Political third parties in 2008 may have as decisive a role in electing a president as they did in 2000 and 1992.  Ralph Nader, the 2000 Green Party presidential candidate, somehow persuaded some voters then that he was more of an environmentalist than Al Gore.  Nader's 97,421 votes in Florida, drawn mostly from Gore's base, helped narrowly swing the state and the national election to George W. Bush.  Many Republicans saw that as payback for their own party's defeat in 1992 when H. Ross Perot, running as the Reform Party candidate, managed to get in on the televised Bush-Clinton debates.  While not winning any states, his 19% of the popular vote took enough votes away from George H. W. Bush to help elect Bill Clinton.  The New York Times, referring to Clinton's popular vote share, subsequently labeled him "The 43% President."
        Nader is back on the ballot in 2008, this time as an independent candidate but without the media coverage and fanfare that characterized his 2000 run.  Conservative Republicans, distressed that virtual nominee John McCain is not conservative enough for their tastes, may rally 'round Bob Barr, a former GOP Congressman from Georgia who seeks the Libertarian Party top spot.  His chief opponent in the quest is former Sen. Mike Gravel who ran in the Democratic primaries.  Barr would be much more likely to draw votes away from McCain than Nader (or any other candidate) would from either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Most Democrats have learned well the lessons of 2000 in voting third party.  Seems the GOP would rather be right-wing than be president.
        Third parties often provide a resource for those who feel left out of the decision-making process and political platforms of the major parties.  A pro-active long-term benefit of a third party would have the media and public better informed about specific issues and candidates while raising awareness in more than a few politicians. A risk with any third party is having their ideas or plans co-opted by the major parties.  A third party membership is often a mix of individuals seeking to make deeply held personal statements while, at the same time, working to form or conform to a group consensus of opinions and plans of action. While third parties are usually idealistic and well-intentioned, their actions often produce short-term unintended consequences with long-term results.  A vote for Nader in 2000, for example, helped elect Bush as it was not a vote for Gore.  Wanting to make a difference often conflicts with wanting to win. Third parties often gain strength from nominating and putting on their ballot lines candidates nominated by other parties.  Rudy Giuliani, for example, ran for the New York mayoralty as the nominee of both the Republican and the Liberal Party, the latter using their votes for Rudy as a way of getting influence within his administration.     
        Massachusetts, by contrast, requires that candidates appear on only one ballot line, thereby preventing any third party - such as the Working Families Party - from becoming a co-nominator as that party has been able to do in New York elections. 
        Other third parties nominating presidential candidates in 2008 include the Green Party, Constitution Party, New American Independent Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Prohibition Party and the Socialist Party. Will any of these aspiring and perspiring presidential wannabes influence the outcome?  Well, we do have the right to vote.

    The Tote Board's first look at the general election odds finds the race dead even.

    This week's Tote Board column looks at why Barack Obama hopes the Wright affair turns out like the Gennifer Flowers-Clinton episode during the 1992 campaign.

    The Tote Board's latest radio preview.

    On Monday, I had the privilege of speaking to Jerry Meek. Since 2005, he has been Chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party. At the moment, he is an uncommitted super-delegate.  He is well positioned to comment on the Democratic nomination race (and the upcoming primary) because of his experiences and background.

    Democrats have heard a strong debate about both 'Who would be stronger in November' and, 'Who could draw greater numbers of new voters into the party?'.  Chairman Meek understands the importance of drawing young people into the party. Indeed, he was at age 17, the youngest delegate ever elected to a Democratic National Convention.  At the same time, he is heading the Democratic Party in a southern state which solidly went for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004.   

    I offer my sincere thanks to Chairman Meek for finding time in his busy schedule to chat.

  ---------------    

MS: I read a profile of you which said you’ve never voted for anyone, whether for president or county commissioner, whom he hasn't met in person.  What do you look for when you meet these candidates? What are you discerning?

