Hangrove and Nelson:Cycles in 20th century (historical determinism or simply after-the-fact observations…)Preparation: proposals for change/reform, ideas circulating, articulate and lay groundwork for Achievement* (heart of cycle)- direct product of ….Crisis (e.g., Great Depression) can break the cyclic flow.Some presidents mismatch the mood/times.Taft and Truman (presidencies of stalemate)Their agenda didn’t match public mood.Skill that modern presidents need most: strategic sense of “grain of history”Clinton, W. Bush, Obama?PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS2 major stages:1) Nomination stage: speeches, fundraising base, creating a staff, visiting key states and members of congress. (for 2012 elections mainly on Republican side)a. Pre-primary phase or “invisible primary”b. Delegate selection phase/”primary phase” (Intra-party competition)i. To gain major party pres.ii. Want to accumulate maximum number of party’s convention delegates (2012 GOP: 2, 286 delegates, 1,144 a majority)iii. Candidates compete in: state-by-state presidential primary elections and caucuses.1) 1968 elections was when this began (Humphries; sitting VP)c. National party conventions2) General election stage: the goal is to win enough/(majority) states in electoral votes – series of state by state winner take all votes. Need 270 of 538 – 100 Senate; 435 House; 3 D.C.Aftermath of ’68 Democratic Nat’l ConventionMcGovern Fraser Commission – New guidelines for delegate selectionImprove “representativeness” of delegates“Open up” selection process to rank-and-file (the public, not just elite and party bosses)To describe Primaries and Caucuseswho can participate?Closed Primary: only registered voter for particular party can voteOpen Primary: anyone can vote for any party’s candidateIn some states independents can vote for either partyHow are delegates allocated? (proportional or winner-take-all)Dems. Require proportional allocation with 15% thresholdCandidate must get more than 15% of votes to get delegatesReps. Allow winner-take-all (although attempt to require proportional in 2012 for states holding an early primary/caucus)General Candidate Strategies (cont. 1/31/12)-“start early’-lower expectations for yourself/raise them for your opponents-Project a positive candidate image (paid and “free”/earned mass media advertising.Especially during primaries because everyone running has same common objectives (all for republican/democrat party) so if image is bad candidate is easily replaceable.Social-Psychological Model of Vote ChoiceCandidate imagePartyIdentification Vote choiceIssues3 Status-based strategies:1) Non-front-runner/darkhorse strategy – Focus on Iowa and/or NH, and exceed expectations  money, media, and momentum (the “3 M’s”) (Rick Santorum, Obama)2) Front-runner strategy – Have name recognition, $, and organizations in place and survive any early surprises (amass delegates) (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Obama as incumbent)3) Campaign as pulpit strategy – go I without intention of winning but want to get their message/objectives out there, seems to enjoy running for president. (Ron Paul)Fundraising approaches for a nomination campaign: fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do1) Conventional path (from 1976-2000): focus on small individual contributors and accept “matching funds”.How do you qualify? People donate money in small amounts (i.e., tax form) and government matches these small amounts. Legitimize candidates.20(people) * 20(states) = 400 * $250 = $100, 000$1,000 - 1250Drawbacks? (overall and state-by-state spending limits -- ~56M overall in 2008 -- ~$60M in 2012; if taken, can’t spend more than $50K of own money)in 2008, McCain, Clinton and Obama refused matching funds. John Edwards did take funds.No candidate in 2012 election has accepted matching funds.2) “George W. Bush path”: rely on many small individual contributors and decline “matching funds”.Network so much (thousands of donors for checks of $1000 or less) that candidate is able to surpass amount of funds that would be possible just by matching funds.Bush was 1st candidate effectively to use this path in 2000.Amount any 1 individual can contribute to a candidate is $2,500 for 2012.PACs more important in congressional elections however, Super PACs are very big for presidential elections.Advantages? Do not abide by state-by-state limitsDrawbacks? None but need to be able to tap into large list of contributors.All 2008 candidates followed this lead, also true for 2012 nominations.3) “Really rich guy path”: spend own $ (cannot receive “matching funds”)I.e., Romney in ’08, hybrid of this and “George W. Bush path”Advantages?Drawbacks?General election Campaign Finance:1976-2004: candidates used special fund of $80M and that’s what was used to finance campaign for general election. Comes from tax-payer dollarsIn 2004, Kerry and Bush each accepted $74.6 M of taxpayer money to finance general election campaign (which started after party’s respective convention) – but could not spend more.2008: Obama denied these funds and raised own money ~$400,000MMcCain took the funds, didn’t get as much publicity/commercials etc…What is “Hard $”?Regulated by campaign finance laws.1) Strict (“hard”) limits on the sixe of any single hard $ contribution to a candidate (raised to $2,000 per election (in 2002) and indexed to inflation ($2,500 for 2011-12)), a PAC, or a Nat’l party committee.2) Small contributions from individual citizens are original source of all hard $ flows.Hard $ could (and can) be used for “express advocacy”.- can be expressed in any way(on BB)Individual citizenPAC(…)Nat’l part CommitteesWhat was/is “soft money”?Fell outside limits of federal law.Congress and FEC in late 1970s allowed Nat’l party committees to raise $ for “party building”.Basically any entity could make soft $Contributions: corporations, unions, individuals (bumper stickers etc…)NO LIMITS on contribution size.Parties and candidates exploited “issue advocacy” loophole. (rather than express advocacy – (VOTE FOR …!))Can say anything but VOTE/ELECT/DEFEAT…Anything else is “issue advocacy”Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold):Banned national political parties from raising and spending so-called “soft money” (McConnell v. FEC (2003) upheld)Raised from $1,000 to $2,000 maximum individual “hard $” contribution to a candidate per