Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention

You have to do something to break up this "tension," right?

Fmr. Virginia Governor and Current Senate candidate, Mark Warner, on McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time:

"That's not a maverick; that's a sidekick."

Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland on what the surplus Bush inherited in 2001:

"George Bush took office on third base and stole second."

This is the type of stuff that I recall from four years ago...at the GOP convention. One cut at Kerry and the Democrats after another. It is the type of playful mocking the Democrats were hesitant to use in the post-9-11 environment. Having said that, mocking is an equal opportunity employer; the Republicans will have their fair share next week. 2008 isn't 2004 and it is more fun that way.

I've been sidetracked all day, so I've missed the opportunity to ask, but what are everyone's thoughts thus far (pre-Clinton address).


Recent Posts:
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008

The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited

The Electoral Map (8/24/08)

An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008

When Zogby released their interactive poll results for the ten states they label battlegrounds over the weekend I considered once again looking at where Bob Barr was doing well. After the 34 state polling release in early July, we saw that Barr was faring quite well -- perhaps too well -- in some states that would make John McCain's job that much more difficult. Instead of doing that again, though, I thought I'd see what kind of data I could gather that would help us gain a better idea of how both Barr and Nader would potentially affect the upcoming general election.

With that in mind, I brought together a few different elements:
1) State polls charting a three or four way race.

2) National polls with either a three or four candidates included.

3) The share of the 2004 general election vote that both Nader and the Libertarian Party nominee, Michael Badnarik, received.

While there is a limited amount of data for the current cycle at both the national and state levels, the picture of a multiple candidate race can be augmented by the 2004 data. That provides a better sense of who does well and where. Since late May when Barr was nominated to represent the Libertarian Party, there have been 30 polls in 15 different states that include Barr and/or Nader in them. And during that same period there have been 18 national polls with either three or four candidates included. Again, this is a limited amount of information, but if we combine that data in a regression with the 2004 election results for Nader and the Libertarian Party, we get much closer to being able to predict if not how well both will do in November, then at least an idea of which states fall where in the pecking order.

Let's look at each separately.

[Click to Enlarge]

After the regression, we can plot the predicted vote share for, in this instance, Bob Barr against the vote share the Libertarian Party received in the 2004 presidential election. For the sake of clarity, I've only included the points for the 14 toss up states in our most recent electoral college projection, but rest assured the model includes all fifty states. On the lower left are toss up states where Barr does not take up too much of the the vote share on the right side of the ideological spectrum. That's good news for McCain in states like New Hampshire and Florida because the conventional wisdom holds that a Libertarian nominee would pull more from the Republican than Democratic nominee.

On the other side of the graphic, though, there are a couple of states where there may be cause for concern for the McCain camp. Both Alaska and Indiana give over three and a quarter points to Barr. That may not sound like much, but when two regularly solid Republican states require some amount of defense, the Republican nominee would be better served if he didn't have to fend off attacks on two fronts. And tucked away there in the middle of the pack are our three closest states, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. As tight as each of these are no amount of support for Barr would be welcomed by the Arizona senator, and two or more points may be enough to swing any of the three toward Obama and the Democrats.

The situation is a bit different in the Nader context.

[Click to Enlarge]

For starters, the same group who supported Nader in 2004 seem to be behind him again in 2008. Not the same exact people, but at least at this state a similar number of people. That can be contrasted with the Libertarian example above. The party of smaller and less interventionist government appears to have a much firmer footing in 2008 than it did just four years ago. Some or all of that may have to do with disaffected Ron Paul supporters who will hold their own gathering simultaneous to the GOP convention next week. It is a group that is certainly more energized during this cycle. But back to Nader. There is such a small range of vote share values across these toss up states. Nader is close to getting nearly two percent from each of these fourteen states (and for that matter all states since this is the same range in which the lean and strong states would fall as well.). And then there is the question that has been asked since 2000: Who are these Nader voters? Are they people who are only voting for Nader and thus not taking votes away from Barack Obama? Or does Nader represent a refuge for Democrats who won't pull the lever for the Illinois senator anyway? The former seems more plausible than the latter. Nader's share of the vote shrunk from 2000 to 2004 as Democrats, burned by the 2000 experience took a more pragmatic approach into the voting booth with them in 2004. Nader didn't really hurt Kerry; he wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio. And 2008, at least at this early juncture appears to be shaping up similarly to 4 years ago rather than 8 years ago.

