Jon Johansson: his money's on Clinton.
Feature
States of play
by Matt Nippert
Jon Johansson, a lecturer at Victoria University, got interested in US politics as a 12-year-old after reading a book about Watergate. After studying psychology, he moved into political science and “wasted the best years of the 1990s on the Clintons”, watching live cable coverage of impeachment hearings. A self-described political junkie, Johansson shares his thoughts on the race to the White House.
Is the minutiae of the primary campaign worth following for those interested in – not fanatical about – politics? This has just been such a wonderful, wonderful nomination process so far. It’s a rare situation where you come to the end of a two-term presidency, the Vice-President is not running and the race is so open.
If Dick Cheney had run, would he have been much of a voter-getter? [Laughs] The people who like Cheney are the people who would prefer to vote in the dark, not the daylight.
Why is the race so open? On the Republican side, you’ve had this really fragmented field because the old Reagan coalition of social conservatives, national security conservatives and economic conservatives has split three ways: between [Mike] Huckabee, [John] McCain and [Mitt] Romney. And then you’ve had [Rudy] Giuliani – who was the national frontrunner for over a year – who’s just crashed and burned. It’s the most spectacular presidential failure I can remember.
You really rate Giuliani’s incendiary performance? The quality of that failure will keep political scientists busy for years. They’ll talk about the “Giuliani Manoeuvre”: how to turn an incredibly strong position into a total burn job.
What was so super about Tuesday? It’s essentially a mini-national primary, because there are over 20 states involved, and what is particularly interesting is that the states span right from California on the west coast to New York on the east. It’s a different type of campaigning because all the focus so far has basically been on one state. So, for instance, in New Hampshire, the economy was an issue – and the issues get twisted around the geographical location of the state. Whereas with a national primary, it’s more about the overarching themes that connect disparate communities in America.
Of course, the people voting at this point are only paid-up party members. That’s exactly right. People who are registered as Republican or Democrat – or, in some instances, registered as independents, like in New Hampshire. That’s just a general point about the primary system: it’s really hard to generalise a set of rules, because it’s a republican set-up. Once you start looking at it state by state, there are literally 50 variations.
Why should we be paying attention to the primaries? They’re just an extremely convoluted candidate-selection process. Well, what’s up for grabs is a shot at the ultimate aphrodisiac – as Kissinger would say – which is the presidency of the United States. Decisions that are made in that office have an impact around the world. That’s why it’s important for us.
Are the primaries ahead likely to make any difference – or can we take a break until the parties have their conventions in late August, and the real race begins? The reason the Democratic race is not so clear-cut is that for a lot of their primary states – in fact, the overwhelming majority of them – the delegates are allocated proportionately. So, say Hillary [Clinton] wins by 54:46 in California, for [Barack] Obama it’s not a crushing defeat as he still walks away with a lot of delegates.
But come November’s general election, states are winner-takes-all. Which ones might swing? The big three are Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. In a general election it is a lot like first-past-the-post in that when the swinging suburbs – I shouldn’t say swinging suburbs, but the bellwether areas of the United States – turn, so does the government.
Why are the Democrats coloured blue and the Republicans red? You know, I had to consult two professors on that, and you know the answer? It began in 2000 and it’s solely a device of television.
To make a map pretty? You got it. It’s the demands of cable networks.
Are third parties expected to feature? It’s too early in the election cycle yet, but the first murmur of that was made recently by Ralph Nader, the perennial Green candidate. Essentially, he runs because he believes that the Democrats are part of that duopoly with the Republicans and that they’re all compromised by their links with corporate America. In the knife-edge election in 2000, [Al] Gore would have won if Nader hadn’t stood.
But I think the more interesting possibility is if McCain wins the Republican nomination, that could trigger a third-party candidate like Michael Bloomberg. There’ll be some elements in the conservative school who would rather lose an election than have John McCain rule the Republican Party.
Why Bloomberg? Someone like Bloomberg could do it because you need to be independently wealthy. The last serious third-party candidate was Ross Perot, the crazy Texas billionaire. He got 18 percent of the vote in 1992 and essentially guaranteed a [Bill] Clinton victory over George Herbert Walker Bush.
How much does it cost to bankroll a candidate all the way through the primaries and into the White House? The great old myth of the “log cabin to the White House” that is inculcated into American mythology – well, somewhere between the log cabin, where you were born, and the White House, which is where you want to go, is the need to get together about $NZ600 million to see yourself through.
The total amount spent by all New Zealand political parties in the 2005 election was just over $10 million. It shows that our Electoral Finance Bill was arguing over milk money.
Page 1 2 
