The Electoral College Maps (4/2/08)

While last week's post focused on the Clinton-Obama match up through the lens of the electoral college, one thing was neglected: John McCain. Yes, he even gets a pass here...apparently. Well, he did until now. Obama's competitiveness in some traditional red states based on these early head-to-head polls was interesting (alarming to some), but McCain is also competitive in some states that have been blue in recent elections (see also CQ's look at recent state polls in NJ, MI and WA). In the match up with Clinton, McCain is ahead in Oregon and Washington and against Obama he is running close in Massachusetts. Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington haven't voted with the GOP presidential nominee since 1984, and while Oregon and Washington have had close statewide elections recently, that hasn't translated to the presidential level.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a surprising inclusion on the list. And given that Obama is being backed by both senators and the governor of the state that is something of an anomaly. What is driving this is one poll (of the three conducted in Massachusetts thus far) has McCain and Obama tied. The other two have Obama with comfortable seven point leads.

Well, what about New Jersey (CQ does make a good point.)? The last time the Garden state voted for the GOP nominee was when the first George Bush was elected in 1988. However, coming down the stretch in 2004 the race between Kerry and Bush was fairly tight; tight enough to make the GOP consider expending more resources there (Those of you with access to Lexis Nexis out there can check out this Boston Globe article from mid-October 2004.). New Jersey then, wasn't as eye-catching as Massachusetts (or some of the other red states in which Obama is competitive).

Well, what about the map update?

Twelve states had new polls this week (CA, CT, FL, MI, MO, NJ, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA & WI), and there are some shifts. The overall conclusion though, is still the same (right down to the electoral count in the McCain-Clinton case). Here are the changes:

NJ: Lean Clinton to toss up.
PA: Obama and McCain are now tied (a change from toss up leaning McCain)
VA: McCain Lean to Strong McCain in the match up with Clinton; Toss up to McCain Lean against Obama
WA: Lean McCain to Toss up (still favoring McCain)
WI: Toss up to McCain Lean (v. Clinton) and Obama Lean to Toss up (still favoring Obama)
Clinton then, makes no gains on McCain in the electoral vote count (still 314-224) but the toss up total increased by 16 electoral votes in her direction. Among the big three, she takes Pennsylvania and Ohio, but loses Florida.
***CORRECTION: Wisconsin should be an "Obama lean" state (one poll was mistakenly omitted from the analysis.)

The McCain-Obama map offers a new distinction: a statistical tie in Pennsylvania. And the outcome of this hypothetical election would come down to which way the state broke. Obama holds a 260-257 lead in electoral votes. The 21 in Pennsylvania would put either candidate over the top. In this scenario then, Pennsylvania is the new Ohio is the new Florida.

A note on the methodology:
Some people have taken issue with me using the average of the polls since Super Tuesday; claiming that that gives Obama an advantage. The reason I made Super Tuesday the cut off, was that that was the point at which the race entered the current deadlock phase. Both Clinton and Obama were on "pretty" equal footing from that point forward. The averages help to absorb the shock of any one event on the polls (Bosnia, Wright, etc.). If the most recent polls were used as opposed to these averages the results don't significantly change. Clinton would gain Florida and Nevada but lose Minnesota and New Jersey while tying in New Mexico. Obama would lose Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wisconsin to McCain, but gain both Pennsylvania and Ohio with Colorado as a tie.

The other argument is more damning. "It is too early." I can't argue with that. It is, but this does give us a fun glimpse into each of the states and further, the direction they are leaning seven months out. One thing is certain, as we add polls, the picture will get clearer...provided the Democrats actually make a decision. As such, I'll keep updating this weekly (every Wednesday) so we can all keep tabs on the progression.

How much difference does it make?: a set of companion maps.