I shouldn't short the Nader graphic, though. It is interesting that Indiana is among the strongest states predicted for Barr and is on the opposite end in the Nader example. If Nader were to pull votes away from Obama, the Hoosier state is a place where the Illinois senator would get the best of both worlds: a minimal Nader effect, but a comparatively large Barr effect.

Now, both accounts above come with some caveats. First, polls this time of year, both national and state, tend to overstate the position of third party candidates in the race. As we get closer to November, we'll start to see some movement toward one or the other of the two major party candidates. Diminished or not though, we do get from this a sense of which states are most likely to be affected by these third party candidacies. We can begin, for example, to look on this as a companion to the electoral college spectrum.

Another issue is that this model is far from inclusive. We are dealing with a limited number of variables here, so we aren't dealing with the full world of factors. [Misspecification alert!] However, this does get us moving in the proper direction at least; especially in that it bring more information to the table than simply the minimal amount of three and four way polling that is available.


Recent Posts:
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited

The Electoral Map (8/24/08)

Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited

I don't necessarily want to reprise the post and the resulting discussion here, but I thought it was important to update Saturday's examination of the August poll movement to reflect all the data we have through August. I'm treating the Biden announcement as part of the convention. Therefore, any polls conducted prior to August 23 are included in the analysis below. In other words, all the polls covered in yesterday's electoral college projection post plus the Epic/MRA Michigan and Columbus Dispatch Ohio polls are rolled into this update. The Suffolk poll from Colorado is omitted because the survey period extended through yesterday. No, the Biden announcement was not part of the convention, but with its proximity to the Democractic convention, it will be difficult to parse out those differences in the polls, ex post facto. As such, we will treat the two -- in relation to state level polling -- as one in the same.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

The map above provides a much the same picture we saw just two days ago. In fact, none of the states where polling had been conducted prior to Saturday, saw any change to the intensity of their shifts thus far during August. However, both Utah and Wyoming were shaded in based on the large margins the Mason-Dixon polls in each gave John McCain. Neither really provides any substantial break from the conventional wisdom though. If anything the relative "tightness" of both to this point in the race was notable.

There are three other states that I kind of gave short shrift to the other day that I'd like to take the opportunity to address here in the absence of an in-depth analysis of the toss up states. Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico are trending toward Johm McCain since the beginning of August. We've mentioned Minnesota's recent trends before, but they're worth noting again. The Land of 10,000 Lakes has seen a decided tightening in two of the three August polls. Both stand out as anomalous in the overall progression of polling in Minnesota. The slim two point lead in the Survey USA poll, as Scott mentioned, may have something to do with the way the firm is screening its sample. Indeed, the most recent Survey USA poll of Minnesota was in June during Obama's jump in the the polls in most states. While most polling firms showed an Obama lead in the mid- to upper teens, Survey USA had the race in a dead heat with Obama up by a scant one point margin. Minnesota and Survey USA may be like oil and water then. Still that only "explains away" one of those recent narrow leads for Obama in Minnesota. The other was the four point margin Rasmussen found in their latest sample of the North Star state. That one I won't dwell on, but I will say that when you take into account the high numbers of the "bounce" period -- and then peppered throughout the summer -- with the uncharacteristically low numbers we've seen recently, you get an average very similar to the one FHQ has overall now; one in the upper single digits.

