Now, the Credentials Committee will have some say in this, but...
Obama's decision to call for a full seating of the delegates from Florida and Michigan has opened up a Pandora's box. Yes, it was clever of his campaign to come out with this now, after Hillary Clinton had been out of the spotlight for nearly two months. For delegates to go against two months of effort on behalf of Obama as the presumptive nominee and opt for Clinton, would be tantamount to ceding the election to McCain. Timing-wise then, it was a good move to make the call now (if he was going to do it at all). At this point, the intra-party tension has been sufficiently minimized, so that it is only likely to elicit a response from the most vocal Clinton supporters/Obama detractors.
To me though, that isn't real issue here. And, as is often the case with the Democratic Party, rule changes lead to some discernible differences, but also leave them vulnerable to any number of unforeseen, unintended consequences. If the Credentials Committee gives the green light to Obama's wishes for full voting rights for Florida and Michigan at the convention later this month, then states wanting to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation caucus and primary status in 2012 are going to be given a real morale boost.
Said one fictitious state legisltor:
"Delegates, schmelagates. If the sanctions don't mean anything anyway, let's move our primary way up so that we at least have some influence over who the presidential nominee is. The convention is only a PR extravaganza anyway. The delegates there only rubber stamp the decision made in the primaries; the early primaries."
And that's the catch here. This opens the door to any number of challenges to Iowa and New Hampshire. The Credentials Committee, then, can seat those delegates with full (not half) votes, but they had better hope that the Rules and Bylaws Committee does something at the convention to address 2012 and beyond (and they will. We just don't have any idea of to what extent they'll do something.). Either that, or rely on the GOP to debate the Ohio Plan at their convention or hope the federal government intervenes. Otherwise, states are going to move into the down-time between cycles -- when the frontloading decisions are made -- with an ability to move with impunity.
If Obama wins in November, this is a moot point.
...until 2016.
or
...unless things go badly and he is challenged in the primaries in 2012 (Could Clinton/Obama II be like Carter and Kennedy in 1980?).
If McCain wins, 2012 could be ugly for the Democratic Party in terms of how it will deal with states which will be tempted more than ever to hold a primary of caucus ahead of the earliest point that the party will allow (currently the first Tuesday in February).
So sure, Florida and Michigan matter to the Democrats' fortunes in 2008, but are they thinking ahead to 2012 and beyond? And while we're on the subject, is unity between those two states and the Democratic nominee a real problem now? Michigan is tight in the poll, but still favors Obama. And Florida is trending in the direction of the Illinois senator. What is gained from giving these delegates their full voice and is that really going to turn the tide in either state? Yes, I realize there is a sense of fairness and democracy here, but I'm talking about this in terms of how this affects the party's nominee in the election. Does that gain outweigh the potential headache 2012 frontloaders are going to provide? That is the question. Apparently it does.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/3/08)
So, Who's Going to Win This Race? The Forecasts are Starting to Come In
VP Announcement Timing
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Electoral College Map (8/3/08)
Now that's more like it. After a mini-break at the beginning of last week, the major polling firms got back to work, releasing 16 new polls in 15 new states. And one of them was Idaho! Enough said. I am mindful of the fact that Idaho is likely to be as red a state as many others out there in November, but it is always good to have some polling to confirm that impression (even if it is on a whim). What was interesting about the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll from the Gem state is that it further cements Idaho's status as a strong McCain state, but is far less solid for the presumptive Republican nominee than it was in any of the last two cycles. Bush polled about 30 points ahead of Kerry in 2004 and 28 points ahead of Gore in 2000. Just for comparison's sake, Bush actually won Idaho by 39 and 41 points in 2004 and 2000 respectively.
So, even though the Kos poll confirms the February Survey USA poll -- that Idaho is closer than it has been -- that may not necessarily translate to voting in November. What we can see is that, on average, Idaho polling underestimates the Republican share of the general election vote by about 11 points. With the two polls that we now have in Idaho, FHQ's weighted average for the Gem state sits at exactly 15 points. If we correct for the GOP underestimate, that puts Idaho at 26 points now. Certainly closer than it has been in the last two cycles, but right on the line for where Kos indicates Obama would have to be to potentially affect downballot, congressional races.
Alright, that's now two Sundays in a row that you've focused on red states that are relatively safe for McCain. What about the states where the real action is? Well, the series of Quinnipiac out this week in the three "traditional" swing states (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) shifted the Buckeye state back into Obama's column after the most recent Rasmussen poll there pushed it to McCain's side almost two weeks ago. Other than that though, Mississippi was the only other state to shift from one category to the other here, moving from a McCain lean to a strong McCain state. There have been some single digit polls out of the Magnolia state, but I'd suspect this is the last the last we see of Mississippi moving. It just isn't a state where Obama matches up well, either demographically or traditionally.
With those two changes, then, the map shifts back to the 298-240 Obama advantage in the electoral college that marked the tail end of June and most of July. That brings the lean and toss up categories across the partisan line largely in line with each other. Among the toss up states McCain holds 83 electoral votes to Obama's 76. Similarly, the distribution of lean state electoral votes is split 63 to 47 in favor of McCain. However, the strong state electoral votes continue to overwhelmingly favor Obama. And like the pledged delegate lead Obama maintained from mid-February up to the final nominating contests, this strong state advantage may offer the Illinois senator the cushion he needs in the general election. Again, like what we saw in the Idaho example above, that may not translate to the actual voting in November. What it does do, however, is provide Obama with enough leeway that he could "give away" states like Nevada, Ohio and Virginia and still win, albeit narrowly. Granted, Virginia is already a McCain state, but those three states represent the closest states currently.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
And that's as good a place as any to jump into a discussion of how the states rank compared to each other given the new polling that was released during the latter half of the week. You'll note that the states' electoral votes have been added to the table as well since Wednesday. I've been playing around with some other enhancements as well, but this is the less complicated version that I'll go forward with today. For a review of how the rankings are to be read, please see the post from Wednesday.
As I said above, the current map favors Obama in such a way that he yield that trio of close states to McCain and still emerge victorious in the electoral college. That obviously isn't the strategy the Obama campaign is proceeding with, but is more a reflection of the current state of the race. There are two lines of demarcation to note in the rankings. One is where blue turns to pink (the partisan divide) and the other is the point that has been referred to as the tipping point -- the point where either candidate would cross over the 270 electoral vote barrier to win the election. [I should take a moment to mention that I'm still open to suggestions on what to call these things. I quite liked "The Cutting Edge as a name for the "yellow state" in the bi-weekly rankings. However, I'm still willing to listen to ideas for what to call the entire figure and that particular breaking point.]. These two lines are a great lens through which to view these rankings. The closer they are, the more even the overall distribution of electoral votes is. The further apart they are, the greater the electoral college margin becomes (in either direction). As the rankings stand now, McCain would want to push the partisan divide line higher so that it, at the very least, converged with where Pennsylvania is or, more ideally perhaps, past the point where it takes in all the light blue (Toss Up Obama) states. In other words, McCain is forced to play offense. All Obama has to do is play defense and protect the current distribution. That's a low bar that the Obama campaign seems to be exceeding by leaps and bounds given their ad buys thus far (including 14 states won by Bush in 2004) and their 50 state organizational strategy. The partisan divide line and the (Well, shall I call it the...) breaking point line are close to each other given the information we have. That translates into a relatively close electoral college results, but also means that the pursuer (in this case McCain) has only three states to flip to overtake Obama in the electoral vote tally. [Yes, there are other ways McCain can get to 270 than pulling Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania over to his side, but this ranking tells us that, given FHQ's weighted average, those three are the most likely to potentially switch at this point in time. So while McCain could swing just Colorado, Michigan and New Hampshire -- three toss up Obama states -- to get to exactly 270 electoral votes, he'd have to do more in each of those states to move the averages than he would in the states between Virginia and Pennsylvania.]