And an update for 4/9/08

Update for 4/16/08

Update for 4/23/08

Update for 4/30/08

Weighted Averages 4/30/08

Weighted Averages 5/7/08

Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)

Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)

New Maps? (5/25/08)

Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)

Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)

The Republicans and the 2012 Calendar

It must be April Fool's Day or something because the content around FHQ has been decidedly 2012 today. [See, I'm even using numbers as adjectives now.] Anyway, no sooner did Rob bring up the idea of presidential nomination reform in the comments to the Kansas post below than it came out that the Republican rules committee is meeting in New Mexico to discuss the primary calendar for 2012. And you have to love the sources for the stories on the subject: the Manchester Union-Leader and the Detroit News. On the one hand, you have a paper from the accustomed primary process top dog, New Hampshire, and on the other, a publication originating from occasional malcontent, Michigan.

Why so hard on Michigan?

Oh, they're not so bad. They've just been the face of the discontent with the favored positions Iowa and New Hampshire have enjoyed quadrennially in the post-reform era (and before).

Well, what about Florida? They moved too. Yeah, but they don't have a history of trying to rock the boat like Michigan. Sure both states moved to positions in violation of both parties' rules for 2008, but Michigan has done this before. The state actually voted on delegates to a binding January 1988 Republican state convention in the late summer of 1986 (see here and here for more)! How's that for frontloading? Voting in 2011 doesn't seem so bad now.

Better yet...how's that for going off on a tangent?

So the GOP is meeting to discuss various reform ideas for the 2012 calendar. Most of them appear to be a collection of regional primary plans. And as I stated in the comments of the Kansas post, I'm not a big fan. Some of the fairness issues are solved for the states but remain for all but the best-financed candidates. In the absence of retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire, the playing field is tilted even further in the direction of the front-running candidates. On top of that, you introduce regional advantages for candidates as well. What problems does it solve? What problems does it create? The latter outweighs the former in my opinion.

Fine, what is a better plan then? There are two routes to take:
1) Leave it alone. Most of the states that moved to February 5 for 2008 did so permanently. Are they likely to move again is the question though? I've looked into this in my research and have found mixed results. States that move, are more likely to move again, but only if the rules change to allow it. When the earliest possible point to hold a nominating contest is moved, states that have moved in the past are more likely to move again. We probably won't see the window moved any earlier than the first Tuesday in February in 2012, and that means that all the states that were on that date in 2008 will likely be there again in 2012. The early state legislative action on this front for 2012 so far has indicated that other states looking into a move are not considering anything ahead of that point. Well, Kansas is, but we're talking three days ahead of it and not three weeks before that point like Michigan was this time around. I just don't see any other renegade states willing to queue up to be the next Florida or Michigan--to gamble taxpayer money on a potentially empty contest. The "leave it alone" approach gets the system closer to a national primary which still offers an uneven playing field for the candidates. Oh, but this is the cheapest option too. Sure, that sounds petty and somewhat cynical, but you can't underestimate that fact.

Let us not forget that there will more than likely be an incumbent running in 2012. That means that the "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" attitude that could have been in play in state legislatures and state governments among partisans of all stripes this cycle will potentially be displaced by the "you want me to help your party pick someone to beat our guy" mindset. States then, with a unified state government controlled by the party outside of the White House could have a leg up on other states.

2) The American Plan. Thomas Gangale's plan is the plan I'd endorse if the decision were up to me. It is lottery-based and favors the small states being first; not necessarily Iowa and New Hampshire, but small states that allow for some form of retail politics. The system also allows for the big states--most notably California--to go as early as the fourth interval. Each interval is a two week period and there are ten intervals in all. The result is a twenty week season that starts in mid-February and ends in late June. This plan acts to end the compression that frontloading has brought on and removes the chaotic aspect of the process that has turned people off.

Only one of the plans on the table in New Mexico for the GOP is lottery-based though and I have no idea whether that is the American Plan or a modified version of it. If a vote takes place on the issue it will be tomorrow.

TRACKING...

