Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. Is there really a sizable group of people (who have been paying attention) that are surprised by Obama opting out of the public financing system for the general election? I'd imagine there aren't that many folks out there with raised hands. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. If the roles were reversed and McCain was the candidate who had made the choice to skip out on the public financing system, would the uproar be as big? Well, that's hard to say, but McCain likely could be counted on to have been a bit more disciplined than to make such a promise in the first place. That may be the difference. Sports blogger, Dan Shanoff, is fond of stating in instances of sports meets crime that it is the cover up that gets someone in trouble and not the crime itself. In politics, the game is slightly different. It isn't the decision that gets you in trouble, but the flip-flop instead. That is the case here. The uproar isn't over the decision to fund the campaign outside of the public financing system itself, but rather the promise and subsequent change.
Even then, is it really about the flip-flop? Or could it be that the GOP and its supporters are genuinely concerned about their chances in the fall? That's understandable. On the one hand, all the leading indicators signal a down year for the party of Lincoln. The economy has seen better days, support for the Iraq war remains low, and President Bush is fighting a weekly battle against setting records for new approval rating lows. So there's that, and now the Democratic nominee is going to have a money advantage too! What does that extra cash mean to Obama? Well, for once, a Democratic nominee will be the one with a cash advantage. It doesn't happen often. But that money advantage won't necessarily translate into more votes for the junior senator from Illinois. What it likely means is that McCain, who is already playing defense in a difficult environment for anyone with an R by their name, will be even more on the defensive.
Ads will surely be a part of the Obama camp's strategy (they already are), but grassroots efforts in seemingly unlikely states could be a part of the equation as well. Extra cash means Obama can make McCain play defense (eg: spend time and money) in states he probably wouldn't want to. Take Alaska, for instance. The polling that was out there yesterday continued to show a close race (at least for Alaska!) between McCain and Obama. If Obama can force McCain to defend Alaska, then keeping Kerry swing state wins like Pennsylvania or New Hampshire safe gets much easier. The good folks over at fivethirtyeight.com are already discussing the pros and cons of an Obama trip to the Last Frontier.
And that is the origin of the excitement on the left end of the blogosphere (some may argue there is only a left end) and the backlash on the right. This decision to opt out isn't the real issue. The fear of having to defend or delight in potentially being competitive in typically red states is the issue. Democrats should enjoy being the monied party for once because it won't last. What was it Bush said? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...well, you won't fool me again. The GOP will certainly heed that advice and store this memory away to be used in a less hostile environment.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)
Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)
Obama Bounce or Evidence the the leading indicators of presidential electoral success are kicking in?
Teasing out that difference is going to be the focus of the map analysis for the rest of the election. However, if these numbers (in the map below) persist over the next month or so, then Obama may be getting more than just a bounce. A bounce by definition means that a candidate's numbers will increase before regressing to the mean. In other words, what goes up must come down. We typically see this every four years after the two major parties hold their convention. A candidate from the party holding the convention will usually get a boost that will decay as the general election enters the home stretch after Labor Day.
If the numbers stay where they have been since Obama reached the delegate barrier necessary to claim the Democratic nomination, we may be witnessing more than just a simple bounce. If, a month from now, Obama is still in the same shape he is in on the map today, then that may be more a reflection of those indicators I mentioned above. Democratic nominee X would be in good shape against the Republican nominee (or even if you identified said nominee as John McCain, for that matter) if the current president's approval ratings were low, the economy was poor, and an overwhelming majority of Americans thought the country was on the "wrong track" (a measure I take to encompass the war issue for the most part). While what the map shows isn't the landslide that the political science forecasts (based in whole or in part on the above measures) would potentially predict*, if such a map persists and extends further toward Obama over the next few weeks, the phenomenon can't really be called a bounce. It could more accurately be described as a the "Clinton drag," perhaps. Clinton's candidacy was so competitive and her presence in the race so formidable, that it placed enough uncertainty on the nomination outcome to effectively prevent Obama from assuming the lead in the polls that any Democratic nominee would have held in such an electoral environment.
The question can't be answered today, but if these numbers stay where they are for a while, then we'll have a better idea of what the answer is.
Well FHQ, you seem to be hinting at something by referring to Obama's position on the map today. With 13 new polls in 11 states (2 each in New York and Ohio) since Saturday, the electoral college projection has shifted slightly more towards Obama.
[Click Map to Enlarge]**
It isn't all bad for McCain. Obama's gain isn't as clear in Minnesota, where last week's 13 point advantage is down to one. Averaging just those two polls is almost in line with where FHQ's weighted average is; coming in just under two points shy.
McCain and Obama are roughly even in the number of strong and lean state electoral votes, with the toss ups now leaning more heavily toward the Illinois senator. Of the 129 electoral votes rated as toss up, Obama now controls over 70% of them. That sort of a coalition of toss up electoral votes typically translates into success. But is this a bounce or something more? That is the question.
Heading forward, though, what states are close to shifting from one category to another?
Overall, there was no other movement between categories other than Ohio. But, of the states added to the watch list (below) over the weekend, there now has been new polling in Pennsylvania and Ohio to go with the polls from Michigan and Nevada. Only New Hampshire remains as a toss up state close to switching sides yet to have any post-nomination polling. Michigan and Nevada remain close to the line, but Ohio and Pennsylvania have moved toward Obama and away from that breaking point between candidates (so they are off the list). Florida can also be added to the list. The Sunshine state is on the line between a McCain lean and a toss up favoring the Arizona senator. Any other new polling to come out of Florida favoring Obama would likely move that average into the toss up area.
The Watch List
The switches (toss up to toss up):
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Strong to Lean:
Connecticut (Obama -)
Texas (McCain -)
Mississippi? (directly on the line between Strong and Lean)
Lean to Strong:
Minnesota (Obama +)
Toss Up to Lean:
Wisconsin (Obama +)
Lean to Toss Up:
Florida (McCain -)
*Once the second quarter economic statistics are in, most of those forecasts will begin coming out. Those typically appear in PS: Political Science and Politics (Well, they were in 2004 anyway.), but probably won't hit the presses until September. Those numbers will more than likely be made public prior to that though.
**Map template courtesy of Paul Gurian.
Recent Posts:
Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
If the numbers stay where they have been since Obama reached the delegate barrier necessary to claim the Democratic nomination, we may be witnessing more than just a simple bounce. If, a month from now, Obama is still in the same shape he is in on the map today, then that may be more a reflection of those indicators I mentioned above. Democratic nominee X would be in good shape against the Republican nominee (or even if you identified said nominee as John McCain, for that matter) if the current president's approval ratings were low, the economy was poor, and an overwhelming majority of Americans thought the country was on the "wrong track" (a measure I take to encompass the war issue for the most part). While what the map shows isn't the landslide that the political science forecasts (based in whole or in part on the above measures) would potentially predict*, if such a map persists and extends further toward Obama over the next few weeks, the phenomenon can't really be called a bounce. It could more accurately be described as a the "Clinton drag," perhaps. Clinton's candidacy was so competitive and her presence in the race so formidable, that it placed enough uncertainty on the nomination outcome to effectively prevent Obama from assuming the lead in the polls that any Democratic nominee would have held in such an electoral environment.
The question can't be answered today, but if these numbers stay where they are for a while, then we'll have a better idea of what the answer is.
Well FHQ, you seem to be hinting at something by referring to Obama's position on the map today. With 13 new polls in 11 states (2 each in New York and Ohio) since Saturday, the electoral college projection has shifted slightly more towards Obama.
AR: McCain +9The two polls in Ohio are enough for Obama to be able to wrest control of the Buckeye state from McCain for the time being. Those twenty electoral votes move from a McCain toss up to an Obama toss up and provide the Illinois senator with a more comfortable 58 electoral vote lead in this projection. The real surprise is the Florida result. Of the twelve polls conducted in the state since Super Tuesday, the most recent is the only one to have shown an Obama lead over the senator from Arizona. If that holds, John McCain will be facing an extremely steep climb to the White House. His path to electoral college victory without the "big three" would be difficult to say the least. I should caution that while the numbers are trending toward Obama in Florida, the Sunshine state is still a McCain lean, but only barely so. Another poll or two in Obama's favor would likely pull Florida into the toss up category. And a state that looked only a month or two ago to be a tough row to hoe for Obama could turn from red to pink on the map.
FL: Obama +4
KS: McCain +10
KY: McCain +12
MN: Obama +1
NV: McCain +2
NY: Obama +19
NY: Obama +18
NC: McCain +4
OH: Obama +6
OH: Obama +11
PA: Obama +12
VA: Obama +1
[Click Map to Enlarge]**It isn't all bad for McCain. Obama's gain isn't as clear in Minnesota, where last week's 13 point advantage is down to one. Averaging just those two polls is almost in line with where FHQ's weighted average is; coming in just under two points shy.
McCain and Obama are roughly even in the number of strong and lean state electoral votes, with the toss ups now leaning more heavily toward the Illinois senator. Of the 129 electoral votes rated as toss up, Obama now controls over 70% of them. That sort of a coalition of toss up electoral votes typically translates into success. But is this a bounce or something more? That is the question.
Heading forward, though, what states are close to shifting from one category to another?
