All posts tagged "al gore"

‘Higher than Obama’: Repeat Dem convention-goers hyped over ‘electrifying’ Chicago energy

CHICAGO — Darnell Williams might be one of the most experienced convention goers at the Democratic National Convention this week, with seven under his belt.

The Massachusetts delegate, who works with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, first attended a Democratic convention in 1980 when he supported Sen. Ted Kennedy, the intra-party challenger to incumbent President Jimmy Carter, who would win the Democratic nomination but ultimately lose to Republican Ronald Regan.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book

Forty-four years later, this Democratic convention is unlike any in modern history given the compressed timeline for Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris to campaign following President Joe Biden dropping out of the race in July — a move that Williams calls a “profile in courage” that created an “earthquake” and “a restoration of focus” for Democrats.

Williams said the convention in Chicago — with today marking the final day — “has to really edge out to be number one.”

That includes the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, with then-Sen. Barack Obama accepting his party’s presidential nomination before a capacity crowd inside a 76,000-seat outdoor football stadium.

“There's been such a drastic shift in attitude and expectation, happiness and restoring democracy, restoring freedom. We are galvanized in order to be the boots on the ground, in order to transfer that message back to and across America,” Williams said. “That's a little different than where we were at before. The other ones were maybe more mechanical, methodical, but this is more, this is personal.”

ALSO READ: Inside the Democratic National Convention corporate moneyfest

Carl Donovan, a delegate from Great Falls, Mont., attended his first convention in 1976 when Carter first won the Democratic nomination and would go on to serve one term as president. He agreed with Williams that this year has been the best — even for logistical reasons.

“This is probably the greatest speeches, and everything is orchestrated very, very well at this one,” Donovan said. “I’m excited to hear what Kamala says, but I'm very excited about Gov. Walz because he is like us living in Montana. We help our neighbors, and he's just like one of us.”

Alabama delegates Carolyn Culpepper, Merika Coleman and Sherry McClain have attended three conventions together as a group.

The energy is different this year in Chicago, said Culpepper, a retired lieutenant colonel.

“Oh wow, it’s higher than Obama,” Culpepper said of Obama’s 2008 nomination.

Coleman, an Alabama state senator, agreed that the Harris nomination will be just as historic as Obama’s nomination — if not more, particularly if she becomes the first woman to serve as president of the United States.

ALSO READ: ‘Stop the Steal’ organizer hired by Trump campaign for Election 2024 endgame

“He was the first African American, but right now, we're talking about saving our country, and it's amazing the coalition of people that are coming together to save the country,” Coleman said. “It's just absolutely amazing the energy behind this candidacy. Coach Walz yesterday, he gave us our pep talk. Today, she's gonna bring it all the way home.”

Jackie Nophlin, a Virginia delegate, traveled to Los Angeles for the 2000 Democratic convention that nominated then-Vice President Al Gore.

“The excitement there, it was immaculate,” Nophlin said. “I couldn't put it into words, but this, 24 years later, it's remarkable.”

If Biden had stayed in the race? Nophlin said she didn't think her “heart would have been in it as much.”

“The energy is different. It's a refreshing, youthful type,” Nophlin said. “It is electrifying, and the people mean it, and you feel the togetherness and the helpfulness and the love that was not there until now.”

This is the first convention for Brandon Williford, a Wisconsin delegate, who was thrilled to see Obama speak on Tuesday.

“He was a big inspiration for me. When he got elected. I was just 10 years old, and he inspired me to run for office myself,” said Williford, who lost a race for State Assembly District 12 but is going to “keep on trying.”

Some of the youngest attendees here in Chicago were brought by their parents to experience the energy as well.

“It’s an opportunity for him at this age to experience this historic movement. I want him to be around everybody, feel the spirit and something to remember,” said Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, a New York delegate and chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, who brought her 22-month-old son, Daniel. “I think he might remember this.”

Mary Wyatt from New York came with her 14-month-old daughter, Wyatt.

“If Kamala is elected, when she learns what the concept of what a president is, it'll be a woman, and it's not even like a question,” she said.

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Growing up in Texas, we were treated to stories of colorful political characters. Few could top John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, who once pronounced that the vice-president position “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” (Some say Garner said worse.)

That seems to be the opinion of more than a few pundits and political scientists. National Public Radio, The Economist and Politico have all run articles asserting how little impact a vice presidential pick makes on the ultimate outcome of a presidential election.