Kansas Tries to Get Back on the Horse for 2012

After an on again, off again flirtation with re-establishing and frontloading a presidential primary for the 2008 nomination cycle, the Kansas legislature is at it again. This time though, they have the 2012 elections in mind. The House passed a bill on Friday to permanently set establish a presidential primary on the first Saturday in February every presidential election year. That bill [H 2683] subsequently passed the Senate in the form of an amendment to a committee report (I'm not a fan of the Kansas legislature's web page, but if you want to track the progress of the bill just enter "2683" in "Track a Bill" search area on the right side of the main page.). During yesterday's session, that report was referred to the House where a conference committee between the chambers was requested and then agreed to by the Senate.

So Kansas joins Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota as states that are already casting an eye toward the next presidential election cycle (...while the current one is still in progress). The Kansas legislature has been a bit more clever (or not so clever) in its approach to 2012 though. First, the proposal places the primary on a weekend as opposed to the usual Tuesday position that most states use. And with the calendar set up as it is in 2012, that means this primary would precede the first Tuesday in February (the time when most of the states that moved for 2008 will be going in 2012). If the national parties stick with their 2008 rules--the same rules that make the first Tuesday in February the earliest point at which a non-Iowa or New Hampshire contest can be held--then the 2012 Kansas primary would be in violation and subject to sanctions. Kansas, I'd like to introduce you to Florida and Michigan.

Of course, there are a couple of other considerations here as well. Will the parties keep the same sanctions for 2012 or will they alter them in some way? Both parties decided to penalize states in violation in 2008 half their delegates. The Democratic party also sought to sanction candidates campaigning in violator states and then tried to make an example of Florida and then Michigan. Given the situation that has arisen out of the Florida and Michigan moves, the DNC may revisit that sanction regimen at this summer's convention.

The Kansas legislature doesn't seem to be bothered by the threats anyway--no matter which form they take. The proposal on the table for 2008 called for a February 2 primary which would have broken the current rules (costing them half their delegates on the Republican side and more than likely all of them in the Democratic race). Kansas then, appears to be making the same gamble that Florida and Michigan made, and in the process have signaled that they value the exposure such a contest brings over representation at the conventions.

The question has already been asked of me but I'll pose it here in this forum: Will states change their strategy for 2012 given the way 2008 has gone? In other words, will some states consider moving to later dates in anticipation of another 2008-like contest? So far, all the evidence points toward no being the answer. Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota lawmakers all seem to think that the system will return to the "earlier is better" model typical of the Super Tuesday era.

The New Michigan Delegate Plan

The longer this drags out the more complicated the resolutions get. As Michigan and Florida have grappled with the DNC over seating delegates at this summer's convention, several plans have surfaced to deal with the stand-off. Despite rejections of do-over primaries (mail-in or in-person) and even distributions of the delegates between the candidates, some momentum remains behind the idea of solving this issue before it is arbitrated by the Credentials Committee at the convention.

The newest plan put forth by US Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) applies to the situation in Michigan. Under his plan all 156 of Michigan's Democratic delegates would be restored (I'm sure the DNC is already madly in love with the idea of their sanctions being thrown by the wayside here.), with basically half being allocated based on the January 15 primary and the other half based on the popular primary vote nationwide. The former appeals to Clinton because she won the Michigan primary and the latter to Obama since he will more than likely maintain his popular vote lead nationwide as the contest phase of the campaign wanes.

So how this thing ultimately breaks down will determine whether that conclusion holds. Let's do the math. Under the Stupak plan, Clinton would get 47 of the 83 primary delegates and Obama the remaining 36. Votes on these delegates would take place at the congressional district conventions April 19. But what about the other 73 (national popular vote) delegates? For the time being, let's assume that the margin Obama holds now in the category will be the margin once all the contests have been completed. That means (according to Real Clear Politics) that Obama leads either 49.5 to 46.9 without Florida and Michigan or 47.6 to 47.2 with them included (but excluding estimates of some of the caucus states). Those are the two extremes here; one where Obama is advantaged and one that is to Clinton's detriment. When we convert these to two candidate totals (reallocating the support of other candidates who have dropped out), the margins remain the same while the overall percentages now sum to 100 (See, I told you this had gotten confusing.). The two sets of possible popular vote numbers I'm working with here though are 51.3 to 48.7 favoring Obama or 50.2 to 49.8 also favoring Obama. Either way you cut it, Obama ends up with 37 delegates while Clinton gains 36. Adding the popular vote totals to the primary delegates gives Clinton a ten delegate advantage in Michigan.

That's fine, but what about the other problem child? What happens if we extend this same plan to the Sunshine state? Florida has 210 Democratic delegates that were stripped by the DNC. Using essentially the same breakdown, 110 delegates would be awarded based on the January 29 primary and the remaining 100 would be allocated based on the national popular vote from all nominating contests. The numbers aren't as tricky in the Florida case because both candidates were on the ballot. If the 17% of the Florida primary vote is reallocated evenly to each of the candidates, Clinton would have won 58% of the vote to Obama's 42%. From that Clinton would take 64 delegates to Obama's 46.

For the remaining 100 delegates (based on the popular vote), the same ranges that were used in the Michigan case will be used here as well (50.2 to 49.8 or 51.3 to 48.7). Again, one scenario helps Obama and the other helps Clinton. The difference though is only one delegate. Either the delegates would be split 50/50 or 51/49 in favor of Obama. The result is an 18 or 19 delegate advantage for Clinton coming out of Florida.

Overall then, between both Florida and Michigan, this plan nets Clinton 28 or 29 delegates at Obama's expense. And even that won't help erase the deficit unless she begins winning big in some of the remaining contests she's projected to do well in. So while the DNC may not go for this plan because it discards their sanctions, Obama's camp may actually be willing to listen since it won't change the current state of play (especially in view of the superdelegates who are siding with him--see here, here and here).

The Caucus Question: Texas 2008

Last week I posed the caucus question; the idea that as the steps in the caucus process progress, the percentage of support for the winning candidate from the first step increases. Anecdotally at least, that has been the conventional wisdom on the subject for the post-McGovern-Fraser reform period. Of course, when the field of candidates is winnowed, the possibility of the winning candidate (in one of the early caucuses) gaining support increases substantially. When the environment remains competitive, as it has among the top two candidates on the Democratic side during the 2008 cycle, the likelihood of such a substantial increase is far smaller. In fact, the Colorado caucuses from this year offer some potential evidence of the opposite happening: a second place finisher gaining delegates as the process continues.

Yesterday, Texas Democrats held their second round contests; the state senate district conventions. In the Dallas area, Obama managed to maintain the same level of support in the second round in the area's five senate districts that he brought in from the first step on March 4. In El Paso County, where Hillary Clinton won, both in the caucuses and the primary, Clinton's support increased to around 94%. What that is up from is a bit of an unknown. The New York Times' Election Guide shows Clinton with a 3:1 lead in El Paso County with 58% of the precincts reporting. So, we know it is an increase, but just don't know by exactly how much. [UPDATE: Across Texas, we now have a better idea about how the most recent step in the Texas caucus system went. Obama seems to have bumped up his statewide total to 58% heading into June's state convention (Thanks to Paul Gurian for the link.).] If that number holds steady when the delegates are allocated at that convention, Obama would net 37 39 of the 67 delegates at stake in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection process. That margin would yield a three delegate lead over Clinton across both contests (despite Obama losing the primary). As it stands Clinton holds a 65-61 advantage in primary delegates, but that seven delegate margin in caucus delegates would put Obama over the top in Texas.

What both of these examples illustrate is that there is another layer to be added to the explanation of the caucus question. To assume then, that the overall winner or loser of the contest's first step gains or loses support statewide becomes an issue of aggregation. Precinct-level winner continue to maintain support or gain in those areas as the process continues. It isn't enough to say that Obama won 37% of caucus support in the precinct caucuses in Iowa and then upped that to 52% in the county caucuses. The question becomes one of whether he maintained and increased the lead in the areas he did well on during the original caucus.

While we wait for Pennsylvania on April 22, the second step caucuses occurring in the interim are worth watching. With the delegate margin where it is (between 100 and 150 delegates), fluctuations in these pre-convention steps could alter the ultimate count of delegates that heads to the convention in August. Which states are we looking at then?

April 4-6: North Dakota state convention
April 5: Delaware state convention
Washington legislative district conventions
April 5-May 3: Mississippi congressional district conventions
April 12: Kansas district conventions
April 19: Washington county and legislative district conventions

[source: The Green Papers]

No matter which candidate we're talking about, every little bit helps.

Is the Electoral College really an Argument Clinton wants to make?

***Please see links to updates of these maps at the conclusion of the post or in the side bar to the right.***

Something that has bothered me throughout the coverage of the race for the Democratic nomination is the idea that one candidate winning a state translates into general election success in that state. Both sides have used that argument in one way or another as a means of persuading superdelegates: Obama in claiming that he can be competitive in more states and Clinton in claiming she can win the big swing states necessary for Democratic success. On Sunday, Evan Bayh (Democratic senator of Indiana and Clinton supporter) brought the electoral college directly into this conversation:

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

But is that really an argument that the Clinton campaign wants to roll out? Is it beneficial? Well, I wanted to find out, so I began looking at the state-level, head-to-head, general election polls (McCain v. Clinton and McCain v. Obama) to see how many electoral votes the candidates would have if those polls accurately depicted how the general election vote outcome would differ based on who was in the race. The data come from Real Clear Politics and their "Latest Polls" section. I averaged all the polls since Super Tuesday in each of the states to see which candidate had the lead. The number of polls ranged from one twenty-four of the states to nine in Pennsylvania. Obviously there are issues with using just one poll, but with few exceptions these are solidly red or blue states. In other words, the polls there are decent indicators of how the general election vote would turn out. However, since most of these one shot polls were conducted at the end of February, they don't account for either the 3am ad or the Jeremiah Wright flap.

The results are interesting and don't really support Bayh (or Clinton). In the McCain-Clinton contest, the solid and leaning categories give McCain a 235-179 electoral college vote advantage with 124 electoral votes falling in "toss up" territory. If you allocate those states' votes to the candidate with the leading average, McCain wins by a 90 electoral college vote margin, 314-224. To a large degree, the map looks similar to the map from 2004. The GOP gains Oregon, Washington, Michigan and Wisconsin while the Democrats take Ohio and Arkansas. These polls indicate that McCain would maintain Florida and Clinton would hold on to Pennsylvania. But even with Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Democratic column, Clinton loses the election.
Contrast that with the McCain-Obama map. The first impression is that there are far fewer solidly red or blue states and a lot more toss up states. Among those toss ups though are several typically ruby red states; both in the South and in the plains (South Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska). Factoring in the toss ups, Obama has a 199-174 lead over McCain with 165 electoral votes to close to call. Again, if those electoral votes are allocated to the candidate leading in the average of post-Super Tuesday state polls, Obama claims victory by a 273-265 margin. That's pretty close to the 2000 outcome. Of the red toss up states listed above, Obama manages a win in North Dakota.
Overall, there are 36 states that remain either red or blue no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Among the remaining 15 (DC is counted as a state since it has three electoral votes.), Clinton makes a difference in four (AR, OH, PA and WV) and Obama creates a shift from red to blue in 11 (CO, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, ND, OR, VA and WI). Republicans then, may be right to hope for Clinton to emerge as the Democratic nominee, keeping the battlegrounds similar to 2000 and 2004. The battle shifts to new territory if Obama is the nominee. Also, as we discussed in our discussion group meeting yesterday, either outcome has real implications for the direction of the Democratic party (with Dean's 50 state strategy clearly on the line). If Clinton were able to win the Democratic nomination, it likely damns that strategy after an assured change in leadership of the DNC. An Obama win (and subsequent performance in the general election) seems to validate that strategy though, ensuring that Dean or someone like him will continue to lead the party. What then, does that say about Howard Dean's current rooting interests in this race?

See an update of the maps to account for poll changes over the last week (4/2/08).

...and a new set of companion maps (4/3/08).

Update for 4/9/08

Update for 4/16/08

Update for 4/23/08

Update for 4/30/08

What happens when the polls are weighted to give more emphasis to the more recent ones?

Update for 5/7/08 (weighted)

Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)

Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)

New Maps? (5/25/08)

Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)

Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)


[Many thanks to Paul Gurian, Del Dunn and Rob Shewfelt for their contributions to this post.]

10 is the Magic Number?

In a campaign season rife with various numbers of some significance to the race, why not make room for one more. We've had 2025 and 1191 for the number of delegates necessary to win the Democratic and Republican nominations respectively. For a while there during the post-Super Tuesday Obama streak, 100 delegates was the margin under which Hillary Clinton had to get to make an argument to superdelegates. As the reality of not being able to get the delegate count under that number though, the focus of the Clinton team has shifted. And with it, the decision making calculus of the superdelegates has changed as well.

In an earlier set of posts (here and here), I laid out the parts of that process in terms of knowns and unknowns. What we know is the electablility factor and the number of contests won. The number of contests is easy enough. Obama has already won over half the states. Of course the Clinton camp is focusing on what types of states those are (red) and contending that they won't be won by a Democrat anyway. On the electability scorecard, both Clinton and Obama seem electable enough, but the more the rancorous tone of March continues, the less able the two candidates and the Democratic party will be to bridge the divide and heal the wounds in a timely enough manner for the general election.

The superdelegates who remain undecided know that though, and that was added to the decision making calculus (ver. 2.0). They feel the pressure to wrap the nomination up, but also feel the countervailing force to not choose incorrectly. That pressure figures into the unknowns of upward ambition and a superdelegate's relationship with or personal feelings for each of the candidates vying for the nomination.

With the remaining contests looking to be split fairly evenly between Obama and Clinton and with Clinton, as a result, being unable to cut significantly into Obama's delegate lead, the superdelegates are once again viewed as decisive. A post this morning by Jim Geraghty on the National Review Online hints at one remaining consideration for the undecided superdelegates to factor into their decision: taking cues from the remaining big time superdelegates.

The new magic number then, is ten. These ten superdelegates are the ones who hold enough clout within the party to tip the scale in one direction or the other as the contest phase of the nomination season draws to a close.
1. Al Gore
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Harry Reid
5. Joe Biden
6. Steny Hoyer
7. Jim Clyburn
8. Jim Webb
9. Red State House Dems up for re-election
10. Donna Brazile

With the exception of red state Democrats (a group likely to remain undecided until everyone else has weighed in--Why choose when you can use the "The party chose them" excuse with constituents?), this list makes sense. If a majority of these folks opts for one candidate over the other then either Obama is looking good or the Democratic party is likely headed for a messy convention pitting party elites against the rank-and-file membership. Given Jimmy Carter's 1980 experience, you'd think he'd weigh in to attempt to avoid a repeat of the post-convention chasm between Carter and Kennedy factions that year. None of these ten (nor the rest of the superdelegates) wants to be on the wrong side though. And that means most will wait for the chips to fall before making a decision. In other words, maybe this superdelegate convention, Tennessee governor, Phil Bresden is pushing has some validity to it.

[For a long discussion of each of these decision making factors see the earlier posts linked above.]

The Caucus Question

During the last (pre-hiatus) discussion group meeting, Paul [Gurian] brought up the idea that in typical (Super Tuesday era) nomination campaigns, caucus winners usually gain support as the number of steps in the process increase. There are a few issues at work here:

1) Some (or all) of the candidates, who won support initially, have dropped out of the race. By the time the second step rolls around, those free agents move over to the leader (or presumptive nominee).

