. Obama democratic side, and clinton battled it out for months and we saw Media Attention at all time high. The goal was to create a more exciting, link the nomination that would pull voters into the process. They tried to achieve these goals in two weighs per the first was by regulating the calendar. The earlys said on or afterote february 1 and before the first tuesday in march where all other states have to go after the first tuesday in march. They also said states voting before april 1 had to use allocatenality to delegates. This was supposed to be seen as making the states more influential. If the state held a contest later, it could give all delegates to the winning candidate. In than relying solely on incentives, the Republican Party said we will enforce a penalty if the states do not abide by our rules. It said we will take 50 of your delegates away if you break these rules. The penalty, the republicans were not able to prevent states from ignoring the rule and gladly accepting the penalty in scheduling early contests, as they should have inected given the actions 2008. In 2012, we see movement in moving earlier and then creating a Ripple Effect where others are going to move their contests earlier to preserve their early status and influence in the process. As a result, the 2012 calendar looked completely different than the Republican Party intended. Spokeswoman give this quote after this happened. These graphs depict the states on the calendar. While the republicans intended for the race to start later in 2012, the Iowa Caucuses in both ears were held on january 3. 2008 calendar appears more frontloaded with more candidates more States Holding contests on super tuesday where we see the high bar. Super tuesday occurs closer to the Iowa Caucuses in 2008 than in 2012. Republican reforms were successful in lengthening the process because mccain secured the nomination on march 4 in 2008 and romney became the de facto nominee in 2012 on april 11. The 2008 race was competitive for 61 days compared to 99 days in 2012. The 2012 nomination was competitive for 38 days more than the 2008 nomination. It did lengthen the process. When we look closer at the goals of the number of states and voters allowed to participate in the process, we see a different story. 2008 in those 61 days the race was competitive, 37 states had the opportunity to hold their contests compared to the 30 states that held their that thein the 99 days race was competitive in 2012. Also see fewer voters participated in the republican 16. 15 ce with about dissipating compared to a little over 17. 5 participating in 2008. The participation rates in both ears were substantially lower than those in the 2008 contest. Delegatee temporary Selection Committee and its reforms are a significant departure, because it is the Republican Party becoming involved in the process, something it had not done frequently over the past 40 years of reforms. It has been fairly unsuccessful in achieving its goals and ensuring states abide by its rules and regulations, unlike the Democratic Party which has been fairly successful in ensuring states abide by its rules, particularly when we look at the overhaul of the process in the 1970s. Rnc said it intends to take a harder stance in 2016. The chairman has been quoted as saying he will impose a Death Penalty on states that move early in the process by only allocating states who break the rules nine delegates to the National Convention. Currently few states have laws that would but their primaries earlier than we think will be allowed by the republicans in 2016, so it is yet to be seen what will happen. But the Republican Party will be reforming the rules and trying to maintain control of the process in the upcoming election. I think Research Highlights two tensions. Typically seee frontloading is something that has negative consequences. But we see in 2008 the frontloaded process allowed more voters in more states to 012 whenate than in 2 the calendar was not as frontloaded on the republican side. Finally, the Republican Party is in a difficult place. If it wants to regulate its calendar and achieve its goals, it has to mandate the states follow its rules, something that goes against the core principle of the Republican Party of protecting state freedom. You are good. The next speaker is wayne. His paper starts with a statement the Party Decides among candidates. Thank you. Thank you for hosting this conference. It is an outstanding opportunity for all of us. This title goes off of earlier others in which the argument was the parties decide and collude on who the nominee will be, even before the caucuses and primaries begin. President ial nominations are about building a Winning Coalition with any Political Party among the various constituencies. Hat changes over time there were a series of reform movements that changes the nominations and who participates. In the 1970s we see the Coalition Formation occurring. They are arguing Campaign Momentum during the caucuses and primaries are driving who becomes the nominee. We get greater cigna going signaling efforts. They are unifying behind a candidate emerging even before the primaries. With two patterns. Some nominations we see the nomination being wrapped up before the caucuses and primaries began. A clear example would be the 2000 nominations on both sides. Everybody knew george w. Bush was going to be the republican nominee. Maybe not john mccain and his small band of supporters that year, but it was pretty much wrapped up. Al gore was a convincing democratic nominee. We know that. We look at other nominations in 2008 and 2012 on the democratic and republican side, it does not look at all like those nominations were wrapped up. If we look at 2008 on the democratic side, Hillary Clinton wells in a sense the establishment was in a sense the establishment candidate. She had more endorsements than any other candidate, and yet she lost. She had more money. She was getting more Media Coverage. Normally the things we think about winning. Looks more like the campaigns of the 1970s where momentum becomes important. The idea of Campaign Momentum, candidates gain more Media Coverage and get more fundraising. They are able to build their support in National Polls and do better in subsequent caucuses and primaries. There are a couple of different theoretical arguments. ,ne would be bandwagoning jumping on the most popular candidate, or citizen learning as voters learn more about the candidates across sequential primaries. The idea of the invisible it is aexplanation is Long National discussion in insiders, activists, and leaders evaluate candidates. They tend to get more endorsements, raise more money, get more support in National Polls. I think they are right, that endorsements lead to other indicators of candidate strength in a campaign. It leads us to having two perspectives. One is if the Political Parties coalesce before the caucuses and primaries, we should see very few candidates getting votes in the primaries themselves and we will see low levels of competition. Alternatively, if the parties fail to coalesce sufficiently as they did in 2008, we should see more viable candidates in the primaries and the distribution of votes will reflect higher levels of competition. What i have done is i used. Oncentration scores i am using two different measures. One calculates the number of. Erious candidates normalized measure controls for the number of candidates in a race. That measure is used by the Justice Department to determine whether a merger should go forward or the government should engage in antitrust activities to stop collusion. Importantly, low levels of competition indicator reflect more competition. We will come to that. There we go. This is my measure. We look at primary votes across to 2012. Ries from 1972 to 1972 unfortunately, my color scheme is reversed. I have read diamonds for democrats and blue squares for republicans. The read diamonds, the democrats, we had an average of five candidates per primary across all primaries in 1972. In 1976, it was over four. He continues to decline over time. Conversely, the republicans started out with less andetition in the 1970s become more competitive more recently. In terms of the competition indicator, the normalized measure, were looking at the same races. Incumbents tend to have the scores near one. A score of one indicator reflects a monopoly, completely unchallenged incumbent. We see some incumbents have been challenged. To the lower left, you have 1976, the single most