media.laits.utexas.edu:8080/.../gov310_topic13.7.mp4

What exactly happens? Or what are
the factors that matter in these

nominating contests where
you don't have party ID.

Alright, if I'm going to vote
in the Democratic primary

in Texas or the Republican primary
in Texas, you know, one of the first

things we look for in elections are
party identification to help us

inform the vote, to make sense
of politics, but we don't have

that in primaries. So what do we know from
political science with respect to what

voters rely on when it comes to making
selection in primary elections.

Few things here you guys
see listed on the sheet.

Name recognition matters.

Voters -- It's not so much that you're going
to vote for somebody you've heard of,

but you're not likely to vote for
somebody you've never heard of.

By the way, this is something that
helps Hillary Clinton and Jed Bush

right now. They're recognizable.

You'd rather vote for the devil
you know, as the phrase goes.

Ideology matters.

Candidates, you see this a lot in Texas,
especially on the Republican side.

Candidates have this contest to
see who's the most conservative,

who can grab the conservative label.
Ideology does matter.

Viability matters. Now, I want to
distinguish here between points

three and four. Viability is the belief,
or the perception that you can win

the nomination. Electability is the
belief that you can win the general

election. Alright, so viability is with
respect to winning the party's nod,

electability's with respect to actually
defeating an opponent from the

other side in the November contest. So, for
instance, just to give you an example of

why these are different, there
are people who think that,

for example, Ted Cruz is viable.

That Ted Cruz could win the
Republican primaries, but

they don't think he's necessarily
electable. He couldn't beat,

you know, kind of a moderate
Democrat in a general election.

On the other hand, there are people
who think Chris Christie is not

viable, that he's not a guy who's
going to win a Republican primary,

but he could be electable.

He could look pretty good in a
general election contest. I'm not

commenting on whether these
things are right, but I just want

to give you some examples to
help you distinguish between

these terms: viability and electability.

Now, I have them here because it
does seem to be the case, we have

substantial evidence, that in the
presidential election context

that voters pay attention to these things.
They're not

likely to support a candidate they
don't think can win the nomination.

So those guys get
kind of written off.

And they're influenced by electability.

They don't want to support a
candidate they think is going to

go down in flames in November.

So, those things both matter,
and they're not the same thing.

That's the point I wanted to raise.

Okay, a few other things about
the nominating contest.

Just points of interest.

Again, this should be evident
from the conversation we had

about kind of the history here,
parties do not dominate the

nomination process. This is
something from Nelson Polsby.

Wonderful book from '81 called "The
Consequences of Party Reform."

There's some pushback here. There's
a book called "The Party Decides,"

by John Zaller, and some other people
at UCLA, that argues that parties have

more control than you might think,
but the consensus is that parties

don't dominate this process anymore.

So who does matter?

Well, we think the media matter,
and in particular, the media

are the ones who decide who's going
to get covered and therefore

who the voters are going to be exposed
to, and they're impressed by candidates

with experience, candidates with money,
and candidates who have organizational

support. Those things seem to matter.

If you can demonstrate those things,
the New York Times, the Wall Street

Journal are much more likely to cover you.

And it's important to get covered if
you're going to be a real player in

a nominating contest.

Okay, now, the other thing that
matters, and this is particularly

true in the last few cycles, although
it's also been the case historically,

primary debates. And you're going to
start seeing those later this fall,

maybe even a little earlier. Debates
matter. They provide voters

with information and context and
an understanding of who these

candidates are and how they
stack up against one another.

I've got just a series of bullet
point moments that we know mattered

in previous presidential campaigns.

Rather than just kind of talk about
these things, I'd like to actually

show you some video clips of each one.
Alright, so I'm

going to start with a video clip
from Ronald Reagan in Nashua.

Ronald Reagan was running for
president in 1980. He was facing a

challenge from George H.W. Bush,
some other Republican candidates.

He had not done well in Iowa.

He'd actually been upset in the Iowa
caucuses and he really needed to

come back in New Hampshire
in order to re-establish his

credibility and his candidacy.

And this happened.

It was a debate that was occurring
in Nashua. Ronald Reagan actually

helped sponsor the debate. And
there was a kerfuffle over who

would be allowed to participate.