Another (good for Obama) poll in Florida pulled the Sunshine state off the Watch List into a more solid toss up distinction. The Quinnipiac poll in Ohio, while it did bring the weighted average back into the blue didn't pull Ohio off the Watch List. The Buckeye state remains the closest swing state by our measure. Like Florida, Mississippi also left the list and as I said above, likely does so permanently. With those departures the list is down to just ten states and of those only half involve states either moving into or out of the toss up category. That's as good an indication as any that things, though still in flux, are continuing to settle into place.
Note: For those who read the forecasting post yesterday, the link I was unable to provide to the International Journal of Forecasting's online home at Science Direct is now up. Simply click on the first link under Recent Posts just below to get to the post and that link. Again, the articles in that special issue discuss presidential election forecasting and the debates therein generally. They don't contain the actual forecasts for the 2008 election. Those are due in the October issue of PS: Political Science and Politics. In the meantime, I'll be on the lookout for the manuscripts for those pieces. The Erikson and Wlezien link from yesterday's post is actually one of those drafts.
Note II: Also, I'll be back tomorrow with a look at how things changed for McCain and Obama during July. The map looks a little different from the June map.
Recent Posts:
So, Who's Going to Win This Race? The Forecasts are Starting to Come In
VP Announcement Timing
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
So, even though the Kos poll confirms the February Survey USA poll -- that Idaho is closer than it has been -- that may not necessarily translate to voting in November. What we can see is that, on average, Idaho polling underestimates the Republican share of the general election vote by about 11 points. With the two polls that we now have in Idaho, FHQ's weighted average for the Gem state sits at exactly 15 points. If we correct for the GOP underestimate, that puts Idaho at 26 points now. Certainly closer than it has been in the last two cycles, but right on the line for where Kos indicates Obama would have to be to potentially affect downballot, congressional races.
| New Polls (July 30-Aug. 2) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Rasmussen | +6/+5 | |
| California | PPIC | +15 | |
| Florida | Quinnipiac | +2 | |
| Idaho | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +16 | |
| Kentucky | Rasmussen | +9/+10 | |
| Kentucky | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +21 | |
| Michigan | Public Policy Polling | +3 | |
| Mississippi | Rasmussen | +12/+11 | |
| Missouri | Survey USA | +5 | |
| Montana | Rasmussen | 0/+1 | |
| Nebraska | Rasmussen | +19/+18 | |
| New York | Siena | +18 | |
| North Carolina | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +4 | |
| Ohio | Quinnipiac | +2 | |
| Pennsylvania | Quinnipiac | +9 | |
| Texas | Rasmussen | +8/+9 | |
Alright, that's now two Sundays in a row that you've focused on red states that are relatively safe for McCain. What about the states where the real action is? Well, the series of Quinnipiac out this week in the three "traditional" swing states (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) shifted the Buckeye state back into Obama's column after the most recent Rasmussen poll there pushed it to McCain's side almost two weeks ago. Other than that though, Mississippi was the only other state to shift from one category to the other here, moving from a McCain lean to a strong McCain state. There have been some single digit polls out of the Magnolia state, but I'd suspect this is the last the last we see of Mississippi moving. It just isn't a state where Obama matches up well, either demographically or traditionally.
| Changes (July 30-Aug. 2) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi | McCain lean | Strong McCain | |
| Ohio | Toss Up McCain | Toss Up Obama | |
With those two changes, then, the map shifts back to the 298-240 Obama advantage in the electoral college that marked the tail end of June and most of July. That brings the lean and toss up categories across the partisan line largely in line with each other. Among the toss up states McCain holds 83 electoral votes to Obama's 76. Similarly, the distribution of lean state electoral votes is split 63 to 47 in favor of McCain. However, the strong state electoral votes continue to overwhelmingly favor Obama. And like the pledged delegate lead Obama maintained from mid-February up to the final nominating contests, this strong state advantage may offer the Illinois senator the cushion he needs in the general election. Again, like what we saw in the Idaho example above, that may not translate to the actual voting in November. What it does do, however, is provide Obama with enough leeway that he could "give away" states like Nevada, Ohio and Virginia and still win, albeit narrowly. Granted, Virginia is already a McCain state, but those three states represent the closest states currently.
[Click Map to Enlarge]And that's as good a place as any to jump into a discussion of how the states rank compared to each other given the new polling that was released during the latter half of the week. You'll note that the states' electoral votes have been added to the table as well since Wednesday. I've been playing around with some other enhancements as well, but this is the less complicated version that I'll go forward with today. For a review of how the rankings are to be read, please see the post from Wednesday.
| The Electoral College State Rankings | ||||
| HI-4 | WA-11 | NH-4 | NC-15 | KS-6 |
| VT-3 | MN-10 | PA-21* | AK-3 | ID-4 |
| RI-4 | DE-3 | NV-5 | SC-8 | NE-5 |
| MD-10 | OR-7 | OH-20 | SD-3 | WY-3 |
| IL-21 | NJ-15 | VA-13 | TX-34 | AR-6 |
| CT-7 | IA-7 | ND-3 | GA-15 | TN-11 |
| NY-31 | WI-10 | IN-11 | MS-6 | OK-7 |
| CA-55 | NM-5 | MT-3 | AZ-10 | KY-8 |
| ME-4 | MI-17 | MO-11 | WV-5 | AL-9 |
| MA-12 | CO-9 | FL-27 | LA-9 | UT-5 |
| * Pennsylvania is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. | ||||
As I said above, the current map favors Obama in such a way that he yield that trio of close states to McCain and still emerge victorious in the electoral college. That obviously isn't the strategy the Obama campaign is proceeding with, but is more a reflection of the current state of the race. There are two lines of demarcation to note in the rankings. One is where blue turns to pink (the partisan divide) and the other is the point that has been referred to as the tipping point -- the point where either candidate would cross over the 270 electoral vote barrier to win the election. [I should take a moment to mention that I'm still open to suggestions on what to call these things. I quite liked "The Cutting Edge as a name for the "yellow state" in the bi-weekly rankings. However, I'm still willing to listen to ideas for what to call the entire figure and that particular breaking point.]. These two lines are a great lens through which to view these rankings. The closer they are, the more even the overall distribution of electoral votes is. The further apart they are, the greater the electoral college margin becomes (in either direction). As the rankings stand now, McCain would want to push the partisan divide line higher so that it, at the very least, converged with where Pennsylvania is or, more ideally perhaps, past the point where it takes in all the light blue (Toss Up Obama) states. In other words, McCain is forced to play offense. All Obama has to do is play defense and protect the current distribution. That's a low bar that the Obama campaign seems to be exceeding by leaps and bounds given their ad buys thus far (including 14 states won by Bush in 2004) and their 50 state organizational strategy. The partisan divide line and the (Well, shall I call it the...) breaking point line are close to each other given the information we have. That translates into a relatively close electoral college results, but also means that the pursuer (in this case McCain) has only three states to flip to overtake Obama in the electoral vote tally. [Yes, there are other ways McCain can get to 270 than pulling Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania over to his side, but this ranking tells us that, given FHQ's weighted average, those three are the most likely to potentially switch at this point in time. So while McCain could swing just Colorado, Michigan and New Hampshire -- three toss up Obama states -- to get to exactly 270 electoral votes, he'd have to do more in each of those states to move the averages than he would in the states between Virginia and Pennsylvania.]
