Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

"If states had not moved up or “frontloaded” the date of their primaries and caucuses, under the misimpression that doing so would give them a greater voice in the 2008 nomination, Clinton might be the Democratic nominee."
--Michael P. McDonald, The Brookings Institution/Professor of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University

So now it was the calendar that knocked Clinton out in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race? State governments and state parties were deciding where to position their primaries and caucuses for 2008 during the time between March of 2005, when Arkansas became the first state to move and December of 2007, when Michigan's unsanctioned move was given the green light by the courts (over the access to voter information from the contests). Was it really a "misimpression" that 2008 would be like 2004 or 2000 or 1996 (etc.)? If 2008 had been like 2004, those states would have made "wise" decisions. They may have been lost in the shuffle among other, bigger states, but they at least would have held their contests on or before the time at which the nominee emerged. That had been the mark of most of the frontloaded system's races prior to 2008. Sure, in retrospect, those frontloading decisions may have been off the mark, but expecting states to have foreseen that is about as realistic as expecting pundits and experts to have predicted the race that just completed.

For the record, sequence did matter in 2008. But sequence has always played a role in these things. Florida's position in 1976 helped Jimmy Carter eliminate George Wallace. In 1988 the Souther Super Tuesday pushed George H.W. Bush out in front of the pack of Republicans. 1992 saw Georgia's position just after New Hampshire assist Bill Clinton in the comeback that began in the Granite state.

Sequence matters and it did in 2008 as well. That's just part of the nomination process, but it isn't the only factor. Obama's organizational prowess in the caucus states and micro-targeting of districts in state's where he did not win built the delegate advantages that he carried into the final weeks of primary season. The Clinton camp's inability to quickly devise a plan B after their Super Tuesday or bust strategy failed was the real cause of her downfall. The calendar was the same for everyone and was a known quantity (with the exception of Michigan) from early fall 2007 until Iowan kicked things off on January 3. Obama planned ahead; Clinton didn't. That is the story.

Look, I'm a staunch believer in the rules playing a decisive role in politics. Rules and rules changes form the basis of my academic pursuits and this particular set of rules (those applying to the scheduling and sequencing of presidential nominating contests) are the root of the dissertation I'm currently writing. I'm also something of a defender of/realist about the current system. Is it ideal? No. But it will be extremely difficult to get the national and state parties, Democrats and Republicans, and national and state governments on the same page to make a significant change. There are simply too many competing (not to mention, contradictory) interests involved. So now that primary season is over, it apparently is open season for frontloading bashing. The reexamination of the current system is a discussion that needs to be had, but a dose of reality is an important component of that discussion. Reform may be nice, but will be tough to come by. Rotating regional primaries may be nice, but a national primary, or something close to it, will be what we end up with.

Thanks to the good folks at Ballot Box (via The Election Law Blog) for the link.

Related: Michigan: What Would Have Happened? (from Fivethirtyeight.com)


