Suchergebnisse

US campaign financing rules have been relaxed even further in recent years, making a worrying problem about the state of American democracy worse (because those with money have even more ability to try and buy votes or influence policy).

Media coverage of this issue, though it may pop up from time to time, seems quite limited. Perhaps because it is estimated that television stations this year could make as much as eight billion dollars from political campaigns.

The state of US mainstream media has unfortunately been lamentable for many years, and after the issues around hurricane Katrina, it was thought that the media would be rejuvenated. Unfortunately it does not seem that way.

This page has been updated with further information about campaign financing issues and how limits in the US have been lifted making the problem worse. Also added were notes on US press freedom, and an info graphic on media ownership concentration.

Read full article: Media in the United States

Whether it's trying to convince you to vote for a particular candidate or get vaccinated, the identity of the person who knocks on your door may matter. So who are the people who volunteer to do this canvassing? Are they likely to succeed?

These are all questions that Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos investigates in his paper, "Party Activists As Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign As A Principal-Agent Problem." Using a rare dataset from Obama's 2012 presidential campaign, Enos delves into the politics of door to door campaigns, and we try and tease out some lessons for our current efforts to persuade people to get vaccinated.

Link To Paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf

To celebrate International Youth Day 2020 Rachel Mims, Senior Program Officer for Youth Political Participation at NDI, is joined by three young leaders from Zambia, Lebanon, and Moldova. They discuss competitive youth debate as an opportunity to build political skills, actively contribute to solving social problems, and create greater space for youth inclusion in public life. For more information please go to https://www.ndi.org/youth-leading-debate
Find us on: SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | Google Play
Given Kapolyo: I don't believe in the saying young people are the future leaders. Because the truth is they tell us this for years and years and years, when I was 15 they told me you're a future leader, then I turned 20 and they said I'm a future leader, then they turned 25, and they said I'm a future leader, so then I'm now just waiting, I'm saying okay, when does the future come?
Now I think just this is time that we turn it around, and say young people should be the leaders of today, as well.
Rachel Mims: Today's young people deserve real opportunities to participate in political processes, and contribute to practical solutions that advance development. When given an opportunity to organize, voice their opinions, and play a meaningful role in political decision making, they consistently demonstrate their willingness and ability to foster positive lasting change. They also become more likely to demand and defend democracy, and gain a greater sense of belonging.
Recent global movements such as movements for climate justice and racial justice demonstrate that young people are demanding a shift in who has power, and in how that power is used, yet young people still find themselves marginalized from mainstream politics, and are limited in their ability to exercise the same influence over decision making processes. This is particularly true for young people who have experienced intersecting forms of marginalization and exclusion. At a time when global inequality is increasing, young people remain disproportionately impacted, and are expressing frustration with leaders and institutions that they perceive to be inaccessible, incapable, unresponsive, corrupt, and often repressive.
NDI works globally to support the political participation of young people through a variety of approaches that increase young people's agency, and create a more supportive environment. One approach involves helping young people develop competitive debating skills, including an issue analysis and framing, reasoning, public speaking, and active listening. NDI has supported [inaudible 00:02:05] programs in several countries, including longstanding programs in Jordan and Moldova, and more recent programs in Guatemala and Libya. We've seen the debate skills not only enhance political participation, but also contribute to holistic youth development. Debate builds practical skills that pave the way for young people to successfully engage in civil discourse and peaceful problem solving, both with their peers and with adult power holders.
I'm Rachel Mims, Senior Program Officer for Youth Political Participation at the National Democratic Institute, and today we are joined by three young leaders from Lebanon, Moldova, and Zambia, each working in different ways to apply their debate skills and actively contribute to solving social problems. As a result, they're creating greater space for youth inclusion in public life. First we'll hear from [Gibbon Carpolio 00:02:58]. Next up, Rachbenda Fou, and then Selena Decuzar. Welcome to Dem Works.
In Zambia, NDI partner with a chapter of the Center for Young Leaders of Africa, and Youth for Parliament, to gather young people from across political parties, media, and civil society organizations to debate solutions for increasing the number of young people in parliament. This debate program created an opportunity for youth from parties and civil society to change ideas, develop their public speaking and research skills, and to generate discussion around critical issues facing youth in Zambia.
We spoke with Given Kapolyo to learn more. Given, thank you for joining us today.
GK: Thank you so much for having me. It's a great pleasure to feature. First of all, I'm a young African female, my name is Given Kapolyo, I'm a young politician, I'm a student, I'm an activist, I'm an advocate, and a public speaker now. I can proudly call myself a public speaker, after I took part in the NDI public speaking that was called the Youth Debate Zambia.
I live in the northern part of Zambia. That's Kasama, northern province, Kasama, rural part of Zambia, so it was great that I was moved from the northern part of Zambia to the capital city, just to participate in the Youth Debate Zambia.
RM: Thank you, and thank you for telling us about all the different hats you wear. I hope to hear more about your activism, and other things that you're doing in politics.
Can you tell me more about your experience in the debate program? What was it like? What were some of the topics that you all discussed?
GK: We began with a training session. We covered the history of public speaking, we covered the tricks that we need for public speaking, how you draw the attention of a crowd, how you keep them engaged, and ordered. It was different young people from different parts of the country, and we were all brought together and were taught together, and then were given a topic. We were discussing how we can increase the number of young people in parliament, the number of youths in parliament, and it was a very profound experience, in the sense that we didn't just learn, then they'd give us a chance to actually show what we had learned from the training, and it was that interesting.
By the time we were leaving the training, there were people that were so confident to go back to their communities, and just speak change into their communities, into the crowds, and that was just how interesting, and just how meaningful it was to me and other participants that were there.
RM: I really love the point about public speaking, and this immediate sense of agency that young people feel, that they can go back and use their voice, and they have skills that they can start to put into use right away. Can you talk about the connection between some of the skills that you learned and your future political aspirations? I know that you're interested in running for public office.
GK: One of the things that we learned at the Youth Debate Zambia was that communication, public speaking and communication have a lot to do with politics, and with the youth standing out as a public figure, because it's they also mentioned how many great orators were [inaudible 00:06:34] were to get into public office because of how they spoke, how good they were at it, and the impacts that it just had in changing society.
For me as a young politician, first of all I must mention that the country that I'm from it's very difficult for a young female. First of all, it's very difficult for a female to make it into public office. It's even worse for a young female to make it. That, it also prepared me for how I could use my words to show people that not only will I be a voice for them, I could actually speak my heart out to them, tell them what my plans are, but then do it skillfully in a way that they buy into it, and are able to elect me, and even how because we dealt with topics on how you could make your speech relatable such that as you're telling your story somebody that is listening instantly feels like you're telling their story, and when they're able to relate with you it will be very easy for them to actually elect you as their leader, because they feel like you're a mirror of them, and then you can represent them better.
The training for me was actually a point that I think began a lot of things for me, because I knew I could speak, but then I didn't know I could use it to further my political ambition. When I went back home, in Kasana, I was able to speak to various groups. Just by me sharing my story with them, they were able to buy into the vision that I have for my ward, because I have aspirations of standing as a ward counselor next year, in our general elections, and it's been very helpful.
I've been able to know another important thing we learned is how you should be able to read your audience, so depending on who I'm talking to, I'm able to know which skills I should employ.
