Did Obama or McCain Win July?

***I said I'd have this up yesterday, but Blogger wasn't for some strange reason allowing the uploading of images during the latter half of the day and I didn't want to post this without the maps. It gave me a chance to incorporate the last of the July polls that were released yesterday anyway. There will likely be some other July stragglers that emerge well into August, but I'll add them to a revised edition in the post for August. The June revisions are at the conclusion of this post. Thanks, and sorry for the delay.

June, it seems, was an Obama month. The Illinois senator both wrapped up the nomination and showed improvement in the polls, with few exceptions, across the map. The dynamic changed in July, however. Whereas McCain only had a handful of states trend in his direction in June, July was with a yellow (pro-McCain) tint. 24 of the 39 states in which polling was conducted in July pushed FHQ's weighted averages toward the Arizona senator.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

By contrast Obama's June dominance gave way to a July map where his trendlines decreased in 21 of the 39 states where he gained a month earlier. Certainly the inclusion of the Zogby numbers in June inflates Obama's end of June averages, and in many cases, the Zogby polls were the last polls conducted in those states and were thus given the most weight. Any subsequent move toward McCain in July could then really have an effect on the the changes to the average, making what may have been a small change to McCain a big change. Even when the Zogby numbers are completely removed from the equation, McCain still countered Obama's June increases by pulling closer or extending his lead in 20 states (as opposed to 24). The omission of the Zogby data translated into trendlines reversing in Obama's direction in six states (AR, MI, MO, NM, OR and VA) and toward McCain in two others (NH and NJ). In other words, in nearly a quarter of the states where Zogby conducted an interactive poll in June (8 of 34), those polls affected the direction in which FHQ's weighted average was going.

The Illinois senator did manage to increase his standing in 15 states (or 19 if the Zogby data is excluded -- a number much closer to the number of states in which McCain gained in the absence of those polls) overall in July. Let's take a moment to look at the states deemed toss ups as of Sunday in FHQ's weighted average. Of those 13 states, 12 had at least one poll conducted in July. Of those twelve, half moved in Obama's direction (FL, MT, NV, NC, ND and PA) and two shifted toward McCain (CO and OH). The remaining four (MI, MO, NH and VA) were among the group of states that shifted directions based on whether the Zogby data was used. Michigan, Missouri and Virginia trended toward McCain in July with the Zogby data included, but reversed course in the absence of that data, shifting in Obama's direction. New Hampshire had the exact opposite effect: favoring Obama with the Zogby data, but away from him in their absence.

Now, the Zogby data is actually included in FHQ's average, so we'll discuss these toss ups in that light. [I have to add the distinction, though, in the interest of transparency.] As such, these swing states, where these trends are of the most consequence, are evenly distributed between the two candidates (6 to 6). However, three of Obama's seven gains and four of McCain's are states that are currently favoring the other candidate in the overall average, albeit slightly. Sure that's the nature of a toss up state, but still, that's an interesting bit of information to take away from this. Obama leads in Colorado, Michigan and Ohio, but during July those three states shifted toward McCain. Likewise, McCain holds an advantage over Obama in Florida, Montana, North Carolina and North Dakota, but is witnessing the Illinois senator gaining on him in those four states. If those seven states completed the switch to the other candidate Obama would net a gain of 2 electoral votes in the electoral college, stretching his advantage to 300-238 (McCain states: FL+MT+NC+ND=48 EVs, Obama states: CO+MI+OH=46 EVs).

State Shift Rankings (July)*
MT-3	WA-11	MO-11	OR-7	AR-6
SD-3	NV-15	MI-17	AK-3	ID-4
FL-27	GA-15	VA-13	NM-5	KS-6
ND-3	NJ-15	CO-9	AZ-10	ME-4
IA-7	NC-15	MN-10	LA-9	SC-8
WI-10	NH-4	OH-20	NE-5	IL-21
PA-21	TX-34	AL-9	CA-55	OK-7
KY-8	CT-7	NY-31	MS-6
* The states are ranked from biggest shift toward Obama to the biggest shift toward McCain. The darker the shade (of yellow or green) the bigger the shift during July.