Recent Posts:
Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

After the post-Super Tuesday run Obama made through February, the Illinois senator hit the wall in some respects. March and April ushered in a string a defeats that effectively prevented him from eliminating Hillary Clinton and claiming the Democratic nomination sooner. And though the two Democrats split victories coming down the stretch in May and early June, Obama failed to put Clinton away until the final night of the contest. This isn't meant as a means of tearing Obama down. He did just win the nomination after all. However, Obama's struggles in finishing off the formidable Clinton in the primaries translated to the electoral college as well. As FHQ showed last month in attempting to demonstrate the changes in state poll numbers in the wake of the two Wright dramas and "bitter-gate," Obama's numbers had only slid significantly in a handful of states. [In this case, a fraction of a point could prove significant, shifting several of the swing states from the Democratic column to the Republican column and vice versa.] Still, to that point Clinton had only really just pulled ahead of Obama in the electoral college relative to McCain.
In the weeks since it has been Clinton who has been more consistently ahead of McCain and Obama, who has lagged slightly behind the Arizona senator. Both are directly opposite to the positions both Democrats were in during Obama's February streak. At the end of primary season then, it is Clinton with all the momentum. Well, sort of. Of course, she isn't the nominee, though. While Obama averaged a 1.4 point loss in each state's average of head-to-head polls against McCain throughout primary season, Clinton gained only 0.6 points on average. Much of the New York senator's gains were due to the vitally important shifts of Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington from McCain's column to hers. In the map below you can see those positive shifts toward Clinton (in shades of orange--the darker the color, the greater the change). On the whole, the states that were already in Clinton's favor shifted in her direction (a slight downward shift in California being the exception) while those that were already solidly for McCain (in shades of purple) moved toward him. Clinton gained in the three big battlegrounds of the last couple of presidential elections (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania), but lost ground in states like Texas. She gained on McCain in 24 states while the Arizona senator made up ground in 19 others. [The seven states in white are the states where no additional polls were conducted and exhibit no change as a result.]
The Obama map is slightly different. The progression of his state level, head-to-head polling against McCain had a decidedly negative tint (in shades of green). The Illinois senator was at his height early on and in coming back down to earth, lost ground in the electoral college pairing with McCain. So, while I offered the Clinton line earlier, that she might be the better general election candidate (and only barely so in the maps that appear on this site) part of the changes here can only be viewed through the candidates' relative position to McCain at the outset. Obama was at his peak and Clinton was not. That being said, Obama is the nominee and it is instructive to look at the states where he has gained in the polls against McCain. While he lost ground to McCain in 24 states, the 20 states (in shades of yellow) he gained in could be part of the grouping of states the Obama campaign targets for the fall. He has shored up support in states like Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Pennsylvania, despite the primary loss to Clinton, has since shifted to Obama's side of the ledger. Ohio and Indiana are also trending toward the Illinois senator. Both states are toss ups leaning toward McCain 0n the latest map. So, while Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Virginia have switched to McCain, pulling ahead in the Buckeye and Hoosier states would offset those losses as would the gains in Florida and North Carolina. McCain, meanwhile, can tout gains in other battlegrounds like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (all state bordering his home state of Arizona).
What then, can we take home from these maps? Clinton has been trending upward in the electoral college relative to Obama, but she isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. Despite coming back from the dead of February, the Clinton campaign is headed for suspension this weekend and Obama is pressing forward as the presumptive Democratic nominee. In doing so, the Illinois senator has a swath of swing states in which he is trending in the right direction, but others where McCain is in a good position to overtake him. At the outset of the general election campaign, this appears to be a close race and even including the lost ground since February, Obama is still in good shape. Then again, McCain is in good standing as well, considering all the typical indicators of presidential election success are pointing away from him.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

Out of the eight Survey USA state polls released yesterday, none of them polled the Clinton-McCain match up. If that is indicative (and last night's results tell me that it will be), then this may be the last week that FHQ includes a Clinton map in the weekly electoral college breakdown. For this week, though, the Clinton map is still here, as are the Obama-McCain and McCain margin maps. Since last Thursday there have been 23 new polls in 19 different states. The outcome of both electoral college scenarios did not change at all, though, and only a few of those states actually switched categories.
Losing Michigan and North Dakota a week ago and only gaining in Colorado put Obama behind McCain. And while Texas slipped out of the McCain lean category and into the Strong McCain column this week, Obama made up ground in Missouri where he has lagged behind where Clinton has been relative to McCain. The Show-Me state is now a toss up that favors the Arizona senator. Like Ohio, though, it is trending toward Obama, which is something that Obama would need if he were trailing McCain by 24 electoral votes. If those two states were to go to Obama, it would effectively turn the tables on the current electoral college numbers between the two presumptive nominees.
Little changed on the Clinton-McCain map this week. Most of that was due the the decline in actual data on the Clinton-McCain pairing. There were but ten polls in ten states which asked about the hypothetical Clinton-McCain race and only Connecticut switched in any noticeable way. Clinton's support in the Constitution state increased pushing the Connecticut out of the toss up area and into the Clinton lean category. Aside from that one shift, little else was different and the slim electoral college victory the New York senator won a week ago was preserved for another week.
And in what may be the last McCain margin map (Toot my own horn alert: I know, a sad thought considering how much better it looks now.), little changed. The new poll in Wyoming increased Obama's McCain margin (the darker the color, the greater McCain margin, Clinton = green, Obama = blue) there. Beyond that, Clinton's slight McCain margin lead in Missouri became even smaller, while the opposite was true for Obama in Connecticut (his McCain margin slipped). Both are lighter this week, meaning that the difference between each of the Democrats and McCain is low. In other words, it doesn't matter which Democrat is up against McCain. Connecticut is a good lean to the Democrats while Missouri remains a slight toss up favoring McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Later this week I'll be back with a look at how much the maps have changed since we started looking at the electoral college scenarios back in March. I'll also be unveiling the new map template that Paul Gurian and I will be using for the general election electoral college breakdown. Also, I should note that I will continue collecting Clinton-McCain data, when and if it surfaces. However, I'll move those into their own post with the soon-to-be defunct McCain margin maps.

