General

On Friday, October 19, 2007 the Center for Politics hosted the National Constitutional Convention at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. With nearly 500 registered participants, the day-long event featured discussion and analysis of constitutional reform from some of the top government officials, academics, politicians, legal scholars and members of the media. For our readers who were not in attendance, the Crystal Ball is happy to provide a summary of the day’s events, with special thanks to University of Virginia students Joe Baber, S.W. Dawson and Ben Smoot for their contributions to this report. We’ll be back on the campaign beat next week with a new feature article by Rhodes Cook. Conference Opening Remarks The opening speaker for the National Constitutional Convention was former US representative and former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. She began her presentation with a brief history of the vice presidential debate which piqued with a vignette of her debating then vice president Bush during the 1984 election. Once finished warming up the crowd, Ferraro wasted no time getting down to brass tacks. She began by stating that our “system is broken,” noting the nation’s health care issues and the 2000 election process. Not one to

Many would argue that, in many respects, today’s political system is broken, and there is currently no reasonable prospect of fixing it. Our schedule of presidential primaries and caucuses is a mess, giving too much power to an unrepresentative few with undue influence over the party nominees. Because it would require taking on entrenched interests, the Congress, the parties and the states refuse seriously to tackle reform of the nominating system, and plenty of other key parts of politics as well. Our scheme of campaign financing incorporates the worst of several worlds and deteriorates further with each passing election cycle. Our partisan procedure for drawing legislative districts encourages vicious polarization rather than promoting moderation and compromise. In the end, all these disasters can be traced back to the Constitution–not so much what was included in the text, but some items excluded from it. Other modern problems include the excessive length of campaigns, the sky-high cost of elections, the almost irrational methods we employ to choose presidential nominees, and the archaic way the Electoral College functions. In all of these fashions, the American political system is inequitable and doesn’t work very well. But it is unfair and doesn’t work well because

Last week the Crystal Ball looked at potential constitutional changes aimed at building on the Founders’ congressional model and improving the nation’s legislative body to make it more representative, more responsive and its elections more competitive. Naturally, the next step is to examine the office of the Chief Executive. The Constitution’s brilliance and originality have inspired millions around the globe to seek a better society where they live. Much of the Constitution’s superstructure needs no fundamental fix, including the separation of powers into three branches, the system of checks and balances (with a few exceptions), and the Bill of Rights. However, in response to student critiques as well as my own–and the public’s–growing concerns, I began to construct an alternate universe for parts of the American system. The ideas comprising this universe are at the heart of this new book, A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country. This week we present an adaptation of the second chapter from A More Perfect Constitution, prepared especially for the Crystal Ball and provided exclusively to you, our dear readers. For more information on the book, the ideas, an opportunity to offer comments and even

Like almost all Americans, I grew up believing in the Constitution–every bit of it. But having chosen American politics as my primary passion in life, over decades of daily thinking about the issues that confronted the nation, I gradually began to see that parts of the system were no longer working very well, that the day-to-day, incremental political process was inadequate to fix the root causes of the system’s dysfunction. In this, I was encouraged by the bright young people in my classrooms, who asked good questions, pointed out wrongs that needed righting, and were unwilling to accept “that’s how we’ve always done it” as the final, correct answer. The Constitution’s brilliance and originality have inspired millions around the globe to seek a better society where they live. Much of the Constitution’s superstructure needs no fundamental fix, including the separation of powers into three branches, the system of checks and balances (with a few exceptions), and the Bill of Rights. The fault is not with these basics, and it’s important to stress one fundamental truth from the outset: the framers of the Constitution did not fail us. Our forefathers designed the best possible system that could be achieved at that

Last week the Crystal Ball published the first installment in an intermittent series of observations on a variety of 2008 political and campaign topics. In addition to our usual essays focusing on one subject, which will still appear regularly, we offer these morsels as a “low cal” supplement for political junkies on the go! Jefferson aficionados will find the title familiar, and they know the Man of the Millennium only penned one book in his lifetime, Notes on the State of Virginia. Many of Jefferson’s observations in that volume still hold fascination today, and we recommend it to you. In the Jeffersonian mold, here are a few more modern tidbits on the ’08 contests, including the race to elect Jefferson’s White House successor. Dynasty, Revisited In an earlier essay for the Crystal Ball, we argued that one of the most disturbing aspects of the 2008 election is the distinct possibility that, in a country of 300 million people, just two unexceptional families may be handed the most powerful office in the world for 24 (and possibly 28) consecutive years–a reality far more appropriate for a banana republic than the American Republic [STORY LINK]. As far as we can tell, just