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
Another (good for Obama) poll in Florida pulled the Sunshine state off the Watch List into a more solid toss up distinction. The Quinnipiac poll in Ohio, while it did bring the weighted average back into the blue didn't pull Ohio off the Watch List. The Buckeye state remains the closest swing state by our measure. Like Florida, Mississippi also left the list and as I said above, likely does so permanently. With those departures the list is down to just ten states and of those only half involve states either moving into or out of the toss up category. That's as good an indication as any that things, though still in flux, are continuing to settle into place.
Note: For those who read the forecasting post yesterday, the link I was unable to provide to the International Journal of Forecasting's online home at Science Direct is now up. Simply click on the first link under Recent Posts just below to get to the post and that link. Again, the articles in that special issue discuss presidential election forecasting and the debates therein generally. They don't contain the actual forecasts for the 2008 election. Those are due in the October issue of PS: Political Science and Politics. In the meantime, I'll be on the lookout for the manuscripts for those pieces. The Erikson and Wlezien link from yesterday's post is actually one of those drafts.
Note II: Also, I'll be back tomorrow with a look at how things changed for McCain and Obama during July. The map looks a little different from the June map.
Recent Posts:
So, Who's Going to Win This Race? The Forecasts are Starting to Come In
VP Announcement Timing
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
Saturday, August 2, 2008
So, Who's Going to Win This Race? The Forecasts are Starting to Come In
With second quarter economic data now available, many of the typical political science presidential election forecasts are beginning to emerge. And this week seemed to be the time for their unveiling. Thomas Edsall, who is writing for The Huffington Post now, had a great run down of some of them earlier in the week and since then Seth Masket and Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien have released their numbers. Those add to the back and forth between Abramowitz, et al. and Campbell that I discussed in the electoral college post last Sunday.
Let's look at the numbers here and some of the impressions we can draw from them. [As a side note, I should add that I tried to track down some of the sources from Edsall's piece (Some forecasts have links while others do not.) and stumbled upon a special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting* focused on presidential election forecasts. Now, while the issue does not contain the actual forecasts, it does provide more than adequate insight into the models and debates within the forecasting area of the literature.]
Abramowitz, Mann and Sabato: Comfortable win for Obama (a Democratic environment, Democrats' party ID advantage, and recent state and national polls)
Campbell: Close election (Bush approval does not translate to McCain necessarily, McCain was the best-positioned of the Republican candidates to for the general election, open seat elections are close)
Erikson and Wlezien: Obama = 53% of the popular vote (based on state trial-heat polls and leading economic indicators)
Geer: Close election (electorate's comfort zone with candidate's foreign policy stances post-9-11, McCain is a good candidate for the GOP, the last two elections have been close)
Lewis-Beck and Tien: Obama = 50.6% of the popular vote (based on jobs growth and growth in GNP and including a correction for the race factor in the contest)
Masket: McCain = 47.7% of the popular vote (based on 2nd quarter real per capita disposable income)
Norpoth: Obama = 50.1% of the popular vote (based on support of major party candidates in the primaries among other factors)
I withheld Sandy Maisel's prediction because it doesn't neatly fall into either category, landslide or toss up. He sees an Obama win unless the Illinois senator does something to lose it. With that said, we have seven forecasts; 4 close calls (two unambiguously finding Obama winning) and 3 -- I hesitate to call them landslides -- more comfortable victories for Obama. Five of these forecasts see Obama wins, but find different margins based on the underlying factors included in their models.
I should also mention that there were two forecasting models discussed at this past spring's Western Political Science Association conference: De Sart and Holbrook and Gurian and Cann. De Sart's forecasting web page hasn't yet updated for the 2008 election, but the forecast is based on both state and national polls (While we're citing, I should go ahead and include Thomas Holbrook's blog (again) as well.). The paper that Paul Gurian -- an occasional FHQ contributor -- presented at WPSA wasn't intended as a forecast, but he and Damon do have a forecasting component to it. They are still waiting on another couple of factors to add in to complete the forecast portion, though.
H/T to The Monkey Cage for the head's up on the Edsall article and Erikson and Wlezien's latest forecast.
----
* The pdf files of those articles are gated (for purchase), but the abstracts should be available to those who, at the very least, want to check those out. Simply click on the title of the article to get the abstract.
Recent Posts:
VP Announcement Timing
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
Let's look at the numbers here and some of the impressions we can draw from them. [As a side note, I should add that I tried to track down some of the sources from Edsall's piece (Some forecasts have links while others do not.) and stumbled upon a special issue of the International Journal of Forecasting* focused on presidential election forecasts. Now, while the issue does not contain the actual forecasts, it does provide more than adequate insight into the models and debates within the forecasting area of the literature.]
Abramowitz, Mann and Sabato: Comfortable win for Obama (a Democratic environment, Democrats' party ID advantage, and recent state and national polls)
Campbell: Close election (Bush approval does not translate to McCain necessarily, McCain was the best-positioned of the Republican candidates to for the general election, open seat elections are close)
Erikson and Wlezien: Obama = 53% of the popular vote (based on state trial-heat polls and leading economic indicators)
Geer: Close election (electorate's comfort zone with candidate's foreign policy stances post-9-11, McCain is a good candidate for the GOP, the last two elections have been close)
Lewis-Beck and Tien: Obama = 50.6% of the popular vote (based on jobs growth and growth in GNP and including a correction for the race factor in the contest)
Masket: McCain = 47.7% of the popular vote (based on 2nd quarter real per capita disposable income)
Norpoth: Obama = 50.1% of the popular vote (based on support of major party candidates in the primaries among other factors)
I withheld Sandy Maisel's prediction because it doesn't neatly fall into either category, landslide or toss up. He sees an Obama win unless the Illinois senator does something to lose it. With that said, we have seven forecasts; 4 close calls (two unambiguously finding Obama winning) and 3 -- I hesitate to call them landslides -- more comfortable victories for Obama. Five of these forecasts see Obama wins, but find different margins based on the underlying factors included in their models.