competitive nomination race was between ford and reagan. Jimmy carter was fairly competitive in 1980 with ted kennedy. The horizontal line is an indicator used by the Justice Department. Below that, it is a competitive market. Above the line, it is not competitive. In most years, nominations are not particularly competitive. Those below the line occurring more frequently in the 1970s in 1980s are. The patterns we see, the first is when president s get renominated, generally these are not competitive races. The two we saw were competitive or 1976 and 1980. A number of unique circumstances occurring with ford. He had not been nominated by his own party. To the vicented presidency and presidency. Andad the watergate scandal the wideopen nominating process with the new rules implemented. Carter is associated with the minority wing of his party. The Democratic Party was very divided. To conditions enable kennedy have a more effective nomination challenge. Aside from that, we typically see nominations that are much closer to a monopoly. There is no competition when the incumbent president runs. They areominations, close to being what we would call competitive. In openkind of see this nominations. You only have a few that are not competitive versus incumbent we nominations renominations. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Democratic campaigns on average have been more competitive than republican campaigns, overall as well as open nominations. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Trends, this is the more fascinating thing looking toward 2016 and beyond. Democratic nominations have become less competitive over time. This is suggesting a couple of things. What is the Democratic Party is more unified. It also could mean that chris prospective candidates are more strategic of calculating their chances and not running. Republican nominations were competitive in the 1970s. Reagan comes along. You get a great deal of unity in the Republican Party. That may be fragmenting in the last post george w. Bush europe. Era. Argue in this paper and a forthcoming book is these two different patterns and the variation we see images from two basic factors emerges from two basic factors. The Democratic Party was less unified in the 1970s. This reflects the growing polarization. Internally, they have become more unified. We are seeing less competition and fighting over the nomination. In terms of the coalition coalescence, i argue a more unified party should be able to figure out and coalesce earlier, before the caucuses and primaries begin. A more divided party will be a tough challenge. Arehe Republican Party unraveling in the wake of the george w. Bush administration, they are going to see a much harder time coalescing behind candidates before the caucuses and primaries begin. I think we see that in 2008 and 2012, and i think we will see it in 2016. A second source of variation goes to candidate entry and exit decisions, who runs matters a great deal. The simple reason is some candidates are more appealing. It is more apparent to Party Membership this will be a strong candidate. If you do not have one of the strong candidates running, it becomes somewhat of an uncertainty, the greater uncertainty situation in which different segments of the party are trying to figure out who will be viable, who can win, who was going to be a good candidate for us in the general election. And thats a mario, in that scenario, you see more division in the party, at least in the invisible primary. In the democratic races, a great deal of their competitive races have occurred when the candidate is leading in National Polls for years before the election. And 1976,y in 1972 three years before those primaries, he was the leading candidate. He did not run. Mario cuomo did not run in 1992. Hillary clinton did not run in 2004. Each of those democratic years were more competitive. We see less agreement among party insiders. The endorsement data for these elections, there is a lot less consensus among democrats. They are dividing their support among different candidates. Much moremportantly, the Democratic Party establishment sits out. They do not make an endorsement at all. We see that on the republican side in 2008 and 2012. Mitt romney was kind of the consensus pick of the establishment, but very little of the establishment weighed in in that year. They set out a way to and primaries began. Parties decide among the candidates who decide to run. Nominations, it is an interactive process of coalition building. Sometimes that coalescence occurs before the primaries. Sometimes it is going to happen june the primaries. That is it. Thank you. To the nextving on paper on scandal and resurgence and the politics of recovery. I am jay. Thank you very much. In the study of american politics, there has been increasing literature developing around the politics of scandal. Early on, a lot of the literature focused at the president ial level and centered on the media dynamics that created an environment ripe for scandal. More recently below the president ial level, we are seeing more research of the quantitative nature that thinks through what scandals matter the most in terms of having electoral impacts, the lingering effects of the scandals across time. We know scandals matter the most two candidates who try to stay in office and that receives across time. We also know which scandals have the biggest impact in terms of the electoral promise of candidates. We look at a different question. This is an issue getting increasing attention. That is candidates who leave the electoral scene because of scandals, but then try to come back at a later date. This is what we call the politics of recovery. We think this is worth caring about because of its increasing commonality. Dynamicsf some of the of the lester, we will see more cases in the future. With a scandale comes back into politics, the media environment is dominated by that candidate and the dynamics around the scandal. That is the question we look at in this paper. There we go. Three forcese matter the most in shaping the politics of recovery. That is whether a candidate who tries to come back succeeds or fails. First and foremost context. The electoral context in which the candidate seeks to recover. Context takes on a lot of different dimensions. Perhaps the most important is the parts and composition of the district or environment in which the candidate tries to come back. Obviously, we think a candidate can only come back if he or she has the advantage of partisan wind at their backs and a district. It is not just about party. It is also about ideology. Districts dominated by one party or the other half important ideological flavors that may be advantageous or not disadvantageous. We know geography matters enormously in shaping the outcomes of races, specifically if a candidate with a scandalous past has some ongoing geographical connection to a place. Context is also driven by the social context of an environment, especially the composition of the district that may be racially or ethnically or religiously homogenous. In politics, context always matters enormously. The three of us lost elections the first time out. The context was very important. We know it. We think context matters more in scandal cases than in other cases. We know the nature of the scandals themselves matter. We know that from previous research. We make the case in this paper that matters what matters just as much or even more is the way the candidate grapples with the scandal as they present themselves to others. Our initial hypothesis focused heavily on the need for ongoing and genuine contrition on the part of candidates. As we will talk about, we come to find that while contrition matters enormously in certain contexts, a different kind of reaction to the scandal, a form of combativeness, may be as as the candidate faces the voting public that knows about his or her scandal. We have isypothesis about the way in which ended its run campaigns candidates run campaigns. More than other elections where traditional measures of a candidates success matter, in these cases we believe the candidates ability to personally connect with voters, to go over the heads of the , where money is irrelevant, that is important. The candidates charisma and credibility as they face the voters is crucially important in these races in ways they are not in others. I will turn it over to david who will talk about how we came up with the cases we examined. Then we will all talk a little