Life Imitates Art? Kathy Hochul Will Be New York’s First Female Governor

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Kathy Hochul will be sworn in as New York’s 57^th Governor when current Governor Andrew Cuomo’s resignation goes into effect.  Cuomo announced his resignation on August 10 (to become effective two weeks from the announcement) in response to Attorney General Letitia James’ report which found that Cuomo sexually harassed multiple women.  Importantly, Hochul will, at the same time, become New York’s first female governor. 

Kathy Hochul will become the 1st Female Governor of New York on Aug. 24, 2021

It is no secret that women have struggled to reach top executive elected positions throughout the United States.  The United States has never elected a female president, has only seen a woman lead a major party ticket once, and just elected its first female vice president in November 2020.  At the state level, women have fared only marginally better.  44 women (26 Democrats, 18 Republicans) have served as governors across 30 states throughout U.S. history.  This number will tick up to 31 when Hochul takes office next week, leaving 19 states that have never had a female governor.  Of these female governors, the first elected to office was Ella Grasso (Democrat from Connecticut) in 1975.  Prior to her, three women served as governors in Wyoming, Texas, and Alabama without winning election.  Instead, these women were selected as surrogates for their husbands who either died or were term limited.  Additionally, 12 of these female governors assumed office upon resignation of the male governor that held office prior to them.  Overall, then, we see that only 29 women have been elected to state governorships on their own right.  Next week, Hochul will join this list of female politicians to assume office after the resignation of a male executive.

Geena Davis played Vice President-turned-President Mackenzie Allen on Commander in Chief

This path of ascension to higher office for female candidates is a clear instance of life imitating art, as the lack of elected female executives is portrayed in popular culture as well.  Even in television and movies it is rare to see a woman elected to be president of the United States or governor of a state.  Instead, pop culture places females in an executive position by way of the male executive’s resignation from office, death, or some other calamity.  In the short-lived television series Commander in Chief, Geena Davis’s character becomes president upon the sudden and unexpected death of the president. Additionally, despite being the elected vice president, she was asked to resign her position prior to the President’s death so that the Speaker of the House (a male) would become president upon his passing.  In HBO’s Veep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s character becomes president upon the resignation of the president.  Then, when she actually runs for president she is defeated. 

Julia Louis-Dreyfus played Vice President-turned-President Selina Meyer on Veep

Since Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the White House in 2016, we have seen many women (on both sides of the political aisle) run for public office.  Many have since been elected.  In fact, there is plenty of political science scholarship that tells us that when women run, they are just as likely as men to win.  Women are just not encouraged to seek office as much as men are.  However, seeing a woman hold the top executive office in a state is still fairly uncommon and Kamala Harris is the first woman we have seen win the vice presidency of the United States.  Popular Culture even struggles to provide examples of women in positions of executive authority—at least those elected to executive positions on their own right.  New York, however, will get its first example of a female governor when Andrew Cuomo’s resignation goes into effect.  Kathy Hochul, a Buffalo native no less, will break the gubernatorial glass ceiling in New York next week when she is sworn into office. She will become the latest example of female executive leadership in one of the largest states in the country.  

What Pop Culture Can Teach Us About the 25th Amendment

 There has been a lot of discussion about the 25^th Amendment ever since armed rioters stormed the Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.  On this day, Congress was performing its constitutional duty of certifying the Electoral vote in favor of Joseph Biden over Donald Trump, as determined by the popular vote in each state from the election held on November 3.  Objections were raised to the electoral vote in Arizona by members of both the House and Senate, so each house of congress met in their respective chamber to debate the results.  Shortly after debate began, the Capitol was breached by angry, armed rioters.  These rioters had been in attendance at a rally hosted by Trump, held at a park near the White House, at which he told them, “And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.  We’re going to walk to the Capitol…You’ll never take back our country with weakness.  You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”  Heeding Trump’s advice, these citizens marched to the Capitol, breached the barricades, and broke in.  Members of congress were forced to seek shelter, with gas masks in hand in case of tear gas or some other airborne attack.  Five people were killed in the attack, including a Capitol Hill police officer—though no member of congress was injured.  So, after a roughly six-hour delay, Congress reconvened to finish certifying the electoral vote. 

Photo of rioters breaching the Capitol on January 6, 2021 taken from Reuters. 

In response to these attacks, several methods to remove Trump from power have been discussed.  Given his rhetoric surrounding the election results and his calls for shows of strength and urges to fight on his behalf, many have placed at least some of the blame for what happened on January 6 on Trump.  There are two main avenues by which a president may be forced to leave office prior to the end of his term: impeachment and conviction, and the 25^th Amendment.  Impeachment is understood by the American public because we have seen presidents impeached—some in recent memory (Bill Clinton in 1998 and Donald Trump in 2019)—though neither were convicted in their respective Senate trial.  However, we have never witnessed a president removed from power via the 25^th Amendment, leaving the American public largely uninformed about how the process works.    