I should also mention that there were two forecasting models discussed at this past spring's Western Political Science Association conference: De Sart and Holbrook and Gurian and Cann. De Sart's forecasting web page hasn't yet updated for the 2008 election, but the forecast is based on both state and national polls (While we're citing, I should go ahead and include Thomas Holbrook's blog (again) as well.). The paper that Paul Gurian -- an occasional FHQ contributor -- presented at WPSA wasn't intended as a forecast, but he and Damon do have a forecasting component to it. They are still waiting on another couple of factors to add in to complete the forecast portion, though.
H/T to The Monkey Cage for the head's up on the Edsall article and Erikson and Wlezien's latest forecast.
----
* The pdf files of those articles are gated (for purchase), but the abstracts should be available to those who, at the very least, want to check those out. Simply click on the title of the article to get the abstract.
Recent Posts:
VP Announcement Timing
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
VP Announcement Timing
This is where I set myself up to get killed. However, I'll wade once again into the VP speculation maelstrom to make a few comments about what is currently happening. For the record, I've moved beyond the "who" of the veepstakes at this point. Sure, it's consequential, but in my mind the timing issue is much more fascinating right now...if only because all the possibilities have been talked to death. I don't want to totally rehash my post from last week, but I do want to reprise it.
What do we know?
1) The VP decisions are on the horizon.
2) Obama is expected to be the first to move since the Democrats hold their convention first (However, FHQ should note that this hasn't been a year for following traditions in presidential politics.).
3) There is now a week until the Olympics kick off a four week smorgasbord of sport and politics (two weeks of each and in that order).
4) The pundits know, or think they know, that the prospective VP lists are shrinking and who is supposedly on them.
Now let's delve into far murkier territory...
What does my gut tell me about when these announcements will be made?
1) All the talk from the Obama camp about the decision being weeks away is a hoax. I don't buy that, but it is clever of them, not to mention convenient to say the trip abroad delayed those efforts. I still feel like the decision will be made prior to the Olympics and that means next week.
2) Well, it won't be on a Friday (or over the weekend). Friday is a day to release your medical records or some other news you'd like buried. That eliminates tomorrow and next Friday. Next Friday is out anyway because that's when the Olympics begin.
3) An announcement won't be made late in the work week next week. [Define late, FHQ.] By late I mean after Tuesday. The goal of a VP announcement is to time it in a way that maximizes the free air time you get out of it. The earlier in the week the better then. I would add the caveat that they wouldn't want to announce too early lest there be a backlash of some variety. However, the Olympics will be there to wrest attention away at the end of the week anyway.
All this has assumed that Obama will be the one to go first. And for him to maximize the attention coming out of that announcement (not to mention put McCain in a tough position -- having to potentially announce during the games), making the move Monday or Tuesday of next week would probably suffice. And hey, you know what? Monday happens to be Obama's birthday. [Well, you lost all] credibility there.] Before you dismiss that notion, it should be pointed out that the Democrats are big on coincidental synchronicity in this election year. Obama will accept the nomination on the anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream speech." Hillary Clinton, it has been reported, will speak on Tuesday night which happens to also be the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment. No, Obama's birthday isn't as big as either of those events, but it is an interesting side note to make...even if only for coincidental synchronicity.
Recent Posts:
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
What do we know?
1) The VP decisions are on the horizon.
2) Obama is expected to be the first to move since the Democrats hold their convention first (However, FHQ should note that this hasn't been a year for following traditions in presidential politics.).
3) There is now a week until the Olympics kick off a four week smorgasbord of sport and politics (two weeks of each and in that order).
4) The pundits know, or think they know, that the prospective VP lists are shrinking and who is supposedly on them.
Now let's delve into far murkier territory...
What does my gut tell me about when these announcements will be made?
1) All the talk from the Obama camp about the decision being weeks away is a hoax. I don't buy that, but it is clever of them, not to mention convenient to say the trip abroad delayed those efforts. I still feel like the decision will be made prior to the Olympics and that means next week.
2) Well, it won't be on a Friday (or over the weekend). Friday is a day to release your medical records or some other news you'd like buried. That eliminates tomorrow and next Friday. Next Friday is out anyway because that's when the Olympics begin.
3) An announcement won't be made late in the work week next week. [Define late, FHQ.] By late I mean after Tuesday. The goal of a VP announcement is to time it in a way that maximizes the free air time you get out of it. The earlier in the week the better then. I would add the caveat that they wouldn't want to announce too early lest there be a backlash of some variety. However, the Olympics will be there to wrest attention away at the end of the week anyway.
All this has assumed that Obama will be the one to go first. And for him to maximize the attention coming out of that announcement (not to mention put McCain in a tough position -- having to potentially announce during the games), making the move Monday or Tuesday of next week would probably suffice. And hey, you know what? Monday happens to be Obama's birthday. [Well, you lost all] credibility there.] Before you dismiss that notion, it should be pointed out that the Democrats are big on coincidental synchronicity in this election year. Obama will accept the nomination on the anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream speech." Hillary Clinton, it has been reported, will speak on Tuesday night which happens to also be the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment. No, Obama's birthday isn't as big as either of those events, but it is an interesting side note to make...even if only for coincidental synchronicity.
Recent Posts:
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The question is: How consequential is that? Is that enough to swing the election to McCain or are those Democrats concentrated in comfortably red states already? I don't have an answer, but I would like to open the topic up for discussion.
These numbers are based on the current Rasmussen national poll that was released under the somewhat misleading (yet more eye-opening) headline, "30% of Conservative Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain." That's great, but only 18% of those Democrats polled in the two weeks the survey was conducted said they were conservative. The release goes on to list the numbers broken down by age and race, but not by region or by state. Now, I'm sure that information is available via subscription, but I'm not privy that information (Perhaps some of our readers are.).
But what do you think? Is 5% enough to hurt Obama? It is certainly better than the 28% of Hillary supporters who said they'd vote for McCain back in March (if Obama became the nominee).
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
These numbers are based on the current Rasmussen national poll that was released under the somewhat misleading (yet more eye-opening) headline, "30% of Conservative Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain." That's great, but only 18% of those Democrats polled in the two weeks the survey was conducted said they were conservative. The release goes on to list the numbers broken down by age and race, but not by region or by state. Now, I'm sure that information is available via subscription, but I'm not privy that information (Perhaps some of our readers are.).
But what do you think? Is 5% enough to hurt Obama? It is certainly better than the 28% of Hillary supporters who said they'd vote for McCain back in March (if Obama became the nominee).
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
Yesterday we passed the 14 week marker on the way to election day (But who is counting?). And things seem to be heating up...unless, of course, you are talking about state-level polling. After a flurry of polls came out at the end of last week, the polling firms took a couple days off before picking back up yesterday. Still, a paltry three polls is all they had to offer. [But hey, if you average that with the 17 polls that came out in the window of the previous electoral college post, you come up with 10. And that so happens to be the number polls that we have become accustomed to seeing lately. Amazing things, these averages.]