In Iowa the story is a bit different. Other than a 17 point margin in a February Selzer poll, the range of polling has been between 2 and 10 points within no discernible pattern emerging. This one has settled in and remains fairly static within the area of a 6 to 7 point edge for Obama. New Mexico is essentially a fringe toss up state, propped up by two favorable Zogby Interactive polls. When those are removed New Mexico does move into the toss up region but it is on par with a state like Missouri on the flip side of the Electoral College Spectrum. It is possible that McCain moves in and picks off New Mexico, but at this point that is the equivalent to Obama pulling Missouri into his column. The probability of those two things happening simultaneously in November is quite small, but one candidate winning both would be a clear signal that the momentum down the stretch has swung decidedly in that candidate's direction.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)

Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

Obama-Biden

The Electoral Map (8/24/08)

Wow! Thirty-five polls in 21 states certainly augmented our database of existing polling between Wednesday and Sunday. And what's more is that we have a good idea about what the race looks like in several swing states that received a handful of polls each. Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia all had multiple polls surface over the latter half of the week. Of those, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia were all on the Watch as of last Wednesday.

New Polls (Aug. 20-24)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Arizona	Cronkite/ASU	+10
Arizona	Mason-Dixon	+6
California	Rasmussen	+13/+14
Colorado	Mason-Dixon	+3
Colorado	Zogby Interactive	+6
Colorado	Quinnipiac	+1
Florida	ARG	+1
Florida	Zogby Interactive	+3
Indiana	Rasmussen	+6/+4
Kansas	Survey USA	+23
Maryland	Rasmussen	+10/+12
Michigan	Zogby Interactive	+9
Michigan	Selzer	+7
Minnesota	Minnesota Public Radio	+10
Mississippi	Rasmussen	+13/+13
Missouri	Public Policy Polling	+10
Nevada	Mason-Dixon	+6
Nevada	Zogby Interactive	+1
Nevada	Research 2000	+1
New Hampshire	Zogby Interactive	+4
New Hampshire	Rasmussen	+1/+1
New Hampshire	ARG	+1
New Mexico	Mason-Dixon	+4
New Mexico	Zogby Interactive	+9
New Mexico	Rasmussen	+4/+6
North Carolina	Zogby Interactive	+8
North Carolina	Insider Advantage	+2
Ohio	Zogby Interactive	+5
Pennsylvania	Zogby Interactive	+9
Pennsylvania	Rasmussen	+3/+5
Tennessee	Rasmussen	+25/+24
Utah	Mason-Dixon	+39
Virginia	Public Policy Polling	+2
Virginia	Zogby Interactive	+2
Wyoming	Mason-Dixon	+37

However, despite being inundated with new data, little changed. Surprisingly, Nevada, which has been so close to a tie lately, did not shift into McCain territory even with that 6 point Mason-Dixon margin included. For every 6 point margin there, -- in either direction -- there are three polls that show it as a race that is within 3 or fewer points. In other words, the underlying message on Nevada is that the Silver state is a statistical dead heat, given the margin of error in these polls. Since May there have been eight polls conducted in the state and two have shown six point McCain leads -- the most recent one and the oldest one in that group -- but the other six have resulted in smaller gaps in the results within the margin of error. Nevada, then, is the most closely contested race according to FHQ's metric. But Ohio is not far behind (Neither, for that matter, is Virginia, but I'll hold of on the Old Dominion for the time being.). In fact, as I alluded to in my look at the August polling trends, Ohio shifted back in the direction of the Illinois senator based on the inclusion of the 5 point advantage last weekend's Zogby Interactive poll showed in the Buckeye state. Some have issues with the methodolgy behind Zogby's online polls, but even if those two results -- the one in June and current one -- were changed to exact ties, McCain would only barely take the lead by just under a quarter of a point. The positive is that the poll is not the most recent -- Rasmussen's poll of the Buckeye state is -- so it isn't being given that extra amount of weight that the most recent poll is. And the back and forth in Ohio only further cements it as one of the closest races. But that isn't terribly groundbreaking news.

Changes (Aug. 20-24)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up McCain	Toss Up Obama

Nevada and Ohio, then, along with Virginia represent a trio of states which are all within a quarter of a point of being a tie/switching sides and all three will factor heavily into the electoral math of each candidate. And though Obama has a nice cushion "strong" state electoral votes (165 EVs), the back and forth of any of those three can change that outlook quickly. Obama could lose all three and scrape out 273 electoral votes, but if all three go to McCain, that certainly calls into question the direction the overall momentum is going in to bring about that result. If those three are all going for McCain, for example, are other swings states moving too?