about those cases. Mentioned, the politics of recovery seem to be of increasing importance. It was recent examples that drew us to the topic in the first place, but we wanted to see how often this kind of example occurred in the past. It has not been the most frequent sort of experience to see a candidate who had to leave office because of scandal take time off and then attempt to come back. We tried an interesting experiment. We tried to crowd source part of the resource on the website where i work. We explained our conditions for the situations we were hoping to look at. This is the universe of candidates we came up with. Membersed ourselves to of congress, senators, statewide elected officials, and judges, federal judges. Welcome any more examples we have not managed to encounter on this list. We did not want to limit ourselves simply to the trio mentioned in the title of the paper. We were looking for greater variance in the case studies we wanted to engage in. Helped us tonames guide our focus. Hastings, and impeached federal judge in florida, marion barry, and mel reynolds from illinois because we felt these offered real variance for us compared to the other examples. Jeff is going to talk about the latter cases. Thanks very much. I am going to talk about the three africanamerican cases. Marion barry, ill see hastings, and mel reynolds. I will talk about them. First were going to talk about the variables. After i talk about those three, david is going to talk about the new york cases. Jay will close by talking about sanford. The first variable that is so critical is context. One of the most important aspects is what kind of race you choose in your comeback race. The three candidates i made a brilliant strategic decision in choosing his comeback race. That was marion barry. One got it wrong the first time. But then his second comeback attempt was more successful. That is hastings. Made tod, mel reynolds, the big errors in his comeback. Marion barry has been a three term mayor. When he came back, he did not run for mayor immediately. He ran for city council. He could run for an out large in his home base, the eighth ward where he originally nurtured his political ties in the early 1970s. Not coincidently, that ward is also the poorest in washington and the most overwhelmingly black. Believed wisely he would find the most sympathetic audience for his return and that ward. He went on to be elected mayor after that. That probably would not have happened if he chose to run for mayor his first time back out. Hastings made a mistake his first time back. He ran in a statewide primary for secretary of state in florida. One reason that was difficult is race is preeminent. Florida is a 20 African American state. Electorate tends to be 25 africanamerican. His percentage trended about the percentage of africanamericans according to the exit polls. In the runoff, he did not move at all. He finished second in the original primary and did not add additional votes in the runoff. His second comeback race he ran in a majority what Congressional District and was more successful. He was seated in the house of representatives in 1992 where 2 3 of his colleagues had just voted to impeach him, so that is pretty interesting. The third case is no reynolds. Mel reynolds. One thing he did not do is he did not go down a level. He tried to run for congress, the same seat he had lost. , he was having an affair with a 15yearold campaign volunteer. That was not easily forgiven. Triede back in his seat, to run for his former congressional seat, and only won 6 of the vote. The next important variable is contrition versus competitiveness. The africanamerican candidates we looked at tended to be more on the side of combativeness. We have a theory about why that is more successful. Marion berry was probably the most contrite. You might remember his famous line on being caught on videotape. He said, the bitch set me up. He was actually more contrite than the other candidates we looked at, if that provide some context. [laughter] alluded to vaguely some mistakes he made. Hastings said he never made any theakes at all even though house found convincing evidence andook 150,000 in bribes the democratic majority house of representatives voted 143 to impeach him, and he was convicted. That was kind of the levels of contrition and combativeness among the three i looked at. Charisma and personal credibility very important. Marion barry had 20 years of experience in the Civil Rights Movement going back to nashville helping to organize lunch citizens. Ofer the riots, he was one the leading figures in driving trucks, delivering food throughout southwest washington, d. C. He had a tremendous amount of credibility from community and civic work. That put him in good stead when it was time for his comeback. Had a decent amount of charisma and arsenal credibility based on his work. Reynolds clearly had the least trade that was probably a critical factor that led to his poor outcome. Reynolds was a rhodes scholar. He did not have deep community ties. He was seen as an outsider when he first ran in a primary against an incumbent who have been enmeshed in scandal. He clearly scored lower on the charisma and personal readability scale than the other two personal credibility scale than the other two. We can go back to the last slide and work our way back. Spitzer started off with a lot of credibility in his race for city comptroller, but mostly having to do with his work as attorney general when he became the sheriff of wall street. He was eager to not talk about his disastrous oneyear term as governor. Outspoken msnbry c tie progressive capable of commanding a lot of Media Attention. Relating back to the context in which he was running, imos running against a field that had not gelled in the democratic primary. No one was exciting voters. The moment weiner jumped into the race, he shot to the top of the polls based entirely on his name recognition in the media circus that surrounded him. That was enough to initially buoy him. It was a lot like the 2012 republican nomination for the andident where the media the certain extent the voters kind of jumped on the flavor of the month. Anthony weiner for a month or two was the flavor of the month spitzer was running against manhattan borough president Scott Stringer was a very colorless sort of politician, not very prominent. The other factor here is that stringer pretty much expected a coronation. He had absolutely no opposition. Spitzer got in right at the filing deadline. Spitzer seemed to think he could take advantage of stringers lack of preparation. But across the spectrum am a there was a raid against spitzer. It is pretty rare you have the entire liber movement that very much like Scott Stringer and wall street and the business committed to, which could not stand spitzer, thanks to his presenting activism as attorney general, there were all in the same side and on top of that, newspaper endorsements all went to stringer. In a way, spitzer sort of perhaps wound up biting off more than he could chew. If we could flip back to the contrition versus combatant notion. Weiner definitely tried to present himself as having atoned, definitely being contrite and having gotten past the sexting scandal that forced him to resign from congress to begin with. You sort of made it seem like it was in his past. He did this very glowing interview with his wife that appeared in the New York Times magazine that he had turned over a new leaf. Of course, that turned out to not at all be the case. The contrition routine will totally fail if you are a recidivist. Weiner wound up looking like a junkie who kept promising he had quit, only to ask a still be getting high. Once voters started to realize that, he created cratered in the polls and wound up finishing in fifth place behind a candidate Whose Campaign finest rector had been indicted for campaignfinance fraud. So he wound up a total failure. Spitzer is right in the middle on this chart. I think that suits him quite well. Spitzer did not really seem quite willing to be contrite, but he played up his competitiveness and particularly exceeded among the black amenity. The problem was the black share vote wound up being a little bit too small and he fell just four points short of stringer. We will come back to context if we need to on that. I will talk a little bit about sanford. Context is crucially important to the same success. Heavily republican district in South Carolina, but importantly, a district where business conservatives