These numbers don't stray too terribly far from the established averages in North Carolina and Washington. The Pennsylvania result, though it is outside of where our weighted average has the state currently, is within one standard deviation of the average and is consistent with the direction polling has gone in the Keystone state of late. With only three polls, though, the chances of having any change -- significant or otherwise -- to the electoral college map are slim.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
And that happens to be the case: there were no changes to the map. However, that gives us an opportunity to unveil a new feature to these posts. Our discussion on Sunday of where South Carolina ranks on Obama's list of states to potentially pick off from McCain (and Paul's response) got us to thinking about ways that we could show the current balance within the electoral college projection. It is one thing to show this on a map, but the goal is differentiate between even the states within one category, not simply across categories. The Watch List gives some indication of this, but the graphic below is logical stepping stone from the map to that list. So, though Obama's 278-260 electoral vote advantage remains unchanged from Sunday we have this new graphic to help us better understand the state of play in the race for the White House.
Let me explain what you see. Basically, this is a fleshed out version of what I posted in response to Paul the other day. The five columns align the states from the most Democratic to the most conservative, working from top to bottom and left to right. Hawaii, in the top left corner, is the state most heavily for Obama at the moment and Utah is its counterpart on the other end of the spectrum, favoring McCain. The color scheme from the map is the same, so we can see that when light blue switches to pink, the states thereafter begin shifting toward McCain, increasing in their intensity of support for the Arizona senator as they move toward that lower right corner. For example then, the color change tells us that Alaska more strongly favors McCain than Florida, but that within the Toss Up category, Florida is a more solid McCain state than North Carolina. You'll also see Pennsylvania is shaded in yellow. Pennsylvania may not have this distinction in the future, but a state shaded yellow denotes the state that puts or would put either of the candidates over the top in the electoral college. The Keystone state is among the 23 states (and the Distict of Columbia -- which is excluded for aesthetic purposes and because it will undoubtedly go for Obama in November.) that comprise Obama's current electoral college coalition. In fact, it ranks 22, which would mean that McCain would have to change his fortures in Nevada and Pennsylvania to get to 270.
The new graphic enhances The Watch List. We can see that, for example, Washington (the only new addition to the list today) is close to potentially shifting from a strong Obama state to merely leaning toward the Illinois senator. But we also know that, in conjunction the two figures add yet another line of gradation to our discussion, between states that are comfortably within one category and those likely to change with new polling. That adds some complexity to our discussions, but at the same time provides everyone with a bit more information on how things are progressing in the race.
Note: You'll notice that I annoyingly referred to the new graphic as "the new graphic" way to many times. Yes, there's a name atop that addition, but I'm not necessarily sold on permanently calling it The Electoral College State Rankings (too long and probably too boring). Obviously the Tipping Point is being used, and even though that isn't proprietary, it has been overused over the years in these sort of analyses (Plus, you never want to seem like a copycat.). So I'm open to suggestions about what to call not only the entire thing, but the state where the 270 threshold is crossed. If you have any thoughts, the comments section awaits.
Recent Posts:
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
| New Polls (July 27-29) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina | Public Policy Polling | +3 | |
| Pennsylvania | Strategic Vision | +9 | |
| Washington | Strategic Vision | +11 | |
These numbers don't stray too terribly far from the established averages in North Carolina and Washington. The Pennsylvania result, though it is outside of where our weighted average has the state currently, is within one standard deviation of the average and is consistent with the direction polling has gone in the Keystone state of late. With only three polls, though, the chances of having any change -- significant or otherwise -- to the electoral college map are slim.
[Click Map to Enlarge]And that happens to be the case: there were no changes to the map. However, that gives us an opportunity to unveil a new feature to these posts. Our discussion on Sunday of where South Carolina ranks on Obama's list of states to potentially pick off from McCain (and Paul's response) got us to thinking about ways that we could show the current balance within the electoral college projection. It is one thing to show this on a map, but the goal is differentiate between even the states within one category, not simply across categories. The Watch List gives some indication of this, but the graphic below is logical stepping stone from the map to that list. So, though Obama's 278-260 electoral vote advantage remains unchanged from Sunday we have this new graphic to help us better understand the state of play in the race for the White House.
| The Electoral College State Rankings | ||||
| HI | WA | NH | FL | NE |
| VT | MN | PA* | AK | LA |
| RI | DE | NV | SC | KS |
| MD | OR | OH | SD | WY |
| IL | NJ | VA | TX | AR |
| CT | IA | ND | GA | TN |
| CA | WI | MT | MS | OK |
| NY | NM | IN | AZ | KY |
| ME | MI | MO | WV | AL |
| MA | CO | NC | ID | UT |
| * Pennsylvania is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. | ||||
Let me explain what you see. Basically, this is a fleshed out version of what I posted in response to Paul the other day. The five columns align the states from the most Democratic to the most conservative, working from top to bottom and left to right. Hawaii, in the top left corner, is the state most heavily for Obama at the moment and Utah is its counterpart on the other end of the spectrum, favoring McCain. The color scheme from the map is the same, so we can see that when light blue switches to pink, the states thereafter begin shifting toward McCain, increasing in their intensity of support for the Arizona senator as they move toward that lower right corner. For example then, the color change tells us that Alaska more strongly favors McCain than Florida, but that within the Toss Up category, Florida is a more solid McCain state than North Carolina. You'll also see Pennsylvania is shaded in yellow. Pennsylvania may not have this distinction in the future, but a state shaded yellow denotes the state that puts or would put either of the candidates over the top in the electoral college. The Keystone state is among the 23 states (and the Distict of Columbia -- which is excluded for aesthetic purposes and because it will undoubtedly go for Obama in November.) that comprise Obama's current electoral college coalition. In fact, it ranks 22, which would mean that McCain would have to change his fortures in Nevada and Pennsylvania to get to 270.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
The new graphic enhances The Watch List. We can see that, for example, Washington (the only new addition to the list today) is close to potentially shifting from a strong Obama state to merely leaning toward the Illinois senator. But we also know that, in conjunction the two figures add yet another line of gradation to our discussion, between states that are comfortably within one category and those likely to change with new polling. That adds some complexity to our discussions, but at the same time provides everyone with a bit more information on how things are progressing in the race.
Note: You'll notice that I annoyingly referred to the new graphic as "the new graphic" way to many times. Yes, there's a name atop that addition, but I'm not necessarily sold on permanently calling it The Electoral College State Rankings (too long and probably too boring). Obviously the Tipping Point is being used, and even though that isn't proprietary, it has been overused over the years in these sort of analyses (Plus, you never want to seem like a copycat.). So I'm open to suggestions about what to call not only the entire thing, but the state where the 270 threshold is crossed. If you have any thoughts, the comments section awaits.
Recent Posts:
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
I'm not one to rehash stories (Well, not without putting my own spin on them first.), but this one is too good not to comment on. Yesterday the Republican National Committee revealed that it would be going online with a Facebook parody of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president called BarackBook. The social networking mashup had "friends" of Obama's like Tony Rezko and William Ayers in addtion to sporting commenting features and an application that could be used on the actual Facebook. At the time I thought, well, this is an interesting way to point out associations Obama may like to keep out of the limelight. But I also thought that actual friends of Obama could enter the site.
Obama apparently has a few friends (and some enemies as well) and several of them appear to be pretty savvy. The site went live yesterday, but saw its first day of scrutiny today, and the result was a mixture of participation from members of the liberal blogosphere on the one hand and racist/anti-Muslim comments on the other. A good day for the site and for comic irony.