[Click Map to Enlarge]

And the Electoral College Spectrum gives us a glimpse into the tenuous lead (even though it is 58 EVs) Obama holds at the moment. The Illinois senator has an advantage in all of the states through Nevada, but tightening polls there and in Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio mean that the job isn't finished -- not that the Obama campaign thought it was. Then again, the perception is that generic Democrat X should/would be well ahead of the generic GOP counterpart and that raises ever so slighty the bar for Obama.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	WA-11 (165)	CO-9*** (269/278)	AK-3 (373/168)	KS-6 (64)
VT-3 (10)	MN-10 (175)	NH-4*** (273/269)	MO-11 (384/165)	ID-4 (58)
RI-4 (14)	DE-3 (178)	OH-20 (293/265)	SC-8 (154)	NE-5 (54)
IL-21 (35)	OR-7 (185)	NV-5 (298/245)	SD-3 (146)	AR-6 (49)
CT-7 (42)	NJ-15 (200)	VA-13 (311/240)	TX-34 (143)	TN-11 (43)
ME-4 (46)	IA-7 (207)	ND-3 (314/227)	GA-15 (109)	KY-8 (32)
MD-10 (56)	WI-10 (217)	MT-3 (317/224)	MS-6 (94)	AL-9 (24)
CA-55 (111)	NM-5 (222)	NC-15 (332/221)	WV-5 (88)	OK-7 (15)
NY-31 (142)	MI-17 (239/316)	IN-11 (343/206)	AZ-10 (83)	WY-3 (8)
MA-12 (154)	PA-21 (260/299)	FL-27 (370/195)	LA-9 (73)	UT-5 (5)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The line between Colorado and New Hampshire is the where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The quirk of this iteration of the Spectrum is that it brings the 269-269 tie possibility into focus. Due to the rank ordering of states, the Victory Line is at a point wedged between Colorado and New Hampshire. Both candidates then, would have to pick up both those states in order to surpass 270 electoral votes. As it stands now, Obama has an edge in all the states to the left of Nevada -- including both Colorado and New Hampshire. That means that McCain would have to pick off not only Nevada and Ohio but Colorado and New Hampshire as well to get to 270. That isn't an insurmountable task, but it is a byproduct of Pennsylvania moving toward Obama. And that causes McCain to have to work in more states, not that the Arizona senator isn't already. That doesn't change the fact that having to go after more states is a more difficult task than getting more total electoral votes in one place like Pennsylvania. There has been some talk out there that Pennsylvania native and currently Delaware senator, Joe Biden, will help Obama lock up Pennsylvania. That may come to pass, but it was probably already good that the Keystone state was heading in the direction of Obama.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Alaska	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Minnesota	from Obama lean	to Strong Obama
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
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
Wisconsin	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Finally, while the three close states mentioned above, remain on the Watch List, the list was trimmed by a couple of notable states this time around. Both North Carolina and Florida inched closer to Obama given the new polls while remaining slight leans to McCain. Minnesota also rejoined the list based on the 10 point margin in the latest MPR poll, but just barely.

I'll be back later with an update of the pre-convention August polling shifts. In the meantime, get ready for convention season.


Recent Posts:
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

Obama-Biden

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

Well, swoon may be a bit strong, but the perception is that the momentum is headed in McCain's direction. Is that the case, though? Sure it is. "They" told us so. However, just for fun, let's look at what has happened in August so far and see. The plus here is that this will give us a baseline in which to begin assessing VP selection and convention effects. Due to the compression of all four events (Democratic and Republican selections and conventions), it is difficult to definitively say, but we'll have these numbers as a jumping off point when that time comes, though.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Thus far there has been polling conducted in 34 states during August, including 12 of FHQ's 14 toss up states. And that is where we'll keep the focus for this examination, on those toss up states. Coming into the month, McCain held advantages in 8 toss up states totaling 86 electoral votes and Obama was ahead in 6 states with 76 electoral votes. In that time only Ohio's 20 electoral votes shifted (from Obama to McCain), though -- spoiler alert! -- that will change tomorrow. Regardless, that was the state of play heading in to the heat of August.