really dominated. Well educated district. It was a perfect fit i think ideological he for mark sanford. In addition, he represented that area in congress most of that area. It had been redrawn and he exceeded expectations in the part of the district where he had represented before. He performed only in those parts of the district which had not been part of the original Congressional District. In addition, one thing that especially an environment where theres a lot of antigovernment or antiwashington sentiment, the factor trying to come back from a scandal really can present you as an outsider and sanford did a particularly the job of trying to play up on that theme. He was all contrite all the time, from his introduction in a television ad, his media rollout, it was ongoing contrition. There were subtle allusions to religious redemption and emphasis on the normalization of what had happened with him and jenny sanford. It was there at the beginning of became very important after jenny sanfords charges about his arrival at the home to watch the super bowl and the fact that marriage is just have problems and divorced couples have problems. And this is an ongoing challenge. But he was very contrite throughout. And most importantly excuse me. Most important, mark sanford had always been a tv candidate, a candidate who believed deeply in the power of television to move voters. He moved away from that dramatically in this campaign and became the guy who went out with a staffer, drove all over the district and really emphasized personal connections with voters. And that was a 180 in terms of who he was as a candidate. The folks who worked with him closely see that as the secret to his success early this year in coming back. So we have these 6 cases. They are big. It is a long paper. We are grappling with how to get a little control over this very confiscated topic that we think is going to be increasingly common topics in american politics. Candidates are also grappling. We are going to open it up to questions. I ask you wait into you a microphone in front of you to ask the questions. This is being recorded from a potentially for cspan. Do we have another microphone in the audience . Basically, everybody is under the same rules. Wait until the microphone is in front of your face to talk. [indiscernible] you will describe differing degrees a role or lack a role for Political Parties, even in the sex scandals it seems the parties have deliberately and those cases stepped away from it all and said, if youre going to come back, youre going to come back without our help. You also have everything from introduction to Civil Service to the Citizens United decision that seems to be making less and less relevant. [inaudible] im sorry. Ok. What do you see that says the parties can or are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic . Its an open question. Jump in. Well, i would say our paper is an example, actually, of how parties can be very much involved in an environment that a somewhat hostile to them. The reforms in california, the new top two primary was specifically designed to weaken the parties. Here we are showing they can continue to play a role and continue to have an influence on the outcome of races, even when all of the rules are set against them. Also, some work that i did on the california primary outcome, i just said, all right, lets imagine we can try and predict the outcome of the sort of partisan vote in each district, the total vote for democrats, total vote for republicans predict that from the districts party right in past elections, then predict the 2012. It did pretty well. Survey suggest people were largely voting, choosing among candidates of a given party, even though they had the option under the top two primary to vote for anybody they wanted to. I think parties are still an important cue and appears they can be an important sort of formal cue in terms of endorsement but also in terms of the party label on the ballot, voters are still sort of herding along that basis. I think what were going to see this cycle and in the 2016 cycle as well is that parties are operating basically under a different name come almost like a pseudonym. You see this guy paul singer, the wall street private equity guy that he and others are putting together millions of dollars to basically be a proxy for the Republican Party only because they understand the antipathy with which the party is greeted or the favorite candidate is often greeted by restaurants republicans, so theyre going to do it in a different name. But i think it will be operating much as the party otherwise would. On the democrat side, you see something similar at the state legislative level the cycle. One of the largest is super pacs is basically devoted to getting democrats elected at the state level so theres not another districting debacle for democrats like there was after 2010. So it is incorporated as a super pac, operates as a super pac, but basically just Party Operatives who have migrated over as the super pacs who are acting as proxies for the party. So maybe they wont be as powerful as we knew them, but i think it will be powerful and are different guise. I think an underlying message of my research is that the rules the parties set in place really do structure the president ial nominations in who becomes a candidate and how they campaign and how voters have a say in the process. While i definitely think the role of the parties has changed over time, its just that the parties are operating in a different way. So theyre setting these rules, tried to regulate the calendar and then does have implications for both candidates and the voters. I also think their breaking of the rules by states and the parties reactions to it show the parties can have Different Levels of effectiveness if they want. The Democratic Party was able to keep the candidates from campaigning in florida and michigan in 2008, meanwhile, in 2012 in florida, the candidates spent massive amounts of money despite the fact that florida willingly broke the rules set by the Republican Party. So there is the opportunity for the parties to take a stand and really shape the nomination, whether it is through setting the rules or endorsing and coalescing around a candidate as wayne talked about. Excuse me. I think the Political Parties are going to continue to be the dominant actor in the american elections as long as the candidates are party nominees. It is that straightforward. Parties organize the conflict. Theyre the ones generating the ideas along which line grassroots activists are falling and picking sides. They affect how we perceive politics at least we, the politically active segment of the population, they create the rules for nominating candidates. They are the organizational muster for getting out the vote. In almost every respect, you cant understand the elections without it. The forum changes. Theres no question the tactics change. Parties are more network oriented, more diffuse. I think the weakness the parties face in the modern technological world that we live in with the internet and blogs is that the parties become so multifaceted that there really hard to provide direction to. I think that is the great challenge they face. I just want to echo some of what wayne and jeff are saying. About a decade ago, one of the Major Concerns was the rise of 527s. People were saying, we dont know if they will undermine what the parties and candidates are trying to do. It could be random rich people with her own off message kind of advertisement. I have a couple of papers i did with david dooley on Richard Skinner in which we tried to look at this in terms of Campaign Finance networks and found basically the parties are very skilled at coopting these 527s, which were very much part of the Party Networks it very much on board with what they were doing and helped them get around some other Campaign Finance rules. The parties are very adept at this sort of thing. Adapting to new rules, into campaignfinance regimes, and remaining as relevant as ever, if not more so. In ohio on tuesday, we had roughly 25 turnout in general election granted, it was local races, but 25 turnout increasingly says people are not tuned in, not paying attention. So the parties may be very adept at adapting within that structure, but it seems like a lot of other folks are outside that structure. Anybody can jump in. Its an odd number year. Youre lucky to get 25 . Thats great. Ok. Other folks, we have microphones. This is for wayne. If you would apply