We have seen the first three sections of the 25^th Amendment invoked in the past.  The first section provides for the succession to the presidency by the vice president in the case where the president is unable to fulfill his duties (i.e. death or resignation).  The second section explains how a Vice President is to be replaced should the vice presidency become vacant (the president appoints a new V.P. who has to be approved by a majority in both houses of congress).  Both of these sections were invoked in the Watergate era.  Gerald Ford was made Vice President via section two after Spiro Agnew resigned and was then made President via section one after Nixon resigned the presidency.  Section three has been invoked a few times by presidents receiving medical procedures requiring anesthesia, under which they would be unable to discharge presidential duties.  Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush invoked section three when they received colonoscopies.  Section four, on the other hand, has never been invoked.  Section four allows for the removal of a president from office with a majority vote of the President’s cabinet, including the Vice President.  The Vice President would then become president until the President is deemed capable of reassuming office.  Section four was designed to provide a way to transfer presidential power in the case where a president may suffer a debilitating, yet non-fatal, medical episode (e.g. stroke, heart attack) and be incapable of invoking section three.  This is something we have not witnessed as a country and why pop culture can help us understand how this process works. 

TV shows and movies often include storylines revolving around the 25^th Amendment because of the drama it includes.  Removing a president from power due to a health crisis (Madam Secretary), the temporary transfer of presidential power due to a child’s kidnapping (The West Wing), dealing with the disappearance of a president after a tragic accident (Political Animals), tend to provide for a boost in ratings due to the interesting storyline.  While all sections of the 25^th Amendment have found their way into pop culture, the fourth section’s portrayal holds the unique privilege of being our only look at how it would be invoked, as it has never been invoked by a president’s cabinet. 

The television show Madam Secretary provides us with the clearest look at section four, at least related to the current situation the United States finds itself in.  In the twelfth episode of Season Four, entitled “Sound and Fury,” Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord questions both the mental soundness and overall health of President Dalton after he prepares a military attack in response to a Russian sonic attack on the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria.  This is not a typical response of Dalton, who also appears to be becoming more easily agitated than normal.  After convincing Dalton to hold off any sort of military action for 24 hours, there is finally evidence presented that Russia was not behind the attack.  However, Dalton still wants to attack Russia, regardless of the evidence.  This is when McCord gathers the cabinet and Vice President to discuss invoking the 25^th Amendment.  While there is hesitation among cabinet secretaries, who are concerned about protecting Dalton’s reputation, McCord ultimately convinces them to invoke section four until Dalton undergoes medical testing.  After testing, doctors found a malignant brain tumor pressing on Dalton’s frontal lobe, causing him to act more aggressively than normal.  Upon successful surgery and recuperation, Dalton resumes his presidential duties, with the Vice President returning to the vice presidency. 

This storyline from Madam Secretary gives us the our most useful example of how the fourth section of the 25^th Amendment was meant to be used, as we have not seen it invoked by any presidential cabinet in history.  Section four of the 25^th Amendment was designed to allow for the removal of a president who is incapable of performing his or her duties.  While there is much discussion surrounding this Amendment in the final days of the Trump administration, Vice President Mike Pence has voiced opposition to invoking the 25^th Amendment, all but ensuring it will not be used.  We thus seem to be left with pop culture examples to help elucidate how its invocation would work.

For more information on the history of the 25^th Amendment and how pop culture has played with storylines revolving around it, feel free to check out my recently published article, “A Heartbeat Away: Popular Culture’s Role in Teaching Presidential Succession.”  It was published in Dialogue: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Popular Culture and Pedagogy (an online, open access journal) and can be found (without a paywall) by clicking here. 

RBG's Passing Highlights the Problems of Representation in the US

 

Supreme Court Justice, and legal icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday, September 18, 2020.  Not two hours later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement affirming that the Senate would work quickly to confirm President Trump’s appointment.  While this is the normal course of events when filling a Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell was met with a chorus of voices labeling him a hypocrite due to his refusal to conduct a Senate hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Scalia passed away in February 2016, and McConnell argued it was wrong to confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the midst of an election year.  Yet, fast forward four years and he has no qualms about confirming Trump nominee, Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsburg’s vacant seat, arguing the circumstances are different due to the fact that the President and Senate majority are now both under unified Republican control, while in 2016 there was divided government. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Amy Coney Barrett, nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

Regardless of how one feels about McConnell’s actions, this situation draws attention to the larger problem of representation in the United States.  The Supreme Court is currently comprised of eight justices, with Coney Barrett likely to be the ninth.  Out of those nine justices, five will have been appointed by Republican presidents that did not win the popular vote in their respective elections (though Bush did win both the popular and electoral votes in his second term).  George W. Bush and Donald Trump both assumed the presidency by winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote.  Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom have a more conservative slant.  Trump, in his first term, has appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and has now nominated Barrett (who, by all signs will be confirmed along a party line vote in the Senate).  Neither of these presidents received a majority of support from American voters on election day, but together they have shifted the Supreme Court to the right ideologically for a generation. 

