A quote from Hillary's team in 2008 when Hillary and Barack Obama were battling it out within the Democratic Party to be the nominee for President of the United States.
Hillary's campaign team clutched at the loopholes in Obama's lengthy campaign speeches and launched a scathing attack on Obama, saying "he campaigned like a poem, and governing would be like a piece of prose." Hillary's speeches, on the other hand, will be more like pull-apart speeches, trivial and boring to the ears of the onlooker, but she will be able to chest-thump on every issue raised by the voters.
The book features all politics is local Party primaries, the process by which voters determine party nominations, in both primaries and caucuses. O'Neill, a prominent Democratic politician who served 34 years as a member of the House of Representatives and as Speaker of the House, once famously said, "All politics is local." Indeed, in U.S. electoral politics, no matter how fierce the competition at the top and how hot the media coverage, campaigns must ultimately be localized. Specifically for the presidential election, candidates must start from the pre-election stage or even earlier to fight for grass-roots public opinion, especially the popular tendency of the state as the main unit. Historically in the United States, there were no primaries, but rather the party nominee was determined by party bigwigs in backroom deals. This undemocratic method was rejected by many, and it took half a century to change to today's primaries, in which voters, rather than party leaders, decide party nominations. First, the party candidates have to go through a fierce competition, and the pre-selection becomes a rehearsal for the general election. The primaries, to be precise, are not direct voter elections, but rather voters' choice of delegates to vote at the party's national convention, which is held in the summer. The national convention is no longer a contested venue, but a place where voters' choices are confirmed. It is up to the states to decide when and how to conduct their primaries and other rules. There are currently two main types: primaries and caucuses. The former involves voters casting ballots to choose delegates, and the latter involves holding a meeting of voters in a particular region to cast ballots. Primary Elections Primary elections are generally divided into direct and indirect primaries. Direct primaries are those in which voters directly choose their favorite candidates and allocate their votes to delegates who support a particular candidate. Indirect primaries are those in which voters can see the names of the delegates on the ballot and the delegates may not declare their support. Second, according to the different groups of participating voters, can be divided into three categories: closed primary (closed primary): only registered as a party voters can participate in the party's primary election, currently used in about 15 states. Open primary: You don't have to be registered to participate. Some states are open to unaffiliated voters but not to other parties. Other states have all open primaries. Party leaders tend to dislike this type of primary because it allows voters from outside the party to influence the party's choice of nominees. However, it is by far the most popular type of primary and is used in about 27 states. Advisory primary: Allows voters to express their preference for a favorite candidate while choosing delegates to the convention. Again, with regard to the distribution of results, there are two types of systems: winner-take-all and proportional representation. The proportional representation system is more popular, and the Democratic Party generally adopts the proportional representation system, in which any candidate who receives more than 15 percent of the votes gets a proportionate share of the representative seats. In 2008, the Democratic Party used the "proportional representation" system throughout the country. In the primary, if candidates A, B, C, and D receive 35%, 30%, 20%, and 15% of the vote, respectively, the state's delegates to the national convention are allocated according to that ratio. In the case of caucuses, delegates to the state convention are allocated in proportion to the number of votes cast in the precinct. However, even in the case of "proportional representation," as in the case of caucuses, the allocation of delegates is not strictly precise. The rule is that all candidates in a district who receive more than the 15 percent "survival line" must receive at least one delegate. For example, in a district with five delegates to the state convention, the four candidates A, B, C, and D mentioned above, all of whom exceeded the survival line, might receive two delegates for A, and at least one delegate for B, C, and D. The difference in votes between B, C, and D would then be ignored. On the day of the Iowa caucus, C-SPAN broadcast live the Democratic caucus in the state's 53rd district (Roosevelt Middle School cafeteria in Dimond). In the caucus, which was attended by more than 400 voters, Obama received the support of 180 people, Edwards received 150 people, and Hillary received 70 people. The district's six delegate slots were eventually allocated three to Obama, two to Edwards and one to Hillary. In contrast, the *** and the party have a proportional representation system in some