Jefferson aficionados know the Man of the Millennium only penned one book in his lifetime, Notes on the State of Virginia. Many of Jefferson’s observations in that volume still hold fascination today, and we recommend it to you. For our part, with a bow to the Rotunda and a nod to Monticello, we will offer, from time to time, tidbits and comments in the Jeffersonian mold on the emerging campaign of 2008. Instead of our usual essays focused on one subject, we will range more widely on unconnected topics. Time for the Real Election Campaigns have no clear beginning, though the end is as pre-set as a one-day clearance sale. The 2008 campaign seems to have been going on forever (just think, as of tomorrow there are still 500 days until the next president is inaugurated). Some candidates have been debating, fundraising, baby-kissing, and all the rest for years. This can be tiresome, although Americans learn about politics at different paces, and those with a lower tolerance for politics may actually pick up more because of the lengthy duration of the modern campaign. Be that as it may, the real presidential campaign begins now, in September 2007. This will come

With political pundits and concerned citizens focusing on the 2008 presidential and congressional contests, the 2007 election season has been lost in the shuffle. But, there are three revealing governorships on the ballot this November (Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi), and at least one of them (Kentucky) may turn out to be significant. Even the two less competitive statehouse races will matter because governors do count, not just for their states but in national politics as well. To begin, governors play a key role in redistricting, which in turn can determine which party controls the House of Representatives. In most states they must approve or reject the plans passed by their state legislatures, and that is true in the three states electing governors in 2007. Additionally, the legislatures that craft the redistricting plans are shaped by gubernatorial elections. If there is coattail from a governor’s victory, then the legislature might also better reflect the preferences of the state chief executive’s party when they redraw the House lines in 2011. While Kentucky has no legislative seats on the ballot this year (the state house and senate are both elected in even numbered years), both Mississippi and Louisiana do. In those two states

The votes are in from yesterday’s Kentucky gubernatorial primary, and Democrats will have to try hard to lose this race in November. Despite a large field of six candidates, former Lt. Gov. Steve Beshear surprised many in the Democratic Party by crossing the 40 percent threshold–he received 40.9 percent in the preliminary tally–needed to prevent a runoff. That was an impressive showing, and he owes it in part to the nicely timed endorsement of one of his former rivals, State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, on May 7th. In the Kentucky Derby that was the race for the Democratic nomination, Beshear outpaced his closest rival, Bruce Lunsford, by nearly 20 percentage points but avoided a runoff by a nose. That nose makes for a mile of difference in the general election, as Beshear may now charge ahead to November immediately (though Lunsford would have been hard pressed to win a runoff and claimed on Election Night that he would have conceded the primary to Beshear in order to give the Democratic winner a strong start toward the fall). Meanwhile, GOP Governor Ernie Fletcher capped a comeback of sorts by defeating former Congresswoman Anne Northup 50 percent to 37 percent for his party’s

Religion is well beyond the scope of the Crystal Ball (thank goodness), but there is no denying the intersection of religion and politics in America. In 1928 Democrat Al Smith lost in part because of his Catholicism, and John F. Kennedy nearly lost in 1960 for much the same reason. (At least one study has suggested that a generic Protestant Democrat would have handily dispatched Richard Nixon, in place of JFK’s squeaker win with a fraud-expanded 119,000-vote national plurality.) Jimmy Carter in 1976 brought fundamentalist Christianity out of the political closet, and it may have assisted his victory in many GOP-friendly Southern and Border states. Ironically, Carter felt the lash of many of those same Christians in 1980. They had become disillusioned with him because of his liberal positions on many social issues (including his acceptance of Roe v. Wade), and they defected in droves to Ronald Reagan. Of course, leading the Reagan charge among conservative Christians was the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his “Moral Majority.” His death this week has reminded us of the extraordinary role he played in American politics. Yes, Reagan would have won in 1980 had Falwell never been born, given Carter’s economic mess and the

Following up on last week’s preview, the Crystal Ball is happy to share more content from The Sixth Year Itch, a new book containing original chapters by political scholar and commentator Larry J. Sabato, as well as contributed chapters by prominent journalists and scholars who are on the political frontlines. Each essay offers trenchant commentary and unique insights into the campaigns, the issues and the strategies of parties and candidates, preparing readers to be informed participants in the next election. This exciting new book is written to help readers understand the issues and actions that mattered most in the 2006 midterm elections and is essential reading for those who really want to understand the issues and trends emerging as the 2008 presidential race approaches. In addition to Sabato, the following contributors are featured: Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, Chuck Todd, David Wasserman, Michael Toner, Melissa Laurenza, Claude Marx, Michael Cornfield, Matt Stearns, Gwen Florio, Lawrence Jacobs, Joanne Miller, Peter Woolley, Jonathan Riskind, Bruce Larson, Maureen Moakley, Michael Nelson, Jeff Schapiro, David Postman, David Lightman, Bruce Cain, Susan MacManus, Paul Green, Patrick Healy, Joe Hallet, G. Terry Madonna, Jeff Tuttle, Charles Bullock, Michael Carey, William Lunch and Michael W. Traugott. Below are

