US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, some people say that she is like poetry, what is like prose?

It is the content of the chapter "inner-party pre-selection" in the book "American political vane"

In 2008, when Hillary and Obama competed for the US presidential candidate in the US Democratic Party, a paragraph from Hillary's team.

Hillary Clinton's campaign team firmly grasped the lengthy loopholes in Obama's campaign speech and launched a fierce attack on Obama, saying that "his campaign is like a poem, and his administration will be like an essay." Hillary's speech is more like a commonplace. Although it seems trivial and boring to others, she can confidently explain every question raised by voters.

The contents of this book are as follows: all politics is the local pre-election within the party, and it is the process in which voters decide the nomination of political parties, including the primary election and the party group meeting. O' Neill, a well-known politician of the Democratic Party who has served as a member of the House of Representatives and Speaker for 34 years, once said a famous saying: "All politics are local." Indeed, in American electoral politics, no matter how fierce the high-level competition is and how hot the media reports are, the campaign will eventually be implemented at the local level. Specific to the presidential election, candidates must strive for grassroots public opinion from the pre-selection stage or even earlier, especially the popular tendency with the state as the main unit. In American history, there was no pre-selection, but the party's big names delineated the party's nomination after the secret room transaction. This undemocratic method has been spurned by many political parties, and it took half a century to change it into today's pre-selection method, in which voters, not party leaders, decide party nominations. First of all, the candidates in the party have to undergo fierce competition, and the pre-selection has become a preview of the general election. Pre-election, to be precise, is not a direct election of voters, but voters choose representatives to vote at the national congress of political parties held in summer. The National Congress is no longer a place of competition, but a place to confirm the choice of voters. It is up to each state to decide when and how to hold the primary election. At present, there are two main types: primary election and party group meeting. The former is that voters vote for their own representatives, and the latter is to hold a regional voter meeting to vote. Primary elections are generally divided into direct primary elections and indirect primary elections. Direct primary election means that voters directly choose their favorite candidates and distribute their votes to representatives who support a candidate. Indirect primary election means that voters can see the name of the representative on the ballot, and the representative can also not announce his supporters. Secondly, according to the different groups of voters, it can be divided into three categories: closed primary election: only those registered as voters of a political party can participate in the primary election of that party, which is currently adopted by about 15 states. Open primary election: you can participate without registration. Some states are open to independents and closed to other parties. Some states are all open. Party leaders usually don't like this kind of primary election because it allows non-party voters to influence the choice of party nominations. However, this is the most popular primary election at present, which is adopted by about 27 States. Consultation primary election: Allow voters to express their preference for their favorite candidates when choosing representatives to Congress. Third, there are two kinds of results distribution: winner-take-all system and proportional representation system. Proportional representation is more popular. The Democratic Party generally adopts the proportional representation system. As long as you get more than 15% of the votes, you can get the corresponding proportional representation seats. In 2008, the Democratic Party adopted the "proportional representation system" throughout the country. In the primary election, if four candidates, A, B, C and D, get 35%, 30%, 20% and 15% of the votes respectively, then the representatives of the state's national congress will be distributed according to this ratio. If it is a party group meeting, the delegates attending the state congress will be distributed according to the proportion of votes in the constituency. However, even the "proportional representation system", such as in the party group meeting, the distribution of representatives is not so strict and accurate. According to the regulations, all candidates who get more than 15% of the votes in the constituency must get at least one representative. For example, in a constituency, if there are five places to attend the state congress, and the above four candidates A, B, C and D all exceed the survival line, then A may get two delegates, and B, C and D must ensure at least one delegate, so the difference of votes among B, C and D will be ignored. On the day of the Iowa caucus meeting, American C-SPAN TV broadcasted the Democratic caucus meeting in the state's 53rd district (Roosevelt Middle School Restaurant in