Overall, there was no other movement between categories other than Ohio. But, of the states added to the watch list (below) over the weekend, there now has been new polling in Pennsylvania and Ohio to go with the polls from Michigan and Nevada. Only New Hampshire remains as a toss up state close to switching sides yet to have any post-nomination polling. Michigan and Nevada remain close to the line, but Ohio and Pennsylvania have moved toward Obama and away from that breaking point between candidates (so they are off the list). Florida can also be added to the list. The Sunshine state is on the line between a McCain lean and a toss up favoring the Arizona senator. Any other new polling to come out of Florida favoring Obama would likely move that average into the toss up area.
The Watch List
The switches (toss up to toss up):
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
Strong to Lean:
Connecticut (Obama -)
Texas (McCain -)
Mississippi? (directly on the line between Strong and Lean)
Lean to Strong:
Minnesota (Obama +)
Toss Up to Lean:
Wisconsin (Obama +)
Lean to Toss Up:
Florida (McCain -)
*Once the second quarter economic statistics are in, most of those forecasts will begin coming out. Those typically appear in PS: Political Science and Politics (Well, they were in 2004 anyway.), but probably won't hit the presses until September. Those numbers will more than likely be made public prior to that though.
**Map template courtesy of Paul Gurian.
Recent Posts:
Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
Monday, June 16, 2008
Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates
The Gem state wrapped up its Democratic delegate selection this past weekend at its state convention, and despite the discrepancy in the total (in the post heading), this was a given for the most part. [Obama won the Super Tuesday caucuses in Idaho by as big a margin as he won in any other state.] Obama's vote totals provided the Illinois senator with enough to round up his totals in both congressional districts while ever so slightly rounding down in the statewide calculations for pledged elected officials (PLEOs). In other words, the gains that we see from the precinct level caucuses in February to now (post-state convention) are not a function of Obama gaining support, but are simply statistical artifacts. Again, if this were a purely proportional system, Obama would have won 14 delegates to Clinton's 4 (among the pledged delegates). By breaking the calculation down to the district level, as it is done in the other states, the ultimate delegate distribution is altered.
Obama ended up with 15 of the state's 18 pledged delegates. Overall, the Illinois senator will have (at least) 19 Idahoans representing him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clinton will have 3 delegates out of the remaining four with the final one representing the add-on delegate, Richard Stallings, who was elected over the weekend. Unlike add-ons selected at other state conventions, Stallings, remains uncommitted at this time. That may change between now and the convention, but according to the Idaho Democratic Party's web site, he has not made an endorsement.
And how does Idaho fit into the categories as defined by the caucus question? Well, the categories as the stand now aren't really defined by the question itself so much as what has emerged as the caucus processes have completed with state conventions. There have been states that moved toward Obama, states that moved toward Clinton and states that have not moved much at all.
Obama Moves:
Alaska
Nevada
Clinton Moves:
Colorado
Kansas
No Moves:
Hawaii*
Maine
North Dakota
Wyoming
...
Texas**
*The delegate decisions in the Hawaii process were determined by the first step. The decisions made at the Hawaii state convention were bound by the precinct caucus decisions. The Aloha state was prevented from exhibiting any movement.
**Texas defies any of these characterizations. Initially the movement from the first to second step was toward Obama. From that point to the state convention, though, some support drifted back toward Clinton.
Of those categories, Idaho best fits the final one. The estimates following the caucuses in February mirrored the final tally in the Gem state. One interesting note to make is a distinction made when FHQ was initially sounding out the finer points of the caucus question: How many steps are in the process? Of the states that had a two step caucus, only Alaska showed any movement one way or the other from the first step to the second. All the other two step states maintain steady distributions of support through the process. Of the states that had more than two steps, only Kansas had anything more than a move based on anything other than the statistical calculation of the process.
The only states undecided now are Nebraska and Iowa. Iowa was to have been decided this past weekend as well, but due to flooding across the state, the state convention was postponed for two weeks. Iowa will now have begun and ended the delegate selection on the Democratic side of the ledger.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
Obama ended up with 15 of the state's 18 pledged delegates. Overall, the Illinois senator will have (at least) 19 Idahoans representing him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clinton will have 3 delegates out of the remaining four with the final one representing the add-on delegate, Richard Stallings, who was elected over the weekend. Unlike add-ons selected at other state conventions, Stallings, remains uncommitted at this time. That may change between now and the convention, but according to the Idaho Democratic Party's web site, he has not made an endorsement.
And how does Idaho fit into the categories as defined by the caucus question? Well, the categories as the stand now aren't really defined by the question itself so much as what has emerged as the caucus processes have completed with state conventions. There have been states that moved toward Obama, states that moved toward Clinton and states that have not moved much at all.
Obama Moves:
Alaska
Nevada
Clinton Moves:
Colorado
Kansas
No Moves:
Hawaii*
Maine
North Dakota
Wyoming
...
Texas**
*The delegate decisions in the Hawaii process were determined by the first step. The decisions made at the Hawaii state convention were bound by the precinct caucus decisions. The Aloha state was prevented from exhibiting any movement.
**Texas defies any of these characterizations. Initially the movement from the first to second step was toward Obama. From that point to the state convention, though, some support drifted back toward Clinton.
Of those categories, Idaho best fits the final one. The estimates following the caucuses in February mirrored the final tally in the Gem state. One interesting note to make is a distinction made when FHQ was initially sounding out the finer points of the caucus question: How many steps are in the process? Of the states that had a two step caucus, only Alaska showed any movement one way or the other from the first step to the second. All the other two step states maintain steady distributions of support through the process. Of the states that had more than two steps, only Kansas had anything more than a move based on anything other than the statistical calculation of the process.
The only states undecided now are Nebraska and Iowa. Iowa was to have been decided this past weekend as well, but due to flooding across the state, the state convention was postponed for two weeks. Iowa will now have begun and ended the delegate selection on the Democratic side of the ledger.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)
Welcome to the first Sunday update of FHQ's Electoral College map projections. Since the last map on Wednesday the following polls have been released:
The shifts that emerge from these new polls are 1) Michigan slipping from a toss up to McCain to a toss up favoring Obama, 2) Washington jumping into the strong Obama category based on two polls with large margins in Obama's direction and 3) New Hampshire moving over to the Democratic side. Wait a minute, New Hampshire didn't have a new poll. Why the change? Transparency alert! I have made a slight shift in the averaging technique to account for the pace with which polls will be coming in now that the race has entered general election mode. In the past I had focused on the the three most recent polls and a discounted average of all other polls beyond those three. That method provided a conservative estimate of the changes from poll to poll and guarded against the volatility of focusing simply on the snapshot of just the most recent poll. However, that also caused a bit of a lag. Now that the general election campaign has begun and polls will be surfacing at a quicker pace that lag will not serve our purposes as well. As such, FHQ will begin looking at the most recent poll while discounting all the polls archived since Super Tuesday. The key to the change is to tread the balance between the average being responsive to changes in the polls but not responsive enough to be an ineffective measure given past information.
But that favors Obama! You're just doing this to help his numbers look better. Well, that is the case now. The change though is rather minuscule and really only affects the weighted averages at the margins. The average change from one measure to the other was actually 0.005 points in McCain's direction. In other words, there isn't that much change.
Having said that, though, there are several states that are on the lines between candidates as well as between each of the categories (Recall, and this needs to be added to the new map, that any average margin over 10% is rated as strong, any margin between 5 and 10 points is a lean and anything less than 5% is a toss up.). These are states where things could shift in the coming days and weeks:
The switches (toss up to toss up):
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Strong to Lean:
Connecticut (Obama -)
Texas (McCain -)
Mississippi? (directly on the line between Strong and Lean)
Lean to Strong:
Minnesota (Obama +)
Toss Up to Lean:
Wisconsin (Obama +)
Of those "switch" states, Obama now leads in four of the five, and Ohio, the only likely switch in McCain's favor is trending in Obama's direction. As more post-nomination polls surface, these are the states to be on the lookout for. Any "Obama bounce" from wrapping up the nomination most likely would be reflected most clearly in those states. Thus far, Michigan is the only one of those five to have had a poll conducted since Obama reached the delegate mark for the nomination on June 3.
[Click Map to Enlarge]*
Alright great, but what about the map? What, you've read this far? Well, Washington's 11 electoral votes shifted into the strong Democratic category and both Michigan and New Hampshire moved from the GOP to Democratic toss up category. In the process, that shifted the outcome from a slight McCain victory in the electoral college to a slight Obama win. The amazing thing remains the even distribution of electoral votes among the candidates. McCain holds 202 electoral votes from states that are either strong or leaning toward him while Obama has 207 electoral votes from those states (non-toss ups) favoring him. The real action is among those swing states.
..and even that is close. Obama, by adding those 21 electoral votes, now leads there 71 to 58.