RM: Thank you. I know you can't see me, but I'm nodding vigorously over here, because you just shared, I think, so many important lessons with our listeners, just about how you can use these skills to further your political ambition, how things are different for young women, and how they face different barriers and challenges into getting into elected office, and how these skills help create an opening.
I want to talk about NDI's work in changing the face of politics, and it relates directly to what you mentioned about being a young woman in politics. NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and that includes their participation in leadership and politics, and I wanted to hear from you what you think young people's role is in not only changing the face of politics, but ensuring that young women have a role to play, and can participate in politics.
GK: We need to become alive to the reality that our parents will not be here 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, it is us that will be here. Every time I'm speaking to young people about young people involvement in politics and leadership and decision making and getting involved in civic spaces, I'm always telling them if we don't get involved now, then we are simply selling our future off ... Not even selling it off, we're simply giving it off for free. Because whatever our ... Those that we leave leadership to today, whatever decisions they make, or whatever they choose to do with the resources that we have, whatever they choose to do with our nation, they will not be here to face the repercussions, we will be here.
Most of our parliament, the Zambian parliament has over 158 seats, and only 2 people are below the age of 35, only two people are youth, but if we do get young people involved, then we do get young people into parliament, we will know to say this decision that I'm making today, I'm only 27, so the decision that I'm making today, 30 years from now the chances that I still will be here to answer for it and to face the repercussions of if I make a bad decision will linger in my mind, for even as I make a decision I'm thinking I'm not thinking five years from now, I'm thinking 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 years from now, because I'm assured I will still obviously be here. I feel the time is now that young people actually take over and provide solutions to many of these challenges, and many of the problems that our country, our continent, and even the world is facing today.
RM: So many of the points that you just talked about really point to the need for this culture shift, and a culture change within politics. I think a lot of what you are advocating for, particularly about greater youth inclusion, can help contribute to that shift, and politics being more inclusive and representative of young people.
I just really want to thank you for taking time to talk with us today, and to share your thoughts, and I really want to wish you all the best in your run for office. I think you would make an amazing political leader, and I'm really excited to see what your future holds, and where you'll go after your participation as a young person in politics.
GK: Thank you so much. I look forward to where I go to, so I keep working towards it. And this I'm guaranteed that I will get there. Thank you so much for having me. It's been a pleasure having this conversation with you. I look forward to further interactions.
RM: Us as well. Thank you again.
For more than 35 years, NDI has been honored to work with thousands of courageous and committed democratic activists around the world, to help countries develop the institutions, practices, and skills necessary for democracy's success. For more information, please visit our website, at www.NDI.org.
In Lebanon, NDI is collaborating with the television station MTV Lebanon, for its weekly program, It's About Time, which features political leaders responding to questions from the host and from young people who have been trained in policy analysis and debate skills by NDI. MTV Lebanon hopes that by expanding debate culture in the country and by proving that young people can debate, they will pave the way for hosting Lebanon's first debates between national political leaders before the next elections in 2022. The show has achieved broad viewership, and resulted in viral moments on social media, with some political leaders saying that they tune in specifically to watch the youth debate segment. I would like to introduce everyone to Rafka Noufal, a junior Lebanese lawyer, and active participant on the debate show. Rafka, thank you for joining us for the podcast today.
Rafka Noufal: Thank you for having me with you today.
RM: I'd like to start with you giving us a brief introduction about your work, and your background, and what brought you to the debate show.
RN: I'm a 24-years-old Lebanese junior lawyer. I studied law in the Holy Spirit University, a Catholic University in Lebanon, and I just graduated from my masters to a degree. I also have a certificate of completion of the [inaudible 00:14:06] university program on international criminal law and procedures, and am a very social person who's interested in politics and in all the topics that are rising inside our country. When I knew about the TV political show It's About Time, through my university, I was very excited and more willing to join this show because I saw it as a platform to raise our voice as the young people in Lebanon, and to give our opinion and our thoughts on all the political and social and economic topics that are arising inside our society.
I work as a lawyer now, [inaudible 00:14:42] bar association, and I work in an office that takes private law cases and more specifically criminal law cases. Throughout my work, I got familiar with the gaps and insecurities inside the Lebanese legal system.
RM: I see so much connection between your ability to do this work as a lawyer and having the opportunity to dig into these pressing political issues on the debate show. Can you tell me a little bit more about your experience on the show, and talk about some of what you gained, whether it's skills that you gained, or kind of how the show maybe changed your perspective about politics?
RN: In fact, the different trainings we did with NDI were very useful on many levels. First of all, it developed our skills in public speaking, which is very important in the life of politics, and to my work also of the lawyer. Also, these trainings triggered the reason and the logic inside every mind of the young people who participate in the show, and it let us discuss and have conversations people from all over the country, so this debate program let us know how to discuss, how to debate topics without hurting other people's feelings, or other people's opinions.
RM: Can you tell me a little bit more about some of the topics that you debated on the TV show, and maybe topics that came up that were a bit more controversial, or there was more, there were maybe more emotions, or opinions that people really wanted to share?
RN: First off, my last debate at the show was about the early elections in Lebanon. I was supporting that we should have an early election in Lebanon, to change the members of the parliament, because the government in Lebanon now, even the parliament, they are not doing enough work in order to take us, or to help Lebanon go through this economic situation, this economic crisis we're going through right now in Lebanon. I was supporting the fact that we should be doing an early election, to change the leaders, to change the member of the parliament. We need young people to get inside the parliament. We need new, free minds, that are not attached to the past, they are not divided by sectarianism. We need a civil country, not a country that is divided by sectarianism.
RM: Can you talk a little bit more about your thoughts on the protest, and what you see as a way forward not only for young people in Lebanon, but the entire so many people across the country have been engaged in the protests, kind of what do you see as a vision, or a way forward?
RN: I would like to start by giving, talking about the problem between this disconnection, between young people nowadays in Lebanon, and the political parties, before talking about the protests. In fact, political parties in Lebanon are still attached to the past, and they divide young people by sectarianism. You should follow this party because you are from the sect that this party supports, or also I think that political parties inside Lebanon lack any vision for the future beyond their personal interests, and the most important point is that they deny the youth right to participate in decision making process, because they are political parties that are doomed with ... How to say it? Political inheritance, and the cultural hierarchy that says that elders know better than young people, but in fact when that's not the case when it's faced with reality, because every generation faces new challenges, different from the challenges that the other generation faced, so all of this adding to the corruption that grows like a tumor inside [inaudible 00:18:54] infecting all the aspects after [inaudible 00:18:58] for about like the environment, infrastructure, and economic crisis led to the birth of this protest and this revolution that emerged inside the streets of Lebanon.
RN: I think that young people, and I'm one of them, we saw this revolution as a window of hope to change the current corrupted situation in the country, and maybe to take part of the decision making process, to give our opinion, our thoughts.
RM: Do you see some of the topics that have come up in debates, and young people's desire to protest and take part in the revolution, do you see that as a meaningful pathway to change?
RN: I think so. I think young people believe in these social movements because these social movements are based on the free minds, and are detached from sectarianism, and from inequality between the Lebanese people, and maybe these social movements can create in the future political parties that can govern Lebanon and help it to develop like other countries in the world.
RM: This year, under the banner of of Changing the Face of Politics, NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and that includes their participation in leadership and politics. I wanted to ask you what you see as young people's role in changing the face of politics, and ensuring that young women specifically can participate and have a meaningful role in politics, and particularly in the context of Lebanon, this new politics that you all are attempting to usher in.