Well, that's all well and good, but there is one additional caveat we need to make, isn't there? What about those Rasmussen "leaners"? Did using the "with leaners" or "without leaners" data make any difference in how the July map looks above? Below are the July polls from Rasmussen since the "with leaners" distinction was added to the firm's polling press releases (up to and including the polls that came out just yesterday -- AL, AZ and CT):

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	Date	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	7/7	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	7/7	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	7/8	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	7/8	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	7/8	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	7/9	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	7/9	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	7/9	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	7/10	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	7/10	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota	7/10	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	7/14	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	7/15	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	7/15	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	7/16	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	7/16	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	7/17	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	7/17	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	7/17	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	7/17	+10	+8	+2	-2
Colorado	7/21	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	7/21	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	7/22	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota	7/22	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	7/23	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	7/23	+5	+6	+1	-8
California	7/24	+12	+10	+2	-6
New Mexico	7/24	+5	+6	+1	-6
Nebraska	7/28	+18	+19	+1	-3
Kentucky	7/29	+10	+9	+1	-9
Mississippi	7/29	+11	+12	+1	-2
Montana	7/29	+1	0	+1	-3
Alaska	7/30	+5	+6	+1	--***
Arizona	7/30	+16	+19	+3	-6
Texas	7/30	+9	+8	+1	-9
Alabama	7/31	+18	+20	+2	-9
Connecticut	7/31	+15	+13	+2	-6
Avg. Change				+0.95	-5.7
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made. We expect no out of the ordinary drop in the number of undecideds when comparing two "with leaners" interpretations.

The map above uses the "with leaners" data. If, however, we shift and inpute the "without leaners" data, the trends remain the same in 33 of the 35 states in which Rasmussen conducted July polls (post-July 7). Only Colorado and Texas would have taken different courses in the event the "leaners" were withheld. Colorado would have trended toward Obama while Texas would have favored McCain. In Texas that's probably not that big a deal. The Lone Star state is comfortably red currently. In Colorado, though, this is of note simply because the state is a toss up by FHQ's estimation. And while the trend would have changed, the overall average favors Obama regardless.

So who won July? Well, the map looks awfully yellow (pro-McCain), but the Arizona senator's gains are in states where he is already way out in front or too far behind to make much of a difference. The swing states are even allocated in terms of how many are trending toward each of the candidates. And when that sort of analysis is stretched to the lean states -- 11 states -- on both sides, McCain has the averages trending in his direction in only four (AK, NM, OR and SC). Of the 24 states where July polling was favorable to McCain, then, 14 of them were already solidly red. So, while the map is decidedly more yellow than it was a month ago, the Illinois senator is still moving in a positive direction in 12 of the 22 toss up or lean states where polling was done in July.

----
Appendix: June Revisions

One thing you'll notice immediately is that this map is even greener (pro-Obama) than the original map was. This revised version incorporates several polls that were released after I posted the first look at the changes during June. Granted, I posted that on July 1 and Rasmussen released a series of polls during the latter half of that holiday week. Additionally, all those Zogby polls are factored as well, making for an inclusion of around 40 new polls.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Those Zogby polls were seen as favoring Obama, so they tend to have biased the map in the Illinois senator's direction. McCain, for example, had six states that trending toward him in June with the late releases excluded. However, when those are added in, the McCain total drops to four. Missouri, Oregon and South Carolina all flip to Obama, while the Zogby poll in Illinois pulled the average for the Land of Lincoln down. How is it then that the Zogby polls favor Obama, yet his home state is trending against him? Well, Illinois, prior to June, had had only one poll conducted in the state -- a February Survey USA poll that gave Obama a 29 point edge. In other words, Obama pretty much had nowhere to go but down there. And despite the shift, Obama still maintains a strong advantage over McCain in the state. With the inclusion of the additional (late-breaking) polls, Obama's bounce throughout June looks even bigger.


Recent Posts:
About Those Rules: What Obama's New Florida/Michigan Stance Means for 2012 and Beyond

The Electoral College Map (8/3/08)

So, Who's Going to Win This Race? The Forecasts are Starting to Come In

About Those Rules: What Obama's New Florida/Michigan Stance Means for 2012 and Beyond

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

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.

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

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)

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

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

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.]

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

...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