*Map template courtesy of Paul Gurian.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
GA: McCain +10
IA: Obama +7
MA: Obama +23
MI: Obama: +3
MN: Obama +13
NJ: Obama +6
NY: Obama +14
NC: McCain +2
OK: McCain +14
OR: Obama +8
WA: Obama +17
WA: Obama +18
WI: Obama +13
The shifts that emerge from these new polls are 1) Michigan slipping from a toss up to McCain to a toss up favoring Obama, 2) Washington jumping into the strong Obama category based on two polls with large margins in Obama's direction and 3) New Hampshire moving over to the Democratic side. Wait a minute, New Hampshire didn't have a new poll. Why the change? Transparency alert! I have made a slight shift in the averaging technique to account for the pace with which polls will be coming in now that the race has entered general election mode. In the past I had focused on the the three most recent polls and a discounted average of all other polls beyond those three. That method provided a conservative estimate of the changes from poll to poll and guarded against the volatility of focusing simply on the snapshot of just the most recent poll. However, that also caused a bit of a lag. Now that the general election campaign has begun and polls will be surfacing at a quicker pace that lag will not serve our purposes as well. As such, FHQ will begin looking at the most recent poll while discounting all the polls archived since Super Tuesday. The key to the change is to tread the balance between the average being responsive to changes in the polls but not responsive enough to be an ineffective measure given past information.
But that favors Obama! You're just doing this to help his numbers look better. Well, that is the case now. The change though is rather minuscule and really only affects the weighted averages at the margins. The average change from one measure to the other was actually 0.005 points in McCain's direction. In other words, there isn't that much change.
Having said that, though, there are several states that are on the lines between candidates as well as between each of the categories (Recall, and this needs to be added to the new map, that any average margin over 10% is rated as strong, any margin between 5 and 10 points is a lean and anything less than 5% is a toss up.). These are states where things could shift in the coming days and weeks:
The switches (toss up to toss up):
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Strong to Lean:
Connecticut (Obama -)
Texas (McCain -)
Mississippi? (directly on the line between Strong and Lean)
Lean to Strong:
Minnesota (Obama +)
Toss Up to Lean:
Wisconsin (Obama +)
Of those "switch" states, Obama now leads in four of the five, and Ohio, the only likely switch in McCain's favor is trending in Obama's direction. As more post-nomination polls surface, these are the states to be on the lookout for. Any "Obama bounce" from wrapping up the nomination most likely would be reflected most clearly in those states. Thus far, Michigan is the only one of those five to have had a poll conducted since Obama reached the delegate mark for the nomination on June 3.
[Click Map to Enlarge]*Alright great, but what about the map? What, you've read this far? Well, Washington's 11 electoral votes shifted into the strong Democratic category and both Michigan and New Hampshire moved from the GOP to Democratic toss up category. In the process, that shifted the outcome from a slight McCain victory in the electoral college to a slight Obama win. The amazing thing remains the even distribution of electoral votes among the candidates. McCain holds 202 electoral votes from states that are either strong or leaning toward him while Obama has 207 electoral votes from those states (non-toss ups) favoring him. The real action is among those swing states.
..and even that is close. Obama, by adding those 21 electoral votes, now leads there 71 to 58.
*Map template courtesy of Paul Gurian.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
Saturday, June 14, 2008
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five
Another day, another look back at how states fared in the influence game during the 2008 primary season. Today FHQ examines how the final group of 10 states (South Dakota-Wyoming) matched up against the rest.
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
South Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-1-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 6-3-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Down to the wire and the Mount Rushmore state opts for the candidate who had her fate seemingly sealed the weekend before in Washington, when the Rules and Bylaws Committee decided how to deal with Florida and Michigan (not in favor of Clinton).
GOP Influence: A rock red state with absolutely no influence. Well, that's what happens when you go last; three months after the race effectively ended.
Contest Company: Montana, New Mexico (GOP)
Grade: C
Comments: The Mount Rushmore state, like so many others, considered a frontloading move (Super Tuesday, where else?), but decided against it, opting for the June primary it had held since 2000. Did it work? Well, the non-move wasn't designed to maximize influence. It was an economic move. By consolidating the primaries for president and state/local offices, South Dakota (or any other state for that matter) saves money. That the state proved at all influential in either contest was a function of the race lasting that long and not the primary being moved, or in this case, not moved.
Tennessee:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Volunteer state was another Arkansas neighbor that provided Clinton with a boost on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Unlike Oklahoma, this Arkansas neighbor actually benefited Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Hmm, moving up a week may not have paid as many dividends as the move four years ago. Things were much more crowded in 2008 than they were in 2004 for the Volunteer state and it showed. Tennessee was much less likely to get noticed among more than twenty states than they were four years ago when only Virginia's primary coincided with the Tennessee primary.
Texas:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary-caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary-caucus (Dem.), primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: 3am or not, Clinton began her comeback after Obama's streak in Texas. She won the primary but he took the caucuses in the state and the delegate advantage overall. On rules alone, Texas got a fair amount of attention (and influence) this cycle.
GOP Influence: McCain putting Huckabee away in the Lone Star state sealed the deal for the Arizona senator and served as the death knell for the Huckabee campaign.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Rules, rules and rules. The Texas Democrats' method of allocating delegates got all the attention from February 19 up until the state's contest on March 4. Huckabee's inability to win in Texas ended his campaign and Obama neutralized Clinton's primary win with a caucus win in the state of his own. The Texas legislature being unable to move legislation scheduling the state's primary for February 5 actually paid off. Texas is a huge delegate state and would have held its own on Super Tuesday, but March 4 offered more of a spotlight and as a result influence over the nominations.
Utah:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama continued his march through largely Republican states on Super Tuesday by winning Utah.
GOP Influence: Romney took advantage of another home state advantage, winning one of his few winner-take-all victories.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Utah was another state that moved early (during the first quarter of 2006) and watched the stampede of states move in on its February 5 territory. The more states that joined the parade, the less influence it meant for Utah. The Beehive state got it alright; a small influence on the process. Obama emerged and Romney won another home state contest.
Vermont:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Polls showed Obama well ahead in the led up to the primary in Vermont. That netted the Green Mountain state a pass from the major candidates.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's inability to win in New Hampshire earlier in the cycle pretty much sealed the deal for the former Arkansas governor in Vermont.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas
Grade: D+
Comments: While Rhode Island was seen as a contest with a relatively tight margin on the Democratic side, Vermont seemingly leaned heavily toward Obama. Not only was the contest overshadowed by Texas and Ohio, but it was viewed as less competitive as well. For the GOP, it was all McCain. Huckabee had put in place a Texas/Ohio or bust strategy, that by the end of the night had failed.
Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama's lopsided victory in the commonwealth and in the other two contests of the day really began to cast doubt on the Clinton candidacy.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's performance among evangelicals continued to bring up questions of McCain's chances of potentially wooing those voters in November. Nonetheless, the Arizona senator still won a solid victory.
Contest Company: One-third of the Potomac Primary (w/Maryland and DC)
Grade: B+
Comments: The subregional primary put all three participating states (Well, two states and one district.) in a much bigger spotlight than in if any or all had gone on Super Tuesday. Obama's impressive performance coupled with question marks surrounding McCain and Christian conservatives (not to mention recent Democratic successes in statewide races.) brought Virginia into the swing state discussion
Washington:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-9-08/caucus (GOP), 2-19-08/primary (caucus)
Dem. Influence:
GOP Influence:
Contest Company: on 2-9: Louisiana, Kansas (GOP), Nebraska (Dem.), on 2-19: Hawaii (Dem.), Wisconsin
Grade: A-
Comments: Another state legislature, another failed effort to establish a primary. However, the proposal would have placed the contest on February 5. Both parties most definitely benefited from the caucuses held the weekend following Super Tuesday. The Evergreen state was the biggest game in town that weekend but would have been lost amid the big boys four days earlier.
West Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/convention (GOP)--5-13-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's runaway victory in the Mountain state seemed a foregone conclusion heading in and ended up that way. The narratives emerging from that contest were Obama's troubles with working class whites in Appalachia and Clinton's inability, even given the huge victory, to catch up in the delegate count.
GOP Influence: The state convention wrapped up and was the first win of Super Tuesday. Huckabee won on the second ballot, but not before Romney, who won a plurality on the the first vote, could accuse Huckabee and McCain of being in cahoots. That sort of speculation fueled the Huckabee as VP chatter that has since faded.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: B+
Comments: For a small state, West Virginia lucked out with good timing on the GOP side and with the contest lasting to the last contests in the Democratic race.
Wisconsin:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-17-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-19-08/primary
Dem. Influence: With neither campaign making an effort in far-away Hawaii, Wisconsin was the big contest of the week. Clinton closed the gap in the polls heading in, but Obama won to extend the streak of victories to the March 4 contests two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Huckabee made a push in the state, but things were beginning to shift from math to miracles for him during this phase. McCain's inevitability was already apparent, but became even more so in Wisconsin.
Contest Company: Hawaii (Dem.), Washington (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Wisconsin carried this date over from the 2004 cycle and even though it fell after Super Tuesday in 2008, it still matter since both nominations were to that point undecided. Still the Badger state wasn't as influential as it was four years ago, virtually knocking John Edwards from the race.
Wyoming:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-6-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-5-08/caucus (GOP)--3-8-08/caucus (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Obama's caucus successes had already been identified prior to this last caucus and while he won handily, the Clinton vote kept it under the threshold that would have given the Illinois senator anything more than a two delegate advantage in the caucuses.
GOP Influence: You can't argue with having the second contest, even when most were focused on the upcoming contest in New Hampshire. Romney won, but didn't get much mileage out of it.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: C
Comments: Raise your hand if you are familiar with any Wyoming contests prior to this year. I didn't think so. So, for the state to get the second contest in on the GOP and still be relevant after not only Super Tuesday, but Texas/Ohio on the Democratic side, was quite an accomplishment for the tiny (in population) Equality state.