your analysis to 2012 for us, was romney the presumptive nominee based upon your standards as you compare with say 2000 with gore and bush . And was this in part due to super pacs . Then a question for seth and eric, what role do superpacs play in a top two primary . I think 2012, romney i think was the beneficiary of a sequential decisionmaking process during the invisible primary where he was initially unacceptable to large numbers of people within the Republican Party. Thats referred somebody else. And as they looked at who the other alternatives were, they did not pan out either and all of a sudden [indiscernible] i think romney reemerged as, well, it cant be gingrich, it cant be santorum. These guys arent going to be able to win. I think you did reemerge. I say that it is a must exactly the same pattern that you saw with john mccain in 2008. John mccain does arrive back as a weak front runner. I portray is in this paper as really two different alternative scenarios, but it is a continuum between them. I do think the party established that the Party Activist Group Leaders had come around looking at romney, but he was nowhere near as strong or as sure of a thing as George W Bush was in 2000 going into the Iowa Caucuses. If that makes any sense. And what role will super pacs play . There are two things going on. Super pacs are one of them. I write about this in this book i have coming out next year. One thing is super pac basically enable candidates who somebody or some group of people literally would like to see nominated, can all of a sudden give them a cash infusion that we never saw before. So candidates who were in a sense knocked out can reemerge. We saw that with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. These guys did not have broad based appeal. We would talk about Campaign Finance, what does that indicate . Traditionally, the amount of money they raised really reflected kind of support among many networked donors. With the internet, we really have to look at how many donors are giving and is a small donors or big donors . It doesnt tells a lot about the support. Or their appeal. I dont think it changes whether they are electable or not, but i do think it makes them competitive. It can really mucked things up. More generally, the internet. I think it is reinvigorated momentum as a possibility president ial nomination, simply because from roughly the 1970s through 2000, arguably 2004, candidates could not have the capacity with an increasingly frontloaded primary schedule to raise the money and make a difference. Now they can. They can raise money really, really quickly. That gives the potential for a candidate who beats expectations like a barack obama. Now obama in 2008 was well funded, but, man, he really shot forward with his Campaign Fundraising thereafter. It helped him enormously. The internet as a fundraising vehicle, super pacs really have changed the game and made greater potential for instability and momentum during the primaries. But it is going to matter in races in which the party already hasnt come together. And what role do super pacs and the primary process . [inaudible] oh, and the general election. I havent looked in depth at that in particular. I did collect all of the super pac spending at one point in the general election but did not fill it out after the election was over. At that point, i was sort of early october. At that point, there was a lot going into certain races. I dont read call how much. They were managing to raise a lot of money regardless in the berman sherman. Geary miller, who ended up in the district, he is a republican running against probably should be elected democrat. There was a ton of money from realtors see when it did that raise. At that point in time and october, there really wasnt a lot going into california specifically. If you look at the universal super pac money, most of it was going to the president ial election. There were certainly some going into these races when i saw how the money change the protected outcome of the house elections nationally, generally change or move the needle much. So my own view on the super pac is a goes in where the races are ready highly competitive. I will say in california, they saw a lot of super pac activity for state legislative candidates. State legislative races are hugely expensive. Campaign finance law in california has allowed something very much like super pacs for about or encourage them for about a dozen years now. There is tremendous super pac activity at the legislative level in both the primary and the general. I dont think it was quite as big a deal in the congressional races, though again, i havent followed up with it. One thing i think that we will see in 2014 and 2016 as well is not just more super pac involvement in primaries, but more super pac involvement in the other partys primary. After what happened with todd akin, claire mccaskill, spending 1 million to run ads the basically promoted todd akin to the republican primary, some of the operatives i talk to see that as a pretty effective model Going Forward to sort of just make mischief and the republicans might have control of the senate if it werent for oh donald and murdoch and buck and people they are nominated in the last few years. I think republicans are now interested in maybe trying to turn the tables. Another question . On with the Campaign Finance institute and also with suny albany. I dont want ask about super pacs. I was fascinated by the findings the second error reported. I have the three part question and the third part of the people might want to weigh in on. I wondered i know youre writing about california races. I gather mostly legislative races, maybe a mix. But to what extent do you think your findings were shaped by the fact the first round election, not even sure what to call the primary, the first round election involved both democrats and republicans and therefore, party cues are the hubs more important to the voters . That is, this is speculation on your part, but to what extent you expect to find this to transfer to more normal primary were party label is not as important . Two, to what extent do you think your findings are influenced by the level of race or the specific office, the visibility of the election to the voters . And then, three, totally speculative part, to what extent i know a lot of Party Operatives are sticking their toes in the water and saying they will get involved in primaries of the congressional level, but to what extent do you really expect that to happen given their costs when they lose . Than me try and answer the first part i guess. How unique was his particular election. This wasnt the first election was california parties have issued endorsements. We are still trying to obtain the data on this country level endorsement votes for say 2010 or earlier. It is hard. You basically need someone on the inside and we have that for this election cycle. But we like to do that and are hoping to do that to get a sense i dont think they endorsed illy as widely in previous races. They didnt see as much of an urgency. In some cases they did that and we are hoping to measure that. In terms of speculation, we see 2012 as an unusual election cycle for party elites, for candidates, Party Leaders. Not necessarily for the voters, though. Not that many of them had a very different voting experience with a win in the ballot booth. The endorsement was a really staring them in the face. You had to go look for in the back of your voter booklet to find out what the party was endorsing a person or not, it wasnt right there on the ballot line. As with any other primary, you had a list of candidates and maybe you heard something about them and maybe not, but as you pointed out, these are mostly state legislative races, if you congressional, but, generally, voters dont have a ton of familiarity with the people on that ballot. I think for the voters, it was a pretty typical election. Can you remind me with the other questions were . Would you expect a similar effect in higher visibility race . And would you expect the parties really do start weighing and more often in primaries . Primaries in higherlevel races such as congress . These endorsements were for congress as well. Whenever pretty broad distribution status and become, state senate, and congress. It is just a general mix. I would expect them to continue doing that. One of the key questions is how much of the primary competition will be in the future how much was a function of the redistricting, which