RN: I think that [inaudible 00:20:44] young people are making a step to bridge this gap between politics and youth people, because they are taking on important issues, such as climate change, mass immigration, and even women empowerment, however, I think that we still have a bit of problem inside the third-world countries, but as for women empowerment, I think Lebanon and and outside in other countries young people believe in gender equality between man and woman, and they don't consider gender as an indication for holding a political position.
In fact, we support us young people that competence, performances and efficiency are the only conditions for judging a person in a position of power, and not being a woman or a man. Thus, if we take charge in Lebanon, I think you will see more women engaged in the politics. For example, right now in Lebanon we are demanding the vote of the law for women's quota in all Lebanese election as a step to engage more women in the political life of the country.
RM: Do you think that this culture of youth debate, and young people sharing their voices on these important political topics, do you think that this trend will continue, in that it's important that young people continue to use debate to speak out about politics?
RN: The debating concept is important because first, it lets you build constructive arguments in a persuasive way, and you don't only talk just to talk, you have to talk with a logic and reason. Young people can express their opinion with public speaking skills, and to accept the opinion of other people without deciding them, or offending them, as I mentioned before.
RM: I really want to thank you for taking time out to share more with us about your political experience, and to talk about the political trends that we're witnessing in Lebanon. I think that a lot of what you shared can be really relevant for young people, and for others that are participating in politics, to really understand how this development skills and development of knowledge around debate can be useful for a political career.
RN: I would like also to thank NDI for all the training they did with us, and it was really a lifetime experience with them, and with It's About Time show.
RM: Great. Thank you.
RN: Thank you so much.
RM: NDI has worked with thousands of young people on the art of competitive policy debate, and has ongoing debate programs in three regions. To learn more about NDI youth debate programs, or access program resources, visit the Youth Leading Debate Initiative, on NDI.org.
In Moldova, NDI is facilitating the seventh iteration of the Challenger Program, which aims to help create the next generation of political leaders, policymakers, and civil servants. Challenger equips young people with the knowledge and skills to develop realistic public policies that respond to the needs and priorities of the people in Moldova. The youth debates take place in the second phase of the program, the policy debate school. During the program, the participants acquire research and analytical skills, and they also take part in developing a youth manifesto, which addresses important national problems faced by young people in the country.
I would now like to introduce you to Silena, who is a member of the Challenger Program, and is going to join us to talk a little bit about her experience. Hey, Silena, thanks for joining us today.
Selina Dicusar: Hello. Thank you for having me.
RM: I'd like to just start with you giving us a brief introduction about yourself, and telling us about your experience in the program.
SD: Okay. My name is Selena Dicusar. I am 20-years-old. I was born in the Republic of Moldova. Currently, I'm studying Moldova, at the international relations.
SD: I am a member of the Communication PR Department of the Erasmus Student Network Chisinau, but elections are currently underway, and I will run for Vice President. I am also participant of Challenger, and a double winner of the Best Speaker Award.
RM: Selena, thank you for that introduction. Can you tell me about your experience in the Challenger Program, why did you decide to join in the first place, and what do you think you gained from your participation in the program?
SD: It's certainly the most complex intense and in depth project that I've ever been involved in. I've had a unique experience participating in a project which changed my attitude towards politics, and taught me new skills. Firstly, I learned to value my knowledge in terms of languages and to apply them correctly in research. Secondly, I have learned to think critically, and always question any information I receive or process. And last but not least, I learned how to develop solutions.
About opportunities, yes, what I gained in Challenger helped me to properly recommend myself to the mayor of my native village, and prove that my ideas will help improve the situation in the village.
RM: Thank you. I think you brought up some really excellent points, particularly about this need to challenge information that we receive from different sources, and to really kind of understand what's being proposed for our different communities. Can you talk a little bit more about some of the debate skills? You mentioned that they connect to your political participation outside the program. What about the debate component helps prepare you for political engagement outside the program?
SD: First of all, the debate helped me understand how to make a manifesto, because we are writing manifestos in the program, and I think this is one of the most important skills that I have learned, and that have certainly helped me to engage more in politics out of the program.
RM: Great. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about I know that you do quite a bit of work on the local level, and that you've been doing some work with the local mayor, so I want to talk about this trend that we're seeing, which is a bit of a disconnect between young people and formal political institutions, and we're really seeing young people kind of disengage from formal politics. I'm wondering based on your work in the community and on the local level what you think about this trend in young people moving away from formal politics, and also if you think that working on a local level is part of a solution or a viable pathway for young people to participate in politics.
SD: First of all, it is mandatory that parties and politicians stop underestimating youth. They shouldn't only change their attitudes, but also encourage young people to join parties, giving them the opportunity to work on the issues that interest them, and unfortunately one of the biggest issues between young people, political institutions, and parties in Moldova that they don't hear each other. Young people are often not appreciated fairly, they are not heard, and these of course discourages them from further action.
Local political participation is certainly a viable path that many Moldovans are unaware of, specifically my case about three or four young people and one curator from another city work on projects in our city [inaudible 00:28:24], those are the critical shortage of young people work is proceeding slowly. Most likely this is due to the fact that such work requires time and dedication. Is almost not rewarded financially, and among our youth experience is not in the first place for all. The situation is improving, the new generation is more politically active.
RM: Thank you, Selena, and I think a lot of the points that you made about how parties need to change their strategy about the way that they engage young people is really important, and also this need to work at multiple levels, that we're working at the lower level, but we're also creating opportunities at the national level, too, and I think your work experience speaks to that as well.
I want to talk a bit about young women's participation. This year, under the banner of changing the face of politics, NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and this includes women's participation in politics. I want to ask you what you feel like young people's role is in ensuring that the face of politics changes, and that young women have more opportunities to participate.
SD: First of all, it seems to me that the new generation which is now growing up is more aware of the problems that humanity faces. This is a generation that can embrace changes slowly, and their role in ensuring that participation of women in politics is first of all to learning how to accept the leadership of a woman, and question the abilities of women and men working in the same area on the wages of equal criteria, and to better involve young women in politics we must first of all educate them because an educated woman is a strong woman who can defend her interests.
RM: Thank you. I think you know the point about it being a generational change, I think that's echoed in the other, the conversations with other young people, as well, is it seems like this generation is more willing to ensure that participation is inclusive, and then that includes young women as part of the conversation.
I really want to thank you for joining us today, and for sharing some insights about your participation in the program, and how you see your participation in Challenger really helping create political space for young people. Is there anything you want to add, in closing?
SD: I would like very much to thank the people coming here that created this program. It's a big challenge for Moldova to teach a generation of people that is aware of politics, that can change the political situation in the country, and the political culture, as well. I think if we get to teach more people how politics works, probably there will be a positive change in my country.
RM: Again, I just want to thank you for joining us, and answering the questions. I really wish you the best of luck in everything that you pursue, moving forward.
SD: Thank you very much.
RM: Thank you to our listeners. To learn more about NDI, or to listen to other Dem Works podcasts, please visit us at NDI.org.