The final group got good marks for having contests which were well-scheduled and as a result were influential in the nomination process. Some states moved (or held steady) in positions that were earlier than they had been in the past but avoided the logjam on Super Tuesday. When both contests made it past that point, several states were well-positioned to make a difference.
Recent Posts:
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
South Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-1-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 6-3-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Down to the wire and the Mount Rushmore state opts for the candidate who had her fate seemingly sealed the weekend before in Washington, when the Rules and Bylaws Committee decided how to deal with Florida and Michigan (not in favor of Clinton).
GOP Influence: A rock red state with absolutely no influence. Well, that's what happens when you go last; three months after the race effectively ended.
Contest Company: Montana, New Mexico (GOP)
Grade: C
Comments: The Mount Rushmore state, like so many others, considered a frontloading move (Super Tuesday, where else?), but decided against it, opting for the June primary it had held since 2000. Did it work? Well, the non-move wasn't designed to maximize influence. It was an economic move. By consolidating the primaries for president and state/local offices, South Dakota (or any other state for that matter) saves money. That the state proved at all influential in either contest was a function of the race lasting that long and not the primary being moved, or in this case, not moved.
Tennessee:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Volunteer state was another Arkansas neighbor that provided Clinton with a boost on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Unlike Oklahoma, this Arkansas neighbor actually benefited Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Hmm, moving up a week may not have paid as many dividends as the move four years ago. Things were much more crowded in 2008 than they were in 2004 for the Volunteer state and it showed. Tennessee was much less likely to get noticed among more than twenty states than they were four years ago when only Virginia's primary coincided with the Tennessee primary.
Texas:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary-caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary-caucus (Dem.), primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: 3am or not, Clinton began her comeback after Obama's streak in Texas. She won the primary but he took the caucuses in the state and the delegate advantage overall. On rules alone, Texas got a fair amount of attention (and influence) this cycle.
GOP Influence: McCain putting Huckabee away in the Lone Star state sealed the deal for the Arizona senator and served as the death knell for the Huckabee campaign.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Rules, rules and rules. The Texas Democrats' method of allocating delegates got all the attention from February 19 up until the state's contest on March 4. Huckabee's inability to win in Texas ended his campaign and Obama neutralized Clinton's primary win with a caucus win in the state of his own. The Texas legislature being unable to move legislation scheduling the state's primary for February 5 actually paid off. Texas is a huge delegate state and would have held its own on Super Tuesday, but March 4 offered more of a spotlight and as a result influence over the nominations.
Utah:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama continued his march through largely Republican states on Super Tuesday by winning Utah.
GOP Influence: Romney took advantage of another home state advantage, winning one of his few winner-take-all victories.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Utah was another state that moved early (during the first quarter of 2006) and watched the stampede of states move in on its February 5 territory. The more states that joined the parade, the less influence it meant for Utah. The Beehive state got it alright; a small influence on the process. Obama emerged and Romney won another home state contest.
Vermont:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Polls showed Obama well ahead in the led up to the primary in Vermont. That netted the Green Mountain state a pass from the major candidates.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's inability to win in New Hampshire earlier in the cycle pretty much sealed the deal for the former Arkansas governor in Vermont.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas
Grade: D+
Comments: While Rhode Island was seen as a contest with a relatively tight margin on the Democratic side, Vermont seemingly leaned heavily toward Obama. Not only was the contest overshadowed by Texas and Ohio, but it was viewed as less competitive as well. For the GOP, it was all McCain. Huckabee had put in place a Texas/Ohio or bust strategy, that by the end of the night had failed.
Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama's lopsided victory in the commonwealth and in the other two contests of the day really began to cast doubt on the Clinton candidacy.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's performance among evangelicals continued to bring up questions of McCain's chances of potentially wooing those voters in November. Nonetheless, the Arizona senator still won a solid victory.
Contest Company: One-third of the Potomac Primary (w/Maryland and DC)
Grade: B+
Comments: The subregional primary put all three participating states (Well, two states and one district.) in a much bigger spotlight than in if any or all had gone on Super Tuesday. Obama's impressive performance coupled with question marks surrounding McCain and Christian conservatives (not to mention recent Democratic successes in statewide races.) brought Virginia into the swing state discussion
Washington:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-9-08/caucus (GOP), 2-19-08/primary (caucus)
Dem. Influence:
GOP Influence:
Contest Company: on 2-9: Louisiana, Kansas (GOP), Nebraska (Dem.), on 2-19: Hawaii (Dem.), Wisconsin
Grade: A-
Comments: Another state legislature, another failed effort to establish a primary. However, the proposal would have placed the contest on February 5. Both parties most definitely benefited from the caucuses held the weekend following Super Tuesday. The Evergreen state was the biggest game in town that weekend but would have been lost amid the big boys four days earlier.
West Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/convention (GOP)--5-13-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's runaway victory in the Mountain state seemed a foregone conclusion heading in and ended up that way. The narratives emerging from that contest were Obama's troubles with working class whites in Appalachia and Clinton's inability, even given the huge victory, to catch up in the delegate count.
GOP Influence: The state convention wrapped up and was the first win of Super Tuesday. Huckabee won on the second ballot, but not before Romney, who won a plurality on the the first vote, could accuse Huckabee and McCain of being in cahoots. That sort of speculation fueled the Huckabee as VP chatter that has since faded.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: B+
Comments: For a small state, West Virginia lucked out with good timing on the GOP side and with the contest lasting to the last contests in the Democratic race.
Wisconsin:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-17-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-19-08/primary
Dem. Influence: With neither campaign making an effort in far-away Hawaii, Wisconsin was the big contest of the week. Clinton closed the gap in the polls heading in, but Obama won to extend the streak of victories to the March 4 contests two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Huckabee made a push in the state, but things were beginning to shift from math to miracles for him during this phase. McCain's inevitability was already apparent, but became even more so in Wisconsin.
Contest Company: Hawaii (Dem.), Washington (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Wisconsin carried this date over from the 2004 cycle and even though it fell after Super Tuesday in 2008, it still matter since both nominations were to that point undecided. Still the Badger state wasn't as influential as it was four years ago, virtually knocking John Edwards from the race.
Wyoming:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-6-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-5-08/caucus (GOP)--3-8-08/caucus (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Obama's caucus successes had already been identified prior to this last caucus and while he won handily, the Clinton vote kept it under the threshold that would have given the Illinois senator anything more than a two delegate advantage in the caucuses.
GOP Influence: You can't argue with having the second contest, even when most were focused on the upcoming contest in New Hampshire. Romney won, but didn't get much mileage out of it.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: C
Comments: Raise your hand if you are familiar with any Wyoming contests prior to this year. I didn't think so. So, for the state to get the second contest in on the GOP and still be relevant after not only Super Tuesday, but Texas/Ohio on the Democratic side, was quite an accomplishment for the tiny (in population) Equality state.
The final group got good marks for having contests which were well-scheduled and as a result were influential in the nomination process. Some states moved (or held steady) in positions that were earlier than they had been in the past but avoided the logjam on Super Tuesday. When both contests made it past that point, several states were well-positioned to make a difference.
Recent Posts:
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean
Ugh. Tim Russert passed away today after collapsing at NBC News in New York. I've made light of Tim's use of a dry erase board to follow the delegate counts and more notably electoral college votes on election nights. The simplicity of that prop stood out in an otherwise "new tech toy" driven industry. I'll miss that board on November 4 and I'll miss Tim Russert, too. He will be missed as this historic 2008 campaign carries on.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four
Today FHQ takes you on a trip back in time to review the influence states from Vermont in the east to Oregon in the west, from North Dakota in the north to Texas in the south had on the the nomination races in 2008. Granted this is an alphabetical trip, so I can't really pick and choose. Well, I guess I already did. I choose to go through the state contests alphabetically.
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
New Mexico:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--6-3-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: New Mexico's Democratic contest stretched beyond Super Tuesday to be officially decided. When it was, the win provided Clinton with her only break from the Obama streak during February. Of course that news was blunted by the resignation of Patti Solis-Doyle (Clinton's original campaign manager) and Clinton's original loan to her campaign around the same time.
GOP Influence: I saw a lot more about Montana and South Dakota than I did about New Mexico's Republican primary.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--South Dakota (GOP)
Grade: C-
Comments: New Mexico avoided being lost in the shuffle because ballot counting extended into the next week. However, while the Democratic primary didn't get lost among all those other Super Tuesday contests, but that news got filed away behind other news and Obama's streak. The GOP contest? Well, that one fell way after the point at which McCain had wrapped up the nomination, stuck in the background of the final Democratic contests.
New York:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Clinton played to her advantage on home turf. Much of the focus then was on other contests on a busy day.
GOP Influence: While Romney was busy winning caucuses, McCain was taking care of business in the winner-take-all states. If Obama built his delegate edge on caucus states, McCain used winner-take-all states similarly.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: Another "keeping up with the Super Tuesdays" state. New York is a big delegate "get" in both parties, but Clinton had the "home state" advantage in the Empire state and McCain took charge in yet another winner-take-all primary.
North Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 5-6-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Democratic primary mattered because Clinton's win in Pennsylvania two weeks earlier had cast doubt on Obama's inevitability and because the polls had closed to within the margin of error in the final days. Adding to that drama, North Carolina has been bandied about as a swing state in the fall with Obama at the top of the ticket.