states and a "winner-take-all" system in others. Unlike the "winner-take-all" system in presidential elections, the "winner-take-all" system in primaries is "winner-take-all" at the precinct level. All of the delegates in each constituency will go to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in that constituency. If we continue with the four candidates mentioned above, candidate A would get all the delegates in the constituency. A caucus is a gathering of voters in a small election district to discuss the pros and cons of a candidate and then vote on the candidate in a group setting, often at the same time in each region of a state. Candidates and their teams who are well organized and mobilized are able to steer public opinion by virtue of the number of supporters they have at the meeting and thus win the vote. The caucus is a more traditional nominating system, with a longer history than the primary, but it is not as simple and easy as a direct vote primary, nor as fair and rational as a secret ballot, and with a much lower turnout than a primary, it is less commonly used today. However, this form of "town meeting" is y rooted in the tradition of citizens' self-governance that has prevailed since the colonial period. From a procedural point of view, both primary elections and caucuses are more democratic than closed-door deals, but from the point of view of voter turnout and voters, there is still room for improvement. Voter turnout in primaries and especially caucuses is low relative to the general election, about 1/10-1/2 that of the general election, a problem exacerbated by the advancement of the timetable because voters behind the timetable feel that the nomination has already been made clear and their opinions are irrelevant. Many people are more concerned about the type of voters attracted to primaries and caucuses than about low turnout. Scholars have found that primary voters are more educated, wealthier, and older than general election voters, and that they are more party-oriented and closer to the heart of political activity. For *** and parties, primary voters are more conservative; for Democrats, they are more liberal. Candidates are forced to take inconsistent positions in the primary and general elections. In the primary, they express partisan and ideological views to win over their party's loyalists. In the general election, they are closer to the political centers where centrist voters are concentrated. In primaries, candidates with extreme ideological leanings have an advantage. If five Democratic liberals and one *** and party conservative run in a new state, it is likely that the latter will win. Fewer caucus participants, 1% fewer than in the primary. Voters who are willing to spend all night discussing candidates and issues are more partisan than primary voters. Here are examples from the 2008 Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. Iowa, with a population of 2.9 million, is 0.98% of the nation's total population. It ranks 30th in population and 31st in area among the 50 U.S. states. New Hampshire, with a population of 1.3 million, or 0.43% of the nation's population, ranks 41st in population and 42nd in area among the 50 U.S. states. To put it politely, except for the presidential primaries every four years, these two states don't have much chance to be on the front page of several major newspapers in the United States. Yet in this tiny Iowa alone, the U.S. presidential candidates of both parties spent $40 million on TV ads, or $17 per voter, spread over 2.9 million voters. Since only 10-20% of voters ultimately attend the caucuses, the candidates spent the equivalent of $150-$200 on TV ads for each attendee. In the primaries, in Iowa's more than 1,700 precincts, registered party members attended meetings at designated locations near their homes (usually public **** facilities such as schools, churches, libraries, and sometimes even in someone's living room). At small "town meetings", similar to those in early New England, voters discussed party policies, officers sent by each candidate ran direct campaigns in front of voters, and then voters cast ballots for the candidates they supported. There are no ballots in the election; each person is given a blank sheet of paper on which he or she writes the name of the candidate he or she supports. The process is less rigorous, and even if a name is misspelled, such as Clinton instead of Clinton, it is still a valid vote as long as there is no misunderstanding. The results of each caucus are reported to the state party and publicized by the media as soon as they are available. There is no voting process at the Democratic caucuses, and registered members of the party vote "openly with their feet." Attendees are grouped according to the candidate they support, and those who support the same candidate stand together to form a group. The early schedule has always been a source of pride in both states. Before most Americans have even begun to cast their ballots, the public in both states sets the tone for the election, identifying the strengths of certain candidates and eliminating those they don't like. Later, most Americans will broadly agree with their choices and rally around the front-runner. The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary proved to be key tests for the candidates of both parties. The history