And now we've come full circle. The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee will apparently hear challenges from both Michigan and Florida late next month about the severity of the full delegation penalty handed down last fall (by the same committee!). [Sometimes you just have to love the democracy of the Democrats.] I've said numerous times that I thought the party would eventually, and quietly, return to the original rules that stripped any state holding a nominating contest prior to February 5 half its delegates. Of course, nothing has been quiet in this race, so hopes of that happening were nothing more than a pipe dream for the DNC.
This is the same rule/sanction the Republicans have as well and it has been triggered this cycle by all the pre-Feb. 5 states that allocated any delegates to the convention. That includes New Hampshire. The only early states that skirted the GOP sanctions were Iowa and Nevada because the first stage of their caucuses did not award any delegates directly to the national convention. Of course, this fact has escape the media in the midst of all the ballyhoo over Florida and Michigan for the Democrats. Mind you, McCain is still the nominee whether those delegates are counted or not, and it may not be a story as a result. Still though, you'd think you'd hear mention of it in passing at least.
So now the Democrats are thinking of reversing course on their decision to make an example of Florida. Well, that example didn't work so they had to make one of Michigan too. And with that the seeds of the current catastrophe were sown. And they may go back on that decision and revert to the original penalty? Didn't the Democrats deal poorly with the flip-flop moniker in 2004? Now the national party is coming back for more. This seems more than fair though. The national party is penalized because it went too far in punishing both states and the original violators pay the price for their transgressions as well. No, the state parties don't get off that easily either.
The question now is, how does this affect the delegate counting? It surely is a blow to the Clinton folks, who are trying desperately to get the delegate margin as low as possible so they can make a solid argument to the uncommitted superdelegates. I'm also curious to see if this sanction applies to the popular vote as well. With all of the Clinton campaign's estimating of the popular vote lately, this is a question I'd like answered (if only in jest). Perhaps I could get a ruling from the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Nah, probably not.
**One interesting tidbit from that MSNBC link at the top is that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has jurisdiction over this issue until June 29 when it then passes over to the Credentials Committee. June 29 is awfully close to the July 1 deadline Howard Dean imposed for dealing with the Florida/Michigan/nomination question. Coincidence? I think not.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Jeremiah Wright to Sit Down with Bill Moyers (Friday, April 25)
Bill Moyers has secured the first interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright since the pastor's now famous comments emerged as an issue in the Democratic nomination race. The interview will air on Friday, April 25 at 9pm (unless you are in Georgia). For Georgians, GPB will air the show on Sunday at 3pm. Fire up your DVRs!
Here's a preview.
Meanwhile, the Obama camp crosses its fingers and Clinton and McCain break out their pads and pencils.
Here's a preview.
Meanwhile, the Obama camp crosses its fingers and Clinton and McCain break out their pads and pencils.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Do Campaigns Matter? A Reflection on the Results in Pennsylvania
As I awoke this morning to find the final margin in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary, I was haunted, to some extent, by the parallels that were drawn between Ohio and Pennsylvania in the wake of the Ohio primary some six weeks ago. If you operate under the assumption that the demographics in each state are fairly highly correlated, the results of each primary speak for themselves. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton's margin of victory was essentially 10 percentage points. So after all that spending and all the bickering and all the revelations (Rev. Wright, Bosnia, lapel pins, etc.) the result of a six week campaign was essentially nothing. Well, that's the way it looks; cynical as that may seem. [Tom Holbrook and Jim Campbell may want to weigh in now on that question.] I don't really subscribe to that because Clinton's original Pennsylvania poll numbers following the Texas-Ohio results got a boost based on her wins. Over time, though, those numbers decayed and came back down to earth. There was some variation in there based on spending, advertising and other revelations, but in the end the six week long efforts by Obama and Clinton (endogenously) and outside factors canceled each other out.
So do campaigns matter? There is the argument that campaigns cancel each other out, sure, but in the end we only get to see the fruits of a campaign's labor when an election is close. And that's what we have here: a closely contested race for the Democratic nomination. Do campaigns matter? No, if all you're doing is looking at margins between certain states. Yes, if you look at Obama's strength in caucuses or Clinton's approach to Texas and Ohio. Each either knew and exploited the rules or took advantage of some last minute doubt raising.
Of course, if you lean on state demographics as the major indicator of success, then most of the remaining states, save Indiana, fall squarely in either Clinton's or Obama's camps. The real battle then, will be waged there and among, ahem, the superdelegates. The party, I'm sure, is really going to step up the pressure on the superdelegates to decide, one way or the other, sooner rather than later.
And what of momentum? Rob has weighed in in the comments to yesterday's post. Is it dead or is it just the uniqueness of this Democratic race that has made it a non-factor? The comments await.
Who's next? Well, Guam is officially up next followed by North Carolina and Indiana. Guam is Obama country and North Carolina appears to be as well. Let's see how yesterday's results get spun though and how the polls move in the meantime. Two weeks is shorter than six, so Obama doesn't have as much time to get things back to "normal" after what should be something of a Clinton boost after yesterday. But then, momentum may not play a role at all.
The Pennsylvania aftermath has pushed the 2008 Electoral College Maps back a day, so I'll be back with those tomorrow.