I take a different approach, comparing vice presidential picks’ performance in their states to how the party did in that state four years earlier.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

To test their hypothesis, I analyzed how a party’s presidential ticket performed in the vice president nominees’ state in a given election year. Then I compared it to how the party’s ticket did in that state four years earlier.

It turns out that more often than not, a vice presidential candidate running as vice president for the first time helps you perform better in his or her state than four years earlier when that VP candidate wasn’t on the ticket.

ALSO READ: Tim Walz's personal finances are extraordinarily boring — and that may help Harris

For example, did Mike Pence help Donald Trump’s performance in Indiana during 2016 compared to how Republicans did in 2012? This case matters, given that Democrats won Indiana in 2008.

By the same token, did Democrats do better in Virginia with Sen. Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016 than Democrats did in the same state during 2012?

In these most recent 17 cases, where the vice presidential nominee isn’t already a vice president running for reelection — such as Joe Biden in 2012 — the vice presidential candidate boosted the party ticket 10 times in his or her home state. On seven occasions, the VP candidate did not do as well for his or her party as the party did four years ago in the state.

There were three cases where the vice presidential candidate boost or drag on the ticket was less than a percentage point. Taking those three out means that on nine occasions, the vice presidential candidate improved the ticket in his or her state. In five cases, the VP candidate did not help the ticket in the state he or she is from.

The average boost a vice presidential candidate gets a ticket in his or her own state is 4.4 percentage points, when considering all 17 cases.

That difference definitely matters in 2024.

As recently as last month, some polls put Trump ahead of Biden in Minnesota, which Biden had won by about 7 percentage points in 2020.

With Biden off the ticket, the advantage has swung back toward Democrats, but Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s addition to the ticket Tuesday will all but ensure that Minnesota — a must-win for Kamala Harris’ presidential chances — stays blue.

In three cases (1976 Democrats, 1980 Republicans and 1992 Democrats), a vice presidential candidate helped flip a state. In 2016, Kaine boosted the Democrats in his swing state of Virginia in a tight election — Clinton won Virginia, even if she lost the election.

One should also consider the cases where a presidential candidate would have done much better, possibly winning the overall election, with a better vice presidential selection.

ALSO READ: Why ‘vanilla’ Tim Walz is the ingredient to beat Trump: Dem lawmakers

Imagine President Gerald Ford keeping Vice President Nelson Rockefeller — and winning New York in 1976. It could have meant the difference in Ford defeating Democrat Jimmy Carter and winning his own four-year term after assuming the presidency from disgraced Richard Nixon. Instead, Carter narrowly won New York — and the election.

It’s also hard to imagine Democrat Al Gore losing Florida with the highly popular Sunshine State politician Bob Graham — a senator and governor — in 2000. Instead, he picked Connecticut's Joe Lieberman.

Republicans would have almost certainly fared a bit better against Democrat Barack Obama with a ticket of John McCain and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania in 2008, instead of McCain and then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) might have helped Mitt Romney in 2012, at least in Ohio.

Still need convincing?

Many others in the media and academia have challenged the idea that vice presidential picks matter.

The Economist takes issue with the notion that vice presidential nominee Lyndon B. Johnson delivered the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy, who edged out Nixon in one of the nation’s closest elections in history.

And they might be right, given that the only states that voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956 were from the South. Yet Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican, did win Johnson’s home state of Texas in both elections, and Kennedy captured Texas in 1960.

In a recent interview with A Martínez from National Public Radio, professor Kyle Kopko at Elizabethtown College takes issue with the idea that a VP candidate can deliver an election:

MARTÍNEZ: All right. So if the Harris campaign is thinking about picking a VP candidate to help them carry one of November's swing states, what is your message to them? Kyle, let's start with you there.

KOPKO: Well, first of all, it's probably not going to happen. Whenever we estimate a number of statistical models dating back decades, it's pretty rare that we find a vice presidential candidate that can deliver a battleground state. And even if they could, then it really has to be the decisive state in the Electoral College really to make a difference. So you can think about this as lightning needing to strike ever just right for it to count in the presidential election.

In a Politico article two elections ago, Kopko and Christopher Devine go into more detail about their model.

They look at state-level election returns from 1884-2012. They also delve in public opinion polls from 1952-2008 to see how much a vice-presidential candidate means for their home state.

Here are their findings: “While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice-presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.”

It's not that Kopko and Devine are wrong, but they are looking at eras with many blowout elections.

Think of Republican victories from 1896-1908 (William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt), 1920-1928 (Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge), and 1952-1956 (Eisenhower), or Democratic dominance from 1932-1944 (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

It wouldn’t have mattered if you put Superman on the ticket for the losing side, even with the X-ray vision.