JM: I think you try to get a glimpse of their character. I don’t know that I am looking for anything in particular. I think it is more a commentary on how long I have been in politics.  I have never, not voted in a race. Going back to when I was thirteen, I’ve been able to meet political candidates and, it’s nice to meet the person.

MS: Why were you drawn in so young?

JM: I used to want to be an astronaut and John Glenn ran for president in 1984. I figured helping him would be a good way to help NASA.  I became involved in his campaign and ended up supporting Mondale in the primary. I soon forgot about being an astronaut and decided to go to law school

MS:  Thoughts on having met both Clintons and Barack Obama?

JM: I met Bill when he was Governor of Arkansas. I met Senator Clinton at a Democratic National Committee meeting. I met Barack on the phone. All three are incredible people. I have an amazing respect for Bill Clinton and, how much he sets you at ease when you speak to him

MS: I note that a PPP survey from last summer used your name in a trial heat against incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. Mark Warner was chair of the Virginia Democratic Party from 1993-95 and, he used the post to raise his profile. Might history eventually repeat itself?

JM: No, I plan on finishing out my term which ends in January. At which point, I may practice law for a while. I have been to my law firm fifteen times in three years. It may be time to get back to a paying job

MS: Speaking of Liddy Dole, I understand that the Democratic Party went after her for her husband’s work on behalf of the Dubai Ports deal. How effective was that critique? Does it suggest anything about Senator Clinton’s potential vulnerabilities regarding her husband?

JM: I don’t know enough about Bill’s involvement. It was not a big story on Liddy, it was in the larger context of her catering to special interests. Any time you can pick a specific issue and have it fit into a context, you are going to have a lot more success. Defining your adversary is a lot like building a house brick-by-brick and then you manage to frame your adversary in a very clear way. If you have a hodge-podge then it does not work as successfully.


MS: In the  May 1, 2006 Philly Inquirer you said:
 "In the South, voters think strongly in terms of values. We haven't had presidential candidates lately who can really speak about that from the heart. And the fact is, there's no way you can write off the South if you really want to be president."  Having said that, which values were you referring to when you said that?    In your opinion, what values does southern political culture uniquely prioritize and why is it the case? In other words, what are the Democrats getting wrong?
 
JM: I think you need to speak in moralistic terms. We are not very good at that. For example, when we speak about education we will argue it is important to have the opportunity to succeed and to have a good economy. We talk very pragmatically and, for example, the GOP, if they cared about education, would couch it in much more moral terms (i.e. it is wrong for anybody to be denied the ability to develop their god-given ability).

Another example is how we talk about the environment. We talk in very technical terms about the environment in terms of personal health consequences instead of saying that it is wrong to rob our children’s inheritance. A lot of southern voters think in more value laden terms than voters in other areas of the county, to use a gross generalization. Bill Clinton was able to speak in much more value laden terms than other Democrats

MS: What did Jimmy Carter get right about the south that others haven’t?

JM: JC may have lucked out from the pardon and he spoke to evangelical voters which he lost in 1980,  it would be an interesting subject for further. analysis

  MS: Have the Democrats through appearances at the Compassion Forum begun to get it right?
 JM: Yes, when I was elected state chair, I encouraged a dialogue on the interface between religion and politics. I even formed a committee of religious leaders who sat down to take a look at what role faith plays in informing our political values.
       I think one problem is that a lot of democrats are uncomfortable talking about the way in which faith affects their political views and also, the fact that it does affect their views or the views of many people. This is not in any way to say that there should not be separation of church and state. I think we agree on that in order to protect the church. There is no denying the fact that political views are influenced by religious values. Accordingly, we should feel comfortable talking about that.
 
MS: Given these comments, Does Barack Obama need to give a major speech about what America means to him? In other words, about how he defines and lives patriotism in his own life? Similar to his race speech last month

JM: Well, you know, I think the race speech was effective with a very small group of people I think he was able to communicate his views on race very clearly in a cerebral way and, in a way which spoke only to a small segment of the population. On the issue of patriotism, what he needs to do  depends on  what comes later.  I know some issues have arisen like why doesn’t he wear the flag on his lapel? However, we may see the GOP attack him and call him unpatriotic. In that case, if he is the nominee, he may need to address it further. Yet, I think he needs to do it in a slightly different format.