2) If the nomination is still in doubt as subsequent caucus steps begin, the first step winner's supporters use that original plurality/majority to tweak the numbers for the next step even further in their direction. In a competitive environment then, this majority builds a modest level of momentum throughout the process, giving the original winner a delegate total greater than the projection following the first step.

As best Paul and I can ascertain, there really isn't any literature addressing this question directly, only anecdotal evidence from campaigns past. In the Super Tuesday era though, this hasn't been an issue because the field had been winnowed significantly ahead of any second step caucus meetings. This anecdotal evidence then would come from the elections after reform but prior to 1984 or 1988. In other words, the Carter vs. the field in 1976, Carter/Kennedy and Mondale/Hart match ups. Carter was a steady force throughout the 1976 nomination phase. After doing well early in 1980, Carter's support faded down the stretch as Kennedy made gains. Mondale, after having lost in early caucus rounds to Hart in 1984, gained delegates in subsequent rounds to take a significant pledged delegate lead into that year's convention.

There are two hypotheses that emerges from this:
1) The winner of the first step gains delegates in subsequent steps.
2) The frontrunner (but not necessarily the winner) gains delegates as to process progresses.
Both require controlling for either the level of competition or the amount of candidate winnowing that has taken place. And in the frontloaded era, that winnowing has been rapid enough that the second steps fell after the point at which a presumptive nominee had been determined.

[The question then becomes one of data collection and this is the tricky part, simply because the transparency of the caucus process is less than that of a primary election. The reporting just isn't the same.]

The 2008 campaign though, fits the pre-Super Tuesday era model in that the competition has extended beyond the massive, early clustering of state contests. Given Obama's success in the caucuses then, it stands to reason that he would gain even more ground in the delegate count over Clinton as the next steps are held. However, there may actually be some evidence to the contrary: that Clinton has made some gains in the lead up to the second step caucuses. The Monkey Cage (via Enik Rising) has shown that in Colorado, the post-caucus numbers have fluctuated some in the time after the precinct caucuses were held on February 5. This whole thing is speculative, but it is a means through which the Clinton campaign could make strides in the delegate disparity between the two Democratic candidates. In one state, flipping a delegate or two won't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but if this is happening across all the caucus states, then those changes could become significant.

How then does this fit in with the research question posed above? Well, it adds another layer to consider. Things get more complicated as a factor like specific candidate strategy to protect or steal delegates as the process progresses. Much of this would depend again on the competitiveness of the race and how each candidate is positioned in relation to the other. That we have witnessed a virtual tie in the 2008 Democratic race is something of an anomaly compared to races past (even competitive nomination races). And that is where the extra layer--the possibility of delegate shifting--originates. If it is perceived that the options are still open, then delegates are as a result more likely to entertain the idea of shifting. Whereas, if the race was signaling the emergence of one candidate over the other (no matter how small that lead), delegates would be less likely to move.

This is an interesting question that even just a case study of how the 2008 race (in caucuses) would provide some enlightening answers.

1980 vs. 2008

I've been in the "lab" this last week working with dissertation data and noticed a bit of a quirk in the nomination calendars of past cycles. [Yes, the exciting life of a person who examines delegate selection event positioning. Ooh and technical jargon, too!] The calendar for the 1980 cycle and the one for this current cycle are exactly the same. No, I don't mean that California went on June 3 during both years because California definitely doesn't have another presidential primary planned for this year [...that I know of]. The actual yearly calendars for both years are the same though. So it was interesting to look at where states were then versus where they have gone or will go this year.

