Volume 1, Issue 3

Professor Polsby explains that the 2002 elections ended in nearly a draw, even though the conventional wisdom is that the Republicans won a clear victory.

Professors Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde discuss the major reform introduced by the Democratic Party for its 2004 presidential nomination contest–rules that will lead to a large number of delegates being chosen early in the delegate selection window. They show that the 2004 contest will be more “front-loaded” than any contest since the Democrats introduced a delegate selection “window” in 1980. They argue that these rules, along with the large field of Democratic contenders, make it more likely that no clear winner will emerge before the Democratic Party nomination convention.

Professor Pomper speculates on the likely outcome and meaning of the 2004 presidential elections. Given the power of the White House to influence events and media coverage, as well as the emerging electoral advantages of the Republican Party, Pomper believes George W. Bush will be returned to office. He points to three trends in particular that favor the GOP: recent shifts in electoral votes, financial wealth and voter turnout. A presidential victory for the Republicans raises prospects for party dominance in Congress and the courts, with long-term consequences favoring conservative policies. Democrats must hope that fears of terrorism will recede, and that voters will place renewed emphasis on egalitarianism, especially with the expansion of the Hispanic and African-American electorate.

Looking back in recent presidential history, the authors show that Bush appears to defy prior trends with his high approval ratings in the third year. They explain, however, that he is vulnerable in 2004, particularly because he has not created a governing majority for his domestic agenda. The sharpening partisan divide among the electorate, especially on lifestyle issues, shows that Bush lacks the broad support his father enjoyed immediately after the first Gulf War. To win in 2004, Democrats must find a way to neutralize Bush’s advantages on security, run on issues that emphasize job security, and prevent the president from winning over Hispanic voters.

Professor Keller puts the recent federal campaign finance reforms into historical perspective, referring to efforts by Congress to regulate money in politics for more than a century. While the United States has assembled an impressive regulatory system over the years, he wonders whether Congress has gone too far with “McCain- Feingold.” His chief concerns are that the new law fails to identify adequately the problems it intends to solve, and will weaken an already shaky party system. He also wonders whether it is realistic or wise to regulate activities that touch so closely on 1st Amendment rights.

Professor Maisel identifies the Democratic presidential candidates with the best prospects and explains what each must do to win the nomination. He evaluates the candidates based on four aspects of the campaign: fundraising, geographic constituency, name recognition and ideological constituency. The unusually heavy frontloaded nomination process gives candidates with the strongest finances and organization better odds than ever to be the Democratic nominee.