So do campaigns matter? There is the argument that campaigns cancel each other out, sure, but in the end we only get to see the fruits of a campaign's labor when an election is close. And that's what we have here: a closely contested race for the Democratic nomination. Do campaigns matter? No, if all you're doing is looking at margins between certain states. Yes, if you look at Obama's strength in caucuses or Clinton's approach to Texas and Ohio. Each either knew and exploited the rules or took advantage of some last minute doubt raising.
Of course, if you lean on state demographics as the major indicator of success, then most of the remaining states, save Indiana, fall squarely in either Clinton's or Obama's camps. The real battle then, will be waged there and among, ahem, the superdelegates. The party, I'm sure, is really going to step up the pressure on the superdelegates to decide, one way or the other, sooner rather than later.
And what of momentum? Rob has weighed in in the comments to yesterday's post. Is it dead or is it just the uniqueness of this Democratic race that has made it a non-factor? The comments await.
Who's next? Well, Guam is officially up next followed by North Carolina and Indiana. Guam is Obama country and North Carolina appears to be as well. Let's see how yesterday's results get spun though and how the polls move in the meantime. Two weeks is shorter than six, so Obama doesn't have as much time to get things back to "normal" after what should be something of a Clinton boost after yesterday. But then, momentum may not play a role at all.
The Pennsylvania aftermath has pushed the 2008 Electoral College Maps back a day, so I'll be back with those tomorrow.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pennsylvania Results
There's enough "what to watch" stuff going around about what is worth keeping tabs on tonight as the results come in from precincts across Pennsylvania (see here and here). 10 is the number du jour; the number Clinton has to clear tonight to have a fighting chance going forward into Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks. With a new contest come visions of the end game. Anything less than 10 points maintains the status quo and an Obama win likely ends things for Clinton by the end of the week. I've said before that her performance thus far and standing in the delegate count has earned her the right to compete until the last contest has been held, but a loss in Pennsylvania is an ominous sign in light of the $10 million hole her campaign is in according to the recent FEC reports. Those are the stakes on this Earth Day where the record turnout of the 2008 primary season stretched to the Keystone state. On to the results:
10:39pm: Margins and delegates, part II: I'll be back in the morning with more on PA and what's ahead. This should make for an interesting discussion group meeting tomorrow afternoon.
9:37pm: Why is it assumed in media accounts that Hillary voters won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee? The opposite scenario isn't getting as much play because Hillary is playing catch up. This is an interesting question though. Why is the media automatically assuming that Obama running behind among certain groups is ominous for him in the fall? Sure, there are polls to suggest that some among the supporters of each would rather vote for McCain than their favored Democrat's rival for the nomination. Is Clinton closer to McCain than Obama though? This seems like a stretch. In a swing state like Pennsylvania, it may matter. But they aren't saying that. This continues to baffle me as this race continues.
9:32pm: Margin and delegates. That's the focus now. Clinton will talk about the win. Obama will talk about the delegates. Does he dare invoke the name of Huckabee and the idea of the miracle he needed to overtake McCain when the math was up against him? I doubt it, but it is an interesting comparison.
9:17pm: CNN has followed suit on the Clinton projection. The question now? What will the final margin be? That's where the true spin begins.
...and the new bickering too. "Clinton was supposed to win!" "We were outspent and still won!" Voters in North Carolina and Indiana must be so excited. FHQ will be reaching out in the next couple of weeks to satellite members in the North Carolina viewing markets for their take on the ads running there.
9:11pm: ABCNews is calling PA for Clinton. That came out of left field. "Despite Delegate lead Obama can't wrap up nomination" is the secondary headline. I've drawn parallels between this race and the Democratic race in 1980 before. That was in terms of the two years' calendars, though. The two races are similar in other ways too. Jimmy Carter gained something of a comfortable lead in the early going but Ted Kennedy had all the big wins coming down the stretch. The result was an extremely divisive convention an a loss in November. Democrats are hoping history doesn't repeat itself.
9:00pm: What am I saying?!? Of course we know more than we did an hour ago. John McCain has won the Pennsylvania primary. I'm somewhat disappointed given the level of chatter among Ron Paul supporters over the last week. Since my Ron Paul post last week, I've been keeping tabs on the chatter and the news from that end of the Republican Party and a lot of the talk concerned how Paul could win in the Keystone state. I'll have an update on the efforts to secure Paul a presence at September's GOP convention later this week.
8:58pm: Nearly an hour in and we still don't know much more than we did an hour ago. We have some numbers trickling in, but it is still too close for a call from any of the networks.
8:41pm: Ah, numbers. Clinton has opened up a nearly two to one lead on Obama.
...with 2100+ votes counted so far.
8:35pm: This is fun. This just popped up in the sidebar of the live blog over at The Caucus: Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC? Unless you've been under a rock for the past two or three years, you are familiar with the Apple ads with the "cool" Mac guy and the "square" PC guy. [I suppose I could have gone with another descriptor for the PC character, but I thought I'd use a 50s/60s throwback.] An interesting parallel to the Democratic race. We could see a reprise in the general election if Obama wraps up the nomination.
8:29pm: As of 8:25, the New York Times Election Guide is still showing 0% reporting. It could be a long night.
8:25pm: The Caucus is reporting that two of the big battleground counties, Bucks and Montgomery (both in suburban Philly) will not have any results until 9pm and 10pm respectively (see the 8pm and 8:20 posts over there). The winner of those counties will be in good shape overall, but we won't know who that is for a while...apparently.