Podcast Participants; Given Kapolyo, Rafka Noufal, Selina Dicusar.



24. Increasing Youth Political Inclusion through Debate

Democracy (General), #NDI #National Democratic Institute #Women #Citizen Participation #Youth

Averell "Ace" Smith is a political opposition researcher whose career has spanned campaigns for Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, and the Clintons. He sits down with David to talk about the ways in which political research is an essential craft to get right on campaigns; the unheeded letter he wrote to Hillary Clinton prior to the 2016 campaign, and about his new book on Satchel Paige, The Pitcher and the Dictator.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Do campaigns really matter? Can politicians, much as Merida tried to do in the Disney movie Brave, change their "fate" and win elections despite unfavorable fundamentals? Or are they destined to blow a bunch of money fighting windmills a la Don Quixote?

It should be clear that I believe campaigns matter; at least, that's exactly the story I tell in Battle for the Big Sky. Jon Tester won despite fundamentals clearly favoring the Republican Party and Congressman Rehberg in the epic 2012 battle for Montana's Senate seat.

But I also make plain in that book that campaigns very often do not affect the outcomes of elections, and in fact, cite approvingly the work by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck who--in their fantastic book the Gamble--show that fundamental factors (the economy, presidential popularity, and the like) pretty much determine presidential election outcomes regardless of what the campaigns do. As the 2014 congressional elections demonstrated, forecasters knew for quite some time that Republican odds of taking control of the Senate were fairly high. If anything, as the election drew closer to November, the odds got decidedly worse for Democratic incumbents in the Senate despite running strong campaigns (see Mark Begich and Kay Hagan).

As I sat and watched the state legislative races here in Montana unfold, I kept getting media inquiries about various competitive races. Did the Democrats have a shot to win SD 14 in Havre with Greg Jergeson? Could Jebediah Hinkle, who unexpectedly won the Republican primary for SD 32, beat known and former congressional candidate Franke Wilmer (a colleague of mine here at MSU)?

Invariably, I had to plead ignorance to reporters. I hadn't a clue. I know what the parties told me, but I had very little information to give reporters other than that and, let's face it, the parties had their own spin to advance. Incumbents tend to get reelected. Midterm elections are bad for the president's party generally speaking. Fundraising gives some sense of the candidate's talents and support.

Then--nothing. That's all I had.

Fact of the matter is, I had very little information with which to make any informed judgment about specific races. And to be frank, most voters had even less information with which to make their own judgments. Truth is, down ballot races like state legislative races are low information environment elections. State legislative candidates can generally raise enough money to get some name id and help voters associate their name with a party id, but other than that, most voters simply don't know much about the candidates other than that.

So I was skeptical every time I heard so and so had knocked on more doors, or candidate Y had more signs than candidate X. I just didn't think, in a low information environment election, it would make much difference on the final outcome of most of these races. And, to prove my point, I set out to forecast the outcomes of each state legislative race in Montana.

And I would do it purely with publicly available information.

Here's what I did. I set out to predict the probability that the Democratic candidate in each race would win their seat. In statistical terms, I ran a logistic regression with the output the mean probability of a Democratic win in that seat. Associated with that mean statistic is a confidence interval surrounding that estimate. For example, my model predicted that Diane Sands in Missoula had a 54 percent probability of winning her Senate seat, but the probability of a win could be as low as 31 percent or as high as 76 percent. On average, her chances were a tad better than a flip of a coin.

How did I develop that estimation? I gathered information on past elections in Montana, from 2004 through 2012. For each race, I gathered the following variables:

Percentage of the Vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate
The Type of Seat (State Senate or State House)
Whether there was a midterm election (-1 if the President was a Democrat, 1 if the President was a Republican)
Democratic candidate spending as percentage of the total spending in the race (all data gathered from Follow the Money's website)
Whether the Democratic candidate was an incumbent
Whether the GOP candidate was an incumbent
Presidential Approval rating averaged for the year which I then interacted with the midterm election variable

I ran this model using the data from 2004 through 2012. It turns out that this model correctly predicted the outcomes 94 percent of the time.  Next, I collected the data for the 2014 cycle (using presidential vote estimates from 2012 for the newly drawn districts courtesy of Daily Kos--thanks Mike Jopek for reminding me that's where I found it). Then, using the estimates from the model for 2004-2012, I estimated the probability of a Democratic win in each 2014 race using the 2014 variables.

Using this, I predicted that the Democrats would lose two seats in the Senate and gain one in the House. In reality, the Democrats outperformed the model by holding even in the Senate and gaining two seats in the House.

But, my model--using no polls, no data about the ground game, and nothing specific about candidate efforts other than fundraising--came pretty close.

 All the variables behaved as one might expect. Incumbents perform better. The more Democrats dominated the spending in a race, they better they did. But was striking the drag President Obama had on Democratic prospects in the state legislature.

Let's look at the State Senate. Democrats had an excellent recruit in Greg Jergeson in SD 14. But Obama only got 40 percent of the vote in that district in 2012; my model gave Jergeson only 45 percent chance of winning. Jergeson lost.

Senate District 32 Obama got almost 49 percent of the vote, and yet--despite having substantially outraised Republican Hinkle--the model only predicted a mean 29 percent chance of Democrat Franke Wilmer winning. Hinkle won.

Carlie Boland, who ran in a district that gave Obama 51 percent of the vote in 2012, had only a 12 percent chance of winning. She lost to Republican Brian Hoven.

Only Mary McNally (D) surprised in my model, as it only gave her 22 percent chance of winning a district that had gone for Mitt Romney by nearly 52 percent in 2012. She beat Tonya Shellnutt, 54-46.

Campaigns matter. Except when they don't. And in a year when the win was firmly at the back of one party and in an era where redistricting has become far more sophisticated and voters increasingly vote straight ticket, campaigns mattered in very few of the state legislative races. That said, my model predicted that the Democrats would do worse than they did, so it would seem in a select few places, individual efforts and candidates may have made the difference. Diane Sands' winning by only a few vote and Mary McNally's victory in Billings very likely had to do with their own and the Democratic Party's concerted efforts to stem the red tide.

Next time a reporter calls me about state legislative races, I'll have a bit more to say.

PS: I ran my model on election day, but decided not to share my predictions until after the polls closed. I didn't want to inadvertently affect any outcomes, particularly after the big row over the Stanford-Dartmouth experiments. 

On Election Night, both Mike Dennison and I were struck by the vote totals obtained by Terry Nelson, who was running for the Republican nomination for Governor, and Eric Mills, who was running for the nonpartisan Supreme Court. Nelson obtained 24 percent of the vote, and Mills received 20 percent of the vote. Neither ran a campaign of any note, nor did they spend any money. Nelson had raised $1,300 but spent none of it. Mills had $300. Why did they do so well without spending any money? It was curious.

I said as much on air, and sent out a tweet about the Republican primary vote totals earlier today. Former standout student Kendall Cotton suggested it wasn't odd--about 25 percent of primary voters go to the second candidate since 1996. He suggested it was par for the course--there's not much to see here. Move along.