***Please see the side bar for links to past electoral college comparisons.***


Recent Posts:
The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

The Big Montana

It's not just a 1lb. roast beef sandwich at Arby's anymore. The Treasure state (...and the twenty plus superdelegates who announced as soon as the polls closed in Montana) put Obama over the top in the delegate count for the Democratic nomination. I'm probably not the first to say it and I probably won't be the last. However, we just completed exactly five months of primary season (January 3-June 3). And the general election kicks off tomorrow; exactly five month before the election day on November 4. Ah, symmetry. This next five months will certainly be hard pressed to match the previous five months for drama and excitement.

So Obama sheds the VANP (very almost nearly presumptive) nominee title, and assumes the mantle of presumptive nominee. Here we go. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I'll be back tomorrow with our first look at the electoral maps during general election season.


Recent Posts:
The Long and Winding Road

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

The Long and Winding Road

And here we are, five months after we started, at the conclusion of primary season. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I have a tear in my eye at the thought. But hey, talk of states moving their delegate selection events for the 2012 cycle has already begun (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota). And the Republicans have nomination system reform on the agenda for their convention later this summer. So, I'll manage to keep busy (...between that and this general election thing, whatever that is. FHQ has always been of the mind that these presidential elections end once primary season ends anyway. But that's just a personal preference just like my affinity for the early rounds of the NCAA tournament. But I digress.).

Montana and South Dakota bring up the rear today in the final two contests of the nomination phase of the 2008 campaign. [Of course, there are Republican contests in New Mexico and South Dakota today as well. The GOP already held delegate selection in Montana during a February 5 caucus, but hold a beauty contest primary today. My guess is that McCain improves upon his third place showing there, though Romney still has all 25 delegates--until the convention that is.] For the Democrats, both states offer a combined 31 pledged delegates, not to mention some interesting rules quirks. Yeah, you knew I'd take notice of those.

In South Dakota the polls close on the closed primary at 9pm Eastern.

One hour later, the polls close in Montana (10pm Eastern). The primary format is more suitable to Obama in the Treasure state. Open primaries have been more favorable to Obama with independents allowed to participate. That Montana's primary is open and South Dakota's is closed may explain some of the differences between the expectations in the two states. South Dakota is expected to be the closer of the two races (...though, as Rob pointed out in the Maine post below, the latest poll out of South Dakota has Clinton up by 26 points. Fivethirtyeight discounts that finding though, pinning the race as a five point Obama win.). Montana has the added quirk that it treats its delegate allocation as if it were still 1980 and the state still had two congressional districts. The state is split into eastern and western halves with each getting 5 of the 16 pledged delegates.

I'll be back with some brief coverage tonight, but it will be interesting to chart the superdelegate endorsements throughout the day. Demconwatch is the place to track that, if you are so inclined.