8:20pm: The Drudge Report has 0,000,000 beside each candidates name. Will both candidates surpass one million votes? That is a far cry from four years ago when Pennsylvania was an also-ran and only managed a shade under 800,000 votes in a Democratic primary that was after the point at which Kerry had been crowned the nominee.
8:07pm: ABCNews says it's too close to call. Does that mean a large turnout for Obama in the quick-reporting urban centers? If so, this could go on for a while. Not really what the Clinton camp wants.
8:00pm: I've got eight o'clock here. Polls are closed. Start counting.
7:53pm: Seven minutes to go. The Caucus is running a report from watchdog group, Committee of Seventy, that contends that in the Philly area there are some voter identification/registration problems (see 7:50 post at the Caucus). People who were registered as Democrats were appearing as independents on the voter rolls. That's a problem in a closed primary. Send in the provisional ballots. There aren't any hard numbers as to how widespread the problem is, but that could really be a headache for elections officials in the city of brotherly love.
7:35pm: Something else to pass the time: The Monkey Cage has a new post up discussing a paper looking at momentum in the primaries. The authors, Knight and Shiff find that in 2004 Iowa voters were six times more influential in determining the outcome than Super Tuesday voters. That's a lot of influence for such a representative state. Michigan and Florida just got even angrier.
7:32pm: If you need something to do to pass the next twenty-some odd minutes, head over to the New York Times where they have a delegate scenario calculator for "Clinton's Challenge" over the course of the rest of primary season. You can set her percentage of the vote for the remaining contests and determine the percentage of remaining uncommitted superdelegates she needs to win to take the nomination. A neat little gadget.
7:30pm: Polls close in half an hour.
7:25pm: The most interesting nugget from the exit polls so far is that two-thirds of those surveyed think Clinton hit below the belt in her attacks on Obama. That jibes well with the theory I proposed yesterday: that blame attribution for the negative attacks will go a long way toward deciding who wins in Pennsylvania. Of course, those polls also show few last minute deciders, so it may not have matter much anyway.
7:14pm: I will fall back on my old stand-by sneak peek at the exit polls from The Drudge Report. As of 5pm they had these numbers up (REMEMBER, these are exit polls.):
10:39pm: Margins and delegates, part II: I'll be back in the morning with more on PA and what's ahead. This should make for an interesting discussion group meeting tomorrow afternoon.
9:37pm: Why is it assumed in media accounts that Hillary voters won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee? The opposite scenario isn't getting as much play because Hillary is playing catch up. This is an interesting question though. Why is the media automatically assuming that Obama running behind among certain groups is ominous for him in the fall? Sure, there are polls to suggest that some among the supporters of each would rather vote for McCain than their favored Democrat's rival for the nomination. Is Clinton closer to McCain than Obama though? This seems like a stretch. In a swing state like Pennsylvania, it may matter. But they aren't saying that. This continues to baffle me as this race continues.
9:32pm: Margin and delegates. That's the focus now. Clinton will talk about the win. Obama will talk about the delegates. Does he dare invoke the name of Huckabee and the idea of the miracle he needed to overtake McCain when the math was up against him? I doubt it, but it is an interesting comparison.
9:17pm: CNN has followed suit on the Clinton projection. The question now? What will the final margin be? That's where the true spin begins.
...and the new bickering too. "Clinton was supposed to win!" "We were outspent and still won!" Voters in North Carolina and Indiana must be so excited. FHQ will be reaching out in the next couple of weeks to satellite members in the North Carolina viewing markets for their take on the ads running there.
9:11pm: ABCNews is calling PA for Clinton. That came out of left field. "Despite Delegate lead Obama can't wrap up nomination" is the secondary headline. I've drawn parallels between this race and the Democratic race in 1980 before. That was in terms of the two years' calendars, though. The two races are similar in other ways too. Jimmy Carter gained something of a comfortable lead in the early going but Ted Kennedy had all the big wins coming down the stretch. The result was an extremely divisive convention an a loss in November. Democrats are hoping history doesn't repeat itself.
9:00pm: What am I saying?!? Of course we know more than we did an hour ago. John McCain has won the Pennsylvania primary. I'm somewhat disappointed given the level of chatter among Ron Paul supporters over the last week. Since my Ron Paul post last week, I've been keeping tabs on the chatter and the news from that end of the Republican Party and a lot of the talk concerned how Paul could win in the Keystone state. I'll have an update on the efforts to secure Paul a presence at September's GOP convention later this week.
8:58pm: Nearly an hour in and we still don't know much more than we did an hour ago. We have some numbers trickling in, but it is still too close for a call from any of the networks.
8:41pm: Ah, numbers. Clinton has opened up a nearly two to one lead on Obama.
...with 2100+ votes counted so far.
8:35pm: This is fun. This just popped up in the sidebar of the live blog over at The Caucus: Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC? Unless you've been under a rock for the past two or three years, you are familiar with the Apple ads with the "cool" Mac guy and the "square" PC guy. [I suppose I could have gone with another descriptor for the PC character, but I thought I'd use a 50s/60s throwback.] An interesting parallel to the Democratic race. We could see a reprise in the general election if Obama wraps up the nomination.
8:29pm: As of 8:25, the New York Times Election Guide is still showing 0% reporting. It could be a long night.