Additionally, representation issues present themselves in the Senate.  The Senate is not designed to be a democratic body.  It was designed to give states equal representation in the legislative branch, as each state receives 2 Senators.  Additionally, the Senate was designed to allow cooler heads to prevail in legislative decision-making.  Partisan battles were anticipated in the House, but were expected to be calmed in the Senate, as Senators were expected to examine what was better for the country as a whole rather than what individual members of a congressmember’s district demanded.  The House of Representatives was supposed to be where public opinion was aired and taken into account.  The Senate was supposed to funnel that opinion into policy that benefited a majority of Americans. 

Yet, much is different about the Senate of 2020 than the Senate of the late 1700s.  The Senate is still composed of two Senators from each state, but the population disparity between states today is much greater than it was centuries ago.  Currently, approximately 19.5 million people live in New York state, compared to the approximate 579,000 residents of Wyoming, giving Wyoming one Senator for roughly every 290,000 residents while in New York we see a ratio of 9.75 million to one.  The disparity looks even starker when we compare the most populous state in the country, California, with a population of 39.5 million. 

 

 

California's population is equal to the states highlighted in red combined.

The above graphic highlights the representation issue nicely.  California’s weight in the Electoral College (roughly appropriate given its population size) is worth all of the states, highlighted in red, combined.  Because we dole out electoral votes to states based on their population size, we know then that the combined population of the 13 states in red is roughly equal to that of California.  Thus, California’s two Senators represent the same number of people as the 26 senators from the states in red.  When Senators are eventually asked to vote on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination, the states in red have a much greater voice than the Senators in California (26 votes to 2).

Problems with misrepresentation are frustrating and inevitably lead to lowered feelings of political efficacy and often depressed participation levels in democratic society.  Luckily there are reform ideas that exist to tackle the issues associated with misrepresentation that would increase political efficacy and hopefully revive civic participation. 

Ranked choice voting has been implemented in Maine thanks to a ballot referendum initiated by its citizens.  Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank the candidates in order of preference.  After all ballots are tallied initially (counting only a voter’s first choice), the lowest vote-getter is removed from contention and their votes are allocated to their second choice.  This process repeats until only two candidates remain.  This all but guarantees that the election winner will have a majority of support within a state. 

There are multiple reform plans proposed for the Electoral College: eliminate it altogether, award votes according to a mixture of the popular vote in a congressional district and the statewide popular vote total (Nebraska and Maine use this method currently), award electoral votes according to the proportion of a state’s popular vote total, or the states can enter into a compact that promises to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the state’s popular vote totals.  Some of these are more difficult to pass than others (with some requiring a constitutional amendment) and, of course, all of them come with benefits and drawbacks of their own (a topic for a completely separate blog post). 

There are also more “extreme” measures discussed to increase representation, including adopting a multimember district system, relying on a proportional representation system instead of our current winner-take-all approach to elections, or adopting a more parliamentary system in general over our presidential system.  These are much more unlikely to garner enough public support to gain serious traction, but public opinion is starting to drive some reform efforts when it comes to bettering representation in Congress.  Electoral College reform is now met with a majority of public approval and Maine’s ranked choice voting system was driven by its voters.  Representation matters to voters.  And when they feel that they are not being accurately represented by their elected leaders, there are normally electoral consequences that follow. 

Daemen PSC & HST Students Visit Iowa - Days 2 & 3

After learning about Iowan politics during our private tour of the state capitol with an Iowa Representative on day 1, our second and third days in Iowa were spent attending several Democratic presidential candidate rallies and a forum on democracy.  By attending the various town halls, community events, and the forum, we were able to get a glimpse of what it is like for Iowa voters preparing to caucus on February 3 for their favorite candidate.  Because Iowa is a smaller state (population roughly 3 million people) and they vote first in the nomination season, Iowa voters understand their importance in the nomination process and expect that candidates will spend a lot of time introducing themselves, shaking hands, and taking selfies with them.  As you will see, candidates in return, are happy to oblige. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar's "Amy for America" Campaign Bus