Let's look at those states:
McCain -- AK, FL, IN, MO, MT, NC, ND, VA

Obama -- CO, MI, NV, NH, OH, PA

Immediately, we can take Montana and North Dakota out. Neither has been polled this month, but among the rest there was some movement of note. Among the six Obama states, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio shifted away from the Illinois senator while Michigan and Pennsylvania moved toward him. As we've said over the last couple of weeks, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio are among the closest of states now. Having all three move away Obama is not a welcome sight for those within the campaign. While that is certainly negative, the movement among the McCain states is also noteworthy Of those six McCain states where surveys took place, only two moved in the Arizona senator's direction while the remaining four trended in Obama's direction. So while McCain is making strides in the closest of states, Obama is actually pulling some of those McCain toss ups further into play, going against the prevailing perception of the moment. Alaska made a strong move toward Obama and Florida, North Carolina and Virginia edged ever so slightly to the left.

Now, I should note that this data includes the new release of Zogby Interactive polling in a series of battleground states. I'll have more on this in tomorrow's electoral college post, but in this context I should make some comments about how those numbers affect our weighted averages in those ten states. Despite the sample being self-selected, most of these numbers jibe well with recent polling in those states.

Battleground States	Obama	McCain	Barr	Nader	Not Sure/Other
Colorado	44%	38%	8%	2%	8%
Florida	40%	43%	5%	1%	12%
Michigan	46%	37%	5%	1%	12%
Nevada	39%	38%	10%	3%	10%
New Hampshire	38%	42%	11%	1%	9%
New Mexico	46%	37%	5%	1%	11%
North Carolina	47%	39%	3%	2%	9%
Ohio	41%	36%	8%	1%	13%
Pennsylvania	46%	37%	5%	3%	8%
Virginia	43%	41%	5%	1%	10%

The exceptions are Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio. And while the Ohio result shifts -- as you'll see tomorrow -- the Buckeye state back to Obama, it is still a very small change overall (and it only takes a little bit of one). Of the rest, only North Carolina changes the direction of the trend for August up to this point. And even then, the move toward McCain was minimal before the Zogby numbers were incorporated.

In the end, while it looks like an even distribution as far as the number of toss up states (and all states for that matter -- 19 - 14 in McCain's favor) heading in one candidate's direction or the other, McCain has to be given a slight edge because he has moved the three closest states (on the Electoral College Spectrum) in his direction. We should also note that Minnesota has crept toward McCain for the second consecutive month (or partial month in this case), yet remains on the upper end of Obama lean states. The situation is similar in Iowa as well. Though the Hawkeye state hasn't moved toward McCain in consecutive months, it has inched closer to McCain during August. It too remains solidly within the lean category for Obama, but if the current trend continues that could change.


Recent Posts:
Obama-Biden

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Obama-Biden

Thoughts?

After the Chet Edwards, last-minute extravaganza (one that had me wondering about how an Obama-Edwards ticket would look: Edwards? Why did he choose someone who cheated on his cancer-stricken wife?), Obama opted for Joe Biden. The Delaware senator does what the pundits have said Obama may need to do with his vice presidential choice, mainly shore up some of those perceived foreign policy and experience weaknesses. And this one doesn't feel like a safe pick as Evan Bayh would have. Biden has a personality and enough experience to actually hold his own on Wednesday night, a night when Bill Clinton is also speaking at the Democratic Convention. The drawback? Well, Biden suffers from occasional foot-in-the-mouth disease, but hey, he's the VP not the nominee, right?

My other thought on a morning where I received the news via radio (and not the middle of the night text message--ah, technology) is that the choice of Biden seems an awful lot like Bush's selection of Cheney eight years ago. Yeah, some readers aren't going to like me drawing that parallel, but it is at least partially true. In Biden, Obama has someone with some experience. Bush got that by picking Cheney as well. But with that experience, comes someone realitively longer in the tooth than the actual nominee. Biden is 65 and would be 73 if Obama makes it through two terms, not an age that we often see someone running for president successfully. [McCain may prove me wrong on this, but since we're in the midst of a hypothetical, bear with me.] In that sense, Biden could represent a VP choice who ultimately does not have the ambition to aspire to the presidency. Yes, I'm talking about a guy who has run for president twice -- in 1988 and 2008 -- but by that point in his life things may be different. Yes, this is certainly speculative, but when you do what I do you look for these sorts of openings, like 2008 repeating itself on 2016. By that I mean an open race for both nominations with no one from the current administration running. And who among us doesn't secretly wish for a similar sort of race?

