by Logan Scisco
Receiving questions about the next presidential election is a usual occurrence in extemporaneous speaking. In fact, these questions appear weeks after the last presidential election is finished. This season you may have seen questions that ask you who the Democratic or Republican presidential nominee will be in 2016 or whether certain political figures like Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan are viable presidential candidates. You may have also run into a question about whether Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential candidate and if she can win.
Since these questions appear regularly in extemporaneous speaking, you must have a strategy for breaking them down and effectively answering them. This strategy piece will provide tips on how to answer two different types of presidential election questions: the “viable” candidate question and the “can (insert candidate) win the presidency in (insert year)?” question.
As a side note, for each type of question you need to make sure to compare the candidate you have received a question about to other people that are running! Extempers often fail to do this, but if you get a question about whether Rand Paul is a viable presidential candidate, you need to make sure to compare his chances of winning versus other candidates that will seek the Republican presidential nomination. It is also important to use historical parallels with these types of questions. Compare a candidate’s campaign to past campaigns that succeeded or failed and you will score points with your audience.
The “Viable” Candidate Question
“Viable” candidate questions usually appear in the years leading up to the next presidential election when the field of prospective candidates is large. For example, the 2016 Republican presidential nomination is up in the air right now because no candidate has officially declared that they are running. Since November 2012 political analysts have floated the names of several prospective candidates for the Republican nomination: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, and even Mitt Romney. The Democratic side has been less interesting because most expect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to attempt another presidential run, but there are other dark horses that have received attention like Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, and Brian Schweitzer.
The “viable” candidate questions asks you to assess whether or not these candidates have a legitimate chance of contesting the next presidential election. “Viable” does not necessarily mean that they are guaranteed to win, but it does mean that the candidate in the question has to have a chance of working successfully and have a decent chance of winning the next presidential race. As a result, your analysis needs to focus on what makes that person a viable candidate.
Ideology
Arguably the most important part of these questions is that you need to illustrate how the candidate in question has or does not have an ideology that will make them a presidential contender both within their party’s primary and for the general election. Keep in mind that primaries reward candidates who tack to the base of each party. In the Democrats case this would be far-left progressives and in the Republicans case it would be far-right Tea Party conservatives. One of the reasons that Barack Obama found traction against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries is that he opposed the Iraq War and Clinton voted for it while in the Senate. This enhance Obama’s appeal to elements of the Democratic left and helped tip the scales in some of the early primary states. Similarly, Mitt Romney was dragged to more conservative positions during the 2012 Republican primaries so that he could outmaneuver other “more conservative” candidates like Texas Governor Rick Perry.
However, ideology can be a double-edged sword because if you are too far left or right you can go down in flames in the general election after winning the primary. George McGovern and Barry Goldwater provide excellent examples of this. In 1964, Goldwater, a conservative Arizona senator at the time, upset New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a moderate Republican, in the party’s presidential primaries because his ideology appealed to conservative Republicans who turned out in large numbers in the party’s primary contests. Goldwater went on to lose in an enormous landslide to President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 presidential election. Similarly, South Dakota Senator George McGovern represented elements of the far-left Democratic coalition and upset former Vice-President and 1968 Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey in the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries. However, McGovern was thrashed by President Richard M. Nixon in the general election and only captured one state (Massachusetts). When assessing whether your candidate has an ideology to win the general election, look at how they might appeal to voters in “swing states” like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. If they cannot appeal to elderly, blue-collar, working-class, and Latino voters in these states then they are doomed.
Therefore, on the ideology talking point you want to make the case that the candidate does/does not possess an ideology that can get them out of the primaries and make them a possible winner in the general election. If you feel that a candidate’s position on the issues could win their party’s primaries, but become too polarizing in a general election (Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are probably the best examples of this out of the current crop of Republican candidates and Elizabeth Warren is probably the best example of this out of the current crop of Democratic candidates), then they are probably not a “viable” candidate after all.