of presidential elections in recent decades shows that if a candidate takes both states, he or she appears to take the national nomination. If neither state is taken, the result is pretty much an out, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton in 1992. The only exception was Bill Clinton in 1992. That year, both states went for their home state. However, Clinton did well, but won national support and large donations, and eventually entered the White House. However, the more telling record is that from 1952-1988, the candidate who eventually won the presidential election won the New Hampshire primary. The victories in both states were not just vote victories in the objective sense, but were in fact a masterful game of psychological expectations. To be more explicit, a candidate who exceeds people's expectations is a real "victory" that gets noticed, while the other way around, even if he or she is the most ahead, it may not be a victory. For example, in 1996, Doyle was considered to be *** and the party's leader, but he won only 26% of the vote in Iowa, ahead of Patrick Buchanan only 3%. Buchanan by only 3%. So the media thought Buchanan won because he exceeded original expectations and put Dole in a tough spot. Dole then lost New Hampshire, but fortunately he recovered and won the nomination a few weeks later. Obama's Skin Color vs Hillary's Tears The 2008 U.S. presidential election was full of suspense and drama from the start. In *** and the party side, the black horse white horse in the two preliminaries in the next kill, all candidates into a chaos. In the Democratic Party, the focus is on the woman Hillary and black Obama. On January 3, 2008, the first pre-election in Iowa brought surprises to everyone, and Hillary, who had the most momentum before, not only lost to Obama, but even to Edwards. The media and public opinion of the wind direction was then reversed, Obama took advantage of the victory to kill the state of New Hampshire, CNN's "polls" show that Obama in the state ahead of Hillary 13%. The media disclosed that the Hillary camp has given up hope of winning in New Hampshire, the attention turned to the next state: "Hillary camp's only goal is not to lose too much, try to narrow the vote gap with Obama." January 8, 7:00 pm, New Hampshire pre-election voting figures began to be announced. For this much-anticipated election, the television stations devoted all their efforts to broadcasting, all kinds of experts and commentators have appeared in the studio to do live commentary. Almost everyone is talking about one question: what does the New Hampshire defeat mean for Hillary, and is her path to the presidency over? What's interesting is that while the commentators are talking on the screen, the numbers at the bottom of the screen are rolling in. When 10 percent of the polling stations reported the numbers, Hillary 38 percent, Obama 36 percent; to 15 percent of the polling stations reported the numbers, Hillary 40 percent, Obama is still 36 percent. The studio commentators seemed unaware of this, and continued to talk about "what happens after Hillary loses". The audience was dumbfounded. Hillary was leading, so what were the commentators talking about? More than two hours later, the final election results came out: Hillary with 39% of the vote, with two percentage points over 37% of Obama. This time, the studio experts and commentators are dumbfounded, before the election is clearly Obama's leading double-digit polls, how the last to a big overturn it! According to the general law of the United States public opinion polls, the probability of sampling error should be 3%, that is to say, the gap in 3% or less, it is difficult to distinguish between the two. The New Hampshire poll result was over 10%, which theoretically should not be wrong. Since the mid-20th century when the United States launched the "polls" for the general election, there has only been one "big mistake" in history, and that was in 1948, when the "polls" showed that Dewey would defeat Truman, and the result was just the opposite. It was the other way around. "Polling scientists quickly researched this major error and found that the reason for the error was that the usual means of polling was to interview a sample of people by telephone, and at that time telephones were not widely available, and those who had telephones were the rich, while the poor did not have telephones, resulting in an unrepresentative sample of the poll. Therefore, the sample of the survey was not representative. Since then, polling techniques and methods have been refined and have become a reliable predictor of results. The issue of New Hampshire's "poll" distortion immediately became the focus of attention from all walks of life, with the media and experts offering explanations. Some people believe that the pre-election "polls" distortion may be Hillary's camp deliberately play a strategy, by creating the illusion of Obama's far ahead, so that Obama's supporters think that the situation has been settled, do not have to come out to vote, while Hillary's supporters will come out in full force. This explanation is more bizarre, as if the media and "polls" can be manipulated, which is unlikely in reality. Another explanation is that the distortion of the "polls" is mainly due to the structure of the electorate in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is