CHAPTER Fourteen
Voting, Campaigns, and Elections

Exercises

Are you red or blue all over?

1. Go to Slate's Red or Blue—Which Are You? site. After reading the brief story, click on the "here" link to take the on-line quiz and find out how red or blue (or purple) you are.
   • Did you end up red or blue?
   • Did you end up scoring what you thought?
   • Look at the "Who Are We?" feature on page 613. Does your red or blue coloring fit with your state? Do you feel like an outcast? Do you live in a red pocket of a blue state or in a blue pocket of a red state? Or are you pretty purple, as the second map indicates?
     
     
2. Consider the questions you answered. Do you think these are valid indicators of cultural differences?
   • Under the "Let's See How You Did" grade on your test results, click on the "here" link to see how each item was scored. Do you agree with the scoring?
   • Does it help you to know if you're red or blue or whether your state is red or blue?
   • What does it mean to be purple?
     
     

Campaign commercials

The "Consider the Source" feature in this chapter (pp. 622–623) gives tips on how to interpret campaign commercials. Test your interpretative skills on presidential campaign commercials over time. Go to the American Museum of the Moving Image's Living Room Candidate web site. The site provides access to presidential campaign commercials from 1952 to 2004, broken down by election year, by type, or by issue.

1. View some older commercials. How have presidential campaign commercials changed over time? Is it a matter of technology alone, or is there a difference in style?
   
2. Negative advertising is often controversial. The text discusses the effectiveness of negative advertising and the information it provides when used correctly. Are negative advertisements fair? What makes them fair or unfair?
   • Compare some of the Backfire commercials with some of the Fear commercials. How do they differ? Is playing to the emotions of viewers different than pointing out misstatements on the part of an opponent?
   • Go to the 1988 presidential election commercials. Under the Republican commercials, watch the "Credibility," "Revolving Door," and "Willie Horton" advertisements. The first two were ads made by the Bush campaign and concentrated on Michael Dukakis's record on crime, both using Dukakis's own words in a debate and pointing to his record as governor. The Willie Horton ad was not run by Bush's campaign, but how does it fit in with the others? What effect do all three have together? Would one or two alone be as effective? Do they cross a line? On the other hand, do they provide more factual knowledge for the campaign than does a positive advertisement such as the "Family/Children" ad that Bush's campaign ran?
     

1. How can you make an advertisement positive or negative? The image itself may influence how negative or positive an advertisement is. Go to PBS Online's ":30 Second Candidate" web site and use some Tricks of the Trade.
   • View the original ad and then follow some of the tricks to make this a positive advertisement ("ad FOR this candidate"). Do the same to make it a negative advertisement ("ad AGAINST this candidate").
   • How does merely altering the image change the tone of the advertisement? Does the video or does the substance of the message matter more in campaign advertising?
     

Campaign finances in presidential races

Campaign finances play an enormous role in presidential elections, but the way money may be raised and spent is different from in other campaigns. With an eye on explaining how money is raised and spent, and the rules surrounding the process, the following links and exercises trace the money trail in the 2004 presidential election. In general, tracing the information from on-line sources such as PoliticalMoneyLine.com and Opensecrets.org helps explain the role of money in elections.

1. How much did each of the candidates raise and spend in the primary and general election campaigns? PoliticalMoneyLine provides an Aggregate Report of the 2004 Presidential Race that breaks down spending and expenses. Kerry and Edwards had to raise money alone as competitors before they raised money together.
   • What advantage did this give the Bush-Cheney team over Kerry and Edwards?
   • More than just raising money, what did Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. Disbursements say they spent their money on, according to PoliticalMoneyLine? What did the Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc. Disbursements report as expenditures?
     
2. Who and where is financial support coming from? From these different sources, one can trace the geographic, economic, industrial, and specific donors who have given to campaigns.
   • Check who has given money to different campaigns from your own ZIP code using the Donor Zip Code web page of PoliticalMoneyLine.
   • What geographic regions provided the most money to the Bush-Cheney campaign?
   • What geographic regions provided the most money to John Kerry?
   • Which economic sectors gave the Bush-Cheney team money? How about the top industries that supported Bush-Cheney? Do the sectors fit with the party or political background of the candidate?
   • In turn, what were the economic sector and top industries that supported John Kerry? How do these pockets of support differ from those that supported Bush-Cheney?
   • Who were the top contributors to the Bush-Cheney team? And who were the top contributors to John Kerry? How did these contributors differ?
     
3. While there are clear differences in who makes up the support for John Kerry and Bush-Cheney, these differences are only for the primary portion of the campaign (revisit the Aggregate Report of the 2004 Presidential Race to see the different reports). The donor make-up for the general election was entirely similar for these two campaigns. Presidential general election campaigns for the two major party nominees are fully funded by government matching funds (see definition on p. 621). The Federal Election Commission explains how these funds work in the on-line brochure Public Funding of Presidential Elections. The brochure explains why there is public funding and when such funding started.

• First, the money is collected on tax returns when citizens are asked if they'd like $3 of their federal tax to go toward the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Interestingly, although citizens check the box, doing so does not increase a tax bill or decrease a refund. Questions such as who receives the checkoff dollars, why Congress passed this legislation, and who administers the checkoff program are answered.
• Candidates may receive primary matching funds if they choose to meet the rules and limitations. Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry accepted primary matching funds because they raised considerably more than primary matching fund limits would permit.
• The rules for funding the two major parties' conventions are listed, as are the rules and requirements for general election funding.
  

What has won the electoral college? Who will win next time?

Looking at past performance may help guide the student of presidential elections into making a good hypothesis about who will likely win the 2008 election. The National Archives and Records Administration's U.S. Electoral College web site provides a great deal of useful information on how the electoral college operates.

1. How have electoral college votes turned out over time? Visit the1789-2004 Election Result Box Scores page to see what outcomes have been.
   
2. Do electors have to vote the way their state voted? The answer is not clear, but some states require a pledge to be taken while others make no such requirement. Should electors be legally compelled to follow the state's results?
   
3. Have any guesses for the 2008 presidential election? Based on which states went for the two candidates in 2004, what will happen if particular states change sides? Go to the National Archives and Records Administration's U.S. Electoral College Electoral College Calculator web page to see what the results would be if a few states changed sides. Iowa and New Mexico went for Al Gore in 2000 but for George Bush in 2004. If Democrats win back those states in 2008, what other close state might they need in order to win?