Then why did Governor Bullock manage to get 92 percent of the vote and his opponent only 8 percent? I actually expected there would be more of a Democratic protest vote given that he is on his third Lt. Governor and the persistent attacks in paid media over the Governor's use of his plane. So it seemed odder still that Greg Gianforte, who I presumed had pretty much universal Republican support, would have done better than 75 percent. Especially given the fact that his opponent spent nothing.

Kendall's explanation sounded interesting. But then I looked at campaign finance expenditures from Follow The Money. Take a peak:

1996. Natelson received 23 percent of the vote in 1996 Republican primary. He spent $125,000.
2000. Natelson received 43 percent of the vote in the 2000 Republican primary. He spent $219,000.
2004. John Vincent received 27 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. He spent $48,000.
2008. Larry Steele spent $2,073 in the Republican primary and got 19 percent of the vote.

Only Steele fits the pattern of almost no money spent and a vote share north of 10 or 15 percent. Otherwise, all the candidates spent some money--and many had some name recognition from their involvement in politics.

So, we have an observation: Terry Nelson spends no money. Hardly campaigns. And gets 24 percent of the vote while Greg Gianforte spends a considerable sum and gets 75 percent of the vote. We might conclude that:

1. Republicans are ornery and about a quarter just vote against the presumed nominee because they don't like presumed nominees (then why, pray, are Democrats less ornery this year?)

2. Some Republicans are not satisfied with Greg Gianforte as their major party nominee.

3. Something else is going on. Perhaps Democrats are crossing over (but really? With the Sanders-Clinton race)?

Does this mean Greg Gianforte will have trouble winning in the fall? It depends on whether 1, 2, or 3 are operative in this instance. He might go on to victory against Steve Bullock with a unified Republican Party. Or, he might have some lingering trouble with his base--a la Congressman Rehberg in 2012, when candidate Teske (spending about $20,000) received a similar share of the vote. And the Congressman did have some trouble with the base--as some Republicans (as detailed in Battle for the Big Sky) abandoned him for Libertarian Dan Cox and others for incumbent Democrat Jon Tester.

I lead you to draw your own conclusions.

Updated: Edited for grammar and to spell John Adams' name properly.







Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
















































































































































































































































































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}





In my role as political analyst for MTN, I sat down on
August 14 with Republican House candidate Ryan Zinke and asked him about
releasing his full military records. In case you missed the interview, you can
watch it here. I was promised during that interview, and afterwards by Zinke
spokesperson Shelby DeMars, that I—along with the AP and Chuck Johnson of Lee Newspapers—would
receive the complete set of records. I was also told that this would take some
time.



It is now October 22, 2014, and the general election is less
than two weeks away. In last night's House debate in Great Falls, John Adams of
the Great Falls Tribune specifically asked state senator Zinke about a fitness
report in 1999 that one other former Navy Seal suggests indicates some problems
with Zinke's performance. Zinke did not provide a clear answer as to what was
in that report, and suggested that Adams "was unjust, unfair, and shameless"
for asking the question.

Adams' request was not shameless.Watch the exchange here.



I have, thus far, believed
that the Zinke campaign would in good faith produce those records in a timely
fashion. And I'm hopeful that they will still release those records. And yet, I still have not gotten what was promised. I, like John Adams,
am beginning to wonder why.



But, if I may suggest, the problem is bigger than Ryan Zinke
and his record as a Navy Seal. The problem hits directly at democratic
discourse and accountability in an era when fewer and fewer candidates running
for public office have extensive records in elected office. Yet, they ask US to
credit them with those experiences as evidence they are suitable for service in
higher public office. I believe Ryan Zinke, Steve Daines, John Lewis, and
Amanda Curtis all should release as much of their employment records as
possible to the press and the public. These experiences, they claim, will make
them excellent public servants. If that's the case, then we—the public who
choose them—should be able to make the judgment ourselves of those records.



I think there are three very good reasons for why we should
expect transparency from our congressional candidates in this regard.



First, such transparency is not unusual for those seeking
public employment of any kind. Take, for example, the information I have to
generally produce when applying for academic jobs (both public and private). As
a job candidate, I have produced the following for employers:



1.      
Transcripts (Graduate and undergraduate)

2.      
A copy of my diploma

3.      
My cv (an academic version of a resume)

4.      
References and letters of support from those
references

5.      
Student evaluations of my teaching

6.      
A teaching statement

7.      
A research statement

8.      
Publications



Then, if I'm lucky enough to get a campus interview, I often
have to give a research presentation and a teaching demonstration. All of this
is to demonstrate that my academic credentials are real and that I am competent
as a teacher and researcher. 



And, I should say, that a request for my transcripts from
Wisconsin or Indiana can be filled within 24 hours. Not more than two or three
months.



In running for Congress, candidates use their records to
bolster the case for why voters should vote for them and that they deserve the
trust of voters. Candidates who have served in elected office often have
extensive public records that voters can evaluate and pick apart—and even if
they do not, the opposition is more than happy to do it for the voters.



Ryan Zinke's House campaign biography begins with the
headline: Montana's Proven Leader. He highlights his accomplishments in nine
paragraphs. One paragraph details his service in the Montana Senate. Five
paragraphs focus on his "distinguished record" of military service. It is clear
that this service as a Navy Seal is critical to how he would like voters to
evaluate him.



Congressman Daines' campaign slogan is "More Jobs, Less
Government" and much of his campaign pitch focuses on his experience in
creating jobs—an experience he says begins with cutting government regulation
and red tape. In his campaign biography of seven paragraphs, one full paragraph
and the portion of another details his business experience. Only one full
paragraph, by contrast, details his experience in Congress. Congressman Daines
says he's a job creator. How exactly did he create jobs during his time at
RightNow and how many of those jobs were created in Montana, in the United
States, and in other countries?



Democratic candidates John Lewis and Amanda Curtis are not off
the hook here. John Lewis spent his professional career working as a staffer
for Senator Baucus, and on his campaign webpage, he notes that "working for
Senator Max Baucus and with Montana veterans, John spearheaded legislation
giving businesses incentives to hire veterans.  What began as John's idea
to better serve veterans is now the law of the land." We, as voters, should
have access to the memos staffer Lewis wrote which demonstrate how central he
was to this veterans legislation. Lewis should also ask that Senator Baucus
release his personnel file so we can see the evaluations he received as a part
of the Senator's staff in Washington and here in Montana. And Amanda Curtis,
who touts her experience as a teacher, should demonstrate to us whether she
excelled as a teacher or not.



The main point of all of this is not that Ryan Zinke was a
bad Navy Seal, that Steve Daines didn't create jobs as part of an important
hi-tech company, that John Lewis wasn't a competent Senate staffer, and Amanda
Curtis wasn't a great teacher. The point is the voters deserve to have the
ability to evaluate those claims for themselves absent a narrative constructed
by the campaign, just as my fellow political scientists have the right to
examine my academic record to help them decide—without my own spin—that I am
the right person or not for their institution. We should be able to determine
how distinguished a military career is, what makes job creator successful, and
the whether the influence a Senate staffer has on legislative outcomes is
substantial.