Waiting for Mayor Pete Buttigieg to take the stage

Caucuses are vastly different from primaries--and Iowa is even a bit different among the various caucus states.  In a primary, a voter simply shows up to their polling location, fills out their ballot, and turns it in.  In a caucus, a voter shows up at a specified time (say 7:00 pm) and settles in for a few hours of speeches (from campaign surrogates, grassroots volunteers, and activists) and then votes.  And in Iowa, the way voting happens is even different.  Instead of filling out a paper ballot, voters literally vote with their feet.  Voters gather in their predetermined precinct location and listen to various surrogates, volunteers, and activists talk about why their candidate is the best.  Then, after the speeches, the voting begins.  There are signs posted throughout the room in which voters are gathered and in order to vote for a candidate, voters stand in their candidate's location.  After everyone is in place, the voters are counted.  If a candidate fails to attract 15% of the vote, they do not reach "viability."  Any voters supporting a candidate that does not reach viability can either vote for their second choice or they can go home.  This process continues until all candidates left have achieved viability.  Once all candidates have achieved viability, the votes are officially tallied across all the precincts in the state (currently there are 1, 681 caucus precincts) and a winner ultimately emerges.  Complicating this even further is the fact that between the various rounds of voting, all of the voters are working at convincing the supporters of candidates who have failed to achieve viability to support their candidate.  So, for example, should Amy Klobuchar fail to reach viability, all of the supporters of all the other candidates will be working on convincing the Klobuchar supporters to vote for Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, or Biden instead. 

Listening to Vice President Joe Biden at his community event in Indianola, Iowa on 1/18/2020

Mayor Pete Buttigieg at his town hall in Council Bluffs, IA on 1/18/2020

Due to the nature of how voting actually happens in the Iowa caucuses, candidates try to ensure that their supporters are fully informed about their positions, their plans, and have a good idea of their character.  The candidates know that on caucus night, voters are expected to appeal to supporters of candidates that fail to achieve viability.  This is why candidates make several trips to Iowa and why they spend as much time as they do shaking hands and taking selfies.  These personal touches may make a huge difference on caucus night.  With a strong showing in Iowa (preferably a first place showing!) a candidate can then expect an increase in media attention as well as campaign donations. 

Tysai Washington and Sam Williams (R-L) with Joe Biden after his event in Indianola.  

Our whole group with Pete Buttigieg after his town hall in Council Bluffs.  

Our group with Elizabeth Warren after her town hall in Des Moines.  

After attending a few individual rallies (so far we have seen Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren) we were able to attend a forum entitled, We the People: Protecting Our Democracy a Decade After Citizens United.  (For anyone interested in the forum, it was recorded and can be found here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?468160-1/democratic-presidential-candidates-speak-we-people-2020-forum-iowa). At this forum, candidates were asked to address issues surrounding democracy, specifically focusing on the problems associated with money in politics.  Citizens United refers to the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that independent expenditures related to political campaigns by corporations could not be restricted, as this would be a violation of their First Amendment Rights.  A total of six candidates appeared at the forum.  Andrew Yang, John Delaney, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar attended in person, while Pete Buttigieg and Deval Patrick appeared via Skype.  

Candidates at the We the People Forum (From Top to Bottom:
Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang,
Amy Klobuchar,Pete Buttigieg, and John Delaney).

 At each of these events, students have not only learned about the candidates running for office, but they have also learned a great deal about how unique Iowa is in our presidential nomination process.  They have been observing the power of retail politics--something we do not get to see much of in New York.  They have also been learning about how seriously Iowa residents take the nomination process and how closely they are actually paying attention.  We have spoken with some of the voters in the crowds at these events and everyone we have spoken with has been to multiple events from a variety of candidates.  Iowans take their first-in-the-nation role seriously and genuinely try to learn about the candidates through traditional retail politics. 

Daemen PSC & HST Students Visit Iowa - Day 1

On Thursday, January 16, I traveled to Des Moines, IA with 5 of our Political Science and History majors to experience the retail politics surrounding the fast-approaching Iowa Caucuses.  These caucuses are scheduled for February 3 and will set the tone for the rest of the presidential nominating contests.  We will be attending a variety of political events throughout the state, including campaign rallies/town halls/community events with Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren.

Waiting for our flight out of Buffalo

After a short delay in Detroit, we made it to Iowa in the evening of January 16 and settled in to our hotel.  Friday morning, we attended a presentation by the National Director of Project Vote Smart, Walker McKusick, which is headquartered at Drake University in Des Moines.  Our own political science professor, Dr. Lisa Parshall, is an advisor for Key Votes New York for Project Vote Smart.  Project Vote Smart is a nonpartisan group that aims to provide factual information to voters ahead of elections.

Project Vote Smart Bumper Sticker 

Daemen Students (to the right in this picture) at the Vote Smart presentation with students from Principia College in Illinois, who are also in Des Moines to witness the pre-caucus events.  

