Why is Obama a big surprise?

The primary season is almost over. I would argue it was over before it even began. The pundits are beside themselves that this is the closest primary Democratic primary in recent times. For most political prognosticators this is a big surprise. They expected a wide open Republican primary since there was no incumbent in the mix. However, they were all predicting that Hillary had the Democratic nomination in the bag. Little did they know that it would turn out to be quite the opposite. McCain locked up the Republican nomination weeks ago and Hillary and Barak are battling it well into the primary season. The interesting thing is that was entirely predictable if we look at how the two parties historically choose their nominees.

Each political part has it own unique process. There is an old cliché – Democrats fall in love (with their candidates) and Republicans fall in line. This cliché is rooted in each party’s political psyche. Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats tend to be more liberal. It is important to keep in mind that the primaries are dominated by the core members of their respective party. This makes the general observation, republican core – very conservative, democratic core – very liberal, even more relevant. When you take this predisposition into account, it is no surprise who their party’s nominee will be.

I will start with the Republicans. Since Republicans are conservative they don’t like radical change. A conservative person will approach the process in an analytical manner. They tend to favor the status quo. They value institutions and are reluctant to radically change them. They tend to be incrementalist; preserve the best of what we have and make measured changes to improve on it.

Given this set of behaviors. Republicans virtually always nominate the next person in line. They do not trust the new kid on the block. The Republican nomination process is to let the candidate run this time and they will be in line during the next cycle. Let’s look at recent Republican nominees:

• Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 but was nominated and won in 1968.
• Reagan lost to Ford in 1976 but won in 1980.
• Bush I was Reagan’s vice president so he was the heir apparent in 1998.
• Dole had run before and was the senior Republican in the Senate when he “earned” the nomination in 1996.

As you can see, the Republican process is geared towards nominating the next in line, whether it is the best candidate or not. They can not help it. It is driven by their conservative nature. Dole was a perfect example of the process failing the party. While he had earned the nomination he was a lousy national candidate and no match for a much younger Bill Clinton.

This year the process worked again. McCain is the process nominee. A long-time Republican who ran for the office in 2000. He is next in line. Romney and Huckabee are the new kids. Do a good job running this time, stay relevant and they will have a shot during the next cycle.

Now for the Democrats. Their liberal ideology means they are generally skeptical of the establishment; seek out new ideas and are open to fresh faces. They tend to be more emotional rather than analytical.

The Democratic Party’s tendency is to reject the established candidate and go for the new candidate. Again let’s look at the recent elections:

• In 1976 they chose a total outsider – Jimmy Carter over the party leader Ted Kennedy
• In 1992 they chose another outsider – Bill Clinton over the entire party establishment
• In 2004 they chose an obscure senator, John Kerry over an old pro like Dick Gephardt

The weakness with this process is the Democratic candidate is often a relative unknown. This means both parties will have a chance to define the candidates on their own terms. This gives the Republicans a significant advantage. In the modern media age it is much easier to define an unknown candidate in negative terms than it is to build a positive persona for the same person. Think “Swift Boats” and John Kerry. McCain has been around. His problem is he has a voting record that can be picked apart, but the public already knows him. No amount of campaigning will change that perception.

The Democratic process has proven to be a significant disadvantage. That is one reason the Republicans win a disproportionate share of elections – 9 of the last 14 elections. However, the Democratic process is very effective when the electorate wants a radical change. Jimmy Carter was the answer to a post Watergate world and Bill Clinton was the answer to 12 years of Republican rule under Reagan and Bush. The question now is as follows: Is the blind, desire for change enough to elect an obscure, junior senator from Illinois over a professional, credentialed politician like Hillary. If the Democrats hold true to form, and I predict they will, they gamble on another newcomer and nominate Obama over Hillary.

Neither process is perfect but both are remarkably predictable. The only real surprise is we are surprised each time the parties follow their respective nomination script.