Which brings me to my question: Is the internet an advantage for the Democrats? Usually, you expect to see the Democrats trying to match wits with the Republican and looking foolish in the process. In politics it seems, imitation is not necessarily the sincerest form of flattery. Often it just looks lame and costs the candidate/party responding credibility points. Recent electoral history is chock full of examples of Republicans pulling the proverbial fast one on the Democrats. John Kerry windsurfing or Michael Dukakis in the tank or Jimmy Carter having nothing to say to "There you go again" come to mind. But that is the mark of this era: the Democrats typically had no adequate response. And honestly, that was partly because of ineptitude and partly because of disciplined, well-run campaign strategy on the other side. It was just fantastic politics.
But I'm beginning to wonder if new online echo chamber has reversed those roles and in the process made the talk radio echo chamber antiquated. The current electoral environment is certainly tilted in favor of the Democratic Party, so that biases this observation to some extent because the GOP is on the defensive. However, have the Democrats got such an advantage online that they are the aggressors on this sort of thing now? Yes and no. Liberal bloggers definitely have a leg up on their conservative counterparts, but McCain and his campaign (in conjunction with the national party) just haven't had the type of disciplined campaign that we are used to seeing from the Republicans. There are hints of it, but it hasn't been carried out in that awesomely calculated fashion that is the calling card of the conservative strategists. It is almost as if, even though McCain is probably the best general election candidate the Republican Party could have fielded for this particular election, they don't know quite what to do with the Arizona senator. Like he just isn't one of them. And that combination has certainly hurt McCain in some cases during this summer leg of this campaign.
All the same though, the perceived Democratic advantage online isn't being coordinated by the national party in the way the GOP maneuvers of this sort have been in the past. This is a totally organic response from the masses. That underscores the differences in the two parties: the top down management style of the GOP and the bottom up populism of the Democrats. In the case of the latter it is out of the control of the national party and the Obama campaign. So while it can help, it has the potential to be harmful as well since it is not necessarily a series of coordinated actions with the party/candidate. That can pull the direction of the candidate's message off course and potentially change the narrative of the race though. Away from where the candidate may want to take it. That is where the potential for danger lies for Democrats seeking office or online.
So while Obama has successfully reigned in the activities of some outside groups, as far as 527-type ads are concerned, he still potentially faces a hurdle from his online supporters. Will there be a continued role reversal during this cycle and into the future or will online efforts haunt Obama at some point. That, my friends, will be something to keep our eyes on.
Recent Posts:
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
Obama apparently has a few friends (and some enemies as well) and several of them appear to be pretty savvy. The site went live yesterday, but saw its first day of scrutiny today, and the result was a mixture of participation from members of the liberal blogosphere on the one hand and racist/anti-Muslim comments on the other. A good day for the site and for comic irony.
Which brings me to my question: Is the internet an advantage for the Democrats? Usually, you expect to see the Democrats trying to match wits with the Republican and looking foolish in the process. In politics it seems, imitation is not necessarily the sincerest form of flattery. Often it just looks lame and costs the candidate/party responding credibility points. Recent electoral history is chock full of examples of Republicans pulling the proverbial fast one on the Democrats. John Kerry windsurfing or Michael Dukakis in the tank or Jimmy Carter having nothing to say to "There you go again" come to mind. But that is the mark of this era: the Democrats typically had no adequate response. And honestly, that was partly because of ineptitude and partly because of disciplined, well-run campaign strategy on the other side. It was just fantastic politics.
But I'm beginning to wonder if new online echo chamber has reversed those roles and in the process made the talk radio echo chamber antiquated. The current electoral environment is certainly tilted in favor of the Democratic Party, so that biases this observation to some extent because the GOP is on the defensive. However, have the Democrats got such an advantage online that they are the aggressors on this sort of thing now? Yes and no. Liberal bloggers definitely have a leg up on their conservative counterparts, but McCain and his campaign (in conjunction with the national party) just haven't had the type of disciplined campaign that we are used to seeing from the Republicans. There are hints of it, but it hasn't been carried out in that awesomely calculated fashion that is the calling card of the conservative strategists. It is almost as if, even though McCain is probably the best general election candidate the Republican Party could have fielded for this particular election, they don't know quite what to do with the Arizona senator. Like he just isn't one of them. And that combination has certainly hurt McCain in some cases during this summer leg of this campaign.
All the same though, the perceived Democratic advantage online isn't being coordinated by the national party in the way the GOP maneuvers of this sort have been in the past. This is a totally organic response from the masses. That underscores the differences in the two parties: the top down management style of the GOP and the bottom up populism of the Democrats. In the case of the latter it is out of the control of the national party and the Obama campaign. So while it can help, it has the potential to be harmful as well since it is not necessarily a series of coordinated actions with the party/candidate. That can pull the direction of the candidate's message off course and potentially change the narrative of the race though. Away from where the candidate may want to take it. That is where the potential for danger lies for Democrats seeking office or online.
So while Obama has successfully reigned in the activities of some outside groups, as far as 527-type ads are concerned, he still potentially faces a hurdle from his online supporters. Will there be a continued role reversal during this cycle and into the future or will online efforts haunt Obama at some point. That, my friends, will be something to keep our eyes on.
Recent Posts:
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
And here you thought, presidential primary (and caucus) frontloading was off the agenda until, say, 2011. No, as I mentioned in the initial installment of the "Frontloading Under Fire" series [Yeah, I didn't know there would be other ones either. But I opted to rehash the title instead of coming up with something snappy or forcing something boring.], frontloading in 2012 is very much on the agenda these days. The GOP are forced to confront the issue now -- as in, at their convention -- because they can only debate and make such rule-changing decisions from within the confines of the convention. The Ohio Plan (see a discussion of it and other reform plans in the right hand sidebar)that the Republicans are forwarding would grant Iowa and New Hampshire their customary positions at the front of the line with a series of small state contests to follow. The remaining, bigger states would be split into three groups with each group holding contests a few weeks apart (after the small states). We are just a few weeks off from the GOP convention, so one piece of the 2012 puzzle will be in place then.
Another piece of that puzzle is the potential for a regional primary system. The one proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State received some attention this past weekend as the group met in Grand Rapids, MI for its annual summer meeting. Given what transpired in Michigan during primary season, Grand Rapids was an interesting location for the meeting. Really, all that came out of the meeting in regard to the primary system was that NASS was still in favor of the rotating regional primary. But hey, it was in the news (...buried under all that McCain and Obama talk and perhaps some other stories as well.).
I bring the Ohio Plan and the regional primary plan up together because I only really take the former seriously. Why? Well, the national parties are more likely to have some say in the issue than even this bipartisan collection of secretaries of state. The ball has always been in the parties' court on this issue. The decision is made based on the interaction between state parties/legislatures and the national parties. The national parties set the rules and the state-level actors operate under them. Secretaries of state work independent of that relationship unless, of course, you are talking about New Hampshire, where it is the secretary of state and not the state parties/legislatures making the decision.