He dealt with race issue adequately. All of this was prompted by remarks of Rev. Wright which were unfairly attributed to Senator Obama. However, I think even if Wright had not been in the picture, a discussion of race would be important to the [Democratic] campaign and the nation. [I say this] because regardless of what we want to think about the times we are in, some people will have problems voting for an African American. 

On the other hand, there are many people who are excited to vote for an African-American. So, whatever votes he may lose among people who won’t vote for a black, he would probably gain from another group which would be excited about it. So it might be a wash in the end. It’s an unfortunate reality, but, it exists.

MS: Can you discuss the southern regional appeal of economic populism as seen in the campaigns of Texan Jim Hightower; Virginian Howell [69] and North Carolinians Hobby [72]  and Edwards [99]? 

*JM: I would add Kissell in the 8TH district of North Carolina and, Schuler. There tends to be a very populist strain in the south, especially,  in rural areas. If you can put together coalition of rural Democrats who ascribe to economic populism with the traditional coalition of African-Americans and high-income, well-educated urban voters then you can put together a pretty strong coalition. It worked pretty well for Kissell in his race against Hayes. He ended up losing but by 300ish votes despite being overwhelmingly overspent. For example, when Kissell’s campaign bank account fell, to, I think it was $82, he would send a press release proclaiming that his account looks like the account of the average North Carolinian. He took the fact that he was grossly under-funded [and used it to] relate effectively to the people in his district. To the extent that economic populists can do [things like] that, they can understand and relate to what people are going through. Economic populism has a lot of potential to draw in working-class and rural voters we have been missing.
 
MS: You are one of the youngest activists in Democratic politics.  The DLC was created by southern democrats like Bill Clinton (6/10 of DLC chairs have been southern) who thought economic populism was a losing issue. What is, and what should be the place of economic populism and the DLC in the party?
 
JM: I think that’s an accurate characterization of the DLC position. They support free trade and, they are on other side of economic populist issues. But, ah, I think strategies work differently in different places. The DLC with Bill Clinton certainly had tremendous success. However, the key for Democrats is how do we reach white-working class and white-rural voters? There are two ways to do it – one is the DLC [approach to] move to the right and the other is to develop an alternative which is economic populism. I happen to think the danger of moving further right is to lose the ability to differentiate ourselves from our GOP adversaries. If there is no clear message of difference from the GOP, many of these voters are going to vote Republican.

MS: Let’s talk about the North Carolina Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. The two players are Beverly Perdue (The Lieutenant Governor) vs. Richard Moore (Treasurer). Do you see any  parallels to the national situation vis-a-vis long-term effects of a long-running primary. Can you comment on the tensions in North Carolina’s political history between economic populism and modernizers?

JM: In part, it turns out on how the primary turns out. Bev announced that she was pulling all her negative ads and, she has only run positive ads.  It appears she has stuck to that. If she prevails and she is the nominee, that posture will help her tremendously in the fall. [As] it is less likely Richard Moore supporters would have reason to oppose her [if she wins].

We’re still waiting to see what will happen on this Obama/Clinton thing. Lots of polls say that Democratic voters will defect to McCain in either case. In the end, I think that’s probably unlikely. I think [that reflects] people speaking in the heat of the moment. If we’re doing our job, we will make the case that a 3rd Bush term would come of a McCain administration. The earlier we can wrap up the presidential nominating process the better.
       
MS: Can Barack Obama credibly make a populist  economic critique to win appeal in the south from working-class whites given the experience of the polarized Helms/Gantt race.  Would it be seen as angry?

JM:The key to a successful economic populism campaign is that it has to be seen as sympathetic not angry. ‘I understand the situation you’re in’. The danger though is that candidates can develop an angrier populist tone because [they are generating] insufficient media attention and they use it to get their word out. The more extreme you are, the more attention you receive. That won’t be a problem for our nominee.