A second reason why these records should be made available
is the nature of who is running for Congress. In the past, the common path for
folks running for higher office was to spend considerable time working their
way up through a series of public offices, building a public record that voters
could evaluate. As our elected officials are increasingly coming from outside
the public sphere or, if they do serve in the public eye, with much shorter
tenures in office, we need to be able to assess those experiences. At least
with public officials, there is a clear public record for all to see. Without a
public track record, voters are left to the rhetoric of the candidates—who are
clearly not unbiased—to make sense of those private employment experiences. At
the very least, they should give us as much access to private records that we
can get from those in public employ. 



Finally, in an era of political polarization, it is even
more important that voters have access to unbiased sources of information to
help them make informed political judgments outside the spin room. Instead of blindly
accepting what candidates or their opponents tell you, it is even more
important to have metrics with which voters can independently judge the
records, temperament, and fitness of their candidates for public office. And,
even more important, an independent and free press must have access to these
records to do just that. 



Transparency helps us make better decisions and to have more
trust in the democratic process. One of the most important New Deal reforms, in
my judgment, was the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission which
required publicly traded companies to release particular information in a
timely and regular fashion about the company's operations and budgets. This
information allows investors far more confidence when they participate while at
the same time providing a somewhat level playing field for investors. This
trust has allowed the creation of mutual funds and a retirement system funded
largely by investments in the stock market. Shouldn't we demand the same kind
of accountability and openness of those who wish to serve in public office?
Shouldn't we demand more of and from them as investors in the democratic
marketplace?

Matthew Dowd, former chief strategist for George W. Bush's 2004 presidential campaign and current ABC News political analyst and visiting Fellow at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, discusses his time in the White House, the possible rise of an independent political party, and the recent visit to the U.S. of Pope Francis.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NOTE: I re-titled the blog after watching Senator Daines' recent comments on impeachment on the Senate floor. The ignorance extends to him as well, apparently.

Senator Lamar Alexander's explanation for who should decide what to do about the president's actions in Ukraine is absurd,  and represents fundamental ignorance about the Founders.

In an interview with Chuck Todd, Senator Alexander suggests that while he found the actions by President Trump concerning the withholding of aid to Ukraine inappropriate, the were not impeachable and—furthermore—that whether they merit removal is a judgment best left to the people. Here the link to the clip: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/lamar-alexander-says-senate-should-not-substitute-its-judgment-voters-n1128286





Let's address the final point first: the people, and not the Senate, should decide in the forthcoming election whether the Ukraine allegations merit removal. Hogwash. 



First, the Founders were not democrats (small d) but republicans (small r). All kinds of checks and balances are put in place to insulate government institutions from the voice of the people because the Founders feared mob rule—particularly mob rule swayed by a demagogue. The Founders created the Electoral College, with voters casting votes for electors who—according to the scheme laid out in the Constitution—were supposed to exercise independent judgment when selecting the president. Furthermore, the founders expected (wrongly, it turns out) that it would be challenging for any candidate to achieve a majority of votes in the electoral college; thus, the House of Representatives would often decide who would serve as president. All of these factors point quite clearly to the notion that will of the people is really to be refined by several institutional checks and filters.



So, to Alexander's point: No. It's up to the Senators to decide whether the act is impeachable or not. Not the people in elections. That represents a profound ignorance of the Constitution and the situation facing the Founders.



To the second point about to what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor, it is absolutely clear that the Founders were petrified about foreign influence in elections and the conduct of national affairs. This is why the citizenship and residency requirements exist for the presidency: To prevent a European puppet from taking the throne. I have to assume at some point Senator Alexander read President Washington's Farewell address, which cautions the nation about entangling foreign alliances. Seeking foreign involvement in an election is precisely what President Trump did (and Alexander does not contest this point), which is precisely what the Founders thought was dangerous. And, to be plain, it is exactly the Senate that should decide these issues because they are supposed to be removed from the passions of the people given their longer terms and (at least at the Founding) their indirect election. I read the Federalist papers in college. Did they?



Then, there's the stubborn fact (as John Adams would write) that the president broke the law: His withholding the aid in the first place was an illegal impounding (I cover this in my presidency and Congress class; Congress appropriates, and the Supreme Court has upheld this repeatedly) and he was accepting aid to assist in his reelection (breaking those silly campaign finance laws put into place after massive abuses by the Nixon campaign forces that had little to do with Watergate).



Finally, the issue of removal from office and the ability to run for president in the future. Yes, a grave action indeed—but again, given the fear of Kings and demagogues, again, this is precisely why the Senate must have this ability. The danger is a president who is supported by the majority of the people—that pesky majority tyranny that Madison warned against—who must be removed from the ballot because they can manipulate the popular will to retain office and work their will to oppress the minority. The Senate is a check on this! As Hamilton himself wrote (and Congressman Schiff quoted during the Senate trial):





When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits — despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'



Here's the link:https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-12-02-0184-0002





On a personal note, I worked as a field staffer for Senator Alexander fresh out of college more than twenty years ago—on his presidential campaign. To say that I am disappointed in his position and behavior is a gross understatement. America deserved better from him—and the rest of the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate. If you are upset, you know what to do. Vote like your life depends on it--because it does.

Bob Shrum is a longtime Democratic campaign strategist and speechwriter. He joins David to discuss his new Institute for the Political Future, volunteering for Citizens for Kennedy as a college student, how to marry a candidate with a message, and much more.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a special guest post by Kal Munis, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Virginia. Kal is a lifelong Montanan, and is an alum of both Montana State and the University of Montana. I expect to feature his work often here.



With the 2018
midterm elections just a little over seven months away, candidates have begun
to ramp up efforts to distinguish themselves from one another. In addition to
the various typical dimensions on which we might expect those aspiring to
represent us to stress their unique qualifications—such as prior political
experience, policy positions and past accomplishments—there is another
conspicuous characteristic upon which political candidates in Montana attempt
to out-maneuver one another: successfully conveying that they possess an
authentic Montanan identity.

 Typically, candidates try to signal to voters that
they share with them various attachments to the customs, values, and lived
experiences particular to their geographical constituency. They do so in
numerous ways including in video advertisements, mailers, press releases,
emails, social media postings and other campaign media. It should be noted that
these activities don't stop at election day—indeed, many politicians will
continue to cultivate their image of place-based authenticity as a component of
what political scientists refer to as their "home-style."

Candidates in
Montana and elsewhere clearly engage in this behavior cycle after cycle due a
belief in the campaign community that it is an effective practice. In a content
analysis of all video based advertisements that were paid for by campaigns
during the 2012 and 2014 U.S. Senate elections, I found that these types of ads
are widespread throughout the country, with the highest level of usage being
clustered in Western states such as Montana. Despite their seeming ubiquitousness,
it remains unknown whether campaigns' decisions to deploy these appeals are
evidence based or the product of folk-wisdom based inertia.

 Irrespective of their effectiveness, however,
some pundits (and voters—see
the comments on this
ad)
have remarked that excessive hand-wringing over which candidate is the most Montanan borders on xenophobic,
particularly when such concerns are tied to place of birth. At the same time,
however, it seems widely accepted that the success of many candidates in
Montana, particularly Democrats Senator Jon Tester and Governor Steve Bullock
(as well as former Governor Brian Schweitzer), has been largely predicated on
their ability to connect with voters on the basis of place.