Recent Posts:
Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

With the close of the Maine Democrats' state convention on Sunday, there's now a clearer picture of the delegate selection throughout Pine Tree state's caucus process. All 24 of the state's pledged delegates were at stake over this past weekend since Maine goes from precinct voting to county convention voting held in correspondence with the state convention. The initial estimate following the February 10 precinct meetings was that Obama and Clinton would split the Maine delegates 15-9. That distribution favored Obama more, though. The Illinois senator received 59% of the statewide vote and that 15-9 split would have given him nearly 63% of the delegates.

And that was the way the distribution emerged from the convention on Saturday night. [Obama also picked up the convention's add-on delegate, as well.] Obama maintained that edge in the state convention and took a round up to the nearest delegate in both of Maine's congressional districts. It was that statistical artifact that provided the discrepancy in the vote and delegate totals.

That there were only two steps in the process and no shift in the delegate totals from one step to the next both run contrary to the caucus question hypothesis. In breaking down the action in Alaska and Wyoming last weekend, I discussed the states which have held state conventions (and thus completed their delegate selection) into groups: 1) those moving toward Clinton (Colorado and Kansas) throughout the caucus process, 2) those moving toward Obama (Alaska and Nevada) and 3) those showing little or no movement (North Dakota and Wyoming). Of those three categories, Maine fits best into the final category. Like most of the caucus states, Maine provided Obama with a solid win, but unlike some of the caucus cases, the original level of support didn't translate into increased support as the process continued (something of an intra-process bandwagon effect). And again, that speaks toward the power of the Clinton candidacy (and the competitiveness of the race). When in most years there would have been at least some trickle of support toward a front-running candidate/presumptive nominee throughout the caucus process, this year just hasn't seen that. Being the VANP (very almost nearly presumptive) nominee apparently hasn't been enough for Obama.

Up next? The remaining big one. Texas completes the caucus half of its delegate selection with its state convention next weekend. Unlike Maine, Texas has already shown some movement toward Obama throughout the steps of the caucus process.


Recent Posts:
Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. If you have one candidate calling for a full seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan and another candidate stressing that neither contest counts, you're going to, more often than not, get something in the middle. See, even I can figure it out (and that's saying something). In this case, something in the middle was seating the full delegations from both Michigan and Florida, but counting each delegate as only half a vote. What a long and strange trip it has been to essentially come full circle and return to the sanction the Rules and Bylaws Committee settled on almost two years ago.

[The scene opens two years ago in the summer of 2006.]
RBC member 1: "Let's take half the delegates from any state that moves its primary ahead of February 5."

RBC member 2: "That sounds good."

[Fast forward to the late summer of 2007]
RBC member 1: "What? Florida moved? Let's make an example of them and take away all their delegates."

RBC member 4: "Yeah, they shouldn't have done that."

RBC member 2: "Don't we already have rule for that?"

RBC member 1: "Well yeah, but this will keep other states from moving."

RBC member 2: "Isn't Michigan's legislature exploring its options and considering a January 15 primary?"

RBC member 4: "Yeah but, see, if we punish Florida, Michigan won't go through with that."

RBC member 2: "If you say so."

[Later that fall...]
RBC member 1: "MICHIGAN MOVED! Now we'll have to take away all their delegates."

RBC member 2 (hesitantly): "I guess."

[Move ahead to the day after Super Tuesday...]
RBC member 1: "You're kidding. The nomination battle is close and those delegates from Florida and Michigan might actually mean something? And it might tear the party in two?"

RBC member 2: "Maybe we shouldn't have stripped them of all their delegates."

RBC member 4: "Nah, that's crazy talk. We had to do that."

[May 2008]
RBC member 4: "Let's just do what the Republicans did and take half the delegates."

RBC member 3: "Wasn't that was our plan, too, before we stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates?"

RBC member 2: "Thank you. I've been saying that for months."

RBC member 1: "Hush up, you two! ...well, let's go with half."

RBC member 2: "Now all we've done is dangle this carrot in front of Clinton and her supporters for four months. And we just pulled the rug out from under them. We may have messed this thing up."

RBC member 1: "Eh, we'll be fine. Do you always always mix metaphors when you're worried?"

RBC member 2: "Only when we potentially blow the best shot we've had since 2004 to take back the White House."