Dimont). In this party meeting attended by more than 400 voters, Obama got 180, Edwards got 150, and Hillary got 70 support. Of the six delegates in this constituency, three will be allocated to Obama, two to Edwards and 1 to Hillary. In contrast, the * * * and the Party have a proportional representation system in some states, while in others, it is a winner-takes-all system. Unlike the "winner takes all" in the presidential election, the "winner takes all" in the primary election is "all" at the constituency level. The number of deputies in each constituency will be given to the candidate who gets the highest number of votes in that constituency. If the above four candidates are still taken as examples, candidate A will get all the representatives of the constituency. Caucus meeting is a gathering of voters in a small electoral area to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of candidates, and then vote for candidates in a group atmosphere, often at the same time in various regions of a state. Candidates and their teams with good organization and mobilization ability can guide the direction of public opinion and win votes with the number of supporters at the meeting. The caucus meeting is a more traditional nomination system with a longer history than the primary election. However, it is not as simple as the primary election by direct voting, nor as fair and rational as the secret ballot. The turnout rate is much lower than that of the primary election, and it is rarely used now. However, this form of "town assembly" is deeply rooted in the tradition of civil autonomy that has been widely implemented since the colonial period. From the procedural point of view, primary elections and caucus meetings are more democratic than secret room transactions, but there is still room for improvement in terms of voter turnout and voters. Compared with the general election, the turnout rate of the primary election, especially the party group meeting, is very low, which is about110-1/2 of the general election. This problem is aggravated with the advance of the timetable, because the voters behind the timetable feel that the nomination is obvious and their opinions are irrelevant. Compared with the low turnout rate, many people are more worried about the types of voters attracted by primary elections and party congresses. Scholars have found that primary voters are more educated, richer and older than general election voters, and they are more inclined to political parties and closer to the core of political activities. For * * * and the party, primary voters are conservative; For Democrats, they are more free. Candidates were forced to disagree in the primary and general elections. In the primary election, they will express their party and ideological views in order to win their loyal supporters. In the general election, they are closer to the political center where centrist voters are concentrated. In the primary election, candidates with extreme ideological tendencies have an advantage. If five Democratic liberals and one Republican conservative run in NSW, the latter is likely to win. The number of participants in the party group meeting is less than that in the primary election 1%. Voters who are willing to spend the whole evening discussing candidates and issues are more partisan than primary voters. The following are examples of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary in 2008. Iowa has a population of 2.9 million, accounting for 0.98% of the country's total population. Among the 50 states in the United States, the population ranks 30th, with an area of 3 1. The population of New Hampshire is 65,438+300,000, accounting for 0.43% of the national population. Among the 50 states in the United States, the population ranks 465,438+0 and the area ranks 42nd. To put it bluntly, apart from the four-year presidential primaries, this is a place where the two States rarely have the opportunity to make headlines in the United States. However, in this small state of Iowa alone, the presidential candidates of the two parties in the United States spent $40 million on TV advertisements, which were shared equally among the 2.9 million voters, and each person spent $ 17. Because only 65,438+00-20% of the voters finally attended the party group meeting, the candidates spent $65,438+050-200 on TV advertising for each participant. During the pre-election, party member registered in more than 65,438+0,700 electoral districts in Iowa, and attended meetings at designated places near his home (usually public facilities such as schools, churches and libraries, and sometimes even someone's living room). At a small "town meeting" similar to the early New England, voters discussed the policies of their own party, and the cadres sent by the candidates directly ran against the voters, and then the voters voted for the candidates they supported. There was no vote in the election. Everyone was given a blank sheet of paper, and people wrote down the names of the candidates they supported. The whole process is not so strict, even if the name is misspelled, for example, Clinton's Clinton is written as Clinton, as long as it does not cause misunderstanding, it is still a valid vote. After the election results of each meeting point are released, they will be reported to the state party department and announced by the media. There is no voting process in the Democratic Party caucus meeting. Party member's registration is "open voting with feet". Participants are grouped according to the candidates they support, and those who support the same candidate stand together to form a group. Early schedules have always been the pride of these two States. Before most Americans began to vote, the people in these two States set the tone for the general election, determined the advantages of some candidates and excluded some candidates they didn't like. After that, most Americans will generally agree with their choices and closely unite around their leaders. The caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire proved to be the key tests for the candidates of both parties. The history of presidential election in recent decades shows that if a candidate wins two states at the same time, it seems that he can win the national nomination. If these two States are not won, the result will almost come out. The only exception is Bill of 1992. Clinton. At that time, both States chose their hometown. However, Clinton did well, but won national support and large donations, and finally entered the White House. However, a more telling record is that from 1952- 1988, all the candidates who finally won the presidential election won the primary election in New Hampshire. The victory of the two States is not only an objective vote victory, but also a superb psychological expectation game. More specifically, a candidate's performance beyond people's expectations is the "victory" that is really concerned. On the contrary, even if he is the most advanced, it is not necessarily a victory. For example, 1996, Dole is regarded as the leader of * * * and the party, but he only got 26% of the votes in Iowa, ahead of Patrick? Buchanan is only 3%. So the media think Buchanan won, because he exceeded the initial expectations and put Dole in trouble. Dole later lost to New Hampshire, but a few weeks later he recovered and won the nomination. Obama's skin color vs Hillary's tears The 2008 US presidential election was full of suspense and drama from the beginning. * * * and the party, two primary dark horse and white horse for the second time, candidates from all walks of life into a melee. On the Democratic side, the focus is on female Hillary Clinton and black Obama. 65438, 20081October 3, the first primary election in Iowa brought surprises to everyone. Hillary Clinton, who had the highest momentum before, not only lost to Obama, but even lost to Edwards. The wind direction of the media and public opinion immediately deviated, and Obama took advantage of the victory to enter New Hampshire. CNN's "poll" shows that Obama leads Hillary by 13% in the state. According to media reports, the Hillary camp has given up hope of winning in New Hampshire and turned its attention to the next state: "The only goal of the Hillary camp is not to lose too badly and try to narrow the gap with Obama." 65438+1at 7: 00 pm on October 8, the voting figures for the New Hampshire primary began to be announced one after another. For this high-profile election, the TV station went all out to broadcast it, and experts and commentators from all walks of life appeared in the studio for on-site comments. Almost everyone is talking about a question: what does the failure of New Hampshire mean to Hillary, and will her presidential trip end here? Something interesting happened. The commentator speaks on the screen, and the statistics at the bottom of the screen are constantly changing. 10% of the polling stations reported figures, Hillary was 38% and Obama was 36%; By the time 15% of the polling stations reported the figures, Hillary was 40% and Obama was still 36%. The commentator in the studio seems to be in a daze, and he is still discussing the question of "what to do after Hillary loses" endlessly. The audience was stunned. Obviously Hillary is in the lead. What are the commentators talking about? More than two hours later, the final election result came out: Hillary defeated 37% Obama with 39% of the votes. This time, the experts and commentators in the studio are stupid. Before the election, Obama was clearly ahead of the double-digit polls. How did it end up overturned? According to the general law of American public opinion survey, the error probability of sampling survey should be 3%, which means the difference is close to within 3%. The result of this poll in New Hampshire is more than 10%, which should not be wrong in theory. Since the United States launched a "poll" on the general election in the mid-20th century, there has only been one "big mistake" in history, and that was at 1948. "Polls" show that Dewey will overwhelm Truman, but the result is just the opposite. "Poll" scientists quickly studied this major mistake and found that the reason for the mistake was that the usual means of "poll" was to conduct sampling interviews by telephone. At that time, the telephone was not popular, and all the people with telephones were rich and poor, which led to the unrepresentative survey sample. Since then, the technology and means of opinion polls have been continuously improved and become a reliable tool for forecasting results. The "poll" distortion in New Hampshire immediately became the focus of attention from all walks of life, and the media and experts gave explanations one after another. Some people think that the "poll" distortion before the election may be a deliberate strategy played by the Hillary camp. By creating the illusion that Obama is far ahead, let Obama's supporters think that the overall situation has been decided, there is no need to vote, and Hillary's supporters are about to leave the nest. This explanation is very strange. It seems that both the media and "polls" can be manipulated, which is probably impossible in reality. Another explanation is that the "poll" distortion is mainly caused by the voter structure in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is located on the northeast coast of the United States, with a relatively large population flow. Young voters who have the right to vote for the first time account for 23% of the total. Many voters are middle-class people aged 30-49 who moved from other states, and residents aged 50-69 who use this place as a retirement place. These voters are ambiguous, independent and vacillating. Artel, director of the Department of Politics and International Relations, Derek University, USA? Professor Sander believes that Obama's defeat is mainly due to the fact that independents and young voters did not actively vote, which led to the inconsistency between "public opinion" and actual results. This is only a reliable explanation, but it is not a convincing explanation. Unlike the commonly understood democracy, American elections have always relied on the will and political enthusiasm of voters, rather than forced voting. So when it's windy and rainy, busy at work or taking care of children at home, there are reasons not to vote. Theoretically, such an election cannot correctly reflect the wishes of all legitimate voters. An Argentine once commented on the democratic elections in the United States: "What kind of democracy is this? In our country, if there is no voting record on my passport, I can't be allowed to go abroad. " The direct result of the non-compulsory voting in the American general election is that the turnout rate has been very low. Usually, less than 50% of the presidential elections are official elections, and only about 30% of the parliamentary elections, and the voter turnout rate of presidential candidates' party primaries is even lower. The issue of voter turnout often becomes the key to a candidate's strategy. As long as his supporters have a high turnout rate, he has a good chance of winning. Karl, George W. Bush's genius political adviser? It was because Rove understood this truth that he helped George W. Bush seize and keep the throne of the White House. Obama's strategy is to "lean on the small and sell the small" to show youth, vitality, future and change. His campaign speeches are usually "Let me change for the 2 1 century …". Obama is a gifted speaker, and his eloquence is very attractive. Demosthenes in ancient Greece and Cicero in ancient Rome were both famous orators in history. It is said that the difference between them lies in: after listening to Cicero's speech, people will sincerely admire his good speech; After listening to Demosthenes's speech, people will immediately take to the streets with emotion. Obama's speech was comparable to Demosthenes's, which made him a great success. Hillary's strategy happens to be "selling the old", with her age, qualifications, experience and connections. Therefore, Hillary's campaign has dominated from the beginning, and the national "polls" have been leading, which also means that the party members are expected to return. However, her greatest weakness is her lack of personal charm. In front of people who are not close, her speech will make people sleepy. She is too aggressive in front of people close to her. As the novelty fades, Hillary's campaign is becoming more and more frustrating, and her support rate is also declining. The result in New Hampshire is basically the result of the ups and downs of the two candidates. After the initial excitement in Iowa passed, people's attention turned to reality and cared about the views of the two candidates on issues related to people's vital interests such as education, medical care and child protection. At this time, Obama's advantage suddenly became a disadvantage. People found that although his speech was beautiful, it was more like a performance and lacked substance. Hillary's campaign team seized this opportunity and launched a fierce attack on Obama, saying that "his campaign is like a poem, and his administration will be like an essay." Hillary's speech is more like a homely one. Although it sounds boring, she can confidently explain every question raised by voters. The most dramatic scene appeared at a small rally the day before the election. A lady unexpectedly asked a personal question: "How can you always keep your hair and appearance so perfect?" How do you keep this optimistic state? "In the face of such a feminine problem, Hillary, who always seems sophisticated and calm on weekdays, suddenly moved her feelings. She replied, "That's not easy. I couldn't have done this if I didn't wholeheartedly believe that what I did was the right choice ... There are so many opportunities in this country, and I really don't want to go backwards. " Her voice choked and her eyes glistened with tears. Hillary's tears immediately made headlines. This scene showed voters the essence of a woman and touched the hearts of countless women. However, her campaign opponents and the media sarcastically said that Hillary rarely