How Do They Appeal to Voters in Early Primary States
To be a viable presidential candidate, someone has to be able to win early primary states. The “big four” primary states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Florida is usually the fifth state that comes after this order in the presidential primary calendar. Extempers are encouraged to check out our brief about the 2008 presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire to get an idea about how those two states run their elections because they are very different. Winning one of these early states says a lot about a candidate. Winning in Iowa is usually an illustration of a candidate having a good campaign infrastructure. Winning in New Hampshire illustrates a candidate’s appeal to moderate voters since registered Democrats and Republicans can cross over and vote in each other’s primaries if they choose to do so. New Hampshire is also a swing state in the general election so that helps. A victory in Nevada has become a way to assess a candidate’s strength among Latino voters. South Carolina means different things for each party. For Republicans, it is a bastion of conservatism and the winner gets the “conservative stamp of approval.” For Democrats, the South Carolina primary is dominated by African American voters so it gauges a candidate’s appeal to that element of the Democratic coalition. Florida is a test of a candidate’s appeal in a large, swing state.
A candidate really needs to win a collection of these early states to become a viable presidential contender. Winning generates a great deal of media attention and can help a candidate knock out rivals who do not have the resources to compete in other states. In 2008, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to circumvent all of the early states and concentrate on Florida, but this left his campaign with no momentum going into that state and he went down in defeat at the hands of Arizona Senator John McCain. In 2012, Mitt Romney barely lost Iowa, but managed to win New Hampshire and Nevada. He then went on to win Florida and gradually locked up the nomination. Presidential dreams are shattered for most candidates in these early states, so if you have a candidate that cannot win in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and/or South Carolina then they are not viable.
Fundraising Ability
A presidential campaign is very expensive and the Obama and Romney camps set campaign finance records last year. It is estimated that each campaign spent over $1 billion to try to win an office that pays less than $1 million a year. A viable presidential candidate needs to be able to raise funds to compete in the primaries and the general election. If they cannot do this, there is no chance that they can wage an effective campaign. Knocking on doors and making appearances is still useful, especially in smaller primary states like Iowa, but money buys you advertising and assists a campaign in getting their message out to larger numbers of voters. A good place to look for a candidate’s fundraising potential is how much money they managed to raise for their last political race and if they have any big time donors tied to them. Do they have the support of any rich patrons or business types? Better yet, do they have an effective fundraising network already set up? In 2003-2004, Howard Dean pioneered the use of online fundraising and the Obama team used it to their advantage in 2008. Remember that you can be depressed about the amount of money in American politics today, but it serves a useful purpose if one wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Therefore, you must include an analysis of a candidate’s fundraising ability in your speech and compare it to other candidates.
Campaign Infrastructure
Another element to take into consideration is campaign infrastructure. Does the candidate have a good team to call upon to organize their campaign? Do they have people within the party that are supporting them? Who do they have endorsing their campaign and trying to rally voters to their side? All of these things matter because it is rare that candidacies that go against the party machine win. Although President Obama won a small upset in 2008 over Hillary Clinton, he had support from key players within the party. Obama had the support of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, who was a champion of liberal values in the U.S. Senate, and also had the support of media mogul Oprah Winfrey, which helped him among some minority and women voters in the Democratic coalition.
Many times an extempers can meld this point into fundraising ability and use that as one point in their speech since fundraising does factor into campaign infrastructure. However, you might be able to keep them separate if there is enough information for you to discuss who is supporting the candidate and what help they can provide when it comes to campaigning and rallying votes.
Experience
Lastly, experience does factor into whether a candidate is deemed “ready” to win the presidency. President Obama’s election to the office in 2008 was a historical anomaly for many reasons. First, governors are usually better positioned to win the presidency because they have executive experience to call on and present to voters, but Obama did not have this. Second, the last time that a sitting U.S. senator was elected to the presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960. It is very rare in American politics for senators to win the presidency. And third, Obama had only been in the Senate for four years before he ran for the presidency, which was also unusual. Experience isn’t everything, but it does help a candidate show voters that they are ready to handle the domestic and foreign policy tasks associated with the presidency. Hillary Clinton, if she runs, is likely to use her experience as Secretary of State and her two terms as a senator from New York to show that she is ready to be president.