GOP Influence: They had a contest? All I heard was how Obama won by a margin that was well behind where the polls had him in the state.
Contest Company: Indiana
Grade: A-
Comments: After holding primaries after the time during which the nominations had been settled for twenty years, the North Carolina legislature considered moving its primary, but the bill got stuck in committee and kept the Tarheel state primary in May. It didn't matter as the campaign stretched beyond March for the first time in nearly as many years.
North Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: This one gets a caucus bump for Obama, but it was a forgotten contest on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: See above (and insert Romney's name).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: If it wasn't bad enough that North Dakota had considered changing the state's name to simply Dakota, the major candidates didn't pay them much mind either. Then again, North Dakota did hold its caucuses during Super Tuesday. They did get some attention during their late March state convention and received a caucus boost, but the Peace Garden state still didn't get much out of being where they were on Super Tuesday.
Ohio:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: After Obama's streak of eleven victories, Ohio was a welcome and big victory for Clinton. That win along with Pennsylvania helped drive home her "swing state" electoral college argument. When that argument was first made it didn't actually make sense given the polls, but later came to be a vital part of her fading argument to the party's superdelegates.
GOP Influence: McCain sealed the deal with the knockout blow made up of Texas/Ohio. It is to the Arizona senator, what Montana was to Obama, the state that put him over the top.
Contest Company: Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Ohio's legislature toyed with the notion of joining Florida on January 29, but ultimately held in place on March 4. That saved the state the headache of dealing with the Florida/Michigan problem and got the state a prominent position in the Democratic race and a close out spot in the GOP battle.
Oklahoma:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A big win for Clinton in terms of margin, but the regional ties to Arkansas had much to do with the former first lady's success there on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Those same regional ties did not benefit the former Arkansas governor, as McCain took Oklahoma on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C
Comments: The Sooner state definitely did better by being earlier in 2004. A narrow Wes Clarke win then really hurt Edwards. In 2008, the rest of the crowd joined Oklahoma and rendered the state's primary much less influential.
Oregon:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-18-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-20-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Oregon pushed Obama over the top in terms of pledged delegates. He had a majority of those delegates after the Beaver state. It was a short trip from that milestone (and a valuable decision from the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee) to claiming the actual nomination two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Like so many contests after Ohio/Texas on March 4 when McCain claimed the mantle of presumptive nominee, Oregon just didn't mean as much with a competitive race on the other side. Down-ballot races in those same primaries took pre-eminence for the GOP.
Contest Company: Kentucky
Grade: C+
Comments: A milestone win on the Democratic side and a non-starter for the GOP made for mixed results for the primary in Oregon. There was a proposal to move the state's primary, but it didn't take. That "gridlock" made Oregon's primary meaningful if only because the Democratic contest obliged the Beaver state by lasting that long.
Pennsylvania:
2004 Date/contest type: 4-27-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 4-22-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A six week slog that continued Clinton's resurgence, Pennsylvania was an instrumental piece of the primary season equation in the Democratic race.
GOP Influence: The commonwealth is a swing state, so McCain spent some time there, but didn't break a sweat worrying about Ron Paul or defiant Huckabee supporters. Perhaps I should refer to the Paul folks as defiant.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A-
Comments: No state outside of Iowa got as much of a break as Pennsylvania. The layover between Mississippi's contest on March 11 and Pennsylvania's on April 22 could only be rivaled by the time between the last contest of 2004 and Iowa's caucuses in 2008 in this cycle. That's a fair amount of attention.
Rhode Island:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Rhode Island helped keep Clinton alive after the February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: Without a northeasterner in the race anymore, McCain only had to fend off Mike Huckabee (who was focused on Texas) in the Ocean state.
Contest Company: Ohio, Texas and Vermont
Grade: C
Comments: Along with Vermont, Rhode Island played the role of little brother to contests in Ohio and Texas on March 4. The Ocean state was a part of the Clinton run through the day's contests, though.
South Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/primary (GOP)--1-26-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: The lead up to South Carolina began the Clinton's long (inadvertent) effort to estrange black voters. Both the former first lady and the former president's comments damaged the New York senator's chances of legitimately keeping that voting bloc competitive with Obama.
GOP Influence: The gateway to the South is always an important contest and a role South Carolina's primary has filled on the GOP side since the 1990s. McCain's win in the Palmetto state (holding off Huckabee) made a big difference heading into Florida a week later. A Huckabee win there likely would have meant the former Arkansas governor would have been slightly more competitive in the Sunshine state. Instead he had to cede the state and shift his focus and limited resources to Super Tuesday contests.
Contest Company: Nevada (GOP)--Stand-alone (Dem.)
Grade: A
Comments: It is difficult to discount an early state and South Carolina fits that bill. All the woulda, coulda, shouldas spring forth from those early contests before momentum builds behind one candidate. That momentum could be felt in the GOP race through South Carolina, but was lacking on the Democratic side.
This group of states is littered with states with legislatures who considered frontloading moves, but ultimately didn't. The nature of the race in 2008 helped to make many of those states relevant in the presidential nomination decision-making process for the first time in a couple of decades. As I've maintained, those same states shouldn't stand idly by before 2012 waiting for 2008 to repeat itself. Without major reform, 2012 will mark a return to the way things were in the nomination game prior to this cycle. This group also benefited from New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, several heavy hitters in the delegate game, being among its ranks.
Up next: South Dakota through Wyoming.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
New Mexico:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--6-3-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: New Mexico's Democratic contest stretched beyond Super Tuesday to be officially decided. When it was, the win provided Clinton with her only break from the Obama streak during February. Of course that news was blunted by the resignation of Patti Solis-Doyle (Clinton's original campaign manager) and Clinton's original loan to her campaign around the same time.
GOP Influence: I saw a lot more about Montana and South Dakota than I did about New Mexico's Republican primary.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--South Dakota (GOP)
Grade: C-
Comments: New Mexico avoided being lost in the shuffle because ballot counting extended into the next week. However, while the Democratic primary didn't get lost among all those other Super Tuesday contests, but that news got filed away behind other news and Obama's streak. The GOP contest? Well, that one fell way after the point at which McCain had wrapped up the nomination, stuck in the background of the final Democratic contests.
New York:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Clinton played to her advantage on home turf. Much of the focus then was on other contests on a busy day.
GOP Influence: While Romney was busy winning caucuses, McCain was taking care of business in the winner-take-all states. If Obama built his delegate edge on caucus states, McCain used winner-take-all states similarly.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: Another "keeping up with the Super Tuesdays" state. New York is a big delegate "get" in both parties, but Clinton had the "home state" advantage in the Empire state and McCain took charge in yet another winner-take-all primary.
North Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 5-6-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Democratic primary mattered because Clinton's win in Pennsylvania two weeks earlier had cast doubt on Obama's inevitability and because the polls had closed to within the margin of error in the final days. Adding to that drama, North Carolina has been bandied about as a swing state in the fall with Obama at the top of the ticket.
GOP Influence: They had a contest? All I heard was how Obama won by a margin that was well behind where the polls had him in the state.
Contest Company: Indiana
Grade: A-
Comments: After holding primaries after the time during which the nominations had been settled for twenty years, the North Carolina legislature considered moving its primary, but the bill got stuck in committee and kept the Tarheel state primary in May. It didn't matter as the campaign stretched beyond March for the first time in nearly as many years.
North Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: This one gets a caucus bump for Obama, but it was a forgotten contest on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: See above (and insert Romney's name).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: If it wasn't bad enough that North Dakota had considered changing the state's name to simply Dakota, the major candidates didn't pay them much mind either. Then again, North Dakota did hold its caucuses during Super Tuesday. They did get some attention during their late March state convention and received a caucus boost, but the Peace Garden state still didn't get much out of being where they were on Super Tuesday.
Ohio:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: After Obama's streak of eleven victories, Ohio was a welcome and big victory for Clinton. That win along with Pennsylvania helped drive home her "swing state" electoral college argument. When that argument was first made it didn't actually make sense given the polls, but later came to be a vital part of her fading argument to the party's superdelegates.
GOP Influence: McCain sealed the deal with the knockout blow made up of Texas/Ohio. It is to the Arizona senator, what Montana was to Obama, the state that put him over the top.
Contest Company: Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Ohio's legislature toyed with the notion of joining Florida on January 29, but ultimately held in place on March 4. That saved the state the headache of dealing with the Florida/Michigan problem and got the state a prominent position in the Democratic race and a close out spot in the GOP battle.
Oklahoma:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A big win for Clinton in terms of margin, but the regional ties to Arkansas had much to do with the former first lady's success there on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Those same regional ties did not benefit the former Arkansas governor, as McCain took Oklahoma on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C
Comments: The Sooner state definitely did better by being earlier in 2004. A narrow Wes Clarke win then really hurt Edwards. In 2008, the rest of the crowd joined Oklahoma and rendered the state's primary much less influential.
Oregon:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-18-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-20-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Oregon pushed Obama over the top in terms of pledged delegates. He had a majority of those delegates after the Beaver state. It was a short trip from that milestone (and a valuable decision from the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee) to claiming the actual nomination two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Like so many contests after Ohio/Texas on March 4 when McCain claimed the mantle of presumptive nominee, Oregon just didn't mean as much with a competitive race on the other side. Down-ballot races in those same primaries took pre-eminence for the GOP.