located in the northeastern coast of the United States, population mobility is relatively large, young, first-time voters accounted for 23% of the total number of voters. Many of these voters are out-of-state, middle-class 30-49 year olds and 50-69 year olds who are looking to New Hampshire as a place to retire. These voters have unclear preferences and are highly independent and swinging. The United States Drake University, Department of Politics and International Relations, head of the Atelier. Professor Sander believes that Obama's defeat, mainly because the independents and young voters did not come out to vote, resulting in "public opinion" and the actual results do not match. This is only a plausible explanation, but not a convincing one. Unlike democracy as commonly understood, elections in the United States have always relied on voters' voluntary and political enthusiasm, rather than forced voting. Therefore, when it rains or winds, or when one is busy at work or at home taking care of one's children, there are reasons not to go to the polls, and this kind of election theoretically fails to correctly reflect the will of all legitimate voters. An Argentine once commented on the democratic elections in the United States: "What kind of democracy is this? In my country, if I don't have a voting record in my passport, I'm not allowed to leave the country." The direct result of the non-compulsory nature of voting in U.S. elections is that voter turnout in elections has always been low, usually less than 50 percent in formal presidential elections, only about 30 percent in congressional elections, and even lower turnout in the party primaries for presidential candidates. The issue of voter turnout is often the key to a candidate's strategy; the higher the turnout of his or her own supporters, the greater the chances of victory. Karl Rove, the brilliant political advisor to George W. Bush Jr. Rove is because of the penetration of this truth, assisted Bush Jr. to seize and retain the White House throne. Obama's strategy is to "rely on small sell small", show young, vitality, future and change. His campaign speeches usually start with "Let me change for the 21st century ......". Obama is a gifted orator and his eloquence is very appealing. The ancient Greek Demosthenes and the ancient Roman Cicero are both famous orators in history, and it is said that the difference between the two of them is: after listening to Cicero's speeches, people will heartily praise the good speech; and after listening to Demosthenes's speeches, people will be immediately emotionally charged on the streets. Obama's speech is comparable to Demosthenes, making him a great success. Hillary's strategy is precisely to "rely on the old to sell the old", her age, seniority, experience plus contacts. Therefore, Hillary's campaign has been dominant from the beginning, the national "polls" have always been ahead of the party also has the meaning of the popularity of the party. However, her biggest weakness is the lack of personal charisma, in front of people who are not close to her, her speech will make people sleepy; and in front of people close to her, she seems too aggressive. As the novelty wears off, Hillary's campaign is more and more people can not beat the spirit, the support rate is declining. The New Hampshire result is fundamentally the result of the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates. After the initial excitement in Iowa, people's attention is more turned to reality, concerned about the two candidates in education, health care, child protection and other issues of vital interest to the people's point of view. At this time, Obama's advantage has suddenly become a disadvantage, people found that his speech, although very beautiful, but more like a show, the lack of substance. Hillary's campaign team seized the opportunity to launch a fierce attack on Obama, saying that "his campaign is like a piece of poetry, while the administration will be like a piece of prose". Hillary's speech was more like a family affair, although it sounded tasteless, but on every issue raised by the voters, she was able to speak with confidence. The most dramatic scene came at a small rally the day before the election. One woman surprised her with a personal question: "How do you always manage to keep your hair and appearance perfect? How do you keep that optimistic good look?" Faced with such a feminine question, Hillary, who usually appears so sophisticated and calm that she is always in denial, suddenly became emotional and replied, "It's not easy. I couldn't have done it if I didn't believe with all my heart that what I was doing was the right thing to do....... There are so many opportunities in this country, and I really don't want to go backwards." Her voice became choked up, the corners of her eyes glistened with tears. Hillary's tears immediately became media headlines. This scene showed voters the nature of a woman, but also touched the hearts of countless women. Her campaign opponents and the media said sarcastically that Hillary rarely moved once emotionally, this time to see to lose before crying so a nose, and even said that this is Hillary well-designed two tears. The media's mean-spirited more stimulate the dissatisfaction of female voters, Hillary self-control and emotion is not exposed to be portrayed as