was also pretty radical in california, just in the basic sense in movie lines a lot. Theres a lot of uncertainty out there about who my representing, how well did they know me and my name, and so forth. And are they going to be involved in the future at higher levels and would we expect to see higher levels . I would expect would be less likely they would get involved at higher levels. If you have a legitimate race on your hands, it is the kind of thing i think the party in his endorsement process would probably just want to set out and you wouldnt get a consensus developed developing and the way you would for lowerlevel races. Perhaps the endorsement wouldnt carry as much weight because of the higher profile contest, voters have more information coming at them from other sources. I mean, the coming election cycle 2014 is not going to be a real great test for that because jerry brown basically is not going to face in the renomination the democratic side and on the republican side, you have Abe Maldonado who actually was running as the main candidate and this guy tim donnelly who just came into the race, Tea Party Candidate, he is a little, um, interesting. I dont want to say anything too bad here on cspan. It will be interesting to see if you get a broaderbased support within the party. Abe maldonado is persona non grata. There can be the potential for a real fight. The Republican Party can have its real system similar to the democratic system for designing these nominations. We will see. On the question of Party Involvement in primaries, or broadly, a couple of days ago the executive director of the National Republican senator or Senatorial Committee said the nrsc might actually Start Playing the Republican Senate primaries to ensure that more electable candidates become the nominees including possibly spending money and places like louisiana and georgia. Of course, as jeff mentioned a little earlier, the nrses handsoff approach led to your todd akins and richard murdochs. The problem is the handsoff parties policy became about from a handsoff policy that backfired. In 2009 8 endorsed Charlie Crist for senate in florida and that sent conservative activists through the roof and had a big impact on marco rubios rise and eventually Charlie Crist now becoming a democrat. I think the conservative activist can feel justified in their anger. I think for a on the republican side, theyre stuck between a rock and a hard place of wanting to insure electable candidates but the more they play in these primaries, the more they risk getting fuel to the less electable candidates and i think if i were paul broun in georgia who is the most obviously Tea Party Candidate in that race, i would welcome the nrsc coming in and spending money on somebody else. I cannot believe they announced that publicly. Theres enough outside groups on the republican side with the establishment money that couldve done that without having the parties imprimatur. I was surprised. I from northeastern university. Ive comment on two of the papers. One, the paper about the politics of recovery. Two other names you could add your list are Harold Washington who is both debarred and spent time in prison and then got elected mayor of chicago, and the other if you want to go further back is James Michael curley who had a variety i know he spent some time in prison [inaudible] i think thats wrong, but he did serve time in prison for taking the Civil Service exam for somebody. That was at the beginning of his political career and was never derailed for it. One point i would make about that is it does seem a lot of the examples i know people who have done this successfully our people and certain kinds of ethnic and racial subcultures where theres a certain kind of suspicion about established government, where there is and aura about a legitimacy around it. Therefore, there were a whole lot of irish in boston who did not really think it was all that bad that somebody took a Civil Service exam for somebody else because they thought they were not all that fair and needed, anyway. The other comment i would make is about the jewett paper. It is not quite fair to say the republicans did nothing up until 1996. I dont know if you know something called the delegates in Organization Committee that was created in 1968 . With very little fanfare, yet ended up making many of the same changes that Mcgovern Fraser commission did. It did not go quite as far, but did open up the process significantly. And one reason is because that they were able to successful is there is this faction in the Republican Party, goldwater being the primitive or early example that basically says the establishment is against us and therefore the war we can open up the process to ordinary voters, the more we will succeed. The second thing is, i disagree with your comment that the 2012 reforms in work. It actually did significantly frontload the process. In the following sense that the process for the republicans in 2012 begins with eight weeks in which there is only a single or two primaries. The classic example, the kind of thing it allows, Newt Gingrich unexpectedly wins South Carolina primary and for a couple of days is in the lead nationally in all the polls. Romney is able to come back because the next primary is in for another like 10 days or Something Like that. It is interesting to note that in previous years, the South Carolina primary had been followed three days later by super tuesday. If that calendar had been in effect in 2012, it is not unreasonable to think Newt Gingrich would have been republican nominee at least in my view would have been a complete disaster for the Republican Party. So i think it actually did work. I dont disagree with you. I think it lengthen the process and change the calendar. I think what i was trying to highlight is that i think their goals of lengthening the process in bringing more states into the process or perhaps intention this year. They did lengthen the process of yours more time between contest. We had that lull in late february that had not previously been seen. Yet fewer states voted because more states moved their contests back. Not only to the republican reforms, also in part due to some states moving their contests to match up with her congressional or statewide primary for economic reasons. Your first point, i do recognize i write my paper little bit about the reforms of 1968, i think i classify them or as recommendations and strong reforms and requirements to the same degree that the Democratic Party did in just how historically theyre not viewed in the same light is becoming as involved particularly new look at the fact the democrats changed the rules and change them back and change them again for years after. Perhaps i should temper that point as well. Picking up on that point a little bit about the scandals and some of the others that take it way back, in your discussion of context, can you go little bit further on the context of what the accusation is . Were talking about money, talking about sex, talking about drugs. Are any of those contexts better to get caught doing . In a lot of the research there is a big indication that the fiscal scandals seem combined with abuse of power. That seems to be the worst. I think were fighting Something Different when were talking about a comeback and especially if you are running in a context in which you can present your self as an abused part of an abused group, abused by the system. You can really play that quite well. And whether that is the cases jeff talked about were rory moore in alabama who use the 10 commitments controversy very effectively in terms of an attack on christian conservatives, i think that is very much the case. I think in many ways that is what makes the mark sanford comeback so extraordinary because he did not have a lot of that other stuff going for him. I think you just did it out of his skill as a candidate, somebody who just had a great ability and a lot of luck. He ended up with a runoff opponent who flailed around the did not it took a while to get his act together. And then Colbert Busch was a weak candidate who is very much contain a did not allow her to fight much. I think it is up point well taken, but i think the interplay of what happened, how candidates do and what happened in the context in which theyre running, all really matter more than the underlying scandal itself. You make the argument at least for some theres a second act in politics. Im looking north of the border at rob ford. Has anybody ever kept the