RBC member 3: "Next on the agenda: the rules for 2012."

RBC member 4: "Well, the guy at Frontloading HQ says that reform will be difficult."

RBC member 1: "I say we take half of their...Hey, you read that crap!?!"

RBC member 2: "Now we're taking half again? What if some state actually violates this rule?"

RBC member 1: "That would never happen. ...but if it did we'd probably have to strip them of all their delegates to the convention."

RBC member 2: "I'm outta here. Does anyone know if Bloomberg is running in 2012?"
[fade to black]

So the Dems have returned to the original sanction. What now? Moving forward, it will be interesting to see whether the protesters yesterday were just a vocal minority or if they represent a sizable coalition of voters that could hand the general election to McCain. How long that sentiment is sustained will have a lot to do with how Hillary Clinton responds the proceedings from a day ago. If Harold Ickes remarks are indicative ("Hijacking four delegates..."), it could be a rough healing period. Of course, if hijacking four delegates makes it tough to start to party toward unity, I guess accusing the party of hijacking those delegates is just as bad.


Recent Posts:
Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

I'm watching some of the R&B Committee coverage on C-SPAN and Senator Levin is trying his hand at some revisionist history by trying to turn the table on New Hampshire. At issue: New Hampshire jumped from its original date of January 22 to January 8 but was granted a waiver by the Democratic Party to do so. In so doing, they jumped Nevada's caucus. Levin took issue with that decision because Michigan wasn't granted a waiver for their jump. He cited the sequence that the R&B decided on--wedging a caucus in between Iowa and New Hampshire--as being the real topic for discussion. New Hampshire's move was contrary to that sequence. What Levin failed to mention in his plea to the members of the committee was that it was Michigan that triggered the New Hampshire move. New Hampshire has already been given the right to be in the pre-window period. The committee basically ruled that there was no harm, no foul in New Hampshire's January 8 position. The good people of Michigan apparently object though.


Recent Posts:
A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

I'm not one to simply regurgitate news. However, on this day when the DNC is set to potentially decide the fate, not to mention the make up, of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democratic National Convention, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has a great timeline of events that led to this unprecedented meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Key dates related to the Democratic National Committee's handling of the 2008 Michigan and Florida primaries:

2006:

July 22: The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee recommends to the DNC that a Nevada caucus be held in 2008 between Iowa's Jan. 14 caucus and New Hampshire's Jan. 22 primary. The committee also suggests that South Carolina have an early primary after New Hampshire's and that other states cannot hold their contests before Feb. 5.

Aug. 19: The DNC approves the committee's recommendations and penalties against presidential candidates who campaign in states that cut in line. Candidates would be denied delegates from those contests.

2007:

Jan. 23: Florida lawmakers introduce legislation to move the date of the state's 2008 primary from March 4 to Jan. 29.

April 5: The two leaders of the rules committee notify the Florida congressional delegation about the penalties for states that violate the timing of primaries.

May 21: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signs a bill moving the state's presidential primary to Jan. 29, 2008.

July-early August: In discussions with the Florida Democratic officials, the DNC offers to pay about $880,000 for a state party-run caucus.

Aug. 25: The rules committee decides to strip Florida of its 210 presidential convention delegates. It gives the state party 30 days to comply with rules by moving its contest back at least seven days.

Aug. 30: The Michigan Legislature sends a bill to the governor setting the state's 2008 presidential primary for Jan. 15.

Aug. 31: Democratic presidential candidates Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden pledge not to campaign in states that hold early nominating contests in violation of party rules. The pledge is circulated by Democratic leaders of the early-voting states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Sept. 1: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards also sign on to a pledge to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries.

Sept. 4: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a bill moving Michigan's presidential contests to Jan. 15, 2008.

Oct. 9: Democratic presidential candidates Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson file paperwork to withdraw from the Michigan ballot. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich say in statements that they also were bypassing the primary. Chris Dodd and Clinton say their names will remain on the ballots.

Dec. 1: Democratic leaders strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates for scheduling an earlier-than-allowed primary.