8:25pm: The Caucus is reporting that two of the big battleground counties, Bucks and Montgomery (both in suburban Philly) will not have any results until 9pm and 10pm respectively (see the 8pm and 8:20 posts over there). The winner of those counties will be in good shape overall, but we won't know who that is for a while...apparently.
8:20pm: The Drudge Report has 0,000,000 beside each candidates name. Will both candidates surpass one million votes? That is a far cry from four years ago when Pennsylvania was an also-ran and only managed a shade under 800,000 votes in a Democratic primary that was after the point at which Kerry had been crowned the nominee.
8:07pm: ABCNews says it's too close to call. Does that mean a large turnout for Obama in the quick-reporting urban centers? If so, this could go on for a while. Not really what the Clinton camp wants.
8:00pm: I've got eight o'clock here. Polls are closed. Start counting.
7:53pm: Seven minutes to go. The Caucus is running a report from watchdog group, Committee of Seventy, that contends that in the Philly area there are some voter identification/registration problems (see 7:50 post at the Caucus). People who were registered as Democrats were appearing as independents on the voter rolls. That's a problem in a closed primary. Send in the provisional ballots. There aren't any hard numbers as to how widespread the problem is, but that could really be a headache for elections officials in the city of brotherly love.
7:35pm: Something else to pass the time: The Monkey Cage has a new post up discussing a paper looking at momentum in the primaries. The authors, Knight and Shiff find that in 2004 Iowa voters were six times more influential in determining the outcome than Super Tuesday voters. That's a lot of influence for such a representative state. Michigan and Florida just got even angrier.
7:32pm: If you need something to do to pass the next twenty-some odd minutes, head over to the New York Times where they have a delegate scenario calculator for "Clinton's Challenge" over the course of the rest of primary season. You can set her percentage of the vote for the remaining contests and determine the percentage of remaining uncommitted superdelegates she needs to win to take the nomination. A neat little gadget.
7:30pm: Polls close in half an hour.
7:25pm: The most interesting nugget from the exit polls so far is that two-thirds of those surveyed think Clinton hit below the belt in her attacks on Obama. That jibes well with the theory I proposed yesterday: that blame attribution for the negative attacks will go a long way toward deciding who wins in Pennsylvania. Of course, those polls also show few last minute deciders, so it may not have matter much anyway.
7:14pm: I will fall back on my old stand-by sneak peek at the exit polls from The Drudge Report. As of 5pm they had these numbers up (REMEMBER, these are exit polls.):
Clinton 52%Here's the breakdown among whites, blacks, men and women:
Obama 48
WomenNone of these numbers are particularly surprising, but it would be interesting to see how things look among different age groups. Remember back to Wisconsin (That was eight weeks ago, two weeks prior to Texas-Ohio.) when Obama was cutting into Clinton's support among women and blue collar workers? Things have changed and Clinton seems to be avoiding that scenario among women at least. Again, these are exit polls so we don't know where the data is coming from or if it is an accurate depiction of the Pennsylvania electorate today. With just four points separating the two, Clinton certainly won't be making up much, if any, ground in the delegate count.
Clinton 55%
Obama 44
Men
Clinton 47%
Obama 53
Whites
Clinton 60%
Obama 40
Blacks
Clinton 8%
Obama 92
Pennsylvania Primary Day! The Long Journey Through the Wilderness is Over
Yes, it's Earth Day today too, but for political junkies, saving the planet may be pushed to the back burner on a day that officially ends the six week drought of nominating contests. Remember that 3am phone call ad? Yeah, that was six weeks ago, though it feels like a hundred years and 100,000 bickering points ago. That all comes to an end today though. Well, the drought does. If Clinton wins as expected (the polls have had her ahead--by as much as 26 points--in the Keystone state since the focus shifted after Texas-Ohio), the bickering is likely to continue.
Who wins and loses in such a negative environment? See the comments from yesterday's post for some of those answers and add your own thoughts if you like.
Negativity and polling aside though, what can we expect on Pennsylvania Primary Day? Polls close at 8pm this evening and the quicker the networks make a projection the better the news will more than likely be for Clinton. The longer that projection takes to be made though, is a sign that Obama has potentially done better than expected. The other factor today is how the increase in registration ahead of this primary election will affect turnout today. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, attempting to determine which candidate wins in a high turnout environment has been a tricky enterprise during the 2008 cycle. Obama's ability to bring new voters into the process has caused many to think that high turnout bodes well for him. Then again the voters in New Hampshire, Texas and Ohio didn't feel obliged to follow that rule. Is Pennsylvania a part of the exception to that rule, giving Clinton a boost? Or does the Keystone state's increased participation give Obama the knock out punch he needs to end the nomination race? One thing's for sure: turnout will be greater than the 800,000 Pennsylvanians who went to the polls for the 2004 Democratic primary.
The number of the day looks to be 10. If Clinton wins by 10 points or more, she lives to fight another day. Anything less than 10 leaves a lot of questions to be answered. Translation: enter the spin room.
I may have linked this before, but for a deeper examination of today's contest (on the congressional district level), check out CQ's distrtict by district analysis of the race from last week.
Who wins and loses in such a negative environment? See the comments from yesterday's post for some of those answers and add your own thoughts if you like.
Negativity and polling aside though, what can we expect on Pennsylvania Primary Day? Polls close at 8pm this evening and the quicker the networks make a projection the better the news will more than likely be for Clinton. The longer that projection takes to be made though, is a sign that Obama has potentially done better than expected. The other factor today is how the increase in registration ahead of this primary election will affect turnout today. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, attempting to determine which candidate wins in a high turnout environment has been a tricky enterprise during the 2008 cycle. Obama's ability to bring new voters into the process has caused many to think that high turnout bodes well for him. Then again the voters in New Hampshire, Texas and Ohio didn't feel obliged to follow that rule. Is Pennsylvania a part of the exception to that rule, giving Clinton a boost? Or does the Keystone state's increased participation give Obama the knock out punch he needs to end the nomination race? One thing's for sure: turnout will be greater than the 800,000 Pennsylvanians who went to the polls for the 2004 Democratic primary.
The number of the day looks to be 10. If Clinton wins by 10 points or more, she lives to fight another day. Anything less than 10 leaves a lot of questions to be answered. Translation: enter the spin room.
I may have linked this before, but for a deeper examination of today's contest (on the congressional district level), check out CQ's distrtict by district analysis of the race from last week.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Kennedy School Symposium on Presidential Primaries Process
Next week Harvard's Kennedy School of Government will be holding a symposium to examine the presidential primary process.
Oh and while you're over at the Kennedy School's site, have a look around. They have some neat things in their Election 2008 section. Elaine Kamarck's history of superdelegates was a good read.
"The first-of-its-kind, day-long event will gather Secretaries of State and other elected officials, political strategists, Democratic and Republican Party rules committee members and state-party chairs, congressional staff, members of the media, noted election law experts and governmental scholars to participate in an effort to consider improvements in the way future presidential nominating contests take place."It will be interesting to see if the resulting published transcript reveals a consensus for a rotating regional primary system like the one pushed by the National Association for Secretaries of State (a partner in this effort). That may be a cynical approach, but as I have stated in this space on numerous occasions, pulling that off is going to be a nearly insurmountable task. The fact this is a bipartisan effort though, leaves room for some hope however, if change to the current system is the goal.
Oh and while you're over at the Kennedy School's site, have a look around. They have some neat things in their Election 2008 section. Elaine Kamarck's history of superdelegates was a good read.
Negative Nellie in Pennsylvania
Maybe you noticed over the weekend that the campaigning in Pennsylvania got ugly. Maybe. Or maybe onlookers and Pennsylvanians alike made up their minds and spent a nice spring weekend outside trying to avoid the onslaught and any April surprises. As we inch closer to the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow several ideas are floating around in my head.
1) Why the negativity now from Obama?
In a season where voters have not taken to negative campaigning very well (Romney's out and Clinton's use of negativity before and after South Carolina seemed to aid, at least in part, Obama's post-Super Tuesday winning streak), it is an odd choice for the typically adept Obama campaign to opt for a seemingly more negative approach in the lead up to the latest "most crucial contest." Either the Obama camp is desperate for a win in Pennsylvania that would put an end to this race or they're hoping that Clinton receives the last minute blame attribution for the negativity (which could lead to an Obama win).
2) Does record registration in the Keystone state bode well for Obama?
That's what Politico's Jeanne Cunnings (via The Caucus) concludes. I've been burned on this sort of thing before; suggesting that high turnout in New Hampshire would mean a win for Obama. We can all see how that one turned out. I don't disagree with the conclusion but I do think that an Obama win may not be the result of a spike in registration.
3) What if Obama's trip to Negativeland is simply a ploy?
A calculated move? In politics? I shudder to think. But seriously, what if this is nothing but a clever ploy on the part of the Obama camp to play on Democrats' worst fears: a divisive primary that ruins their chances of winning in November? If voters are reminded of that are they more or less likely to want to put an end to the race? If Clinton gets that blame attribution, then Pennsylvanians could prove the decisive electorate in this race.
4) Will Pennsylvanians take the bait?
And could I cast that in any more negative a way? I don't know, but I have an idea. If you are in the voting booth and this negativity is affecting your decision, who loses the most points. Clinton has gone negative already, so even more negativity just builds on that perception. Obama has avoided negativity, or so the story goes, so any negativity from his campaign either really breaks from the past tenor of his campaign or is just an aberration.
The big questions then are who gets the blame for the recent rash of negativity and are Pennsylvanians tired (scared) enough of the potential for divisiveness to want to end the nomination race? The answers will decide who wins tomorrow and how quickly this thing may be wrapped up.
1) Why the negativity now from Obama?
In a season where voters have not taken to negative campaigning very well (Romney's out and Clinton's use of negativity before and after South Carolina seemed to aid, at least in part, Obama's post-Super Tuesday winning streak), it is an odd choice for the typically adept Obama campaign to opt for a seemingly more negative approach in the lead up to the latest "most crucial contest." Either the Obama camp is desperate for a win in Pennsylvania that would put an end to this race or they're hoping that Clinton receives the last minute blame attribution for the negativity (which could lead to an Obama win).
2) Does record registration in the Keystone state bode well for Obama?
That's what Politico's Jeanne Cunnings (via The Caucus) concludes. I've been burned on this sort of thing before; suggesting that high turnout in New Hampshire would mean a win for Obama. We can all see how that one turned out. I don't disagree with the conclusion but I do think that an Obama win may not be the result of a spike in registration.
3) What if Obama's trip to Negativeland is simply a ploy?