But in more recent years, with 24-hour media and social media coverage, we learn a lot more about Palin, Pence, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than America ever heard about Thomas Marshall, Thomas Hendricks, Levi P. Morton or Allen G. Thurman in those days.

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

But in more recent years, from 1976-2020, one could say that it’s a whole new ballgame for vice presidential picks.

And the selections of J. D. Vance of Ohio and Walz of Minnesota are likely to have a much bigger impact than Charles Fairbanks, Charles G. Dawes, Charles Curtis, Charles W. Bryan and Charles L. McNary (all vice presidential picks between 1904-1940) ever did.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

What history says about V.P. picks: senator, governor or wild card?

We know this much: Vice President Kamala Harris will pick her running mate before accepting her party’s presidential nomination in August at the Democratic National Convention.

Harris also has a short list of about a dozen potential candidates she’s vetting, according to CBS News.

So should she choose a U.S. senator, governor, U.S. House representative — or someone else?

Let’s examine the historical record to see which type of vice presidential candidates have helped — or hurt — a presidential ticket.

Since 1945, presidential candidates have made 31 vice presidential picks — not counting vice presidential renominations.

ALSO READ: How much access did $50,000 buy someone at the Republican National Convention?

Of these 31 picks, 19 most recently served in elected office as U.S. senators, four were governors and seven had prior electoral experience only from the House of Representatives, such as Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush. One did not have experience in any of those offices.

Of their 18 vice presidential selections, Democrats have chosen a U.S. senator in 16 cases since 1945. The Republicans are a little more diverse in their selections, with four U.S. Senate picks — including Donald Trump’s selection of J. D. Vance — four gubernatorial picks and six selections from the House of Representatives.

There’s the adage that a vice president can only hurt you, and he or she can’t help you. Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who Gerald Ford selected when he replaced President Richard Nixon as president, was not renominated by Ford when he unsuccessfully ran for his own term in 1976 — not that it mattered much in the end.

Historical evidence indicates that the prior job of the running mate makes little difference in victory or defeat — if he or she is a senator or governor. U.S. senators nominated for vice president have won nine times and lost eight times. Governors as vice presidential nominees are split, winning twice and losing twice.

But those without gubernatorial or senatorial experience fare poorly. Picking a candidate from the House of Representatives has only been successful two times in seven tries.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump ‘secretary of retribution’ won't discuss his ‘target list’ at RNC

The one candidate without experience as a governor, senator or representative, Sargent Shriver, lost in 1972 as Democrat George McGovern’s ticket partner.

Republicans picked Vance, and their record with U.S. Senate vice presidential nominees is pretty good: two wins (Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle) and one loss (Bob Dole).

Democrats, however, have seven wins with U.S. senators (Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Alben Barkley) against seven losses (Tim Kaine, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Lloyd Bentsen, Edwin Muskie, Estes Kefauver and John Sparkman).

Republicans are the only ones since World War II who have picked a governor as a running mate. Two (Mike Pence, Spiro Agnew) won, while two (Sarah Palin and Earl Warren) lost.

U.S. House representatives have largely failed for both parties, with the GOP picking two winners (George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney) and four losers (Paul Ryan, Jack Kemp, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and Bill Miller). Democrats picked one (Geraldine Ferraro) and she lost.

It should also be noted that Bush — UN ambassador, CIA director — and Cheney — secretary of defense, CEO of Halliburton — both had extensive experience in other realms between their stints as House members and selections as vice presidential candidates.

Trump has already made his pick. What should Harris do?

It’s a flip of a coin based on the historical record, so long as she doesn’t pick a U.S. House member.

At present, senators and governors top her shortlist, including Harris can choose North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or even Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Some new names include Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, as CBS reports.

Given that the record shows all things are equal in vice presidential picks, it is probably best to select a running mate from a state that will help you. That would put those candidates from swing states, such as Kelly (Arizona), Shapiro (Pennsylvania), Whitmer (Michigan) and even perhaps Cooper (North Carolina), at the top of the list.

Had Gore picked popular Florida U.S. senator and former Gov. Bob Graham for his VP, he would have very likely won the 2000 election, given Florida’s overriding significance in that race. Taking a running mate from Connecticut in 2000 — Joe Lieberman — made little difference.

Ford might have done better in 1976 with a Texan such as George H. W. Bush instead of a Kansan in Dole, given that Ford lost the Lone Star State to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

For John McCain in 2008, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would have been a far better choice than Palin, of then-deep red Alaska. McCain lost the Keystone State (and some Obama-backing moderates).