With that, what are your thoughts and opinions of Obama's choice?

PS: I'll be back later in the day with a look at the August trends, so we can get a sense of where they are prior to the conventions.


Recent Posts:
More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Blog Note

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

What, two frontloading posts in one week?!? Yeah, let's take a break from the vice presidential hysteria for a bit. That will obviously take care of itself. Though I will say that in my classes today I played the "wisdom of the masses" game that the good folks over at the Monkey Cage played yesterday and Biden won in each (for what its worth).

Anyway on the heels of my comments the other day following Obama's and the DNC's charting of a potential course for presidential nomination reform, there were a few more interesting tidbits that emerged around a similar theme. The Washington Post ran a great story reiterating some of the issues confronting the GOP's Ohio Plan at the party's convention in a little over a week. And some of these issues cut right to the heart of some things that have plagued the United States since its inception, mainly the divide between big states and little states. [Can you tell I'm teaching an intro to American Government course now? It's fresh in my mind.] So, on the one hand you have arguments about the system being broken:

"Most people believe that it's broken," said Ron Kaufman, a member of the RNC rules committee. "The question is, how do you fix it in a way that doesn't have unintended consequences?"

And on the other you have the big states' view voiced by perennial primary season also-ran, Michigan:

"I would rather stay with what we got," [Michigan Republican Party chairman, Saul] Anuzis said.

I playfully juxtaposed those two quotations from that article, but that's the order this discussion is going to go in at the convention. So, the system is broken, but is broken enough that the biggest states can be shunted to the back of the queue? I doubt that the big states that represent those last three primary day groups under the Ohio Plan are going to allow that idea to pass without a fight. Let's recall that those large states still have the largest number of delegates (even if that number is adjusted based upon how the state has supported the party in past elections) and that math stands in the way of the Ohio Plan.

Well, surprise, surprise: FHQ is quashing yet another presidential nomination reform proposal. [C'mon, that's not my intent.] Yeah, but there is some work being done out there to reform the system. And you know what? It is a bipartisan effort. Earlier this week, at a meeting at the National Press Club in Washington, the chairs of both parties' rules committees met with the president-elect of the National Association of Secretaries of State (Trey Grayson, R-KY) and Don Means, the Director of the Open Caucus Institute and together called for a "vigorous and widespread discussion and deliberation about how best to reform the current primary election calendar for 2012." Calling for and getting that reform are two different things, but the fact that at least some notable (and influential) members of each party are coalescing to make this effort is at least promising. And yes, I count the chairs of the DNC's and RNC's rules committees as influential.

But not as influential as the guys actually chosen through the current system to run for president. Obama has obviously voiced some concern over certain aspects of the system, but, as the Post article says, McCain and his campaign have been quiet on the issue. And what they say means a lot to the delegates making decisions on these matters (at least with respect to the GOP). Typically, those who win nominations in a certain way are not apt to want to change a system under which they were successful. I think both candidates can agree to the start date for primaries and caucuses being pushed back in 2012 and beyond, but beyond that, I'd question how far either is willing to go to shake up the rest of the system.

The Republicans have to, by their rules, deal with the issue of 2012 at their convention. We'll know something about 2012's calendar then. And what I'm really interested in is how the parties are going to keep states in line on this. Those sanctions have to matter otherwise, frontloading isn't going anywhere. We keep hearing this threat that action needs to be taken now lest 2008 repeat itself in 2012. For the record, (the act of) frontloading will not be as widespread four years from now. States will be less motivated to frontload because 1) most already have and 2) only one of the parties, barring the unforeseen, will have a contested nomination then. The outcome -- the crowding of contests -- may be, though.