Unless the regional primary system is being pushed by the parties, it is likely going nowhere, and it will continue to go nowhere until Congress intervenes. And that won't happen, will it? Sen. Nelson (FL-D) has brought something similar to the NASS plan in the Senate, but talk of his electoral reforms (the bill includes electoral college reform as well) has been pushed to the side since the Democratic nomination race was decided. But does Congress even have the right to make a decision on this matter? That was the topic of a recent posting by Dan Tokaji on the Election Law Blog. A forthcoming book chapter from Brookings by Dan Lowenstein tackles the issue:
...unless it includes his earlier capping of when states can actually hold their contests.
Recent Posts:
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
Another piece of that puzzle is the potential for a regional primary system. The one proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State received some attention this past weekend as the group met in Grand Rapids, MI for its annual summer meeting. Given what transpired in Michigan during primary season, Grand Rapids was an interesting location for the meeting. Really, all that came out of the meeting in regard to the primary system was that NASS was still in favor of the rotating regional primary. But hey, it was in the news (...buried under all that McCain and Obama talk and perhaps some other stories as well.).
I bring the Ohio Plan and the regional primary plan up together because I only really take the former seriously. Why? Well, the national parties are more likely to have some say in the issue than even this bipartisan collection of secretaries of state. The ball has always been in the parties' court on this issue. The decision is made based on the interaction between state parties/legislatures and the national parties. The national parties set the rules and the state-level actors operate under them. Secretaries of state work independent of that relationship unless, of course, you are talking about New Hampshire, where it is the secretary of state and not the state parties/legislatures making the decision.
Unless the regional primary system is being pushed by the parties, it is likely going nowhere, and it will continue to go nowhere until Congress intervenes. And that won't happen, will it? Sen. Nelson (FL-D) has brought something similar to the NASS plan in the Senate, but talk of his electoral reforms (the bill includes electoral college reform as well) has been pushed to the side since the Democratic nomination race was decided. But does Congress even have the right to make a decision on this matter? That was the topic of a recent posting by Dan Tokaji on the Election Law Blog. A forthcoming book chapter from Brookings by Dan Lowenstein tackles the issue:
The drawn-out contest for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 may temporarily mitigate but is not likely permanently to end pressure to halt or reverse the front-loading of presidential primaries and caucuses, including pressure for action by Congress. In this essay, written for publication in a forthcoming Brookings volume, REFORMING THE NOMINATION PROCESS edited by Steven S. Smith and Melanie J. Springer, I take no position on the desirability of reform, other than to support a ban on nominating events prior to a specified date in February or early March. Rather, the essay concentrates on congressional power to regulate the timing of nominating events.Needless to say, I'll be lined up outside the bookstore for that one when the time comes for its release. More to the point, though, that adds some insight to the reform discussion we've been having here. Congress does have the ability (and likely the upper hand in court) should it decide to wade into the issue of scheduling presidential nominating events. However, normatively (at least in Lowenstein's eyes) that may not be the preferred route to reform.I argue that some commentators have underestimated the structural arguments against any implied power by Congress to regulate presidential nominations. However, relying on the 12th Amendment, I come to the same conclusion as most commentators, that Congress does have the implied power. With respect to possible limitations on Congress' power deriving from the parties' associational rights, it is necessary to consider who the likely complainants will be. The most likely entities to object to congressional regulation are state governments and state parties. But the former have no first amendment rights against congressional action and the latter's claims would be quite weak. National parties could have stronger constitutional grounds for objecting to congressional regulation, though it is far from clear that they would prevail. More importantly, the prospects for congressional action are not particularly great in any event and the chances that Congress would act over the strenuous objection of one or both major parties are remote. Regulation is not unconstitutional on associational grounds unless the affected association objects. Therefore, whatever the national parties' theoretical associational rights may be, there is little likelihood Congress will regulate in an unconstitutional manner.
In a brief final section, I suggest that despite the probable constitutionality of congressional regulation, substantive regulation is undesirable, with the possible exception of setting a starting date. If Congress feels under political pressure to do something more, it would be better advised to facilitate joint deliberation and negotiation by the two major parties and to assist them in enforcing their own rules against the state than to impose a mandatory system on the parties and states.
...unless it includes his earlier capping of when states can actually hold their contests.
Recent Posts:
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
Identity Theft vs. Minority Vote Suppression: Proof Positive that Virginia is a Battleground State
The battle lines seem to have been drawn in Virginia in the race for the White House as Monday the commonwealth's GOP chairman added a new twist to the story of record Democratic registration in the Old Dominion and across the nation. Jeffrey Frederick accused the Obama campaign and local canvassing organizations of colluding to register new minority voters in Virginia and in some cases to do so fraudulently. His claims were based on the arrests last week of three canvassers accused of submitting fraudulent registration forms in the Hampton area of Virginia. Now, this sort of accusation isn't new. However, Frederick added that voters -- or potential voters in this case -- should steer clear of canvassers because of the potential for identity theft. Identity theft?!? Really? Of course, Democrats in the state were quick to counter Frederick's opening salvo with the old standby accusation that minority vote supprssion was Frederick and GOP's aim.
This appears a fascinating development until it is recalled that Virginia was a member of the confederacy and no stranger to racial tensions in the electoral arena. Honestly, this is simply an extension of the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in the state during the 2006 midterm elections. That George Allen/Jim Webb race for the senate was never lacking in racial cues; from Allen's "macaca" slur to the accusation that Webb had used the N-word. The addition of the identity theft angle, though, is a clever one meant to subliminally seep into the electorate's consciousness in a way similar to the way Obama's recent trip overseas has been purported to have advanced the idea of Obama as acting president.
But again, this is a logical extension to what we have seen during recent electoral cycles. Frederick's comments cannot neceessarily be equated to the efforts of fictitious groups to caution minority voters that even minor legal infractions disqualify voting, but in the minds of Democrats, they operate on the same plane. That those events (see link above) occurred in Wisconsin, a swing state in its own right recently, furthers the idea that Virginia is, indeed, a closely contested battleground for this cycle. And it is, surprisingly or not. The demographics in the state have certainly shifted with the African American voting bloc coalescing with a growing Democratic bastion in Northern Virginia to pull the state toward Democrats; toward the Democrats and into the purple. And in a competitive environment, the onus is on the parties to find potential voters to swing the state in one direction or another. That's about the time voter fraud accusations start to fly.
Related: FiveThirtyEight on the Tim Kaine as VP speculation.
Recent Posts:
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
This appears a fascinating development until it is recalled that Virginia was a member of the confederacy and no stranger to racial tensions in the electoral arena. Honestly, this is simply an extension of the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in the state during the 2006 midterm elections. That George Allen/Jim Webb race for the senate was never lacking in racial cues; from Allen's "macaca" slur to the accusation that Webb had used the N-word. The addition of the identity theft angle, though, is a clever one meant to subliminally seep into the electorate's consciousness in a way similar to the way Obama's recent trip overseas has been purported to have advanced the idea of Obama as acting president.
But again, this is a logical extension to what we have seen during recent electoral cycles. Frederick's comments cannot neceessarily be equated to the efforts of fictitious groups to caution minority voters that even minor legal infractions disqualify voting, but in the minds of Democrats, they operate on the same plane. That those events (see link above) occurred in Wisconsin, a swing state in its own right recently, furthers the idea that Virginia is, indeed, a closely contested battleground for this cycle. And it is, surprisingly or not. The demographics in the state have certainly shifted with the African American voting bloc coalescing with a growing Democratic bastion in Northern Virginia to pull the state toward Democrats; toward the Democrats and into the purple. And in a competitive environment, the onus is on the parties to find potential voters to swing the state in one direction or another. That's about the time voter fraud accusations start to fly.