A calculated move? In politics? I shudder to think. But seriously, what if this is nothing but a clever ploy on the part of the Obama camp to play on Democrats' worst fears: a divisive primary that ruins their chances of winning in November? If voters are reminded of that are they more or less likely to want to put an end to the race? If Clinton gets that blame attribution, then Pennsylvanians could prove the decisive electorate in this race.
4) Will Pennsylvanians take the bait?
And could I cast that in any more negative a way? I don't know, but I have an idea. If you are in the voting booth and this negativity is affecting your decision, who loses the most points. Clinton has gone negative already, so even more negativity just builds on that perception. Obama has avoided negativity, or so the story goes, so any negativity from his campaign either really breaks from the past tenor of his campaign or is just an aberration.
The big questions then are who gets the blame for the recent rash of negativity and are Pennsylvanians tired (scared) enough of the potential for divisiveness to want to end the nomination race? The answers will decide who wins tomorrow and how quickly this thing may be wrapped up.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Credentials Committee and "The Dean 25"
Depending on how the next handful of nominating contests go for the Democrats, the Florida/Michigan situation may once again be resurrected (In fact, Michigan Dems are going ahead with their delegate selection process despite the DNC sanctions.) and prove crucial to the outcome of the party's nomination race. In the UGA Campaign Discussion Group on Wednesday, the issue of the Credentials Committee and its role in deciding the fate of those delegates from Florida and Michigan was raised. This 186 member group is comprised of 1) party members from the states based on each state's primary or caucus results (not clear whether the results are from this cycle or from the past) and 2) party members appointed by the chairman of the party. There are 161 of the former and 25 members appointed by DNC chairman, Howard Dean. This committee is a completely separate entity from the Rules and Bylaws Committee that opted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for violating the contest scheduling rules in their delegate selection plans. The "make an example of them" approach may not be felt as intensely in the Credentials Committee as it was in the Rules Committee. However, "the Dean 25" (as Avi Zenilman of Politico is calling them) may have something to say about that.
The question though, is, are these appointees in lock step with the positions Howard Dean has taken on the Florida and Michigan question. One thing that the Politico analysis fails to examine directly is when these appointments were made. They do come to the conclusion that these Credentials members may not be beholden to what Dean wants. But if these appointments were made when he became chairman in 2005, there's no way this was even an issue in the appointment decisions. Like everyone else then, these folks are faced with having to choose between Clinton and Obama. And just like in the primaries and caucuses and just like with the superdelegates, there is a pretty even split in who members of the Credentials Committee appear to backing. Based on the "hints" information in the Politico piece, eight support Clinton, eleven favor Obama, five are neutral and one has donated to both and favors the 50 state strategy under which Dean has the party operating. Obama then, has a slight edge with five or six members holding all the power. Even if that 50 state strategy backer opts for Obama (And as FHQ has speculated, Obama puts more states in play on the electoral college landscape than Clinton, with the result of promoting the strategy more effectively.), the Illinois senator only has 12 of the 25 members of the committee in his corner. The other five would all have to break for Clinton though to give her an edge.
Is that good news for Florida and Michigan? Probably not. But it won't necessarily be because of the Credentials Committee bowing to Dean's desires on the matter.
I still feel like the party will quietly punish Florida and Michigan, but will ultimately strip half their delegations as called for in the original rules for 2008 delegate selection. But that will only be "quiet" if Florida and Michigan are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things in this nomination race. However, predictions are made to be broken in this primary season. So don't hold me to that.
The question though, is, are these appointees in lock step with the positions Howard Dean has taken on the Florida and Michigan question. One thing that the Politico analysis fails to examine directly is when these appointments were made. They do come to the conclusion that these Credentials members may not be beholden to what Dean wants. But if these appointments were made when he became chairman in 2005, there's no way this was even an issue in the appointment decisions. Like everyone else then, these folks are faced with having to choose between Clinton and Obama. And just like in the primaries and caucuses and just like with the superdelegates, there is a pretty even split in who members of the Credentials Committee appear to backing. Based on the "hints" information in the Politico piece, eight support Clinton, eleven favor Obama, five are neutral and one has donated to both and favors the 50 state strategy under which Dean has the party operating. Obama then, has a slight edge with five or six members holding all the power. Even if that 50 state strategy backer opts for Obama (And as FHQ has speculated, Obama puts more states in play on the electoral college landscape than Clinton, with the result of promoting the strategy more effectively.), the Illinois senator only has 12 of the 25 members of the committee in his corner. The other five would all have to break for Clinton though to give her an edge.
Is that good news for Florida and Michigan? Probably not. But it won't necessarily be because of the Credentials Committee bowing to Dean's desires on the matter.
I still feel like the party will quietly punish Florida and Michigan, but will ultimately strip half their delegations as called for in the original rules for 2008 delegate selection. But that will only be "quiet" if Florida and Michigan are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things in this nomination race. However, predictions are made to be broken in this primary season. So don't hold me to that.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Did the Debate Change Anything?
Rob Shewfelt and I have started an exchange on the debate in the comments to yesterday's electoral college post, and while I included some debate commentary there, the events of last night deserve their own post. The question of the day remains to what extent, if any, did the debate change things in the Democratic battle in Pennsylvania and/or the broader race for the nomination?
In a footnote to yesterday's post I wrote:
"Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments and
the Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see."