I can, then, easily envision the window in which these contests are held being scaled back in 2012, but I'm skeptical of anything beyond that.


Recent Posts:
The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Blog Note

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Earlier in the week I posted a link to Thomas Holbrook's impressions of national convention bounces. He now has a projection up for how much of a bump we may see Obama gain from the Democratic convention next week.

Now Larry Sabato has his own look into the history of the bounce up on his site.


Recent Posts:
Blog Note

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

Blog Note

I'm starting a new continuously running post that will simply gather some daily links for my campaign politics students' consumption. I was thinking of doing this in terms of themes -- the first one will have some links concerning the conventions for example -- but given how quickly the dynamics of a presidential race can change, that may be feasible on some days but on others not.

Anyway, I just wanted to make our regular readers aware of the change and to invite you to contribute if you so desire. It doesn't have to be completely political sciencey, but that's the direction in which I'll be steering things.


Recent Posts:
Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Democratic Change Commission?

Well, it is a change election, so while we're on the topic why not change the method of selecting presidential nominees in the future? If Obama and the DNC have their way, that's just what the Democrats will do. At issue? The frontloading of presidential nominating events. [What, again? Didn't we already do this four years ago and four years before that and... Yes, and we'll do it again until we get it right.

...apparently.]

The proposed commission would be tasked with examining the frontloading problem and devising potential solutions. For once the GOP is actually out in front on this one. They are set to discuss the Ohio Plan at their convention in St. Paul next month. That proposal would grant the Favored Four (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) their position at the front of the line, but would grant a collection of the smallest remaining states the option of holding their contests next, prior to bigger states (which would be divided into three groups). Following the early states, the small state group would vote on the third Tuesday in February. The first group of larger states would then vote two weeks later with the final two groups stretching out three and six weeks beyond that.

The DNC and Obama spokespersons were not terribly clear about the direction in which the party wanted to head, but did target the caucus system (still a Clinton supporter sore point) and frontloading as things that needed to be addressed prior to the next cycle.

But here is what they did say:
Protect the Favored Four?
Check.

"Obama continues to believe in the important role that Iowa and New Hampshire have historically played in the process of choosing our party’s Presidential Nominee and the important early role Nevada and South Carolina had in 2008," [Obama spokesman, Nick] Shapiro added.

Scale back the window in which primaries and caucuses can be held?
Check.

"So, we are recommending that our nominating rules be amended so that no primary or caucus can be held prior to the first Tuesday in March, except for the four pre-window states."

Stop frontloading?
Check.

"We are asking the Democratic Party to review this frontloading and look for a workable solution to reduce it," Shapiro wrote.

I'm with Shapiro on those first two points. That's been done before. The Favored Four are favored for a reason (tradition) and the beginning point of the window has been moved before. The GOP moved it into February in 2000 and the Democrats followed suit over the course of the 2004 and 2008 cycles. But to undo that shift forward? That hasn't been done. And there still has been no viable solution to the frontloading problem. Well, there is no shortage of solution ideas, but there is a decided lack of methods for carrying those ideas out.

On its surface, scaling the window back to the first week in March (for all non-exempt states) would essentially return the calendar to its pre-2000 form. And that first week in March timing is not too far off from the starting point for all the non-exempt states (the Favored Four in other words) in the Ohio Plan proposal that the GOP has advanced. [Ooh, is that a hint at the potential for bipartisan accord on this issue?] However, preventing states from jumping that point and not crowding in on that early March Tuesday is going to be where the real work on this issue will need to be done. And that is where the ability of state parties, partisans of both stripes in state governments and the national parties working together to come to a solution comes into play. Well, if that's all, it should be a snap.

It won't be, but I'll certainly have my eye on the conventions in the coming weeks to see not only how this proposed commission fares but whether the Ohio Plan passes muster at the GOP convention (the only time they can deal with the issue prior to 2012). The new commission would have a report ready no later than January of 2010.

TRACKING...

And here's the word from Iowa.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

Is Rasmussen's Inclusion of "Leaners" Affecting the Electoral College Outlook Now? An Update