Pennsylvania drew my attention to this. I looked and saw that the Keystone state held its nominating contest on the same April 22 date in 1980 that they will hold their contest on this year. And seven other states fit the same category in one way or another. Indiana, North Carolina (both May 6) and Oregon (May 20) are holding primaries for both parties on the same dates they did in 1980. Nebraska (May 13) and Idaho (May 27) Republicans are also holding primaries on the same dates they did twenty-eight years ago. Both are state funded primaries that Democrats have opted out of. Nebraska Democrats just this cycle abandoned that third Tuesday in May date for a caucus the weekend after Super Tuesday. Idaho Democrats have long shunned the state primary in favor of a caucus (every cycle from the 1980 onward). And though Montana Democrats (June 3) have switched back and forth several times between holding independent caucuses or state run primaries to select delegates, they have opted to employ the first Tuesday in June date on which the state's primaries are typically held. Finally, Kentucky has frontloaded its primary for 2008 versus 1980; moving up a week from May 27 to May 20 over the course of those twenty-eight years.

The question is: What stands in the way of these states moving like all the rest? Well, all of these states with the exception of Indiana have moved since 1980. North Carolina and Kentucky moved up for the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988. [Actually Kentucky switched to a caucus for 1984 and was a part of a Southern Super week. Following Alabama, Florida and Georgia's second Tuesday in March contests, Kentucky, Arkansas and Mississippi all held caucuses on the Saturday after.] The legislation in both cases called for temporary moves. Oregon moved to mid-March in 1996 and Pennsylvania moved to early April in 2000 before immediately returning to their traditional dates. And even though Idaho, Montana and Nebraska have maintained the same state funded presidential primary dates throughout this period, one party has consistently shown the willingness to opt out and hold a caucus independent of the state.

Why then is Indiana different? Part of the reason is that Indiana holds their presidential primaries simultaneously with its state and local primaries. Moving entails either moving all of the primaries or creating an all new election; both of which have costs. Incidentally, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania all are in the same boat. Both Alabama and Arkansas were in similar situations before both severed the bond between presidential and state/local primaries to hold a separate presidential primary in 2008. Those moves underscore a couple of trends that have emerged. First, more and more states have been willing to split primaries over this period. There has also been a movement away from temporary moves toward more permanent moves. I would argue that as the frontloaded/Super Tuesday model became normalized, states shifted from temporary moves to test the waters of the new process to permanent moves to be a part of the established system or be left on the outside looking in.

This split primaries issue is the basis of one of my dissertation chapters, the roots of which can be found in this paper from SPSA 2007.

Florida, Florida, Florida...and Michigan

It has been fitting that much the news this week (spring break at UGA) has centered on the Florida do over situation. And there have been some great links piling up. After last week's plea from the governors of Florida and Michigan to seat the states' delegates, the focus began to shift from contests to the ongoing delegate battle on the Democratic side; mostly to do with Florida and Michigan and the party's superdelegates.

I was pleased earlier this week to see Paul Gronke, an expert on early and alternate voting methods, weigh in on the possibility of a mail-in do over vote in Florida. The main problem in Florida is that cost is going to be an issue no matter which way this goes. And that was the least of the worries when the state's congressional delegation rejected the idea and it then became apparent that no method of verifying voter signatures existed.

So Florida Democrats are up the creek without a paddle. That may be true, but one idea that has received little attention and may eventually rescue Sunshine state Democrats is an appeal to the Rules and Bylaws Committee to have the state's delegates seated. And as The Swamp over at the Chicago Tribune reports, that appeals process is underway. The catch is that the argument may not be about seating the delegates but instead may focus on the harshness of the DNC's sanctions against the party. And that is an interesting argument. Remember that the party's official punishment is that a state violating the timing restrictions set forth by the party lose half its delegates (Rule 20.C.1.a&b), but the Rules and Bylaws Committee opted to make an example of Florida and stripped them of their entire slate of delegates. Does that argument hold water? Eh, maybe not, but it would shift some of the pressure back on the DNC if Florida Democrats brought that argument to the forefront.

And what about Michigan? Well, if the mail in do over vote won't work then a legislature approved do over primary in early June may be the only way to go. [Now I'm going to have to recheck all my Michigan legislature links again.] Then Michigan will have had the third and last contests on the Democratic side. What? Oh yeah, that one on January 15 didn't count.