In large part, the
mechanism through which this connection has been fostered in Montana, as well
as that upon which many campaign appeals based on place identity are made, is the
candidate's birthplace. For successful Democratic candidates in Montana, it
seems that part of the litmus test has been whether they're a native of the
state. For a recent example, look no further than Governor Bullock's successful
2016 reelection bid against then Republican gubernatorial candidate and current
U.S. Representative Greg Gianforte. In that race, the Bullock campaign was able
to successfully paint Gianforte as an outsider with deep connections to
California and New Jersey. So out of touch with Montana was Gianforte,
according to Bullock's campaign, that he was willing to try to run roughshod
over that which many Montanans hold to be most sacred: public lands. The
narrative was simple: Bullock, a native Montanan, respects and maintains
Montana values, whereas Gianforte—a Californian multi-millionaire by way of New
Jersey—does not. The result, meanwhile, was shocking, as returns revealed that
Bullock defeated Gianforte by 4 points, all while Gianforte's co-partisan in
the presidential race, Donald Trump, crushed his Democratic foe by a staggering
22 points.

As part of the
2018 midterm elections, Tester will defend his Senate seat and multiple
Republicans are competing in their party's primary to challenge him. Currently,
most observers regard Matt Rosendale as being the front runner among these
challengers. And, if recent advertisements are any indication, it would seem
that several left-aligned groups, including the Montana Democratic Party, consider
him to be the front-runner as well.

In a recent
advertisement,
the MTDP makes an overtly place identity charged indictment of "Maryland Matt" Rosendale,
namely that he is an outsider who "doesn't share our Montana values." In the
ad, the MTDP takes a 'don't just take our word for it' strategy by relying
mostly upon statements made by (or on behalf of) prominent Montana Republicans,
as well as upon a compilation of footage of Rosendale himself butchering the
pronunciation of the state he is running to represent in Washington. The statements
(which are attributed variously to current U.S. Senate primary opponent Russ
Fagg, former U.S. House primary opponent and current Secretary of State Cory
Stapleton, and to a PAC that supported Ryan Zinke in the 2014 Republican
primary for the U.S. House of Representatives) all suggest that Rosendale's
non-native born status should be viewed as a deficiency in the eyes of voters. Of
these statements, Stapleton's makes the case against Rosendale's non-native status
most powerfully, stating "we don't need that East Coast value here in Montana,
we don't need somebody from the East Coast representing us in Montana, we need a
Montanan representing us on the East Coast."

This theme, though
in decidedly less antagonistic tone, was on display yet again a few weeks ago in
Bozeman at the Republican U.S. Senate candidate
forum
(not a debate!) put on by the College Republicans at Montana State University.
The forum, which featured Rosendale and his three opponents, Troy Downing (a
fellow non-native from California), Albert Olszewski, and Russel Fagg, saw all
candidates take pains to stress their connections to Montana and demonstrate
their embrace of Montana values. Rosendale and Downing (the non-native
candidates) did so in decidedly apologetic fashion, with the following
statement by Downing being emblematic of the tone: "I've always been a
Montanan, it just took me 31 years to get here." Fagg and Olszewski (the native
candidates), meanwhile made their born and raised Montanan bonafides front and
center from the outset, with Fagg, for example, noting that he "has the Montana
roots, the Montana endorsements, (and) the Montana donations."

It was a portion
of Fagg's closing statement as well as Rosendale's that followed, however, that
really drew my attention. In his last appeal to the crowd in Bozeman that
night, Fagg made his case that his native Montana roots would be critical to
defeating native Jon Tester in 2018. "I'm a fourth generation Montanan…and (my
family) has live and loved Montana since before Montana was a state," he said "[…]
and the reason that's important, I appreciate everyone that has moved to
Montana because they love Montana, but the Democrats are going to unmercifully
beat up two of my opponents because they moved here nine years ago (Downing)
and fifteen years ago (Rosendale). It may not be fair, but it's the truth. If
you put me on that ticket, that takes that argument away from Senator Tester." Fagg
then went on to note that he has to date collected the lion's share of
endorsements from prominent Montana Republicans from well-known names such as
Marc Racicot and Denny Rehberg (Rosendale, meanwhile, has the support of
prominent national Republicans such U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee)
before passing the mic to Rosendale.

Fagg's point was
brought into stark relief just moments later when Rosendale mispronounced
"Montana" so badly that even I, a social scientist who studies the role of
place-based identities in politics, couldn't help but to find it grating. In my
defense, it was the contrast of Rosendale's mispronunciation and Fagg's ominous
message regarding the importance of Montana roots in eyes of Montana voters
that made the moment so powerful. And, apparently I wasn't the only one to
notice—the MTDP released the "Maryland Matt" ad just a few days later and
appeared to indirectly reference the forum in a short blurb accompanying the
ad's posting.

Do voters care
about where candidates were born? To begin to investigate this question, I draw
upon data from three different surveys that I have fielded (one in Autumn 2015,
one in Spring 2017, and another in early fall 2017) utilizing Mechanical Turk
samples. All respondents in these surveys reside in the United States. Within
each survey, I included a question asking whether and how important respondents
thought it was that candidates running for Congress in their state had been
born there. In the most recent two surveys, an additional question was asked
regarding whether respondents felt that candidates born in their state were
more likely to understand the values and needs of people in their state.



Table 1: How important do you think it is
for candidates running for Congress

in your state to have been born in your
state?













Fall 2015



Spring 2017



Fall 2017





Extremely Important



25

(5%)





200

(11%)





130

(11%)





Very Important



117

(25%)





368

(20%)





255

(22%)





Moderately Important



136

(29%)





496

(28%)





300

(26%)





Slightly Important



87

(18%)





320

(18%)





232

(18%)





Not at all important



111

(23%)



423

(23%)



229

(23%)





N



476



1,807



1,146







Results for the
first question are remarkably stable across all three samples, as can be seen
in Table 1. In the most recent sample, one third of respondents indicated that
they felt candidate place of birth to be highly important (including both the
"extremely important" and "highly important" categories). A little over a
quarter of respondents indicated candidate place of birth to be moderately important.
Meanwhile, a minority of respondents (41%) indicated that candidate place of
birth is only slightly important or not important at all to them.



Table 1: In general, do you think that
candidates born in your state are better

at understanding the values and needs of
people in your state?











Spring 2017



Fall 2017





Yes



853

(47%)





554

(48%)





No



287

(16%)





144

(13%)





Unsure



667

(37%)





450

(39%)





N



1,807



1,146







            As
for respondents' perceptions regarding whether native born candidates are more
likely to better understand the values and needs of their constituency, a large
plurality in both samples (an average of 47.5%) indicated that they felt this
was the case, with a small minority (an average of 14%) of respondents saying
this wasn't likely to be the case. A large number of respondents in both
samples indicated that they were unsure regarding this question (38%). These
results are presented in Table 2.