Contest Company: Kentucky
Grade: C+
Comments: A milestone win on the Democratic side and a non-starter for the GOP made for mixed results for the primary in Oregon. There was a proposal to move the state's primary, but it didn't take. That "gridlock" made Oregon's primary meaningful if only because the Democratic contest obliged the Beaver state by lasting that long.
Pennsylvania:
2004 Date/contest type: 4-27-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 4-22-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A six week slog that continued Clinton's resurgence, Pennsylvania was an instrumental piece of the primary season equation in the Democratic race.
GOP Influence: The commonwealth is a swing state, so McCain spent some time there, but didn't break a sweat worrying about Ron Paul or defiant Huckabee supporters. Perhaps I should refer to the Paul folks as defiant.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A-
Comments: No state outside of Iowa got as much of a break as Pennsylvania. The layover between Mississippi's contest on March 11 and Pennsylvania's on April 22 could only be rivaled by the time between the last contest of 2004 and Iowa's caucuses in 2008 in this cycle. That's a fair amount of attention.
Rhode Island:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Rhode Island helped keep Clinton alive after the February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: Without a northeasterner in the race anymore, McCain only had to fend off Mike Huckabee (who was focused on Texas) in the Ocean state.
Contest Company: Ohio, Texas and Vermont
Grade: C
Comments: Along with Vermont, Rhode Island played the role of little brother to contests in Ohio and Texas on March 4. The Ocean state was a part of the Clinton run through the day's contests, though.
South Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/primary (GOP)--1-26-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: The lead up to South Carolina began the Clinton's long (inadvertent) effort to estrange black voters. Both the former first lady and the former president's comments damaged the New York senator's chances of legitimately keeping that voting bloc competitive with Obama.
GOP Influence: The gateway to the South is always an important contest and a role South Carolina's primary has filled on the GOP side since the 1990s. McCain's win in the Palmetto state (holding off Huckabee) made a big difference heading into Florida a week later. A Huckabee win there likely would have meant the former Arkansas governor would have been slightly more competitive in the Sunshine state. Instead he had to cede the state and shift his focus and limited resources to Super Tuesday contests.
Contest Company: Nevada (GOP)--Stand-alone (Dem.)
Grade: A
Comments: It is difficult to discount an early state and South Carolina fits that bill. All the woulda, coulda, shouldas spring forth from those early contests before momentum builds behind one candidate. That momentum could be felt in the GOP race through South Carolina, but was lacking on the Democratic side.
This group of states is littered with states with legislatures who considered frontloading moves, but ultimately didn't. The nature of the race in 2008 helped to make many of those states relevant in the presidential nomination decision-making process for the first time in a couple of decades. As I've maintained, those same states shouldn't stand idly by before 2012 waiting for 2008 to repeat itself. Without major reform, 2012 will mark a return to the way things were in the nomination game prior to this cycle. This group also benefited from New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, several heavy hitters in the delegate game, being among its ranks.
Up next: South Dakota through Wyoming.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three
Wednesday brings us to the third grouping of primary and caucus states to dissect. Yesterday's collection of states improved upon the Super Tuesday heavy group of states reviewed on Monday based in large part on the presence of Iowa and some quirky scheduling decisions in some states (notably the weekend primary in Louisiana--Then again the home of Mardi Gras in the US certainly couldn't vote on Fat Tuesday/Super Tuesday, so they waited until the weekend after.). Today, FHQ travels back in time to look at the delegate selection events in states from New Hampshire in the east to Montana and Nevada in the west. In reality, we'll just continue ambling through an alphabetical look at the states.
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
Massachusetts:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The northeast primary states (with the exceptions of Connecticut and Vermont) were a Clinton stronghold in 2008. Her Massachusetts win got a bit more press than it maybe normally would on a day with over 20 contests because of the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama prior to Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: This one had home state alert written all over it as soon as Mitt Romney entered the race for the GOP nomination. Moving on.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B-
Comments: One of the last states to move in the lead up to the 2008 primary season (November of 2007), Massachusetts played what FHQ refers to as the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" strategy. The Bay state, like California and New York, moved from Super Tuesday 2004 to Super Tuesday 2008. Typically that means no move at all, but in a year when the momentum was behind the idea of holding a delegate selection event on February 5, it meant frontloading and moving up a month.
Michigan:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 1-15-08/primary
Dem. Influence: I've read something about this contest somewhere. I just can't remember where I saw it or what it was about. It seems like someone wasn't on the ballot because the Michigan contest broke Democratic Party rules. Does that ring a bell with anyone?
GOP Influence: This was a partial favorite son state for Romney and really only had the effect of keeping the former Massachusetts governor alive until Super Tuesday. The contest did count (immediately) for the GOP, though with a penalty of half the state's delegation.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: F
Comments: Michigan falls even lower than Florida simply because not only did the state's January 15 primary lead to the debacle the Democratic Party finally solved on May 31, but because, the state did not have any real effect on the Republican nomination either. The ballot issue on the Democratic side pushed this one over the edge.
Minnesota:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Caucus means Obama. Haven't you ever heard that old expression?
GOP Influence: Caucus means...oh this is the GOP, so uh, Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: The Land of 10,000 Lakes was another of the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" states. But Minnesota had the fortune of having held a caucus, which proved a beneficial system of delegate selection to the Obama (and Romney) campaign(s).
Mississippi:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-11-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A large African American turnout made this one less exciting than a stand-alone contest might otherwise have been. This one was a near certainty for Obama even after Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio a week earlier.
GOP Influence: A week late and a dollar short. Mississippi had the honor of being the first contest after McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination. That hurt.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: C-
Comments: Standing in place had one positive effect for the Magnolia state: the three southern states that held contests on the same date as Mississippi in 2004 abandon ship leaving Mississippi all by its lonesome on March 11. Sadly, that date was a week too late or the contest was not competitive enough for the state to have been meaningful.
Missouri:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A tight contest but one that got lost among many of the bigger delegate prizes of the day. Early February in 2004 was better than in 2008 for Missouri.
GOP Influence: Missouri was further evidence of McCain's dominance in winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday. The Arizona senator won by 2 points with 33% of the vote and got all 58 of the state's delegates.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: The Show-Me state held still after 2004 and watched as the field around them on February 5 got bigger and bigger and bigger. Bellwether that it is though, Missouri correctly tapped both Obama and McCain as the winners on Super Tuesday.
Montana:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (GOP)--6-3-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Montana helped bring up the rear and in the process put Obama over the top in the delegate count. Being decisive helps.
GOP Influence: The state GOP in Montana opted for an early caucus and as a result got lost in among the bigger states of the day. McCain did well enough in the winner-take-all states that he could cede the caucus states of the day to Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (GOP)--South Dakota (Dem.)
Grade: B
Comments: Montana was invisible on the Republican side on Super Tuesday but decisive for the Democrats. Being last is good when you can be the state that "decides" the nomination.
Nebraska:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-13-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: The Democrats in Nebraska opted to hold a first-ever caucus and ended up helping start an Obama streak of wins and continue his streak of caucus dominance.
GOP Influence: Ho hum. Another post-Ohio/Texas contest that ceded attention to the Democrats. This one didn't even have a delegate-allocating, Democratic contest on the same day.
Contest Company: Kansas, Louisiana and Washington (Dem.)--Stand-alone contest (GOP)
Grade: C+
Comments: Nebraska gets that early caucus boost on the Democratic side, but the meaningless GOP contest and the fact that the Democrats could have gained much more by staying in place and holding a primary on the same day as West Virginia both hurt.
Nevada:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-14-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Iowa was one thing, but Nevada was the point that Obama's caucus prowess was truly revealed. He lost the popular vote, but won the delegate battle. This will be one that Clinton supporters will point to when they make the case against caucuses in the future.
GOP Influence: The GOP meanwhile was focused on South Carolina. Romney won the caucus going away, but against a field that was focused further east.
Contest Company: South Carolina (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Nevada did well in its new, favored position among the Democratic contests. No Nevada contest on the presidential level (in the primary phase) had ever been so meaningful. On the GOP side? Well, here's hoping South Carolina doesn't hold a contest on the same day in 2012.
New Hampshire:
2004 Date/contest type: 1-27-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-8-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-3-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's win was foreshadowing of the back and forth nature of the Obama/Clinton race. A struggle that was abated only by the late February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: McCain solidified himself as the new front-runner for the GOP nomination. Enough said.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A
Comments: Maybe the Clintons made a mistake by not re-settling in New Hampshire following their eight years in the White House. With Clinton bouncing back from her Iowa third place finish and McCain doing likewise from his summer 2007 swoon, New Hampshire is the home of political comebacks on the presidential level. Comebacks aside, being first (or almost first) is a plus, just as it is in Iowa.
New Jersey:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The result was closer than one would have thought, given that a New Yorker was running. Clinton's presence on the ballot, though, meant the focus would be somewhere other than New Jersey on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: McCain's win moved Huckabee into "believe in miracles not math" mode. It was the beginning of the end for the former Arkansas governor in demographically hostile territory (save western Virginia).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: F
Comments: Stay in June and be forgotten or move and be overshadowed by bigger states on Super Tuesday. That was the dilemma that faced the New Jersey state government in the lead up to 2008. They chose the latter (twice) in an effort to at least have a say in who the nominees would be. Hindsight being what it is, though, it is easy to say this, but New Jersey messed up twice; first moving away from their traditional first week in June primary date (when they would have been the biggest draw over Montana and South Dakota) and then moving again from the final week in February (when the Garden state would have been the only game in town) to Super Tuesday (when they weren't). There have been several "what ifs" about states that moved their delegate selection events for 2008. Political science colleagues and fellow bloggers, Matthew Shugart (fruitsandvotes.com) and Steven Taylor (poliblogger.com) have examined the moves in California and Alabama, respectively. None of the frontloaders for 2008 match New Jersey though. Sick of being last and having no say in who either party's nominees were, legislators in New Jersey acted to move the state's 2008 primary to February 26. That was an open week ahead of the contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. As more and more states moved to February 5, signaling an earlier end to the nomination contests (and, hey, if you take the most recent nomination campaigns as a guide, then you can't fault the thought process), New Jersey opted to move again in order to have at least some say in who the nominees of the parties would be. In the process of course, the state moved away from what would have been two advantageous dates; dates that would have granted New Jersey a much larger influence than what they got on Super Tuesday. But the Garden state is well positioned for 2012 should the process revert to form then.
New Jersey ended things on a low note, but this is a group of states that did pretty well by moving (or not moving) their primaries or caucuses. Of course, early states like Nevada and New Hampshire averaged out states like Michigan and New Jersey where moves backfired and cost each influence over the process.
Up next: New Mexico through South Carolina.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.
Massachusetts:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The northeast primary states (with the exceptions of Connecticut and Vermont) were a Clinton stronghold in 2008. Her Massachusetts win got a bit more press than it maybe normally would on a day with over 20 contests because of the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama prior to Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: This one had home state alert written all over it as soon as Mitt Romney entered the race for the GOP nomination. Moving on.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B-
Comments: One of the last states to move in the lead up to the 2008 primary season (November of 2007), Massachusetts played what FHQ refers to as the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" strategy. The Bay state, like California and New York, moved from Super Tuesday 2004 to Super Tuesday 2008. Typically that means no move at all, but in a year when the momentum was behind the idea of holding a delegate selection event on February 5, it meant frontloading and moving up a month.
Michigan:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 1-15-08/primary
Dem. Influence: I've read something about this contest somewhere. I just can't remember where I saw it or what it was about. It seems like someone wasn't on the ballot because the Michigan contest broke Democratic Party rules. Does that ring a bell with anyone?
GOP Influence: This was a partial favorite son state for Romney and really only had the effect of keeping the former Massachusetts governor alive until Super Tuesday. The contest did count (immediately) for the GOP, though with a penalty of half the state's delegation.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: F
Comments: Michigan falls even lower than Florida simply because not only did the state's January 15 primary lead to the debacle the Democratic Party finally solved on May 31, but because, the state did not have any real effect on the Republican nomination either. The ballot issue on the Democratic side pushed this one over the edge.
Minnesota:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Caucus means Obama. Haven't you ever heard that old expression?
GOP Influence: Caucus means...oh this is the GOP, so uh, Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: The Land of 10,000 Lakes was another of the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" states. But Minnesota had the fortune of having held a caucus, which proved a beneficial system of delegate selection to the Obama (and Romney) campaign(s).
Mississippi:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-11-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A large African American turnout made this one less exciting than a stand-alone contest might otherwise have been. This one was a near certainty for Obama even after Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio a week earlier.
GOP Influence: A week late and a dollar short. Mississippi had the honor of being the first contest after McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination. That hurt.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: C-
Comments: Standing in place had one positive effect for the Magnolia state: the three southern states that held contests on the same date as Mississippi in 2004 abandon ship leaving Mississippi all by its lonesome on March 11. Sadly, that date was a week too late or the contest was not competitive enough for the state to have been meaningful.
Missouri:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A tight contest but one that got lost among many of the bigger delegate prizes of the day. Early February in 2004 was better than in 2008 for Missouri.
GOP Influence: Missouri was further evidence of McCain's dominance in winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday. The Arizona senator won by 2 points with 33% of the vote and got all 58 of the state's delegates.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: The Show-Me state held still after 2004 and watched as the field around them on February 5 got bigger and bigger and bigger. Bellwether that it is though, Missouri correctly tapped both Obama and McCain as the winners on Super Tuesday.
Montana:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (GOP)--6-3-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Montana helped bring up the rear and in the process put Obama over the top in the delegate count. Being decisive helps.
GOP Influence: The state GOP in Montana opted for an early caucus and as a result got lost in among the bigger states of the day. McCain did well enough in the winner-take-all states that he could cede the caucus states of the day to Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (GOP)--South Dakota (Dem.)
Grade: B
Comments: Montana was invisible on the Republican side on Super Tuesday but decisive for the Democrats. Being last is good when you can be the state that "decides" the nomination.
Nebraska:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-13-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: The Democrats in Nebraska opted to hold a first-ever caucus and ended up helping start an Obama streak of wins and continue his streak of caucus dominance.
GOP Influence: Ho hum. Another post-Ohio/Texas contest that ceded attention to the Democrats. This one didn't even have a delegate-allocating, Democratic contest on the same day.
Contest Company: Kansas, Louisiana and Washington (Dem.)--Stand-alone contest (GOP)
Grade: C+
Comments: Nebraska gets that early caucus boost on the Democratic side, but the meaningless GOP contest and the fact that the Democrats could have gained much more by staying in place and holding a primary on the same day as West Virginia both hurt.
Nevada:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-14-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Iowa was one thing, but Nevada was the point that Obama's caucus prowess was truly revealed. He lost the popular vote, but won the delegate battle. This will be one that Clinton supporters will point to when they make the case against caucuses in the future.
GOP Influence: The GOP meanwhile was focused on South Carolina. Romney won the caucus going away, but against a field that was focused further east.
Contest Company: South Carolina (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Nevada did well in its new, favored position among the Democratic contests. No Nevada contest on the presidential level (in the primary phase) had ever been so meaningful. On the GOP side? Well, here's hoping South Carolina doesn't hold a contest on the same day in 2012.
New Hampshire:
2004 Date/contest type: 1-27-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-8-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-3-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's win was foreshadowing of the back and forth nature of the Obama/Clinton race. A struggle that was abated only by the late February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: McCain solidified himself as the new front-runner for the GOP nomination. Enough said.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A
Comments: Maybe the Clintons made a mistake by not re-settling in New Hampshire following their eight years in the White House. With Clinton bouncing back from her Iowa third place finish and McCain doing likewise from his summer 2007 swoon, New Hampshire is the home of political comebacks on the presidential level. Comebacks aside, being first (or almost first) is a plus, just as it is in Iowa.
New Jersey:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The result was closer than one would have thought, given that a New Yorker was running. Clinton's presence on the ballot, though, meant the focus would be somewhere other than New Jersey on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: McCain's win moved Huckabee into "believe in miracles not math" mode. It was the beginning of the end for the former Arkansas governor in demographically hostile territory (save western Virginia).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: F
Comments: Stay in June and be forgotten or move and be overshadowed by bigger states on Super Tuesday. That was the dilemma that faced the New Jersey state government in the lead up to 2008. They chose the latter (twice) in an effort to at least have a say in who the nominees would be. Hindsight being what it is, though, it is easy to say this, but New Jersey messed up twice; first moving away from their traditional first week in June primary date (when they would have been the biggest draw over Montana and South Dakota) and then moving again from the final week in February (when the Garden state would have been the only game in town) to Super Tuesday (when they weren't). There have been several "what ifs" about states that moved their delegate selection events for 2008. Political science colleagues and fellow bloggers, Matthew Shugart (fruitsandvotes.com) and Steven Taylor (poliblogger.com) have examined the moves in California and Alabama, respectively. None of the frontloaders for 2008 match New Jersey though. Sick of being last and having no say in who either party's nominees were, legislators in New Jersey acted to move the state's 2008 primary to February 26. That was an open week ahead of the contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. As more and more states moved to February 5, signaling an earlier end to the nomination contests (and, hey, if you take the most recent nomination campaigns as a guide, then you can't fault the thought process), New Jersey opted to move again in order to have at least some say in who the nominees of the parties would be. In the process of course, the state moved away from what would have been two advantageous dates; dates that would have granted New Jersey a much larger influence than what they got on Super Tuesday. But the Garden state is well positioned for 2012 should the process revert to form then.
New Jersey ended things on a low note, but this is a group of states that did pretty well by moving (or not moving) their primaries or caucuses. Of course, early states like Nevada and New Hampshire averaged out states like Michigan and New Jersey where moves backfired and cost each influence over the process.
Up next: New Mexico through South Carolina.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)
Well, who else shed a tear when yesterday came and went with no primaries and no promise of any further contests for another four years? Hey, if we're lucky there may even be a primary or two in 2011. My guess is that it won't be Florida or Michigan that triggers New Hampshire or Iowa breaking beyond the January 1 barrier. But hey, we'll see.
Regardless, primary season is over and the general election campaign has begun. With that change comes a change in how FHQ will be examining the electoral college. Yes, Hillary Clinton has been dropped (The polling firms forced our hand on that one.), but we are also unveiling a new map (courtesy of Paul Gurian) to track the shifts in the electoral college projections. Part map, part cartogram, the new template resizes the states to match proportionally with the number of electoral votes each state has.
That's great, but what about the numbers? To the map!
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Not much changed this week as the polling was light following the conclusion of the Democratic nomination race. There were nine new polls in nine states. With new polls in South Carolina and West Virginia for the first time since February, the fall map was clarified a bit further. South Carolina, which has been a toss up favoring McCain, inched into the McCain Lean category and while West Virginia remained a Strong McCain state, the new poll from Rasmussen brought the weighted average closer to the line between the strong and lean distinctions. Other new polls in Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin confirmed what was already apparent in each state. Wisconsin and Missouri are both still toss ups leaning toward Obama and McCain respectively, but both are trending toward Obama with this latest round of polling.
With that said the underlying electoral vote breakdown remains the same as a week ago. Based on the shift of Michigan from a toss up favoring Obama to a toss up leaning toward McCain, the Arizona senator maintains a 281 to 257 electoral vote advantage over the newly designated, presumptive Democratic nominee.
As I mentioned a few posts ago, FHQ will be shifting to a bi-weekly update of the electoral college maps. I'll be back on Sunday with tales of all the new polls. Hopefully the polling firms will oblige with a series of new polls.
***Please see the right sidebar for links to Updated Electoral College projections.***
Recent Posts:
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One
Regardless, primary season is over and the general election campaign has begun. With that change comes a change in how FHQ will be examining the electoral college. Yes, Hillary Clinton has been dropped (The polling firms forced our hand on that one.), but we are also unveiling a new map (courtesy of Paul Gurian) to track the shifts in the electoral college projections. Part map, part cartogram, the new template resizes the states to match proportionally with the number of electoral votes each state has.
That's great, but what about the numbers? To the map!
[Click Map to Enlarge]Not much changed this week as the polling was light following the conclusion of the Democratic nomination race. There were nine new polls in nine states. With new polls in South Carolina and West Virginia for the first time since February, the fall map was clarified a bit further. South Carolina, which has been a toss up favoring McCain, inched into the McCain Lean category and while West Virginia remained a Strong McCain state, the new poll from Rasmussen brought the weighted average closer to the line between the strong and lean distinctions. Other new polls in Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin confirmed what was already apparent in each state. Wisconsin and Missouri are both still toss ups leaning toward Obama and McCain respectively, but both are trending toward Obama with this latest round of polling.
With that said the underlying electoral vote breakdown remains the same as a week ago. Based on the shift of Michigan from a toss up favoring Obama to a toss up leaning toward McCain, the Arizona senator maintains a 281 to 257 electoral vote advantage over the newly designated, presumptive Democratic nominee.
As I mentioned a few posts ago, FHQ will be shifting to a bi-weekly update of the electoral college maps. I'll be back on Sunday with tales of all the new polls. Hopefully the polling firms will oblige with a series of new polls.
***Please see the right sidebar for links to Updated Electoral College projections.***
Recent Posts:
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National
This past Friday, the Macon Telegraph ran a letter to the editor calling on the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees to walk the walk now that each has talked the talk on a post-partisan approach to the presidency.
[begin]
I can take or leave the suggestion of having shadow cabinets or prospective shadow cabinets in place before the November election, but the idea of having a national non-partisan primary is an interesting one to say the least. This would be the equivalent of having the Louisiana political infrastructure in place on the national level. Candidates of all stripes are thrown into one chaotic election and the top two voter getters make the runoff (general election). In 2008, for example, a year with both enthusiasm and competitiveness gaps in favor of the Democrats, we would have seen two Democrats vying for the Oval Office in November (Both Clinton and Obama had in excess of 17 million votes while McCain had just under 10 million votes.). It should be noted that had Republican voters known they had to vote to get one of their own in the general election, McCain's total would have been higher.
How would other past primary seasons run in this manner have come out? A quick glance at America Votes gives us a pretty good idea. Though caucus votes are excluded, we still have a rough sense of who would have appeared in the general election runoff following what would have been a national, non-partisan primary.
2008
Obama: 17,535,458
Clinton: 17,493,836
McCain: 9,902,797
...
Barr: n/a
Nader: n/a
2004
Kerry: 9,870,082
Bush: 7,784,653
Edwards: 3,135,373
...
Nader: n/a
2000
Bush: 10,844,129
Gore: 10,626,645
McCain: 5,118,187
...
Nader: n/a
Buchanan: n/a
1996
Clinton: 9,694,499
Dole: 8,191,239
Buchanan: 3,020,746
...
Perot: n/a
1992
Clinton: 10,482,411
Bush: 9,199,463
Brown: 4,071,232
...
Perot: n/a
1988
Dukakis: 9,817,185
Bush: 8,254,654
Jackson: 6,685,699
1984
Mondale: 6,811,214
Hart: 6,503,968
Reagan: 6,484,987
1980
Carter: 9,593,335
Reagan: 7,709,793
Kennedy: 6,963,625
...
Anderson: 1,572,174
1976
Carter: 6,235,609
Ford: 5,529,899
Reagan: 4,758,325
1972 Nixon: 5,378,704
Humphrey: 4,121,372
McGovern: 4,053,451
Wallace: 3,755,424
Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, there aren't that many changes from the general election match ups anyway. The changes that do appear underline some caveats that would have to be considered to look at this thoroughly. For starters, incumbents running unopposed would have to be controlled for in some way. There's no way, for example, that Reagan would have missed out on the 1984 general election, but his vote totals in the primaries were down because he ran virtually unopposed. Without that competition, there was less motivation to turn out GOP voters. The flip side of this is whether incumbents would even be included. Would it be the case that an incumbent would occupy one spot while the other candidates (members of the incumbent's party included) would run for that spot opposite him.
I'm going to try to look at this a but deeper in the next few weeks and months, so be on the look out. Putting some additional numbers in would definitely create an interesting analysis. Now, if only my dissertation will allow me to spend time elsewhere.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One
A Big Thanks to Demconwatch
[begin]
The presumptive presidential nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain, have promised, if elected, a bipartisan administration. They must also walk their talk, and it can done by two methods.
First, Obama and McCain must urge the passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a non-partisan primary election for all 50 states. This political reform would allow Independents to run in the primary election against Democrats and Republicans. The two top vote-getters would run in the general election.
Second, McCain and Obama must provide a list of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who they would appoint as cabinet secretaries and to White House staff.
In a nutshell, politics as usual must stop in Washington.
Roy Wetherington
Tifton
[end]
I can take or leave the suggestion of having shadow cabinets or prospective shadow cabinets in place before the November election, but the idea of having a national non-partisan primary is an interesting one to say the least. This would be the equivalent of having the Louisiana political infrastructure in place on the national level. Candidates of all stripes are thrown into one chaotic election and the top two voter getters make the runoff (general election). In 2008, for example, a year with both enthusiasm and competitiveness gaps in favor of the Democrats, we would have seen two Democrats vying for the Oval Office in November (Both Clinton and Obama had in excess of 17 million votes while McCain had just under 10 million votes.). It should be noted that had Republican voters known they had to vote to get one of their own in the general election, McCain's total would have been higher.
How would other past primary seasons run in this manner have come out? A quick glance at America Votes gives us a pretty good idea. Though caucus votes are excluded, we still have a rough sense of who would have appeared in the general election runoff following what would have been a national, non-partisan primary.
2008
Obama: 17,535,458
Clinton: 17,493,836
McCain: 9,902,797
...
Barr: n/a
Nader: n/a
2004
Kerry: 9,870,082
Bush: 7,784,653
Edwards: 3,135,373
...
Nader: n/a
2000
Bush: 10,844,129
Gore: 10,626,645
McCain: 5,118,187
...
Nader: n/a
Buchanan: n/a
1996
Clinton: 9,694,499
Dole: 8,191,239
Buchanan: 3,020,746
...
Perot: n/a
1992
Clinton: 10,482,411
Bush: 9,199,463
Brown: 4,071,232
...
Perot: n/a
1988
Dukakis: 9,817,185
Bush: 8,254,654
Jackson: 6,685,699
1984
Mondale: 6,811,214
Hart: 6,503,968
Reagan: 6,484,987
1980
Carter: 9,593,335
Reagan: 7,709,793
Kennedy: 6,963,625
...
Anderson: 1,572,174
1976
Carter: 6,235,609
Ford: 5,529,899
Reagan: 4,758,325
1972 Nixon: 5,378,704
Humphrey: 4,121,372
McGovern: 4,053,451
Wallace: 3,755,424
Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, there aren't that many changes from the general election match ups anyway. The changes that do appear underline some caveats that would have to be considered to look at this thoroughly. For starters, incumbents running unopposed would have to be controlled for in some way. There's no way, for example, that Reagan would have missed out on the 1984 general election, but his vote totals in the primaries were down because he ran virtually unopposed. Without that competition, there was less motivation to turn out GOP voters. The flip side of this is whether incumbents would even be included. Would it be the case that an incumbent would occupy one spot while the other candidates (members of the incumbent's party included) would run for that spot opposite him.
I'm going to try to look at this a but deeper in the next few weeks and months, so be on the look out. Putting some additional numbers in would definitely create an interesting analysis. Now, if only my dissertation will allow me to spend time elsewhere.
Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One
A Big Thanks to Demconwatch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)