The presidential race of 2008 has always promised to be something special. With George W. Bush legally barred from seeking a third term, and with Vice President Dick Cheney passing on the opportunity to run for his own administration, this is arguably the most open election since 1928. And what a roller coaster it has been so far. The various primaries and caucuses have culled off the first potential Latino president, the first potential Mormon president, as well as the first potential female president (Hillary Clinton, of course). The choice that is left is no less significant. At the age of 71 John McCain, if elected, will be the oldest occupant the White House has ever known. Perhaps even more historic is the prospect of the first African-American president, in the form of Barack Obama. Whoever wins the race will inherit a less than promising legacy: an economy in trouble, an unpopular war in Iraq, and the broader issues of combating international terrorism and global warming. After the highly acrimonious election of 2000, and the very close contest between George Bush and John Kerry four years ago, the stakes could not be higher for both parties.

What now follows is an introductory guide to the forthcoming 2008 US presidential election. It is intended for a broad readership. Please do not assume that it is a definitive guide - politics can change at a moment's notice, and, given the distance from America, I have access to only secondary sources (it is regrettable I cannot interview the politicians in the flesh and see the situation on the ground for myself - but I will endeavour to do my best under the circumstances). Moreover, I am technically better versed in the complexities of US history as opposed to US politics. Fortunately the two often go hand in hand. As a result, several predictions will be posted between now and polling day on 4 November. Factors that will be taken into consideration include demographics, the latest opinion polling, as well as past election results. 

The path to the White House

But first, a brief word for those newcomers who may not as yet be familiar with how the President of the United States is elected. He (I can now say that with some degree of certainty) usually comes from a political party. The Democrats are more akin to our Labour Party, whereas the Republicans (sometimes referred to as the ‘Grand Old Party', or ‘GOP' for short) are more in tune with the Conservatives. There are a variety of other, smaller, parties - Reform, Libertarian, Socialist, and independent candidacies - but they have not won a presidential election before. That said, they have played an important role in deciding the final outcome - take 1912, 1948, 1968, 1992 and 2000 as examples. Please bear in mind that these comparisons between British and American political parties are amongst the most generalised I have ever made - they do not fit all circumstances!

The eventual nominee is chosen, mainly, by a process of elected primaries and caucuses. This involves both the party memberships and the wider electorate. In close races, such as the 2008 Democratic primaries, so-called ‘Super Delegates' (key party officials) can cast deciding votes. This year's primary season is now over, and Obama and McCain have emerged as the unofficial presidential standard-bearers for their respective parties. Their candidacy becomes official later in the year at the national conventions. The Democrats are holding theirs in Denver in late August, whilst the Republicans are having theirs in September in Minneapolis. It has also become customary for the candidates to face off in live televised debates. These sessions have provided many a memorable moment: ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?' and ‘Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.'

The President is not directly elected by means of a popular national vote (ie. whoever gets the most votes wins). Instead, the victor is elected by means of an Electoral College. If you click here, you can see from the map above, each state has a number of electoral votes. For example, New York has 31, Florida 27, California 55, and so on. The number of electoral votes is decided not by the geographical size of the individual state - but by its population. So, for example, Montana is geographically one of the largest states in the union. But because its population is so small, it receives only 3 electoral votes.

The candidate that receives the largest number of popular votes within a particular state wins all that state's electoral votes. So, for example, if Obama were to win 51% of the popular vote in Massachusetts, yet McCain were to clinch 49% (only 2% behind) then all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Obama - simply because he is in the majority. But beware, not every state follows this ‘winner takes all' scenario. Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions that split their electoral votes according to how their Congressional Districts have voted. But do not worry - these states have not split their electoral votes amongst presidential candidates - yet.

The candidate who wins the election is the candidate who receives a clear majority of electoral votes (ie. at least 270 out of 538). It is theoretically possible for a tie in the Electoral College (as was the case in 1800), but it is unlikely. It is more possible (though again unlikely) that the candidate who wins the electoral vote loses the popular vote. This is exactly what happened in 2000. Allegations of fraud aside, Al Gore won more individual votes from across the country, but George W. Bush won the Electoral College - and therefore the presidency.

Battleground States

Some states are going to receive more attention than others. Utah is unlikely to see much campaigning - Bush won 70% of the votes cast there in 2004, and is therefore seen as a safe Republican state. John Kerry won over 60% in his native Massachusetts, so you probably won't see McCain in Boston too often. 