first act going long enough they survive this, and while they were in office . One example we dont have the paper because he never left is david vitter. I dont have the authority or any knowledge about whether he is still wearing diapers or what his deal is, but you may remember him, the louisiana, u. S. Senator from louisiana who patronized the d. C. Madam and they gave graphic testimony about some of his habits. He stayed in office, ran for reelection. The sec had a moderate or centerright congressman. They thought they could beat him. He won by 20 points. That is one example in terms of alcohol and drugs. I would have to rack my brain and think about if anyone has kept it up as long as rob ford, but the best example is probably marion barry who has been censured by the d. C. City council twice in the last three years, once for bribery and then a second time also financially related abuse of power, has talked continually about his struggles with alcohol and drugs and continues getting elected and reelected. I think he is 78 to 79 years old. The only election he ever lost was the one he ran while he was literally waiting to go to prison. [laughter] yeah, i think it is very possible. Again, depending, david you make a good point. We explored a great deal in our paper about acts of oppositional culture that are already very skeptical of either the media or the establishment generally speaking and how advantageous those context can be for scandalized candidates. We have some questions on that side. Charles franklin. I wanted to play off davids point at the end of a couple rounds ago on the republican Senatorial Committee. I want to direct it at caitlin for the 2016 round. The chairman is facing all kinds of efforts to shift the party. In a broader context of the party, the goal of the parties to nominate ineluctable, strong best candidate that unifies the party and marches onto victory. Given the difficulty of supporting Charlie Crist and see him crash and burn, to what extent would you advise the chairman about things to do in this nominating process . He has proposed a number of things. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. I think it really depends on what his goals are and what the goals of the party are. The structure is so important. Which states are allowed to go early, the percentage of tea party support, how strong the tea party is in those states at that time, can the Republican Party keep other states from bucking the rules and moving for they want anyways . I wonder if the penalty of nine delegates is going to keep florida from moving forward. Are the candidates going to spend millions of dollars there . I do not think that florida cares how many delegates they have, because in recent years we have not seen that it matters when the convention comes. That is not penalty enough. In my paper i have quotes from Arizona Governor officials in florida, saying that we deserve to have these places early in the calendar. That florida deserves an early contest because their voters are a stronger test for the candidate than any other. Until the Republican Party can figure out a way to enforce its rules, it really needs to consider how the calendar is structured and where the tea party is going to come into play. Historically there has been, you know, fights and concern over when Southern States get to vote. There was concerned that mitt romney would not Gain Momentum in the south until too late in the process. It is all just unseen at this point until they make stronger recommendations. Yes, sir . University of new hampshire. I have a question for wayne. If the goal of republicans in tinkering with the rules is to try to boost turnout to the primaries and so forth and if they are looking back to 2008 on the democratic side as a model worthy of emulation, do you think they are taking the wrong lessons from 2008 . Some things about 2008 on the democratic side could be duplicated in terms of rules and proportional representation, but nothing about the rules could produce two historic candidacies going headtohead with one another and all of the identity politics involved with that. That is not able to be duplicated by the rules. You could have had three more months of romney, santorum, gingrich, but i do not know that that would have boosted turnout more than it was already. What i wonder is are they overestimating how much they can boost turnout . Maybe . I think that when we look at the long jeopardy of the caucuses and the primary, how quickly do they unify . That is the question that we have. In the case of Hillary Clinton and barack obama, that was just a dragged out fight. If you want to elongate and get more people participating, you need more agreement. Find Party Leaders who will advocate for that. It will be tough. That is what we are talking about by replicating it. I do not see that necessarily happening. I do think that both nominations in 2016 will be competitive. I think that that will be the case on the republican side because there is a lot of disagreement within that party. Thinking about Tea Party Versus establishment, just the tea party, which is the next panel coming up in the schedule, the tea party could not really unify on which candidate in 2012 they would back. If we look at the event the evangelical christian ministry, the baptists, the ministers down in dallas, they could not agree. Among themselves, which of the candidates should have been the nominee . We should have seen more nominations for romney than others. When we look at these grassroots groups there is a lot of internal disagreement and i do not think that is changing. I do not see anything that says these guys are becoming more unified, either within subsets or across subsets of the Republican Party. In the Democratic Party i think they are more unified, but going back to my argument about candidates, Hillary Clinton is a strong front runner. If she runs it is apparent who a lot of democratic groups will support, but if she does not run, for Health Reasons or if her husband is not able to campaign, if that is the case, look at that race. It looks a lot more wide open than it might right now and you will have a much more competitive primary. That is what i would look at. These things are so interactive. We cannot just look at one thing out there eerie of the parties are diverse. We tend to stereotype with these images images, but they are really broadbased. I just want to comment on one thing that william brought up, it is interesting to sit here and talk about how the Republican Party is less unified than the Democratic Party, and historically i think it is an interesting time to be studying this, because for the first time in recent years we are seeing a Republican Party that is facing many of the struggles that the Democratic Party faced 20 years, 30 years ago when they think or do with the reform process every four years. In direct response to your question about whether republicans are taking the long the wrong lessons, i think that in large part they are. When i was showed the table of turnout, it was divided into competitive and the competitive portion and the noncompetitive portion. Turnout does not really fall afterwards. That is because in 2012 i had 19 states who voted after the race was decided, essentially, an Something Like 17 of the 19 of those had statewide primaries on the same day as their president ial contest. People coming out for other races. Another one looking more directly at the rules and how they affect turnout, by and large the biggest for dichter, of course, is switching to a primary rather than a caucus, but i find the interactive effective that we States Holding contests later in the nomination season within a competitive window, they have a higher turnout. It is not just the early states. Going earlier does not necessarily mean more turnout, but going as long as the race is still competitive has the biggest influence on turnout rather than straight location in the calendar. Just a followup on that, when you look at the date before the nomination, which was not effectively decided, and in which romney had enough delegates at the convention, his vote share in the remaining primaries did not change much either, but even after he had the delegates, he continued to limp along, 65 , 66 of the republican vote. Even though Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were off the ballot, they were getting some votes, ron paul surged a bit. There were people in the Republican Party expressing dissatisfaction with midromney is