            To
further explore responses to these questions, I use various methods (including
ANOVA, OLS, and logistic regression) to model the relationship between
responses to these questions and respondents' partisanship.[1] First, I estimate the
association between how important respondents rated candidate birthplace and respondents'
partisanship while controlling for the influence of other background
characteristics. Results show that, on average, the place of birth of political
candidates is significantly more important to Republicans (by about 25%) than
it is for Democrats even after controlling for the influence of respondents'
level of educational attainment, gender, self-reported recent voting history,
and whether the respondent lived in a rural area. Moreover, further analysis
reveals that Republicans' average importance rating of candidate place of birth
is significantly higher than that of independents as well, though Democrats and
independents do not differ significantly from one another in this respect. Finally,
I model the association between partisanship and perceptions of whether being
born in state imparts upon candidates a special constituency related knowledge
(all while again controlling for a number of other related factors). Results
indicate that Republicans are 4.5 times more likely on average to indicate that
candidates born in their state typically better understand the values and
problems associated with that state.

            Taken
together, these results suggest that many Americans see candidate place of
birth as being an important attribute of political candidates. More
specifically, a majority of people in my sample indicated that it is at least
moderately important that candidates be born in the state that they seek to
represent in Congress, with a full third indicating that they feel it is highly
important. Moreover, a plurality of respondents indicated that they believe
that candidates born in the state they are running in are more likely to
understand the needs and values of their constituency. Results also indicate a
significant association between these considerations and partisanship, with
Republicans endorsing both to a greater extent than non-Republicans on average.
All of this is especially noteworthy considering that these results are derived
from a sample comprising survey respondents from all across the United States.
And, in terms of demographic characteristics, the sample skews slightly younger,
more liberal, and more educated than the American population as a whole—as well
as Montana. So, if anything, I would expect the patterns and statistical
associations described above to increase in magnitude if the sample were one
perfectly representative of Montana.

            Finally,
in relating all of this back to Montana politics, the results presented here
seem to lend some credence to Republican
candidate Russ Fagg's (as well as many others) warning to Republican primary
voters that (in)congruence between where candidates are born and the district
they hope to represent is important to voters—and, at least in this sample,
especially amongst self-identified Republicans. And, since Tester will almost
certainly have to win over a considerable percentage of voters who recently
voted for our Republican president, these results suggest that one fruitful
path for him to do so would be to continue to appeal to voters on the basis of shared
Montana values and identity (as Bullock did in his successful 2016 reelection
bid). Whether and to what degree he is able to do so could very well be
moderated by whether a native-born Republican, such as Fagg or Olszewski, is at
the top of the Republican ticket.

B.
Kal Munis is, amongst other things, a 6th generation Montana native
and alumnus of both Montana State University and the University of Montana. He
is currently a PhD candidate in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at
the University of Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter @KalMunis.










[1] If you want more specifics on the
data and my analyses, please send me an email or leave a comment below.

Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP strategist who was chief media advisor for President George W. Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004, sits down with David at the Republican national convention in Cleveland to discuss his switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party, his media career and political reform projects, and more.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Cook Political Report editor-in-chief and publisher Amy Walter grew up in a bipartisan household. Her mother was a Democrat, and her father was a Republican, a dynamic that her mother said primed Amy for a career in political journalism. Amy joined David to talk about running a contentious congressional campaign at just 25 years old, the importance of approaching interviews with empathy and curiosity, diminished trust in American institutions, and what—if anything—the Ohio special election results mean for the future of the Democratic Party.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ezra Klein is a journalist and co-founder of Vox, where he currently serves as the editor-at-large. He joins David to talk about his evolution from obscure blogger to national political commentator, his early work on the Howard Dean campaign, his assessment of the current presidential race, and more. His new book, Why We're Polarized, explores the structural and psychological forces behind America's growing political divisions and offers prescriptions to help remedy them.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's more than the number of NFL players at team can have on the field?

The number of Republican candidates who have formerly announced their campaign for the presidency in 2016.

That's 16 Republican candidates to 11 NFL players. And, when you count the number of announced Democratic candidates (5), you almost have a complete offensive and defensive line!

As I sat and contemplated that number, I thought it had to be not only largest Republican presidential primary field, but the single largest presidential primary slate for the two major parties combined in the modern era.

Turns out, I was right.

OK, first the caveats. I define the modern presidential era with the 1972 campaign because that's the year that the McGovern-Fraser reforms, adopted by the Democratic Party, transformed the presidential nomination process. Essentially, the reforms opened up the selection process to voters in primaries and caucuses and while the reforms were established by the Democratic primary, the consequences of the reforms quickly spread to the Republican Party.

Second, it is hard to develop a hard and fast rule first for determining whether a candidate is seriously contesting the nomination.  I took the lead of political scientist Matthew Dickinson who recently opted for the standard used by Bill Mayer and Alan Silverleib: Did the candidate file a statement of candidacy with the FEC and who formally announced. For 1972 through 2008, I pulled from the list complied by Mayer and Silverlieb themselves in their chapter of the edited volume The Making of Presidential Candidates 2012. I then calculated the totals myself for 2012 and 2016, counting only the candidates that seriously contested the primaries or who had held previous elected office (so, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann count, even though they were out before the first electoral contest, but so does Herman Cain of 9-9-9 fame).

Because I love charts, here's a chart. Click on it to enlarge.




What we get is 16 candidates in 2016--five more than the 11 Republicans running in 2008, 2012, and--yes--2000 (many people seem to think it was on McCain versus Bush, but there were many others who simply exited very early). With five Democrats announced today, that's 21 candidates total running for the Democratic and Republican nods. That's two more than in 2008, which saw 19 candidates total.

And, look at the resumes of just the Republican candidates. We have:

Former or Current Governors (8): Jindal, Bush, Perry, Kaisch, Walker, Christie, Huckabee, Pataki

Former or Current U.S. Senators (5): Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Paul, Santorum

Amateurs (3): Carson, Trump, Fiorina

Democrats

Former or Current U.S. Senators (3): Sanders, Clinton, and Webb

Former or Current Governors (2): O'Malley and Chafee

Dickinson's article, linked above, explains why so many Republicans are running for the job, noting that there is no incumbent candidate, it is unusual for the sitting party to hold the White House for more than two consecutive terms, and some candidates may be running for reasons other than winning. I agree with the points he makes. What I'm interested in knowing is how Republican primary voters--and, to a lesser degree, Democratic primary voters, will be able to make clear choices in such a crowded field. As other political scientists have noted, including Washington State University professor Travis Ridout and Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels, is election outcomes can quickly narrow the field both for the media and voters in subsequent primary contests.

That is, the media will concentrate its attention on the top three or four vote getters in the Iowa caucus and Republican primary and hence, voters will learn more about those candidates than the others. The major difference now, however, is the presence of Super PACs--which considerably changes the information game for voters. Between wealthy backers of candidates and state Republican Parties adopting proportionate delegate selection rules for early contests, the Republican primary process should be considerably lengthened. That, of course, is historically unusual given that the Republican Party historically has favored winner take all contests that allow an early frontrunner to quickly garner enough delegates to become the party's nominee early.

In 2008, McCain had the Republican nomination wrapped up by mid-March while the Democratic contest continued through early June. Democrats will likely think this is to their advantage, as a long, drawn out primary will bloody the eventual Republican nominee who will then go down to defeat to Hillary Clinton in November.

Of course, that's not how events played out in 2008, now is it? Competition tends to bring out the best in candidates and, more often than not, make the eventual nominee stronger. Perhaps the competition among Republicans and a longer contest may work to their benefit in 2016 as well.