I want to show you a little excerpt
here from the Reagan debate

moment. This is Nashua,
New Hampshire, 1980.

>> ...they don't. The
fireworks begin.

[applause]

>> If we may have the first question --
>> ...You asked me if you could make

an announcement first, and I asked you for
permission to make an announcement myself.

>> ...Please turn Mr. Reagan's mic off.

[cheering]

>> Is this on?

Mr. Green, you asked for me if you
would -- I am paying for this

microphone, Mr. Green.

[crowd cheers]

>> Okay, so, it's a famous episode
where these other guys had showed up,

Reagan had invited them to
participate in the debate.

The people running the debate
didn't think there was going to be

any other candidates, except for Reagan,
I believe, and Bush, George H.W. Bush.

Reagan invited them all up
and they tried to shut down

the microphones off of the other people.
They tried to shut down

Reagan's microphone and Reagan
had the famous line. You know,

"Hey, I paid for this microphone."

Which got the big round of applause
and all the other guys were up there

like, window dressing going,
"Yeah, Reagan's great,"

"except we're trying to beat him."

And that really seemed to turn
that election around. Reagan wins

in New Hampshire and then
sweeps to the nomination.

Here's an episode from 1984, Walter
Mondale, Jimmy Carter's Vice President

was running for the nomination and
had been losing to Gary Hart,

this relatively unknown senator who
campaigned on new ideas, you know,

"I've got new ideas.

Mondale is of the past."

"I'm the new thing!" and Mondale had some
of the tagline that was made famous in a

Wendy's commercial.

Let's take a look at this.

>> Two comments, Mr. Chancellor.

First, I've made quite an issue out of the
need for a new generation of leadership.

I mean primarily those who
have come into political life

and leadership in the past decade
and that's because there is a

strong anti-government feeling
out there and I fundamentally

disagree with Ronald Reagan when
he says he loves his country

and yet he hates our government.

I don't hate our government, I
think we ought to have leaders

that ask people what they can do
for their country using the best

instruments of our government.

But I think there is a fundamental difference.
For example, between Vice President

Mondale and myself.

That is, I think we can meet the
basic human needs and commitments

of the people of this country
by restoring entrepreneurship.

90% of the new jobs in this society
have come from small businesses

and I think that the dedication
of the Democratic Party,

to minority people in the South and elsewhere,
shouldn't just be jobs, it should be

the opportunity to own and operate
businesses that create jobs.

>> Mr. [inaudible]. can
I respond to that?

>> Well, we'll get back to you.

Let's ask the other side.

>> [inaudible] entrepreneurs.

When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded
of that ad, "Where's the beef?"

[laughter]

>>Let's get going.

>> Wait a minute.

He's going to tell you
where the beef is.

>> If you listened just a minute, I think
you'd hear -- One of the other differences

by the way is if the president goes
back into office and of us must,

I think to save this country, you
cannot go back so committed to

a handful of constituency groups that you
cannot make this economy grow again,

and that's again, to make your difference
I think between myself and [inaudible] --

>> Wait a minute, wait a minute!

I told you what I was going to do.

Get those deficits down,
educate the next generation.

Those aren't special interest groups.

I said I'm going to stand up
against special interest groups

and I'm going to support Social Security
and Medicare? What's wrong with that?

>> Okay, so that's the famous,
"Where's the beef?" tagline

that Walter Mondale used and it seemed to
turn the race around in 1984 and he wins.

Now, probably the most famous,
certainly recent presidential debate

kind of gaffe, our own Rick Perry
in 2012 in a Republican debate

talking about the three things he would
do if he were to be elected president.

>> Here's the things to the
regulatory climate that has to happen

and I will tell you, it's three
agencies of government when I get there

that are gone -- Commerce, Education,
and the.... what's the third one now?

Let's see... [laughter]

>> You mean five?

>> Oh five, okay.

Commerce, Education and the ummmm...
-- >> EPA?

>> EPA! There you go!

>> Is EPA the one you
were talking about?

>> No sir.

>> It's the Energy Department, Rick.

Come on, man! Three things!

Anyways, Rick Perry never
recovered from that, you know,

he blamed painkillers and back problems
and things like that which I'm using

as my excuse when I get my evaluations.

I was heavily medicated all semester.