**Note: This continues a discussion begun yesterday and continued in the comments section today. For a refresher or for the starting point follow this link.
I think discussions like the one here and the ones we've had in this space over the last weeks and months are constructive. For better or worse though, I'm one of those devil's advocate types. So I'm not trying to tear down any reform ideas so much as point out the obstacles those reforms may face.
Having said that, let's look at what everyone has brought to the fore this morning -- some interesting concepts, by the way.
Let's look first at the financial situation. The national party funding regimes that both Allen and Russ describe have one drawback that I can see: the discrepancy between the money either parties have on hand at any given moment. The DNC during this cycle -- and typically during most cycles -- has far less cash on hand than the RNC. That has implications for the effectiveness with which each party is able to implement a similar system.
This check-off system that Scott envisions is one way to get around that issue though. But again, we're talking about the difference between the national government and the national parties dealing with this.
Rob mentions the candidates "caving" and seating delegates anyway. I don't know that caving is the appropriate word to describe what is happening there. But it isn't any less of a problem. The act of (re)seating those delegates is a nod to the idea that unnecessarily preventing those delegates from participating -- especially when they are not consequential to the outcome of the nomination -- is just manufacturing divisiveness in the party. No one seeking the highest office in the land wants any divisiveness during the unfiltered PR blitz that is a convention.
But this gets at the dual nature of the delegate system. Delegates offer diminishing returns over the course of an election year. They are consequential to the point that the nomination is decided, but after that point, they really aren't of any consequence. Then penalty, then, if it is to include delegates, has to in some way wedge itself into that early period. But the penalties in 2008 (and 2012, it looks like) did that, but the penalty loses its bite if the nominee decides to seat those delegates. Yeah, back to that vicious cycle.
We really need to check into whether Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wyoming will have half delegations in St. Paul this week, or whether McCain has opted to waive that penalty.
Let me raise one more issue that has yet to be brought up in any of our discussions. This was a factor that I found in my masters thesis and subsequent conference paper really affected a state's ability to frontload its primary. It has implications in our discussion here as well. Some states, California, Texas and Maryland, to name a few, have laws on the books that require primaries for president and primaries for state and local offices to be held simultaneously. Changing those laws and splitting those contests up cost money. Yes, that's not that big a deal if the national party or the federal government is picking up the tab, but it does raise another potential complication. What id the GOP wants the Maryland primary to go in May while the Democrats would rather hold the Maryland primary in March. First, that would deprive Maryland of the option of holding its state and local primaries at the same time as the presidential primary. Secondly, this is creating another election that Maryland wouldn't have to pay for but would have to administer. That puts a strain on state and local boards of elections to deal with that, adding some potential messiness to the process.
Now, I'll concede that Maryland could opt to hold the Republican primaries with the Republican presidential primary and likewise with the Democrats. That gives a jump start to one party's congressional candidate, for example, at the expense of the other party's. And if the advantaged candidate is an incumbent, that increases an already significant advantage they hold. Well, just hold the state and local primaries together at a time different from the presidential primaries; it won't cost any extra if the national party or national government is paying for the presidential election.
This looks like a minor problem from the national perspective, but at the state level could serve as a point of contention. The people making the decisions on this are the members of the state legislature, and their electoral fortunes are tied to the decision to some degree. Holding the contests -- presidential primaries and state and local primaries -- simultaneously increases turnout. Now, it is certainly debatable whether these guys want high turnout or not, but debated it would be.
Note: I'm going to try and get this revised Barr/Nader post up later today. Also, I've added a question to that, that I'd like some feedback on. If you have a chance, check in later and weigh in. Tangentially, it will have implications for the electoral college projections.
Recent Posts:
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course.
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
Well, this is a bit of an emperor's new clothing moment. Alright FHQ, you complain about the lack of sanctions in dealing with the frontloading problem, but what would you do?
A fair question. I could go all political sciencey on you and claim that it is my job to explain what we see and to steer clear of the normative end of things. [It isn't my job to say what should be. That's up to the practitioners.] However, I'll at least attempt to explain why I think sanctions from the parties just won't work.
There likely isn't a good sanction for this just because of the cyclical nature of the problem. In the post-reform era, delegates have become largely meaningless...except when it is close. And that doesn't happen often (There are exceptions, don't get me wrong, but we won't see another 2008 for a while.). Delegates do decide the nominations, but that is after a party has quickly coalesced around one candidate -- usually the front-runners.
