Why did Fox News plan to plan two republican presidential debates, not one? Simple arithmetic: 90 minutes divided by 17 candidates equal to 5 minutes and 29 seconds per item. It is almost enough time for the oral equivalent of several tweets.
There will be no similar problem for democratic debates, with only five announced candidates, of which three people have 1 or 2 percent in the polls.
Why do the Republicans have so many candidates and democrats so few? This is directly contrary to the conventional wisdom that the Republicans nominate another guy in a queue, while democrats usually have multi -purpose fights. Is this modern state of affairs only an accident or the result of something fundamental as parties?
Once upon a time, conventional wisdom was proper: Republicans tended to binary competitions-only two sedate candidates-during the time when the Democrats had races of many candidates. In 1972, the dawn dominated by the basic nomination system, the Democrats had 16 announced candidates-the largest field, up to the Republicans of this cycle-when Richard Nixon quickly based the challenges of the congressmen on the left and right.
The next two Republican races quickly became the competitions of two presidents: the authorized Gerald Ford and President Ronald Reagan in 1976, and after experienced innatible owners of Howard Baker and John Connelally, the future sipping of Reagan and George Bush in 1980.
In contrast, Democrats in the 70s and 1980s had furious competitions with a wide range of candidates – George McGovern and George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey and Gary Hart, Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Jerry Brown, Edmund Muskie and Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson, Morris Udall and Dick Gephardt. The only binary race took place in 1980, when Edward Kennedy questioned the current Jimmy Carter.
Starting from the 90s, things were different. In 1992, the Democrats had one multi -purpose race, but Bill Clinton was clearly distinguished above the rest. In 2000, Clinton cleaned the field for Gore, and his only opponent, Bill Bradley, abandoned the New Hampshire. The field was slightly more murky in 2004, when Howard Dean acted after the initial fall, but besides was John Kerry versus (you forgot?) John Edwards. And of course 2008 was Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama, as binary as every cycle in our time.
Republicans have had more diverse fields in the last few decades: George Bush and Bob Dowan, but also religious conservative Pat Robertson and Jack Kemp freetols in 1988; Bob Bob Veteran and insulationist Pat Buchanan Plus Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes in 1996. The 2000 race became quite swift, between George W. Bush and John McCain. But the basic ones in 2008 and 2012 did not do, and McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabe in 2008, and Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum do it in 2012.
What takes into account the number and variety of republican candidates? A look at the 2016 field suggests an answer. These candidates won the election in Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin – 12 states with 206 election votes. They include the target countries of the presidential campaign with 90 election votes, as well as secure Republican states with 69 and secure democratic countries with 47.
Republicans, and their voters spread relatively evenly in most of the country and with a negative reaction to the policy of Democrats Obama, they generate a gigantic critical mass of officials and likely presidential candidates.
The 2016 democratic field comes from the base, winning elections in Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. These countries have only 59 election votes (if Joe Biden starts, add Delaware 3) and, except for the target state of Virginia, are very democratic (62 to 67 percent Obama in 2012).
This is reflected in the fact that in Obama’s years Democrats had problems winning elections outside geographically cluster bases in central cities, nice suburbs and university towns. Politicians chosen in such constituencies, only susceptible to basic challenges, tend to compile records too far to make them profitable national candidates.
The long generation Democrats carry many different areas and generated a lot – maybe more than a lot – presidential candidates. Now the Republicans generate more rivals than they can fit at one stage.