After the debate Rob had this to say:
"She got the question you predicted (on trust) and one of the ones I mentioned (on guns), but she can't complain that he is being pampered by the media. It seems to me that Stephanopolous had a conflict of interest. For years we have heard about the revolving door between government (particularly civil servants) and industry leading to favorable treatment of big business. I think it is time to look at the revolving door between Congress and the Executive branch and network news. It is one thing to be a pundit on election night or a talk show, but it is entirely different being a questioner in a debate. I understand that the frontrunner gets more scrutiny than the runerup, but I think this was the most slanted questioning of a candidate in a debate I can recall.
"Clinton clearly won the debate. Obama looked bad. Clinton looked good when she answered the questions asked, but she may have overplayed her hand when she piled on after Obama stumbled. It will be interesting to see if the debate makes any difference in PA. The trend this year has been the person that gets beat up is the person who does best in the next primary. We'll know more next Wednesday morning."
One thing is for sure in both these comments: We're both taking a "wait and see approach" to this. And given the way this race has gone thus far that's pretty wise. If the 2000 general election hadn't proven most experts' predictions wrong, I'd dub this the "election in which predictions were made to be broken." Maybe I'll settle for the "primary season in which predictions were made to be broken". Nah, too long.
Anyway, here are my first reactions to Rob and the debate:
"I don't know, Rob. Yes, Clinton "won" the debate*, but Obama survived without digging a deeper hole for himself. He is in a position now with his argument of changing the "politics of distraction" that Clinton has been in playing the gender card and crying. He can't overuse it (whether he thinks its the right angle to take or not).
"And while Clinton won, she has to do more than that; she has to change the outlook of the race. And it remains to be seen whether she went beyond just winning last night. My take is that she didn't. Her solid performance was in the policy arena and voters expect her to be good there. Chris Cillizza over at The Fix brought this up in his post-debate reaction. He cites the LA Time/Bloomberg poll of PA, NC and IN voters who perceive Clinton to be the better candidate on policy, but opt for Obama anyway.
"*These proceedings are really wins for McCain. The more time the Democrats spend answering questions about guns, lapel pins and members of the Weather Underground, the more ammunition they willingly hand over to McCain and the "Republican attack machine". Both Obama and Clinton seem to be aware of this, but the fight continues."
Other thoughts? The comments section is open, so have at it FHQ readers and UGA Campaign Discussion Group regulars.
In a footnote to yesterday's post I wrote:
"Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments and
the Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see."
After the debate Rob had this to say:
"She got the question you predicted (on trust) and one of the ones I mentioned (on guns), but she can't complain that he is being pampered by the media. It seems to me that Stephanopolous had a conflict of interest. For years we have heard about the revolving door between government (particularly civil servants) and industry leading to favorable treatment of big business. I think it is time to look at the revolving door between Congress and the Executive branch and network news. It is one thing to be a pundit on election night or a talk show, but it is entirely different being a questioner in a debate. I understand that the frontrunner gets more scrutiny than the runerup, but I think this was the most slanted questioning of a candidate in a debate I can recall.
"Clinton clearly won the debate. Obama looked bad. Clinton looked good when she answered the questions asked, but she may have overplayed her hand when she piled on after Obama stumbled. It will be interesting to see if the debate makes any difference in PA. The trend this year has been the person that gets beat up is the person who does best in the next primary. We'll know more next Wednesday morning."
One thing is for sure in both these comments: We're both taking a "wait and see approach" to this. And given the way this race has gone thus far that's pretty wise. If the 2000 general election hadn't proven most experts' predictions wrong, I'd dub this the "election in which predictions were made to be broken." Maybe I'll settle for the "primary season in which predictions were made to be broken". Nah, too long.
Anyway, here are my first reactions to Rob and the debate:
"I don't know, Rob. Yes, Clinton "won" the debate*, but Obama survived without digging a deeper hole for himself. He is in a position now with his argument of changing the "politics of distraction" that Clinton has been in playing the gender card and crying. He can't overuse it (whether he thinks its the right angle to take or not).
"And while Clinton won, she has to do more than that; she has to change the outlook of the race. And it remains to be seen whether she went beyond just winning last night. My take is that she didn't. Her solid performance was in the policy arena and voters expect her to be good there. Chris Cillizza over at The Fix brought this up in his post-debate reaction. He cites the LA Time/Bloomberg poll of PA, NC and IN voters who perceive Clinton to be the better candidate on policy, but opt for Obama anyway.
"*These proceedings are really wins for McCain. The more time the Democrats spend answering questions about guns, lapel pins and members of the Weather Underground, the more ammunition they willingly hand over to McCain and the "Republican attack machine". Both Obama and Clinton seem to be aware of this, but the fight continues."
Other thoughts? The comments section is open, so have at it FHQ readers and UGA Campaign Discussion Group regulars.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Electoral College Maps (4/16/08)
This past week saw twelve new polls in ten states, thus offering more potential for change than last week's overall lack of new polling. Obviously much has changed on the landscape of the presidential race with Obama's "bitter" comments to a group of San Francisco area donors at a fundraiser recently. However, the effects of that have yet to appear in any significant way in the polls. In the next week, in the lead up to the primaries in Pennsylvania, those poll numbers may begin to shift. Charlie Cook, writing for the National Journal, contends that the episode comes to late to help Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. That may be true and in combination with a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showing a lack of trust in Clinton in the wake of the Bosnia misstatement, does not bode well for the junior senator from New York and former first lady. And while that news and the electoral college analysis to follow doesn't paint the rosiest of pictures for the Clinton campaign, the debate tonight (nationally televised on ABC*) and the Pennsylvania primary next Tuesday provide them with an opportunity to shift the news in a positive direction.