Related: FiveThirtyEight on the Tim Kaine as VP speculation.
Recent Posts:
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
This is more housekeeping than anything else. However, I wouldn't want to pose a question like the caucus question and not gather a full data set for the 2008 cycle. The flooding in Iowa in mid-June pushed the Democratic convention there back two weeks and around that time I was heading out of town (...and thinking about other things). That said, here is how things finished in both Iowa and Nebraska:
Iowa Final Tally: 37.6% of the Vote, 71.1% of the Delegates
Nebraska Finally Tally: 67.5% of the Vote, 66.7% of the Delegates
Just as a refresher, the premise of the caucus question is that there is movement in the level of support for a candidate throughout the steps of caucusing. Factors that intervene are how early the original contest was, how many steps -- and thus opportunities for delegate support to shift -- were there in the caucus process, and how many candidates competed. In most years during the frontloaded campaign era, it is fair to say that with nominations clinched early, competition dropped, making it a foregone conclusion that the front-runner/presumptive nominee would gain as the process progressed. With the Clinton-Obama contest stretching to the last days of actual contests in 2008, there was a natural opportunity to see if, in fact, there was anything to this caucus question idea.
With Iowa and Nebraska, you have two states on opposite ends of the spectrum. Iowa had the earliest contest; one that was competitive to say the least. And the near equal distribution of the vote between Clinton, Edwards and Obama demonstrated that. In Nebraska, Edwards had already dropped out and Obama had apparently laid the grassroots foundation in a caucus state that would, collectively with the other caucus states, prove the cornerstone of his successful nomination run. In other words, Nebraska was not as competitive as Iowa.
In Iowa, then, there was room for improvement for Obama. In Nebraska, on the other hand, any gains would have been hard to come by for Obama or Clinton. The battle for gains in Iowa, though, centered on John Edwards' delegates and most moved over to Obama. The others opted to stick to their guns and continue to back Edwards instead of moving toward Clinton. So, while initial estimates had the delegate breakdown in Iowa pegged at a 16-15-14 Obama/Edwards/Clinton split, Obama ultimately ended up with a 32-4-9 distribution of pledged delegates heading to Denver next month.
In Nebraska, the story was slightly different. Obama won the post-Super Tuesday caucus in the Cornhusker state handily, but had nowhere to go. Even after having clinched the nomination, a total consolidation of Nebraska's delegates didn't happen for Obama as it might have in a less competitive enironment. Clinton was able to improve based on her delegate numbers rounding up at the state convention in two of Nebraska's three congressional districts as well as in the statewide tally.
What emerges from this tale of two states are three possible options: 1) a move toward Obama, 2) a move toward Clinton and 3) no movement at all. Iowa, we can pencil in as a gain for Obama, and Nebraska most resembles the no movement group of caucus states.
That the environment was so close had much to do with the overall lack of movement that we saw throughout the various caucus processes. In a "normal" cycle, the front-runner/presumptive nominee would have been able to peel off most, if not all, of the opposing delegates. But that has a lot to do with the amount of space between first and second place. There was barely any light between Clinton and Obama. That had the effect, in most states, of causing Clinton delegates to stay true to who they backed in the first place. And that is the story of this historic nomination race: that it was so close. That competitiveness overwhelmed the possibility of seeing any variation in the delegate movement based on how early a state held its caucus or how many steps a particular state's caucus process contained.
Note: If I can get a hold of the GOP data for comparison, I'll revisit this. That data though has been difficult to come (and the reason there hasn't been a Republican series of caucus question posts.).
Recent Posts:
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
Iowa Final Tally: 37.6% of the Vote, 71.1% of the Delegates
Nebraska Finally Tally: 67.5% of the Vote, 66.7% of the Delegates
Just as a refresher, the premise of the caucus question is that there is movement in the level of support for a candidate throughout the steps of caucusing. Factors that intervene are how early the original contest was, how many steps -- and thus opportunities for delegate support to shift -- were there in the caucus process, and how many candidates competed. In most years during the frontloaded campaign era, it is fair to say that with nominations clinched early, competition dropped, making it a foregone conclusion that the front-runner/presumptive nominee would gain as the process progressed. With the Clinton-Obama contest stretching to the last days of actual contests in 2008, there was a natural opportunity to see if, in fact, there was anything to this caucus question idea.
With Iowa and Nebraska, you have two states on opposite ends of the spectrum. Iowa had the earliest contest; one that was competitive to say the least. And the near equal distribution of the vote between Clinton, Edwards and Obama demonstrated that. In Nebraska, Edwards had already dropped out and Obama had apparently laid the grassroots foundation in a caucus state that would, collectively with the other caucus states, prove the cornerstone of his successful nomination run. In other words, Nebraska was not as competitive as Iowa.
In Iowa, then, there was room for improvement for Obama. In Nebraska, on the other hand, any gains would have been hard to come by for Obama or Clinton. The battle for gains in Iowa, though, centered on John Edwards' delegates and most moved over to Obama. The others opted to stick to their guns and continue to back Edwards instead of moving toward Clinton. So, while initial estimates had the delegate breakdown in Iowa pegged at a 16-15-14 Obama/Edwards/Clinton split, Obama ultimately ended up with a 32-4-9 distribution of pledged delegates heading to Denver next month.
In Nebraska, the story was slightly different. Obama won the post-Super Tuesday caucus in the Cornhusker state handily, but had nowhere to go. Even after having clinched the nomination, a total consolidation of Nebraska's delegates didn't happen for Obama as it might have in a less competitive enironment. Clinton was able to improve based on her delegate numbers rounding up at the state convention in two of Nebraska's three congressional districts as well as in the statewide tally.
What emerges from this tale of two states are three possible options: 1) a move toward Obama, 2) a move toward Clinton and 3) no movement at all. Iowa, we can pencil in as a gain for Obama, and Nebraska most resembles the no movement group of caucus states.
| The Caucus Question: 2008 Movement | |||
| Obama Moves | Clinton Moves | No Movement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Iowa Nevada | Colorado Kansas | Hawaii* Idaho Maine Nebraska 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. | |||
That the environment was so close had much to do with the overall lack of movement that we saw throughout the various caucus processes. In a "normal" cycle, the front-runner/presumptive nominee would have been able to peel off most, if not all, of the opposing delegates. But that has a lot to do with the amount of space between first and second place. There was barely any light between Clinton and Obama. That had the effect, in most states, of causing Clinton delegates to stay true to who they backed in the first place. And that is the story of this historic nomination race: that it was so close. That competitiveness overwhelmed the possibility of seeing any variation in the delegate movement based on how early a state held its caucus or how many steps a particular state's caucus process contained.
Note: If I can get a hold of the GOP data for comparison, I'll revisit this. That data though has been difficult to come (and the reason there hasn't been a Republican series of caucus question posts.).
Recent Posts:
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)