After our Vote Smart presentation, Iowa was hit by a winter storm--giving us a snow day, as the rest of our events for today were canceled.  Des Moines ended up getting about 6 inches of snow today, but we still ventured out to explore the city a bit.  

The students (Carlos McKnight, Sam Williams, Lindsey Hornung, Ricardo Marquez, and Tysai Washington, from L-R) enjoying the snow on Drake University's campus.

To help fill up some of our snow day, we visited the Iowa State Capitol Building and had an incredible, unique experience.  

Iowa State Capitol Building 

From L-R: Tysai Washington, Ricardo Marquez, Sam Williams, Lindsey Hornung, Carlos McKnight

Once we got inside, we met Iowa State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad, who has served Polk County (of which Des Moines is the county seat) since 2007.  Representative Abdul-Samad introduced us to Latino Leader Mary Campos and former Iowa State Representative Wayne Ford.  Ms. Campos and Mr. Ford are the founders and chairs of the Brown and Black Forum held in Des Moines every four years.  The Brown and Black Forum provides candidates with the opportunity to address concerns of the African American and Latino communities.  The Forum began in 1984 and is an important part of run-up to the Iowa Caucuses.

Group picture with Mary Campos, Wayne Ford (center) and Representative Ako Abdul-Samad (right)

Representative Abdul-Samad was then kind enough to give us a tour of the State House of Representatives and tell us several stories about what brought him into politics and some of the issues he is currently fighting for.  

Chamber of the Iowa State House of Representatives 

Representative Abdul-Samad talking with students about the Iowa House of Representatives

Group Picture at the Speaker of the State House's Desk.  The current Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives is Pat Grassley, the grandson of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley.  

Overall, we had a very exciting first day in Iowa, despite some inclement weather.  We were incredibly appreciative of Representative Abdul-Samad's time, as he gave us an incredible experience at the Iowa State Capitol.  

The Dynamics of the 2020 Invisible Primary

We are currently nearing the end of what political scientists refer to as the invisible primary, the approximately one-year period leading up to the Iowa Caucuses in which candidates compete against each other for fundraising dollars, name recognition, poll standing, and voters in the early states.  While the invisible primary has arguably become much more visible over the past few campaign cycles due to increased media coverage of the candidates’ campaign tactics, the nomination campaigns are about to become even more visible as states start to vote. 

In her post a couple of weeks ago, my colleague, Dr. Lisa Parshall, makes a compelling case that the U.S. is making its way toward a national primary rather than the sequential, state-by-state series of primaries and caucuses we have been using since 1972.  Should we adopt a national primary, the invisible primary period will likely fade away, as candidates will have to wage national campaigns from the minute they enter the contest rather than build support in a handful of early states and hope that momentum propels them forward. 

Additionally, Dr. Parshall rightly points to the vaulted status of Iowa and New Hampshire (and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina) as being a major impediment to instituting a national primary.  As happens every four years, we see several people decry the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire—with this year Julian Castro, a former Democratic contender, joining the fight.  Most arguments center around the lack of diversity found in both of these states—an argument amplified in Democratic nominating contests, as Democratic candidates rely on a diverse coalition of voters to win elections.  In an effort to diversify the electorate early on in the primary process, Democrats added South Carolina and Nevada to the early carve-out states in 2008. 

Nonetheless, should candidates want to build momentum and be perceived as viable contenders throughout the nomination process, they need to develop strategies that align with the rules laid out by their Party.  And while not everyone may be happy that Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for the remainder of the nomination calendar, candidates rarely ignore these two early contests because of the importance of being seen as a “winner” from the very beginning of the process.  Not only do these early wins allow candidates to be viewed more favorably, they also see a bump in fundraising and positive media coverage.  It is difficult for a candidate to be viewed as viable if they do not place in the top three in these early states.  Should Michael Bloomberg be successful in his bid for the Democratic nomination, he would be the first presidential contender to do so while skipping all four of the carve-out states since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. 

While Bloomberg is running with a largely unconventional campaign strategy (getting in the race late, ignoring the early carve-out states, and self-funding his campaign), the remaining candidates are competing in much more conventional ways: running advertisements, traveling to the states for rallies and town halls, and racking up endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  To demonstrate, let’s look at the data.

Campaign Visits: Getting Candidates in Front of the Voters

In 2017 I published a book, Campaigns That Matter: The Importance of Campaign Visits in Presidential Nominating Contests, in which I argue that campaign visits are a crucial part of a candidate’s strategic tool kit to be used on the campaign trail.  These visits, which can come in the form of town hall meetings, large rallies, just popping into a local restaurant or pub, or intimate meet-and-greets with interested voters, provide candidates with the ability to connect with voters in a more personal way.  Voters are able to hear a more substantial discussion of a candidate’s policy proposals and vision for governing.  They are also able to better judge a candidate’s character and personality, as these events are mostly unscripted and more free-wheeling, especially when compared to traditional advertisements.  More importantly, visits are an important way to energize grassroots supporters who will campaign on behalf of the candidate in his or her absence and do a lot of the door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, and voter registration drives all in an effort to maximize their favorite candidate’s vote share. 

To that end, we can see the early states have received a lot of attention from the candidates this year. As of December 1, 2019, Iowa has received over 700 visits from the 28 candidates who have sought the Democratic nomination, New Hampshire received 431, Nevada received 185, and South Carolina received 226. 

One of the things we can see in these data is that visits are conducted by a variety of candidates.  Campaign visits are a way to level the playing field among candidates—they do not need to compete with other candidates for air time and the cost of conducting a visit are much less than running an ad.  So, when looking at which candidates are leading the visits race in Iowa, we see that both long-shot candidates and top tier candidates are visiting at high numbers.  Joe Sestak (who has now withdrawn from the race) led the field at the end of November with 50 visits to Iowa, while Deval Patrick (who recently got in the race) has made only one.  Further, the top tier candidates as of right now—Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and Sanders have made 29, 30, 37, and 37 respectively.  In contrast, long-shot candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Julian Castro (who has now suspended his campaign), and Andrew Yang have made 36, 46, 40, and 26 respectively.  This helps demonstrate that visits really are an equalizer among types of candidates—these visits are not as dependent on fundraising as advertising is. 

As the race continues on past the first four carve-out states, we should expect the attention of candidates to shift to the states holding contests on Super Tuesday.  As Super Tuesday is offering up about 1/3 of all the delegates available, the candidates still in the race after the four early carve-out states will have 15 states to compete in rather than just four.  Because of the increased volume in contests candidates will be conducting fewer visits to these states and likely spend more money on advertising. 

Campaign Fundraising and Spending: The Importance of Ads

Conventional wisdom tells us that generally the candidate with the most money wins the race.  This is usually due to the fact that this candidate is able to outspend their opponents in advertising.  Advertising is the quickest way to reach a large amount of people, but it often comes with a high price tag.  Additionally, today candidates need to advertise on a variety of platforms (e.g. radio, newspapers, television, the internet, social media) so the costs of advertising continue to rise.  Looking at the amount of money raised by the Democratic candidates, we can see that Bernie Sanders leads the fundraising race.  He’s fundraised about $10 million more than his closest competitors in Iowa (Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren) and about $25 million more than Joe Biden (the candidate leading in most national polls). 

With fundraising numbers for the 4th fiscal quarter starting to trickle in now, these standings in the fundraising race seem to be holding steady.  Sanders raised about $35 million, the most raised by any candidate in any quarter so far in this competition and Joe Biden had his most impressive fundraising quarter to date, roughly $23 million. 

Looking at fundraising data tells us a couple of things about the candidates and the type of campaign each is running.  Fundraising tells us which candidate is financially able to continue in the race: they can pay for ads, pay their staffers, and pay their bills.  Additionally, these data tell us how many donors each candidate has.  Sanders is closing in on 4 million donors, Warren is approaching 2 million donors, while Buttigieg has yet to reach 1 million donors.  These numbers signal grassroots support among voters and what kind of people are donating to the candidates.  Sanders and Warren have both sworn off big dollar fundraisers, while Buttigieg has held several, including the now-infamous wine cave fundraiser in California.  So, while Buttigieg has outraised Warren, Warren is able to claim a more robust group of supporters as she has received donations from a wider cross section of voters.

Elite Endorsements: The Party Decides?

One more aspect that candidates compete over is endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  These endorsements are viewed as a way for the Party to still maintain some control over the nomination process.  With the McGovern-Fraser reforms in the 1970s, the Republican and Democratic Parties lost a lot of control over who the nominee would be.  The Democratic Party adopted a robust group of superdelegates to help balance the will of the Party with the will of the voters (though superdelegates have never decided who would be the Party’s nominee).  In addition to these superdelegates, elite endorsements help the Party signal who they would prefer voters support—and we see endorsements used by both Parties. 

Because nomination contests are waged between members of the same political party, voters cannot simply rely on party identification when deciding for which candidate to vote.  Instead, voters need to use some other information when making a decision.  This information may be the visits or ads discussed above, or they may simply rely on the endorsement of a politician they trust.  When looking at the current group of endorsements, Joe Biden leads in the number of endorsements having received 46—including those from 22 current members of the House of Representatives, 3 Governors, and 5 Senators, among many others.  Sanders has received a total of 24 endorsements, Warren 23, Booker 21, Klobuchar 13, Buttigieg 9, Bennet 3, Bloomberg 3, and Delaney 2.  The charts below demonstrate where these endorsements have come from. 

 1= Past President, Vice President, National Party Leader ; 2= Governor; 3= Senator ; 4= Former Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates, Former Party Leader, 2020 Nomination Dropouts ; 5= U.S. Representatives or Large City Mayors; 6= Statewide Legislative or Elected Leaders ; 7= Democratic National Committee Leaders

What the endorsement data tell us is that Joe Biden currently has the most support from Democratic Party leaders than any of his competitors.  Because of Biden’s longevity with the Party it is unsurprising to see that he is currently leading in the endorsement race.  As the primary season continues, we will likely see more consolidation behind the eventual nominee—especially among superdelegates (and most of these endorsers also serve as superdelegates).  Whether or not that nominee is Biden remains unclear, but the Party is doing its best to signal their strong support for his candidacy. 

Overall Campaign Dynamics

Visits, spending, and endorsements are just some of the dynamics that are at work throughout the nomination season.  Starting with the Iowa caucuses on February 3, viability of the candidates will be added to the dynamics.  While viability is already discussed in terms of poll numbers, actual results from primaries and caucuses produce stronger evidence of viability.  Additionally, momentum will become a much stronger player as the nomination season continues on.  Voters are likely to jump on the bandwagon of the winning (i.e. more viable) candidate.  Momentum is more likely to have a stronger influence in a large field of candidates, as it can propel a candidate ahead of the pack in a much more significant way than when the field of candidates is smaller. 

The two-person 2016 Democratic nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is a good example.  Because Clinton and Sanders kept volleying wins back-and-forth, neither could muster significant momentum (the same can be said of the 2008 Obama-Clinton nomination battle).  In contrast, the 2016 Republican contest contained a large number of candidates, with the top tier quickly whittled down to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.  With four candidates remaining in the race, Trump was able to win contests with just 30% of the vote.  By racking up several wins—even with small pluralities—Trump was able to become “uncatchable” in terms of the delegate count.  Thus, in a crowded field, momentum helps quickly winnow the field after the first few contests, and then allows one candidate slowly, but surely, build an advantage in their delegate count that cannot be surpassed by any other candidate. 

If this conventional wisdom holds, we should expect momentum to play a big role in the 2020 Democratic contest.  We should expect several withdrawals after the carve out states vote.  The remaining candidates will try to piece together a coalition of voters they believe will allow them to capture the nomination.  However, only one will be successful.  This candidate will likely start to emerge after Super Tuesday, giving us a much clearer picture of who the Democratic nominee is likely to be. 

History & Political Science Students Traveling to Iowa to Observe Retail Politics

Despite the fact that candidates have been competing for the Democratic nomination for roughly one year already, and several have even dropped out, the nomination season has not officially begun.  February 3, 2020 is the official kickoff to the nomination season with Iowa caucusing for its favorite candidates.  Winning, or at least doing well, in Iowa is an important step to any candidate with hopes of becoming the nominee—especially among Democratic candidates, with the Iowa winner going on to win the nomination in every year since Bill Clinton took 4th place (out of 6 total candidates) in Iowa in 1992.  And in January 2020, 5 Daemen students and myself will be traveling to Des Moines, Iowa to get a first-hand look at why Iowa is so important in this process. 

Five History & Political Science students will be traveling with me to Des Moines, IA Jan. 16-21, 2020 to observe the importance or retail politics and learn about Iowa's role in the nomination process.  

With its vaunted status, Iowa voters tend to take their job seriously and candidates often welcome the vetting these voters provide.  Iowa voters expect candidates to visit the state repeatedly, shake hands, and convey to them that they understand the concerns of the average Iowan.  Oftentimes, Iowa voters will refuse to vote for a candidate they have not met in person, or at the very least not met with a staff member or been able to attend a rally of a particular candidate.  In fact, several Iowans will attend multiple rallies of several candidates to fully vet the candidates running for office.  And candidates tend to make this easy for Iowa voters.  Altogether, the Democrats running for the nomination have made over 1,600 appearances in Iowa over the course of 2019 thus far.  They have appeared in various cities and locales throughout the state—sometimes holding larger rallies and town hall meetings, while other times just popping in to a favorite coffee shop, restaurant, or pub. 

The value of these visits is twofold: 1) they allow voters to get a look at them in an up-close-and-personal way that advertisements and media appearances do not allow for and 2) they energize grassroots organizers and activists to volunteer for, and spread the message of, their favorite candidate.  My book, Campaigns That Matter, looks at the role of these visits in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 nomination contests and finds that visits impact a citizen’s likelihood to vote and which candidate they will ultimately vote for. 

Published by Lexington Press in 2017.  

Because Iowa plays such an important—and unique—role in the nomination process, I will be taking 5 History and Political Science students (Lindsey Hornung, Ricardo Marquez, Carlos McKnight, Tysai Washington, and Sam Williams) to Des Moines, Iowa from January 16-21, 2020 to observe the importance of retail politics.  We will be spending five days attending political rallies and town hall meetings, while also meeting with grassroots volunteers and party leaders to better understand retail politics and how much of a role they play in Iowa.  After we get back from Iowa, the five students will engage in a directed studies course, in which we will be exploring the uniqueness of the American presidential nominating process, through which they will prepare a paper for presentation at Daemen's Academic Festival on April 22, 2020.  We will be chronicling our experiences in Iowa on this blog along with our departmental social media pages, so I would encourage you all to follow along and learn with these students about how the road to the White House starts in Iowa. 

Women's History Month -- 2019!

The Women's Studies Program at Daemen is proud to announce this year's Women's History Month roster of events, including lectures, films, a poetry reading, and a meet-and-greet poster-making session.

(Scroll down to the Women's History Month poster for full details about each event.)

 

"Liberty" (Frances F. Noyes) presides over this March 31, 1913, suffrage parade in Washington, D.C., as women sought the right to vote. (National Archives)

Lectures: The History and Political Science Department is sponsoring two lectures as part of its History & Politics Event Series:

• On March 25 (7pm, RIC120), Dr. Alexis Henshaw will speak on "Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars." Dr. Henshaw is a political scientist specializing in international women's issues. She is a professor as well as United Nation consultant. Henshaw's lecture will draw upon her recent book, Insurgent Women, to explore women's involvement in war and peace efforts in several regions: Ukraine, Kurdish groups in the Middle East, and the civil war in Columbia. (For more information, see the event flier or our Facebook event page)

• On March 20 (7pm, Wick Social Room), Dr. Karolina Krasuska will present a lecture on "Women and the Holocaust." Dr. Krasuska, an Assistant Professor at the University of Warsaw, Poland, is an expert on transnational modernism, gender, queer identity, and Jewishness. In fall 2017, Krasuska taught a class on 20th century European history at Daemen during her visit as part of the faculty exchange program between Daemen and the University of Warsaw's American Studies Center.  Her lecture will draw upon her recent coedited collection, Women and the Holocaust: New Perspectives and Challenges. Dr. Krasuska's lecture is co-sponsored by the Center for Polish Studies.
  

Films: 

• On March 6 (7pm, Wick Alumni Lounge), the History & Political Science Department is screening the classic 1959 French film, Hiroshima Mon Amour, timed to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the film's release. Dr. Kevin Telford (Associate Professor of French, Modern Languages Department) will comment and lead a discussion after the movie. 
• On March 27 (7pm, RIC120), the AAUW Student Organization will air the 2016 (remake) of the movie, Ghostbusters, in which paranormal investigators try to prove that ghosts are real. Students will discuss the film through a feminist lens, focusing on the significance of the all-female cast and reframed story.  
• on March 28 (4pm, DS336), Dr. Shannon Lupien and other members of the Psychological Sciences Department will present The Tale as part of the Daemen Film Series. The Tale explores the aftermath of the sexual assault of a child--from the perspective of the adult survivor of sexual assault who is coming to terms with what happened to her as a child and who needs to understand the stories she told herself to survive her experiences.  

Poetry Reading:

• On March 20 (7pm, 3rd floor RIC), the Readings at the RIC poetry series features two female poets from Buffalo: Rachelle Toarmino and Theresa Wyatt

AAUW: Sign-design & Interest Meeting:

• On March 7 (7pm, RIC Den), members of the AAUW Student Organization will come together to make signs and socialize before the 2019 Buffalo Women's March (scheduled for Sunday, March 10). The club promotes gender equality and action in behalf of women's education and gender pay equity. Make a sign, plan for the March, and learn more about the AAUW and its members. 
  

Upcoming events: Visit this page for updates on April's events:

• Dr. Laura Watts, Associate Professor of Art History (Visual and Performing Arts Department) -- will lecture on images of the matria in 19th century Italian paintings (Time/location TBA)

• On April 17 (Academic Festival) the AAUW Student Organization is holding a World Hijab Day Acknowledgement event--and henna booth. Learn about cultural traditions associated with wearing hijab--why do women wear them, and what do they represent? The club will also sponsor a henna booth. Get a henna tattoo and learn about the cultural significance of henna body ornamentation in different cultures. The event is scheduled to run for several hours, but most visitors will want to stay for 15 to 30 minutes so you can stop by between other events at Academic Festival. (schedule will be posted here)

Read more about this year's Women's History Month events in this story from The Daemen Voice and by visiting the History & Political Science Department's Facebook page.

Questions? Contact Dr. Penny Messinger, Associate Professor of History and Director of Daemen's Women's Studies Program.

Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars