CAPITAL BRIEF : AFTER SUPER TUESDAY, CLINTON VS TRUMP?

Capital Brief, 2 March 2016

After Super Tuesday: Clinton vs. Trump?

FACTS:

• On Tuesday, March 1, about a dozen states and territories voted in both Democratic and Republican primary races (incl. Texas, Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, and Massechusetts).
• Hillary Clinton won big on the Democratic side, amassing victories in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia among others.
• Bernie Sanders took a handful of states – Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont.
• On the left, the overall delegate count stands at Clinton (595) vs. Sanders (405).
• For the Republican contest, Donald Trump emerged as the decisive victor, taking wins in Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, among others.
• Ted Cruz won his home state Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Rubio’s sole victory, Minnesota.
• On the right, Trump stands firmly in first place with 319 delegates, followed by Cruz at 226, and Rubio with just 110.

ANALYSIS:

• Clinton’s victories on Super Tuesday reinforce the argument of widespread electability, at least among voters on the left. She won handily and did so in particular by amassing coalitions of minority voters. The so-called "Obama Coalition" is firmly in the Clinton camp, even if Sanders remains strong among young voters.
• Despite momentum in the early voting states, Sanders’ few wins on Tuesday reinforce the argument that he is unable to build a coalition beyond isolated demographics (white, educated, upper middle class liberals and young people). Even Massachusetts – bordering his home state of Vermont, where Sanders was hoping to claim an important victory – swung for Clinton.
• Following Super Tuesday, Donald Trump seems unstoppable as the Republican frontrunner. At this point, he has a healthy lead in the delegate count. He has proven able to turn out his supporters, not “reliable” voters, in all regions of the country and in states of varying demographics, sizes, voting histories. Super Tuesday proved that recent attacks on Trump, namely by Rubio, did nothing to dampen his stronghold over conservative voters.
• Trump benefits from the splintering of the rest of the Republican field. Smaller candidates like Kasich and Carson have no reason to remain in the race at this stage. And After Tuesday, Cruz – firmly in second place – has no reason to quit now.
• A path to victory for Rubio looks unclear. A win in Florida, his home state, would be important (a loss would be even more consequential), but he needs a string of victories to make the case that he can win all over the country in a variety of states and across the courants battling within the Party. In essence, he needs to demonstrate that he can do what Trump has already done.
• The Establishment backs Rubio, but so far voters are unwilling to lend him the same support as the Party machinery. Unless Rubio wins big in the coming weeks, his best hope for securing the nomination may be to prevent Trump from winning the necessary number of delegates and going to a contested convention this summer. This strategy is dangerous and would underscore the reasons why primary voters so strongly rebuke the Establishment and what they see as elite, insular practices that ignore the will of rank-and-file conservative voters.

CAPITAL BRIEF : CLINTON, CRUZ TAKE IOWA, DYNAMICS SHIFTING

Capital Brief, 3 February 2016

Voting Begins: Clinton, Cruz Take Iowa and Election Dynamics Shift

FACTS:

• On February 1, the first electoral event of the 2016 season took place with the Iowa caucuses.
• Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were predicted to finish in a virtual tie with the advantage given to Clinton. This indeed proved to be the case. Clinton won in a razor sharp victory, receiving 49.9% of the total vote (versus Sanders’ 49.6%). Voter turnout was particularly high, second only to the record-breaking 2008 (the year Obama won, and Hillary Clinton placed third). Following the Iowa caucus in which he received less than 1% of the vote, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley suspended his campaign.
• On the Republican side, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz also went into the caucus in a virtual tie, with pollsters predicting a Trump victory. Ted Cruz surprised by winning with 27.6% of the vote, leaving Donald Trump with 24.3%, and Marco Rubio in third with 23.1%. No Republican candidate has pulled out of the race since the results on Monday.

ANALYSIS:

• On the left, Clinton’s victory could be considered a mixed result. She won, after all, in a state in which a quarter of Democrats identify themselves, like Sanders, as socialists. She won in a state traditionally difficult for the Clintons, thus becoming the first Clinton – and especially the first woman in history – to win this caucus.
• Yet, Clinton invested heavily (money, staff, personal visits) over the past several months in an effort to win Iowa convincingly. Her Iowa infrastructure was better than Obama’s mythic operation in 2008. The narrowness of her victory may underline a lingering voter sentiment that the problem lies not in Clinton’s operational and tactical game, but resides rather in her person. If this argument holds true, it is perhaps most true for many young first-time voters, who turned out overwhelmingly to support Sanders (80% of voters under 30 cast ballots for him).
• On the right, Iowa was an important loss for Donald Trump. Indeed Iowa voters showed that for as much as Trump’s anger discourse may have resonated and captured the public and media imaginations, ultimately: 1/ his proponents’ fervor did not translate into mobilization around Trump in this key electoral moment, 2/ temperament and policy mattered more to the base’s conservative voters than mere indignation and finally, 3/ Cruz’s grassroots operation outperformed Trump’s nontraditionally organized campaign effort.
• The Republican Establishment has been eager to separate itself from Trump and Cruz. Trump’s defeat in Iowa was a first small step to achieving that objective. Cruz's victory was good for Cruz, but perhaps even better for Rubio. As the race moves forward, there will be a growing pressure on smaller candidates to rally their supporters and donors around a single electable Republican candidate. 
• Jeb Bush was once considered the natural Establishment choice, but has proven to be a weak candidate with a diminishing momentum. If bolstered by a strong showing in the next voting states, Rubio’s solid performance in Iowa (23.1%) makes a convincing argument that he could/should be the Establishment heir, providing a moderate, electable alternative to Ted Cruz and thus a chance at beating likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
• The overall electoral mood in 2016 is different than that of 2008. In 2016, 50% of Democratic voters say that experience is very important to them, whereas only 29% of Republicans agree. The opposite was true in 2008 - the last time Hillary Clinton ran - when Democratic voters felt that experience was secondary to judgment and temperament and nominated Obama.  Conversely, Republicans wanted experience first and foremost and nominated Senator John McCain.

CAPITAL BRIEF IS BACK IN TIME FOR THE 2016 ELECTION SEASON

Capital Brief is back!

In the lead-up to the 2012 election, I published a one-page weekly analysis of presidential election dynamics, taking the most noteworthy evolutions of the previous week and presenting them accompanied by a concise analysis.

After the jump, read the inaugural Capital Brief of the 2016 election season, this edition focused on the GOP and Democratic debates and their aftermath.

FRANCE24 DEBATE ON US MIDTERM ELECTIONS

I had the privilege to appear on France24's Debate with François Picard on the eve of the US midterm elections along with Dan Hazelwood, Josh Kraushaar, and Hank Sheinkopf.

The lively discussion discussed the role of President Obama as a galvanizing force for Republican candidates, the prospects for the president's final two years in office, the general sentiments of the American electorate, and the main issues at stake in the midterms.

Watch the debate after the jump!

A LOOK AT CHUCK HAGEL AND JOHN BRENNAN : OBAMA'S PENTAGON AND CIA NOMINEES

Chuck Hagel: Nominee, Secretary of Defense

Having Chuck Hagel (age: 66), an Obama confidante, at the head of the Pentagon is intended largely to provide political cover to end combat operations in Afghanistan and to begin to implement deep Pentagon budget cuts.

Hagel is chair of the Atlantic Council and member of Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He was formerly a Republican senator from Nebraska (1997-2009) and head of an investment banking firm. A two-time Purple Heart recipient, he would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense. Hagel is known – and disparaged by many Republicans – for his independence vis-à-vis party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues and for holding views considered to be views outside of the conservative mainstream (ex. opposition to Iraq troop surge). Indeed, the vivid battle over his nomination has already begun among prominent Republicans, neoconservatives, Democrats, and pro-Israeli groups.

Opposition to Hagel is tri-fold. He has encountered major criticism for past statements about the pro-Israel lobby”: “[It] intimidates a lot of people around here. I havealways argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't thinkit's [...] smart for Israel.” He has refused to add his signature to letters circulated around DC by AIPAC. Although Hagel has considerably better relations with other arms of said lobby (J-Street, Israel Policy Forum), and the support of heavyweights like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and most former US ambassadors to Israel, hardliners believe he will antagonize Israel. And to the contrary of the president, Hagel opposes sanctions against Iran, favors negotiations with Hamas and Iran, and has criticized the largesse of America’s defense spending.

Democratic opposition to Hagel centers mainly around a negative remark made about a gay colleague a decade ago. He has since apologized for the comment and has publicly stated his support for openly gay military service.

That Hagel personally knows war and has shown no reserve in expressing his reluctance to go to war may well have an impact abroad (US approach to Iran, willingness to align with Israel’s policies) as well as “at home” (increased attention to returned soldiers).

It is thought that Democrats will ultimately support the President’s choice and that Republicans will find it difficult to confront the potential backlash of opposing a decorated Vietnam War hero. But if Hagel wins a bitter nomination fight, Republicans may consider him weak and show less flexibility in cutting a deal to prevent the sequester from taking effect in late February.

John Brennan: Nominee, Director of CIA

Current Deputy NSA for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and close confidante of Obama, John Brennan (age: 57) is a career CIA agent who has been party to nearly every national security question issue in the Obama administration (including the raid on Bin Laden). Brennan was considered for the job of CIA director in 2008, but withdrew his name for consideration after facing accusations over past public support for “enhanced interrogation techniques” and sending prisoners to countries where torture might occur. Detractors insist that as a high-ranking official inBush’ CIA, Brennan condoned tactics like waterboarding that are considered torturous. In 2009, he condemned such practices.

A primary question elicited by this pick is whether the CIA will maintain, reinforce even, its current place at the heart of counter-terror operations, or if Brennan will usher it back to its traditional espionage capacities.

During his 25 years at the CIA, Brennan exercised a wide variety of functions, including the post of station chief in Saudi Arabia. Following his time in government, Brennan was head of a security consultancy, The Analysis Corporation, as well as chair of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Brennan speaks fluent Arabic.

Related Reading
Obama’s Nominations of Hagel and Brennan Signal Course Adjustments at Pentagon and CIA (WaPo)
Brennan Pick Revives Leaks Dispute (Politico)

Choice to Lead C.I.A. Faces a Changed Agency (NYT)

photo credits: Associated Press

CAPITAL BRIEF - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Election Day is almost here! The latest Capital Brief looks at the state of the race heading into the vote and poses just a few of the many questions for the aftermath of November 6.

Click below to read the Brief.

ROLE OF MEDIA, MONEY, AND MESSAGE IN 2012 CAMPAIGN (TV5)

Along with France 2's Etienne Leenhardt, I was a guest on this week's installment of Médias Le Magazine on TV5, hosted by Thomas Hugues and featuring editorial panelists Thomas Isle, Jean-Louis Missika, and Anthony Bellanger.

We talked about the role of Super PAC spending, partisan TV networks like Fox and MSNBC, negative ads, social networks and humor in the winning voters in this year's American presidential election. 

Head over to Médias Le Magazine to watch the full episode (the segment on US elections begins at 8'50).

OBAMA V. ROMNEY : WHO IS THE BEST ON SOCIAL NETWORKS? (PUBLIC SENAT)

La Politique C'est Net, hosted by Caroline Deschamps, is a terrific program found on Public Sénat.

In this episode, in addition to Deschamps we are three panelists to discuss the web campaigns of Obama and Romney, the impact of the two online voter targeting strategies, and whose team more fully embraced the online possibilities of this race.

Also on the panel, were Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet (Yes They Can!) and Marjorie Paillon (ilovepolitics). Don't miss Aude Baron's chronicle at the end of the episode.

Video after the jump.

LA CHRONIQUE DE AMY GREENE -THE STATE OF THE RACE TWO WEEKS FROM ELECTION DAY? (AFRICA 1)

On last night's Chronique, Francis Laloupo and I discussed the state of the race less than two weeks from Election Day, including the fluctuating poll results, what are the candidates' closing arguments and strategies, and who has the momentum on the ground.

As always, la Chronique de Amy Greene airs on Radio Africa 1's Le Grand Débat, which begins at 6pm (Paris).

Listen after the jump.

TWO WEEKS FROM ELECTION DAY: DEBATING THE LAST WEEKS OF A VERY TIGHT RACE (FRANCE 24)

Last night on France 24's Le Débat, hosted by Vanessa Burggraf, we were a panel of four to discuss the result of the final presidential debate, the state of the race heading into the final two weeks including the keys to victory, and the contrasting foreign policy visions of the two candidates (including Obama's first term foreign policy).

Also on the panel were Philip Golub, Stuart Haugen and Anne Kraatz.

Video (in French) after the jump.

LA CHRONIQUE DE AMY GREENE - SECOND DEBATE SEES A RESURGENT OBAMA (AFRICA 1)

On the October 18 edition of La Chronique de Amy Greene, aired during Africa 1's Le Grand Débat with Francis Laloupo, our discussion centered on Obama's surging performance at the second presidential debate.

The town-hall style debate format saw candidate Obama come out strong to establish a narrative for Romney, to emphasize his opposition to the Republican's policies namely on issues dear to swing voters - including women - and the Democratic base (such as growth and well-being of the middle class, the auto bailout, male-female workplace equality, and immigration).

The conclusion: while Obama won the second face-to-face with Romney, placing him in a strong position leading into the final debate on foreign policy, the fundamental closeness and volatility of this race remained unchanged.

The Chronique airs every Thursday around 6:45pm Paris.

October 18 audio after the jump.

OBAMA MAINTAINS FOREIGN POLICY ADVANTAGE, BUT ROMNEY ISN'T OUT YET (LE MONDE)

Over at Le Monde, I contributed an op-ed this morning with a rundown of last night's final debate between Obama and Romney, largely hailed by voters as a victory for the president.

In a debate remarkable in the virulence of the attacks leveraged, the scope of topics was surprisingly narrow, and most of the candidates' arguments were retread from various campaign speeches and events.

The big question of the night was leadership. The president accused his Republican rival of poor judgment, a man dangerously subscribing to the values and frameworks of a by-gone era. For his part, Romney condemned the president's weak global leadership, an "apology tour" that has seen the US' enemies empowered (Iran) and its allies cast aside (Israel). For all of their differences in world vision, Romney did agree with Obama on a number of issues (use of drones), in some cases making only minor distinctions (would have asked Mubarak to step down, but earlier). Perhaps a smart tactical move for a candidate hoping to pick up centrist and undecided voters...

Romney did not disqualify himself from the commander-in-chief test. The president was aggressive, and while supporters may celebrate the bite in his repeated attacks against Romney, it is unclear if voters will agree - or rather see it as unbecoming and evidence of a struggling candidate. Likewise, will voters sign on for Mitt Romney's calls for more defense spending and a more robust US presence in the world in a time of budgetary constraint and reduced ambition in American public opinion?

Foreign policy remains a secondary issue in the 2012 elections. Will Obama transform last night's performance into a second wind of electoral momentum? Or will Romney's cool showing be enough to convince voters to make a change?

Click here to read the full text (in French) via Le Monde

REINVIGORATED OBAMA COMES OUT FIGHTING FOR REELECTION (LE MONDE)

Head over to Le Monde where I signed an op-ed published today detailing the candidates' showings at last night's second presidential debate.

Obama emerged the winner. He quickly established a narrative for Romney (out-of-touch rich elitist) from which Romney did not escape; situated his critiques of Romney within this framework; and hammered home on concerns of both his base and undecided voters (47% video, immigration, auto bailout, health insurance). Disappointly, Obama focused more on attacking his opponent than on developing a real vision for a second term.

Despite Romney's at-times poignant attacks on Obama's economic record, he ended the night on an unfortunate blunder on foreign policy. This is an important misstep for a candidate who has recently expanded his criticism of Obama to include foreign policy, an area where voters and Obama himself have clear confidence in the president. Heading into the next weeks of campaigning and into the last debate (on foreign policy), Romney has opened the door for Obama to boast his national security achievements, remind voters of Romney's recent foreign policy gaffes, exploit the gaps and inconsistencies in Romney's foreign policy positions, and cast doubt on the Republican's ability to act as commander-in-chief.

Click here to read the op-ed in French (via Le Monde)

CAPITAL BRIEF - HOW DID V.P. CANDIDATES MEASURE UP TO EXPECTATIONS?

Here is the last issue of Capital Brief, from October 12, that takes a look at how the vice presidential candidates measured up to expectations in their face-off.

Click below to read the Brief.

FIVE STRATEGIES FOR OBAMA TO BREAK AWAY FROM ROMNEY (L'EXPRESS)

On the day of the second debate and the last push toward Election Day, stop by L'Express to read an op-ed I wrote outlining five strategies for Obama to pull ahead of Romney.

-Nail the final two debates
-Maintain a lazer-like focus on the economy
-Focus on the big picture electoral issues
-Take the high road and let the surrogates do the rest
-Keep a strong push to turn out the Democratic base

Click here to read the article via L'Express (French)

PORTRAIT OF A NEW AMERICA (NOUVELLE REVUE GEOPOLITIQUE)

In the most recent issue of Nouvelle Revue Géopolitique, I contributed an article, "Portrait d'une Nouvelle Amérique."

The text focuses first on how Americans view the role of the US in the world, their evolving foreign policy preferences, and the impact of the economic crisis on public perception of America's responsibility and ability to pursue its foreign ambitions.

It goes on to decrypt Obama's and Romney's foreign policy visions, how they correspond to public opinion concerning external action (China, Iran, Israel, interventionism, among others), and the global leadership framework into which they most closely fit.

Finally, the article looks at how the emerging Millennial/Boomer generational divide reproduces itself within American public opinion on foreign and defense policy orientations; as well as how the arrival of the Millennials - accompanied by the profound sociological and intellectual shift they represent - will compel new political responses from US leaders due to the very different foreign policy ambitions and approaches they espouse.

Stop by a newsstand to pick up this Special Elections issue!

EVALUATING THE STAKES LEADING INTO VP DEBATE (RFI)

This morning, I was interviewed by Brent Gregston for RFI English to talk about the stakes of the October 11 vice presidential debate and what to expect from candidates Joseph Biden and Paul Ryan.

The broadcast in English after the jump.

IN DENVER ROMNEY TOOK LEAD WITHOUT ALTERING CORE RACE DYNAMIC (LE MONDE)

Head over to Le Monde to read a commentary I contributed today on the first presidential debate. 

Largely hailed as a Romney victory, what do the candidates' performances bode for the coming weeks? How does, or doesn't, this debate alter the campaigns' momentums heading into the next town hall-style debate focusing on domestic - and importantly- on foreign policy?

Click here to read the article via Le Monde

CAPITAL BRIEF - SWING STATE POLLS GIVE OBAMA EDGE

Here is the tenth issue of Capital Brief, from September 26, that takes a look at Obama's momentum over Romney in key swing state polls and what these polls may tell us about the race dynamics over these final weeks of campaigning and how voters might behave at the ballots in November.

Click below to read the Brief.

WHY OBAMA HASN'T CLINCHED RACE JUST YET (YES THEY CAN!, L'EXPRESS)

On Monday, September 24, Yes They Can, blog hosted by L'Express, posted an interview that touches on the role of Super PACs in financing the 2012 presidential campaigns, the impact of negative campaigning and political communications in this race, the "personality effect" of the two candidates, major economic and social issues dominating this cycle, and a word on the two opposing campaign strategies.

Watch after the jump.