2008:

Jan. 15: Michigan holds its primary; Clinton wins.

Jan. 29: Florida holds its primary; Clinton wins.

March 17: Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats abandon plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote.

April 4: The executive committee of the Michigan Democratic Party says "it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Denver convention.

April 25: The leaders of the rules committee sends members a memo announcing a meeting on May 31 about the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries.

May 27: The Democratic Party's lawyers say the committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Clinton wants.

___

Source: Associated Press, Democratic National Committee.

The Florida and Michigan frontloading in 2008 is part of the progression of the general frontloading trend. It wasn't inevitable that either state would violate the "window rule" (period within which states could hold their nominating contests) of either party. In the post-reform era, states that wanted to move, moved to dates that fell within the window. The decision by the DNC to allow South Carolina and Nevada to move into the pre-window period, though, triggered a resumption of an age-old conflict in American history: small states vs. big states. So while the DNC's intent was to bring more diversity into the opening contests, they once again got some unintended consequences out of the changes (All you have to do is look at frontloading as an example of one of the DNC's post-reform, unintended consequences.).

Why South Carolina and Nevada and not Michigan and Florida? Of the ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia) that petitioned the DNC to move ahead of the window's starting point, Michigan was by far the largest (Measuring by electoral votes, Michigan was the only state with more than 10.). Yet, the DNC opted for two smaller states to fill those spots. And that decision, along with Florida and Michigan's defiance of these rules, underscores another of the problems facing the various reform plans that have been proposed. Big states still will not be allowed to go first. And that is why today's meeting is so important. If the sanctions for moving ahead of the window are not upheld, what will hold states back from moving to whatever date they choose in the future (whether reforms are enacted or not)? Michigan certainly wouldn't have gone on January 15 if any of the reform plans (save the one in four chance that Michigan's region in the NASS regional primary plan was chosen to go first) were in place in 2008. The same motivation, therefore, would have been there for lawmakers in Michigan even in a reformed system.

Will the sanctions stay or will they go? The educated guess is that half the delegates from Florida and Michigan will make it to the convention in Denver, but how will that half be determined and what effect would that have on the delegate counts for Clinton and Obama?

Recent Posts:
Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

This is probably about a week too late, but it's a question that's been floating around in my head recently that I've yet to see addressed anywhere. Ted Kennedy's ominous diagnosis last week underscores what is going to be a major issue in this presidential campaign: age. Rep. John Murtha (PA-D) has said McCain is too old, Howard Dean has said it won't be an issue and McCain himself has taken the self-deprecating route on his age. But like Nixon's five o'clock shadow during the televised debate against John Kennedy in 1960, the age difference between McCain and VANP (That's very almost nearly presumptive) Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is going to be noticeable.

Is that necessarily a bad thing for McCain? No, because on the one hand you have age, but on the other is experience. The former carries something of a negative connotation while the latter is more positive. When voters begin to see more of the contrast between Obama and McCain will that trigger thoughts on age or experience? Do they see a 76 year old politician diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and project that onto a presidential candidate who would be 76 himself at the tail end of his first term as president? Or do voters see an experience gap between the two (Obama playing the naive role and McCain the role of someone who has been around the block a time or two)?

I suspect that this may vary based on party identification: Democrats see an old man in McCain while those on the right see an experienced candidate and a "reckless" younger candidate. But what do those independents think when they see that contrast? Where they fall will more than likely tip the balance toward age or experience emerging as the dominant view. As we've seen throughout the Democratic primaries, though, a person's age has a lot to do with this as well. Older voters have gravitated toward Clinton while younger voters have overwhelmingly backed Obama. Party ID may supersede age in the general election, but a voter's age may have some part in determining whether age or experience becomes the prevailing view.

In the end, age will take a backseat to the economy or the Iraq war, but it is a distinction that could prove consequential in an Obama-McCain general election campaign (especially if the election proves to be as close as it has look in some of the electoral college maps). What are your thoughts? Is it age, is it experience, or does it even matter? The comments section beckons.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates