The 2016 presidential election went under the microscope during a special luncheon on the SIU-Carbondale campus.
Three political experts with the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute discussed the candidates and the current nomination battles Monday in the Saluki Stadium Club.
Visiting professor John Jackson reviewed his scholarly work on the history of the nomination process. He says today's ideologically driven political parties make it harder for an elected President to govern because the people entrenched in their positions don't want to compromise with the other side.
"That leads to gridlock in the nation at the national level, especially at Congress. And it's trickling down on us because it is now increasingly also true at the state level and that's exactly what's happened in Illinois."
One of the foremost experts on the Iowa caucuses is Paul Simon Public Policy Institute director David Yepsen.
Yepsen says the Iowa caucuses have two primary functions. He says one is to trim the field of candidates.
"We really now on the republican side have about four candidates: Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz. Iowa and New Hampshire are working their process. They are cutting this field down to size. And/or the Iowa process will elevate somebody out of obscurity."
Yepsen says both democrats and republicans are searching for who they are in the post-Obama administration.
He says Hillary Clinton looks like the solid favorite on the democratic side. On the GOP side, he says Marco Rubio may have the most to gain during the early stages of the primary season.
Should we pay close attention to the polls right now in the Presidential Election?
A visiting professor with the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute says no.
Polling expert Charles Leonard says the front runners at this time of the campaign season rarely win the nomination. He says it's important to remember the selection process is done in state contests that pick delegates.
"And we're looking at national polls trying to figure out what's going on in a process that's driven by states. In fact, we don't have national elections. If we did, Al Gore (in 2000) would've won. It happens state by state, yet we look at national polls a year out from the election like they're going to tell us something."
Leonard says national polls are no more than popularity contests and snapshots in time.
He says a better indicator of who will do well in the primary season are the candidates who are receiving endorsements from super delegates and who has the most money.