moved her feelings. This time, she cried at the sight of losing, and even said that it was two tears carefully designed by Hillary. The meanness of the media further aroused the dissatisfaction of female voters. Hillary's lack of self-control and emotional exposure is described as heartless, and her tears are described as women's weaknesses, which is obviously sexist. As a result, Hillary received 47% support among female voters in New Hampshire, which was 8% higher than that in Iowa. It can't be said that two tears played a role. For Obama, the "poll" distortion in New Hampshire may be a more disturbing sign, which is the so-called "Bradley effect". Tom? Bradley, a black politician, failed to run for governor of California twice in the 1980s. Before and even after the election, he was always 5% ahead of his opponent, but the final result was always 6% behind, with an error of about 10%. The "Bradley effect" was later defined by researchers as an undercurrent of race in American society: many voters, even those from relatively open and free constituencies, would not say that they would not vote for blacks in the face of opinion polls because it was not in line with the "political correctness" of mainstream society, but they made the opposite choice when voting in secret. Iowa democratic local voting is open. Although white people make up 96%, many white people will vote for Obama for fear of being considered racist by neighbors. In New Hampshire, secret voting is different. Obama's skin color and Hillary's gender are two hidden keywords in the 2008 US presidential election. Although no one dares to say it publicly, it is actually inevitable. Since the 1980s, the pre-selection schedule of "Super Tuesday" has been advanced, resulting in the long process from February to June being condensed into the decision of1-February, and this compressed pre-selection reached its peak in 2008. Especially on February 5, that is, Tuesday, more than 20 States held primary elections at the same time, and 70 million registered voters will go to vote on this day. Therefore, this day is called "Super Tuesday" or "Tsunami Tuesday" by political commentators. The change in the primary election schedule stems from the efforts of States to enhance their importance. It is generally believed that the earlier the primary election begins, the easier it is to influence the wind direction, and the higher the country's attention at home and abroad. For example, California, with the largest number of delegates, has been advancing the primary election time, June 1992, March 26 1996, and February 5, 2008. In the primary election, experts often refer to the "herd effect", which means that people are used to gathering around the hypothetical winner. What kind of floating effect will the highly concentrated primary election schedule have in 2008? Did the role of Iowa and New Hampshire in the first primary election strengthen or weaken before the super primary election? With such a dense primary election, how can candidates be overwhelmed? One thing is certain. To win a dense primary election, the organization behind the candidates is very important. First of all, it is necessary to formulate appropriate campaign strategies and clearly distinguish priorities. Secondly, the grass-roots campaign organizations in each state must cooperate vigorously to organize and encourage supporters to vote, in order to cope with the situation that candidates cannot appear in all States at the same time in a short time. According to the general opinion of experts, there are three advantages and four disadvantages in the miniskirt primary election. There are three advantages: it promotes an earlier consensus, so that political parties can unite around the candidates as soon as possible, unite to prepare for the general election, and avoid confusion. The long primary season encourages the internal struggle of political parties, while the short primary season means that leaders appear early. It avoids paying too much attention to the feelings of voters in minority States. NSW and Aizhou do not represent national voters; Give voters in more States a chance to express their wishes. It encourages candidates with the strongest organizations. Multi-state voting at the same time is beneficial to those candidates who have established a sound national campaign organization. Regional and marginal candidates are not easy to get support. There are four disadvantages: biased towards candidates with abundant funds. In the past, we can focus on investing in several primary States, hoping that good results will bring a lot of money. However, if you want to spend in multiple States at the same time, the cost is huge and you need to raise more funds in advance. This means more TV advertisements and online attention, and less retail activities. It is difficult to build a personal reputation in a wide area in a short time. Therefore, the campaign relies more on commercial television, and voters have less time to know the candidates. This led to a period of voter fatigue between March and summer. During the period of 2000, the voter attention rate dropped by 50%. Not good for unknown candidates. Twenty or thirty years ago, several states with relatively unknown candidates in the first primary election may have performed well, making them feasible nominees, but now this possibility is very small.

Reference:/reading/10502410/