How, though, does the electoral college map look this week for Clinton and Obama against McCain?
For Clinton, the numbers are slightly better for the first time since FHQ began this endeavor. A ten electoral vote shift brings her deficit to 70 electoral votes; down from 90. McCain still leads 304 to 234 though and with the 155 toss up electoral votes (state's with average poll margins less than five) subtracted that lead holds up, 219 to 133. So while Clinton makes out slightly better than McCain among the toss up states, she is too far behind in the remaining states for that to make any difference. The poll changes this week that affect Clinton the most are the shift of Wisconsin from a "McCain lean" to a toss up and New Mexico staying a "McCain lean" but moving to the cusp of being considered a toss up. Pennsylvania is still a toss up as well, but Clinton's margin over McCain has been trending upward for her in the Keystone state.
Clinton's presence in the general election race against McCain still makes less difference than if Obama were the Democratic nominee. She continues to be competitive in the traditional swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but is still faring collectively worse in the non-battleground states than Kerry and Gore before her. One shift this week is that the "McCain margin"** between Clinton and Obama in New York is now zero. That means that in New York, it makes no difference who the Democratic nominee is against McCain; they are equally likely to carry the state (A Democrat will win there in any event in November.).
The Obama-McCain map for this week looks similar to the way it looked two weeks ago in that Pennsylvania is once again a tie between the two. The Keystone state broke for McCain last week, giving him an electoral college victory. As Pennsylvania goes then, so goes the nation; just like Florida and Ohio before it. The alignment of states across the map is the same as it has been with Obama holding a 260 to 257 advantage over McCain. This week though, North Carolina slips into the toss up category and Alaska (like New Mexico for Clinton) is on the verge of being there as well. The electoral votes in those 15 toss up states add up to 180. Those toss up states actually break for McCain (with Pennsylvania outstanding) because Obama maintains a 40 electoral vote lead (199-159) in the states that aren't toss ups on the McCain-Obama map. And as last week's map demonstrated, if McCain takes Pennsylvania, he makes up that deficit and gains victory in the electoral college.
As was mentioned earlier, Obama continues to have a better McCain margin than Clinton in 34 states. He brings states like Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska and Colorado into play where Clinton lags well behind McCain. And that ultimately is where the power of these maps lies. It clearly points out a decided difference in the competitiveness of each candidate against McCain. And that fact that margins are so wide (both in the electoral college and in McCain margin) speaks volumes about the state of the race for the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
*Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments and
the Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see.
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)
**McCain margin refers to the difference between Obama's state-to-state margins against McCain and Clinton's margins against McCain.
How, though, does the electoral college map look this week for Clinton and Obama against McCain?
For Clinton, the numbers are slightly better for the first time since FHQ began this endeavor. A ten electoral vote shift brings her deficit to 70 electoral votes; down from 90. McCain still leads 304 to 234 though and with the 155 toss up electoral votes (state's with average poll margins less than five) subtracted that lead holds up, 219 to 133. So while Clinton makes out slightly better than McCain among the toss up states, she is too far behind in the remaining states for that to make any difference. The poll changes this week that affect Clinton the most are the shift of Wisconsin from a "McCain lean" to a toss up and New Mexico staying a "McCain lean" but moving to the cusp of being considered a toss up. Pennsylvania is still a toss up as well, but Clinton's margin over McCain has been trending upward for her in the Keystone state.
Clinton's presence in the general election race against McCain still makes less difference than if Obama were the Democratic nominee. She continues to be competitive in the traditional swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but is still faring collectively worse in the non-battleground states than Kerry and Gore before her. One shift this week is that the "McCain margin"** between Clinton and Obama in New York is now zero. That means that in New York, it makes no difference who the Democratic nominee is against McCain; they are equally likely to carry the state (A Democrat will win there in any event in November.).
The Obama-McCain map for this week looks similar to the way it looked two weeks ago in that Pennsylvania is once again a tie between the two. The Keystone state broke for McCain last week, giving him an electoral college victory. As Pennsylvania goes then, so goes the nation; just like Florida and Ohio before it. The alignment of states across the map is the same as it has been with Obama holding a 260 to 257 advantage over McCain. This week though, North Carolina slips into the toss up category and Alaska (like New Mexico for Clinton) is on the verge of being there as well. The electoral votes in those 15 toss up states add up to 180. Those toss up states actually break for McCain (with Pennsylvania outstanding) because Obama maintains a 40 electoral vote lead (199-159) in the states that aren't toss ups on the McCain-Obama map. And as last week's map demonstrated, if McCain takes Pennsylvania, he makes up that deficit and gains victory in the electoral college.
As was mentioned earlier, Obama continues to have a better McCain margin than Clinton in 34 states. He brings states like Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska and Colorado into play where Clinton lags well behind McCain. And that ultimately is where the power of these maps lies. It clearly points out a decided difference in the competitiveness of each candidate against McCain. And that fact that margins are so wide (both in the electoral college and in McCain margin) speaks volumes about the state of the race for the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
*Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments andthe Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see.
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)
**McCain margin refers to the difference between Obama's state-to-state margins against McCain and Clinton's margins against McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)