a candidate even after he had locked up the nomination. I am not sure what to make of that. I appreciate the paper. I do not know why we had proportionality for the republican primary voters. I do not know why we moved from winner take all. Now i understand that they had to to go ahead with the primary. I do not think that that is very productive. It seems to me that proportionality just fuels confusion. You want to nominate a candidate to come into the election, that is what we are trying to do. I always thought that republicans were smarter, winner takes all and gets it over. Previous complaints about it, his complaint really was not about the calendar. He was complaining about all the debates. That was the bloodletting that caused the trouble. Every debate, whoever the front runner was, the other eight or seven dwarves would jump on that person. It just went on and on. They were so damaged by the time they got to the election, or the point where they could have a primary, true rules and all of the stuff they had done, it really weakened their opportunity to run a competitive campaign. There was so much discontent he does of all of the accusations that had been hurled by the candidates at each other with all of these groups coming in and spending all this money. What would you do . How would you remake those rules to say to republicans that you have a better opportunity . I do not think it is an issue of the calendar or proportionality. I do not think that turnout adds anything for a candidate to win the election. When preparing this paper, one thing that i read by the judge was a short piece in which they looked at how the delegates would have been allocated in 2012 if the states have used the same rules as 2008. Obviously, they cannot account for the fact that there were different campaigns and behaviors might have changed, but they actually found that the race might have lasted longer under the old rules then the new rules. The torsion analogy, because of the way the candidates split the vote is time round time around, different candidates winning different states, it did not necessarily prolong the nomination season this time around. It is also interesting, in my paper i talk about one of the rules the democratic arty tinkered with the most throughout the 1970s and 1980s was the delegate allocation rule for proportional representation and manipulation of the threshold which allowed winner take all at the state level. That candidate winning the district. And so forth. They added in superdelegates. They tinkered with this to achieve various goals, partially to protect president carter and partially to help jackson and heart at various areas they thought were not fair to try to ensure a fair allocation of delegates. It is a rule that they tinker with constantly. Not my paper, not my paper, but i do not think that turnout is important for the sake of turnout. But i do think that the establishment has an interest in producing higher turnout in so far as that reduces the possibility of more extreme candidates in their low turnout elections in which the base is palpable. You know . I think there is research out there to corroborate that. Other questions . I saw a few other hands. Going a little bit further with the turnout question, on the one hand you see parties at the most, the local levels, the local elections, trying not to spend money energy in the primaries, keeping fighting one guy or one woman and letting it go. Then they argue that they are disappointed that people do not get involved and vote later. It seems like a real mixed messages being passed on. Is there a way to bring those thoughts together . Unify early, somehow generating interest and enthusiasm . That goes to anyone who wants to jump on it. The one thing the chairman has proposed for 2016 is moving the convention into june, which i think will be interesting, just to sort of get the general election started earlier, it will be interesting to see if they decide to definitively do that and how the democrats respond. Somewhat it is in reaction to the fact that in 2008 it lasted so long and was so exciting for the democrats. I will just respond briefly as someone who ran and it can point and five point primary. I do not think there is any substitute for those kinds of primaries in terms of getting people engaged. There are so many candidates with different perspectives that can appeal to different parts of the electorate. The part the problem for parties is you have to take the long view and say that im not intervening, by allowing this to happen we will be registering and mobilizing a lot of people who otherwise may not have ever engaged in the process and it will help us two years, four years from now. As long as we can keep the losing candidates engaged in party activities. I totally hear your question about the tradeoff, but i think it parties really need to take the long view. Sorry . Go ahead. Turnout is a mixed bag for Party Leaders. If they do not necessarily want extraordinarily high turnout in primaries, they basically want to get the results they are looking for. If they can do that with low turnout, they will do that. For the general election, people close to them on their side turnout and vote for primaries. Sometimes you want to keep that as much inhouse as possible. All right. Brooks . All right. We appreciate everyones participation. Unfortunately we have to bring this session to a close. Our break is next door. And then the final panel for the day will be back in this room. Thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] some news about a Union Contract with boeing workers in washington state. Yesterdayted his late to approve an eightyear contract extension contract benefits in exchange for ensuring the new 777 will be made in the puget sound region. Workers voted in favor of the contract after rejecting a similar one in november. The ceo of boeing commercial airplanes, ray conner, released this statement you can get more details at usa. Com. Usatoday. Com. Hattie murray says congressman rick larson says and the last tweet, a different topic on health care, with ron johnson tweeting it will accused the Obama Administration of giving Administration Members special treatment under the health care law. They will also receive federal subsidies to pay for their coverage regardless of their income. Back now to akron for the state parties conference. We will take a look at the history and the future of the tea party on this panel and its impacts on the Republican Party. This panel runs for about an hour 35 minutes. Are you hearing me . Good. Hello, everybody. I am the political reporter for the akron beacon journal, which is the newspaper here in town. John was quoted on the front page, looking at how poorly incumbents did during yesterdays election. 18 incumbents lost in our county. That is quite a few. The tea party is definitely an interesting issue. Out with ao start joke i planned to start out with a joke but none of the reporters could agree on what would be funny or not funny so i wont. [laughter] we will introduce our first panelists here. To have brief presentations from each of them and then we are going to open it up for audience questions. I know you will have some good ones. First we have ronald from the college of william and mary, Meredith Dost from the college of william and mary, walter stone from the university of california davis, and they wrote about the tea party in the 2012 election. I am a Ron Rappaport from the college of william and mary. Rt from the college of william and mary. This comes from our interest in understanding the tea party at both the mass level and activist level. By, whate were struck gap what we felt was a gap. What our concern and interest n having parallel samples of Tea Party Supporters in the mass public as well as non republican Tea Party Supporters and Tea Party Supporters at the activist level. This study is based on these two sets of surveys. There are many common questions. Our mass survey is based on a sample done by you go apollo gov polime;trix. People 30000 did not list the tea party is favorably. It was done in 2011 at the beginning of the primary. Our lead sample is Freedom Works is a Tea Party Group which as we found out is the largest tea Party Membership group in the country. We have a survey of 12,000 of them, which was a nice and we did that in december of 2011 and we followed that up in march, april, 2013, resurveying 2600 of them. There is very little bias even though the Response Rate was around 25 or so