cold and lack of humanity, she shed a tear is said to be a woman's weakness, which is obviously sexism at work. As a result, Hillary won 47 percent of female voters in New Hampshire, 8 percent more than in Iowa. This can not be said to be two tears played a role. For Obama, New Hampshire "polls" distortion may be a more disturbing sign, this is the so-called "Bradley effect". Tom Bradley is a black politician. Bradley is a black politician who ran for governor of California twice in the 1980s and lost. In the pre-election and even post-election exit polls, he was always ahead of his opponents by 5%, but the final results of the polls were always 6% behind, with a margin of error of about 10%. The "Bradley effect" has since been defined by researchers as a racial undercurrent in American society: many voters, even those from relatively open, liberal districts, will not say that they won't vote for blacks in the face of public polls because it doesn't conform to mainstream "political correctness", but in secret, they won't say that they won't vote for blacks because it doesn't conform to mainstream "political correctness". "But they do the opposite in secret ballots. In Iowa, where local Democratic voting is open, many whites, fearful of being perceived as racist by their neighbors, voted for Obama in full view of the public, even though they are 96% white. When it comes to New Hampshire, where the vote is secret, it's a different story. Obama's skin color, Hillary's gender, these are two hidden keywords in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Although no one dares to talk about them openly, they are in fact unavoidable. "Super Tuesday" Since the 1980s, the pre-election schedule in advance led to the original long 2-6 months of the process was condensed to 1-2 months of decision-making, in 2008, this compressed pre-election is the peak of the extreme. This was especially true on Feb. 5, a Tuesday when more than 20 states held their primaries at the same time and 70 million registered voters went to the polls. It has been labeled "Super-Duper Tuesday" or "Tsunami Tuesday" by political commentators. The change in the primary calendar stems from the states' desire to increase their importance. It is widely believed that the earlier the primary begins, the easier it is to influence the winds and the more national and international attention the state will receive. California, for example, the state with the most delegates, has consistently moved up its own primary, from June in 1992, to March 26 in 1996, to Feb. 5 in 2008. In primaries, pundits often refer to the "bandwagon effect," a reference to people's habit of rallying around a presumed winner. How will the bandwagon effect play out in the highly concentrated 2008 primary schedule? Will the roles of Iowa and New Hampshire, the earliest primaries, be strengthened or weakened in the face of a super primary? How will the candidates manage to juggle such a crowded primary schedule? One thing is for sure, the organization behind the candidate is very important to winning an intensive primary. First of all, it is necessary to formulate an appropriate campaign strategy, with a clear distinction between priorities, and secondly, grassroots campaign organizations in each state must be strongly coordinated to organize and encourage supporters to vote, in order to cope with the situation that the candidate can not be present in each state at the same time in a short period of time. According to the general opinion of the experts, the advantages and disadvantages of the short-skirt primary **** have three main advantages and four disadvantages. The three advantages are: it leads to earlier unanimity, so that political parties can unite around their candidates as early as possible, unite in preparation for the general election, and avoid self-inflicted chaos. A longer primary season encourages internal party battles, while a shorter season means that the frontrunner emerges sooner. It avoids focusing too much on voter sentiment in a few states. NSW and IA do not represent the national electorate; more states are given the opportunity to express their will. It encourages candidates with the strongest organizations. Simultaneous voting in multiple states favors candidates who have well-established national campaign organizations. Regional, fringe candidates are less likely to be supported. Four disadvantages: It favors well-funded candidates. Previously, it was possible to focus on a handful of primary states and hope that a good result would bring in big money. But now the cost of spending in multiple states at the same time is so great that more money needs to be raised up front. It means more TV ads and online attention, and less retail campaigning. It is difficult to build a personal reputation over a wide geographic area in a very short period of time, with the result that campaigns rely more on commercial television and voters have less time to learn about candidates. It leads to a period of voter fatigue between March and summer, a period in 2000 when voter attention dropped by 50 percent. It works against unknown candidates. Whereas 20 or 30 years ago, relatively unknown candidates might have done well in a handful of states that primaried first, making them viable contenders for the nomination, that is now highly unlikely.
Reference:/reading/10502410/