However, there are some states (the so-called ‘Battlegrounds') that will receive a lot of attention. Take New Mexico as an example. In 2000 Al Gore won this state by a mere 300 votes. In 2004 George Bush won it by 6,000 (out of a population of . This means that New Mexico is likely to be up for grabs again this year, and could prove decisive in determining the final outcome in a close contest. You can bet good money that both McCain and Obama will be campaign heavily in this state, and others like it, between now and November.

Early Outlook

What conclusions can we draw from these opening stages in the general election campaign? Certainly the Republicans, as the incumbent party, have the most to lose. John McCain will inherit a less than promising situation from fellow Republican George W. Bush: financial corruption, sex scandals, an unpopular war, and a stalling economy. All of this has taken its toll on Bush's approval ratings, and has brought them down to historic lows (after, ironically, having enjoyed historic highs of 90% after 9/11). [1] This is clearly a very bad position for McCain. He may therefore deem it vital to distance himself from the current occupant of the White House. Yet at the same time McCain's ‘maverick' image over the years has cost him some support amongst the Republican faithful (take his original opposition to the Bush tax cuts, for example). Thus the senator from Arizona may have to go down the road of pleasing his party's core supporters. This is code for staying the course in Iraq, nominating conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and preserving the Bush tax cuts. But by adopting these positions McCain could very well alienate those moderate, independent, swing voters. It is clearly a catch-twenty-two situation for the Republican nominee. Even his age, and by implication his ability to campaign, might count against him. One indication of McCain's strategy will be his choice for Vice President. Should he nominate a moderate, then this will probably indicate his intention to cater to a wider audience. Alternatively, should McCain chose a staunch conservative as his running mate, then this will be a good sign that he is bedding himself in with his party.

Given the problems in the Republican camp, one would think that Obama's ‘Change we can believe in' message would resonate with the electorate. Clearly it has done just that amongst black, younger, and professional voters within the Democratic base. Obama now has more cash on hand than McCain. [2] Moreover his party won back control of the Congress in 2006, and are hungry to win back the White House after two closely fought elections. That said, do not assume that because a party receives a mauling at the midterm elections it is automatically doomed to presidential failure. Congressional Democrats suffered a major reversal in 1994 - but Bill Clinton still won re-election fairly handily in 1996. Added to that, Obama does come with some handicaps - namely his relative inexperience. He hasn't even completed his first term in the Senate. This is in stark contrast to John McCain who has been an elected official since the 1980s, and prior to that he served in Vietnam. In a time of political and economic uncertainty, will a majority of Americans back a relative novice to guide their nation through its troubles? Obama also lagged behind Hillary Clinton amongst older, white, female, and Latino voters. In some states she dealt Obama major defeats, such as her 40% plurality in the West Virginia primary. Thus, in addition to confronting criticisms of his inexperience, Obama now has to prove that he can win over those demographics that he is weakest in, and he has to accommodate Hillary Clinton's supporters as well (at one point some polling indicated that if she did not win the Democratic nomination, then 28% of her backers would go over to McCain). [3] One way for Obama to placate the Clintons would be to offer her the Vice Presidential spot, or a place in his cabinet. But will he do this? Is the ‘Dream Team' practical? Will this prove enough for the former First Family of the Democratic Party? Again, only time will tell. But Hillary will not want to go down in history as the women that split the Democratic Party.

National polls indicate that the Democratic candidate is ahead of the Republican. In early June CNN had Obama up by margins of 4-5%. [4] But take this with a pinch of salt - I would remind you that the President is not elected by a popular national vote, and we are still five months away from the election. But given that this is a ‘Democratic year', it cannot be good news for the Obama camp that their man is only a handful of points up from McCain. At the same time given that McCain won his nomination far earlier than Obama, and has therefore had time to improve his standing within his own party, his results (often in the low 40s) must be a troubling sign. Does this provide an opportunity for a third party to come to the fore? Ralph ‘Florida 2000' Nader is certainly on the ballot again, as is Libetarian Bob ‘Clinton impeacher' Barr. Minus a sudden economic upturn, a major terrorist attack, or deterioration of conditions within Iraq, we can expect a closely fought election up until the final day. Let us now look at the individual states.

 

---