If you choose to bring up experience (or lack thereof) in a speech, you need to make sure to discuss how these experiences are valuable (or not) for the candidate in question. You also need to talk about specific policies that they supported while in those offices or policies that they supported that failed or turned out badly for them. You should then describe how these successful or failed policies make them a viable or not viable candidate. For example, Chris Christie looked to be well positioned for 2016 by being the governor of New Jersey, but the recent bridge scandal and allegations that he is a “bully” may not reflect well on him when it comes to voters in the primary and/or general election. Candidates with lots of experience can use it to their advantage in a presidential campaign, but it does come with a lot of baggage because they are responsible for all of the policies that they enacted and the way they managed their office. Candidates without experience have the advantage of less baggage, but often create anxieties among voters about whether they are ready to handle the responsibilities of the office.
The “Can (Insert Candidate) Win the (Insert Year) Presidential Election”?
Some of the same elements that are used for the “viable” candidate question can also be used for assessing whether a candidate can win the next presidential election. For example, the points about ideology, fundraising/campaign infrastructure, and experience can be used for these questions. When answering these questions, though, you must compare the candidate that is the focal point of the question against a likely rival. If you get a question about a Republican challenger, then you need to compare their chances against Hillary Clinton, since she is leading the polls for the Democratic nomination at the moment. If you get a question about a Democratic challenger things become harder because there is not a clear Republican nominee. Still, you must select someone that is likely to win and use that as a comparison.
Some points you want to consider for this type of question in addition to ideology, fundraising/campaign infrastructure, and experience include:
How Does the Candidate Appeal to Swing State Voters?
This goes with the ideology/appeal in early primary states point above, but it is important to discuss how the candidate is going to win 270 or more electoral votes to win the presidency. Democrats cannot afford to lose big states like New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California, and Republicans cannot afford to lose big states like Florida, Ohio, and Texas. In fact, no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. It is easier to reach 270 electoral votes if you are a Democratic candidate because of the party’s strength in the Northeast and West Coast and the party’s ability the last several election cycles to cut into previously held Republican territory in states like Virginia and North Carolina. Likely swing states for 2016 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Michigan, but the eventual swing states will become known when the election draws closer.
To assess whether a candidate can win the presidency, you need to show that the candidate can win enough swing states and hold enough traditional ground for their party that they can win the Electoral College. Remember that the popular vote does not select the president, so winning more votes really does not matter. Therefore, try to project what issues are going to matter in these states and assess how a candidate’s ideology and policy ideas align with what might appeal to voters in these states. Using polling data from Gallup, the Pew Research Center, and Rasmussen Reports can help you find the issues that Americans most care about and compare the views of the candidate in question with these concerns.
Will the Candidate Win Their Party Primary?
One thing that extempers often overlook with these question is that they never explain whether the candidate will get out of their party’s primary. They just assume they should start analyzing the race from the general election point-of-view, but that is incorrect. You should devote at least some analysis in explaining why they are going to win their respective party’s nomination. If someone does not win their party’s nomination then they cannot become the next president. If primary season is still underway when you get one of these questions and the nominee has not been decided, then I think it is important for you to address why the candidate will avoid the minefield of their party primary and capture the nomination. When you draw this question and get a candidate that you think has not chance of winning their party primary, then that answers the question immediately. For example, it is highly unlikely that Joe Biden could beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, so he probably cannot win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination if she is in the field!
By addressing some of these points when you draw questions on the next presidential election you can make a convincing argument about whether or not a certain candidate is a viable presidential contender and/or whether they can win the presidency in the next election. Just remember that many of these questions require a great deal of critical thinking and you will have to predict the future, which is always a tricky task. Still, if you can marshal enough evidence to support your view and provide your audience with sufficient information on your candidate, you can still make a good argument about whether or not the candidate you are speaking about could become the next president of the United States.