In a close presidential race, particularly now, vice presidential candidates from swing states may matter more, regardless of prior office experience.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

History shows presidential debate victors often win the battle but lose the war

Donald Trump has to feel pretty good, as he bested — some might say obliterated — a stammering, low-energy President Joe Biden in their first debate of 2024. A CNN poll declared Trump the hands-down winner, 67 percent to 33 percent.

But are those who win that first debate more likely to take the election?

In short: no.

During the television era, history indicates that the winners of first general election presidential debates went on to win the election only five out of 13 times.

ALSO READ: How The Onion’s founding editor finds humor in the dismal age of Trump

So at a moment when some Democrats are questioning Biden’s fitness for the presidency, and wondering aloud whether Biden should exit the race altogether, this is a bit of bad news for Trump.

Let’s run the numbers:

In 2020, Biden won 60 percent to 28 percent for Trump in the first debate, according to CNN’s poll. Then Biden went on to win the election in November 2020.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton was judged to have won the first debate, according to CNN’s poll that had her winning 62 percent to 27 percent for Trump. But she lost the 2016 election.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won the first debate easily. According to Gallup, the Republican and former Massachusetts governor prevailed 72 percent to 20 percent for President Barack Obama. But it was Obama, the Democrat, who easily won reelection in 2012.

In 2008, Obama took the first debate from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 51 percent to 38 percent in the first debate according to CNN. This served as a good launching point for Obama’s victory in the election later that year.

In 2004, Democratic Sen. John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. Newsweek’s poll revealed that Kerry won 61 percent to 19 percent for Bush. But it was Bush who narrowly won the election.

In 2000, Gallup polling had Vice President Al Gore winning the first debate (48 percent to 41 percent), which may surprise people, as the media criticized Gore’s audible sighs. But Bush won the 2000 election.

In 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton outperformed Republican Sen. Bob Dole, in the first debate (51 percent to 31 percent) according to Gallup polling. And Clinton was reelected in 1996.

In 1992, Reform Party nominee Ross Perot won the first debate 47 percent to 30 percent for then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and 16 percent for President George H. W. Bush, according to Gallup. But Perot finished third in the election, behind Clinton and Bush, and didn’t earn a single electoral vote despite winning about 19 percent of the popular vote.

In 1988, Democrat and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was judged the winner of the first debate in two polls, but lost the election, by a wide margin, to Bush.

In 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale handily defeated Republican President Ronald Reagan 54 percent to 36 percent in their first debate. Yet Reagan won 49 of 50 states during the general election — one of the most notable landslide victories in U.S. History.

In 1980, Reagan also won the only debate against Democratic President Jimmy Carter and independent John Anderson, according to surveys from Gallup. Reagan also won the election.

Data from Gallup surveys showed that President Gerald Ford drastically reduced Carter’s big lead in 1976 but lost the election, while John F. Kennedy overtook Richard Nixon in the polls after their first debate in 1960 and ultimately won the ultra-close contest, according to Gallup.

That means that in 13 elections, the first debate winners have won five of these contests (1960, 1980, 1996, 2008, 2020). In the other eight cases, the first debate winners went on to lose at the ballot box (1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2012, 2016). That’s a 38 percent success rate for winners of the first debate.

No televised debates were conducted in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

Why do winners of the first presidential debate often come up short in the election?

ALSO READ: NRA no longer 'human rights group' on Google

It could be because the first debate serves as a wake-up call for the first debate loser, as it did for Reagan in 1984, and Obama in 2012; each had to answer questions about their poor debate performance.

It could be that taking the first debate puts pressure on the winner to make a repeat performance.

Or, perhaps, the first debate winner could become overconfident in his or her chances of winning the election.

Whatever the case may be, Trump may find that history is not on his side just because he dominated Biden in the first debate.

A second debate between Trump and Biden is scheduled for Sept. 10.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

All posts tagged "al gore"

‘Higher than Obama’: Repeat Dem convention-goers hyped over ‘electrifying’ Chicago energy

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

Still need convincing?

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

What history says about V.P. picks: senator, governor or wild card?

History shows presidential debate victors often win the battle but lose the war

Al Gore on corruption in politics and media

Al Gore's World Wide Web celebrates twenty-fifth birthday

Al Gore says he tried to buy Twitter in 2009

Al Gore: 'Our democracy has been hacked,' and survival of civilization at risk

Al Gore discusses surveillance culture and spider goats at SXSW

AIEEEEEE