MS: From your vantage as NC party chairman, if Hillary Clinton were the nominee who would you pick to be her VP?

JM: Senator Obama. I think that would be the best way to heal things. How certain that is to happen, I am not sure.
 
MS: Similar question for Barack Obama?
 
JM: Again, I think they would make a great ticket. So, I think it’d be great if she were the VP.
 
MS: How much does the blogosphere and the net roots have the potential to rival the impact of the Congress Club which was instrumental for Senator Helms between 1973 and 1995?

JM: The Congress Club’s main asset was money. The net roots are beginning to do that in a very important way and, candidates are starting to use structure of internet in a very successful way. Additionally, the net roots have the potential of raising money at no cost.  In the Congress Club, all the money raised was from direct mail.  This approach generated serious overhead because it was a direct mail operation.  The net roots may well exceed the Congress Club given the lesser constraints.

MS: Can you discuss both why and how a number of North Carolina’s politicians have had extensive experience in education and, can you assess whether that issue is particularly resonant in NC given the state history? I know that  Sanford was Assistant Director of Institute of Government 1946-1948 and, subsequently Duke’s President; GOP Gov. Jim Martin had a Ph.D.; John Edwards has worked on his poverty center at UNC, and, Beverly Purdue was a teacher.

JM: Of course Jim Hunt made education a focus of all of his four terms. I think North Carolina is different maybe beginning at least with Gov. Sanford.  He recognized that education was a good way of getting North Carolina moving forward in comparison to other southern states. [There was a] long tradition before Gov. Hunt of trying to promote education. For example, [we have] the 1st public university in the country [and] arguably best community college system in nation. In any year, 1 in 7 state residents are in Community College. It is a big priority because that was the key to get North Carolina moving in comparison to other southern states. [We have] a lot of universities which are private and well established here: Davidson, Duke and Wake Forest. I don’t know why, but, it has certainly paid off. You see that in the development of the Research triangle and Charlotte.

MS: What are your thoughts about the GOP ads which link Barack Obama to local Democratic candidates in Mississippi and North Carolina?

JM: The particular ads the GOP are running here [run the] serious danger [that] it will backfire against GOP. They have gotten so many e-mails in opposition to that ad, that they had to lock the front door of their headquarters and shut down the e-mail for security reasons. So I don’t think they’ll gain much traction. It is so ludicrous to suggest that Purdue and Moore should be criticized [that\ it is absurd.  The GOP criticized Purdue and Moore because Obama associated with Wright. By their logic, when Andy Griffith endorsed Purdue, maybe [by that flawed logic] they should criticize Andy Griffith for endorsing Purdue.

This is an advertisement about gubernatorial candidates; The ad was created the way it was, because if they took the position of attacking state-level candidates, they can use nonfederal dollars [soft money] to run the ad.  If they run an ad attacking Obama directly, they would have needed to have used federal hard money instead of  the nonfederal/soft dollars. The ad was ran this way purely for campaign finance reasons.

MS: Who’s the real target of the ads then?

JM: They won’t admit it but [I think] the plan has been to hurt Obama for purposes of dragging out presidential nominating process. Obama has been more targeted than has Purdue or Moore

MS:  What do you want each campaign to take away from their time in North Carolina?

JM: Certainly, [I want them to] appreciate the views of the people of the state.  Both candidates are coming to the state regularly and, both are here today. They are engaging in a dialogue with the leaders and the average voters and that is ultimately good for North Carolina. There are some concerns that are more important in North Carolina than in other states. For example,  we have a high veteran population and, there is a tremendous concern about the lack of VA health benefits. Military members and their families are worried about GOP opposition to combat pay and increased funding for body armor and vehicles.  So, I think those are two areas where North Carolina will express more concern than in other states. Having the candidates here to hear that is productive and beneficial.

MS: Thanks so much for your time.

JM: Glad to talk to you.