The Sixth Year Itch contains original chapters by political scholar and commentator Larry J. Sabato, as well as contributed chapters by prominent journalists and scholars who are on the political frontlines. Each essay offers trenchant commentary and unique insights into the campaigns, the issues and the strategies of parties and candidates, preparing readers to be informed participants in the next election. This exciting new book is written to help readers understand the issues and actions that mattered most in the 2006 midterm elections and is essential reading for those who really want to understand the issues and trends emerging as the 2008 presidential race approaches. In addition to Sabato, the following contributors are be featured: Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, Chuck Todd, David Wasserman, Michael Toner, Melissa Laurenza, Claude Marx, Michael Cornfield, Matt Stearns, Gwen Florio, Lawrence Jacobs, Joanne Miller, Peter Woolley, Jonathan Riskind, Bruce Larson, Maureen Moakley, Michael Nelson, Jeff Schapiro, David Postman, David Lightman, Bruce Cain, Susan MacManus, Paul Green, Patrick Healy, Joe Hallet, G. Terry Madonna, Jeff Tuttle, Charles Bullock, Michael Carey, William Lunch and Michael W. Traugott. Below are excerpts from the first several chapters, presented to our loyal Crystal Ball readers free of charge! The Sixth

The Crystal Ball will not publish this week in honor of our friends and colleagues at Virginia Tech, and in memory of the student and faculty victims and their families. The insanity of senseless death is no stranger to any sector of society, here or abroad. But all of us who are connected to college communities have been deeply affected by the senseless acts of a deranged individual. This could happen at any college campus; tragically for Virginia Tech, it happened there. As we go forward after this week of mourning, we at the Crystal Ball hope that some reasonable balance can be struck between increased security on campus and individual liberty. It is essential that universities remain free and open, in thought and access. It is also vital that students and faculty be as free as possible from the fear of violence-though there are never any guarantees in a violent country and world. It is Pollyanna-ish to believe that campus shootings will never happen, but it is irredeemably cynical to assert that we can do nothing to reduce the odds of more mass killings. There is much grieving to be done, and then serious work to be accomplished by

Rarely does a political analyst stray from electoral politics–but this is war. And there’s a direct connection to politics. This war isn’t on terrorism; it’s on “night people”–the tens of millions of us who thrive at night and dread mornings every bit as much as Dracula. Based on personal observations in my 54 years, I’d say a majority of us are night people, and a large majority of the creative individuals who teach, act, write, and do art and music for a living (the very foundation of civilization) are devoted to the night. Yes, it’s possible that this view is skewed by my University existence, where students and most faculty members retire somewhere between one and four o’clock in the morning–and later on the weekends. Yet consider the “morning people” you know–the sanctimonious ones who brag about getting up at 5am for an hour of vigorous workout in the gym; the smiley ones who are relentlessly cheerful in the parking lot at 7:45am; the dull ones you can’t call after 9pm because they’re already asleep. Morning people are held in disdain, and rightly so. Now comes again the dreaded Daylight Saving Time–except for Vietnam, it’s the worst legacy of LBJ’s

I’m sure some very wise person once said that the best time to measure the true character of a party is in its moment of defeat, not its moment of triumph. And so it was with keen anticipation and curiosity that the Crystal Ball attended this past weekend’s Conservative Summit, a well-organized Washington powwow of the conservative movement’s core activists and leading minds held by the National Review Institute. The star-studded lineup of rightward observers and current and former GOP candidates and elected leaders split its panel and podium time between requisite post-2006 soul-searching and pre-2008 star-searching. But interviews with a variety of attendees yielded a strange and slightly worrisome storyline for conservatives: the crowd of activists wasn’t all that more enthralled by its current pool of leading presidential candidates than it was by the sobering results of last year’s congressional races. Still, it’s worth looking at the right’s attitudes toward each subject one at a time. Any party that suffers as bad a midterm breakup with voters as the Republicans did last fall is sure to endure a nasty hangover for at least some time after being dumped. But how a party’s base reflects on the fallout can be

Last week the Crystal Ball tackled the Democratic candidates for President in 2008–figuratively, at least (click here: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/LJS2005022401). Now we turn our attention to the possible Republican presidential wannabes. Before we analyze specific candidates, remember that in 2008 the GOP will be completing eight years as the governing party in the White House. In order to achieve the task of grasping a third consecutive presidential term, the Republicans almost certainly must fulfill several conditions: President Bush must have had a successful second term, with significant policy achievements in several areas. President Bush must be relatively popular–which for this polarizing president means maintenance of a job approval rating around 50 percent or better in national surveys. The economy must be fair to good, and the international outlook (terrorism, Iraq , etc.) must be generally acceptable to the American people. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the GOP must nominate a moderate-conservative within the American political mainstream, taking care not to go too far right but also not too far to the left of the dominant conservative activist corps. Should a moderate somehow win the GOP nod, say in a split field of conservatives, this political earthquake would likely generate a