So the delegates don't matter because the compressed contests advantage one candidate over the others. But you can't take away meaningless delegates to get states to move in line with a more evenly dispersed calendar of contests.
What's the alternative? Revoking the primary? I don't think that will fly with the fairness crowd.
During a brainstorm in 2007 when Ohio was considering a primary move (to the same January 29 date Florida had moved to), I thought about close margins in the previous presidential election being a possible determinant of which states could go first. I don't think that passes muster either. Though, one interesting caveat is that both Iowa and New Hampshire were among the closest states in 2000 and 2004; among the few states that actually shifted parties in that time. That indicates that both have a partisan breakdown similar to the ultimate outcome of the election, but that doesn't lend itself to a partisan primary. Though the ideological spectrum in the state is like the nation's to some degree, the spectrum within each party may not be very well represented by anyone state's partisans. Such a plan would potentially work in a Louisiana-style, open primary. But I don't see that happening.
Another possibility is that turnout in the previous presidential election could set the calendar for the next cycle. And even if that didn't advantage the toss up states where competition drives increased turnout, there are still questions over whether that is a good thing or not. Turnout may increase, but is that a good thing? Are the decisions "better" as a result?
Neither of those plans would work, but both would require some intervention by the federal government. And that's something to take away from this. The GOP may be going through the motions in the hopes that Congress steps in in some way to solve this problem for them (...and the state parties and state governments). Yes, that is an odd statement to make about a party that would rather see less government intervention on the whole.
Along those same lines, part of what one commenter recently proposed made some sense. If the federal government got involved, it could technically withhold funding in the way it does highway funds for states that don't have the drinking age set at 21. Now a financial penalty would be effective, but that implies the federal government is in some way funding elections. And withholding funding for elections is a potentially dangerous business. It doesn't and wouldn't look good. But the burden would be on the states in that case. They would have to cover the expenses in that case or take it to court. My guess is a state would lose that PR battle, not to mention the court case.
In the end, the parties will find it difficult to solve this issue. It is just too complicated and too partisan. Some federal action could change that, though. The questions that emerge there are:
Is Congress too partisan to do anything about in the same way that the national parties are?
And more importantly...
Is Congress willing to step in and actually do something that, as Dan Lowenstein has argued, would be challenged but likely would be affirmed in the courts?
Of course Lowenstein concludes with what is essentially the same thing that the GOP seems to have settled on: a cap on further frontloading.
So what are the penalties that would work? That isn't clear to me (or many of the others dealing with this issue for that matter). But it will likely require some action from Congress.
As a footnote, I'll pose just one more question. Does the fact that the Democrats won't deal with the issue for another two years hurt the chances of something being done on frontloading prior to 2012? We know that the GOP has rejected an overhaul of the primary system. But we won't know the direction the Democrats are leaning until that report comes out down the road. This topic is hot now. It is on people's minds to some extent. However, does that heat fade; does that attention wane over the next two years. And will that affect Congress's willingness to weigh in then.
Some of that, I suppose, depends on whether any states begin the frontloading process and antagonize the system. States then may be hesitant to do anything. If Obama wins, though, we may see some Republican-controlled legislatures make movements in that direction. If Michigan, for example, wants its lot improved, Democrats there may want to go along with any Republican initiative to move the state's primary ahead of March 6, 2012. That may be enough to start the ball rolling on the federal level, if such a move incites any backlash and the issue is raised again.
A tip of the cap to Scott for taking the bait that I hadn't really intended as bait.
Recent Posts:
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course.
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
A fair question. I could go all political sciencey on you and claim that it is my job to explain what we see and to steer clear of the normative end of things. [It isn't my job to say what should be. That's up to the practitioners.] However, I'll at least attempt to explain why I think sanctions from the parties just won't work.
There likely isn't a good sanction for this just because of the cyclical nature of the problem. In the post-reform era, delegates have become largely meaningless...except when it is close. And that doesn't happen often (There are exceptions, don't get me wrong, but we won't see another 2008 for a while.). Delegates do decide the nominations, but that is after a party has quickly coalesced around one candidate -- usually the front-runners.
So the delegates don't matter because the compressed contests advantage one candidate over the others. But you can't take away meaningless delegates to get states to move in line with a more evenly dispersed calendar of contests.
What's the alternative? Revoking the primary? I don't think that will fly with the fairness crowd.
During a brainstorm in 2007 when Ohio was considering a primary move (to the same January 29 date Florida had moved to), I thought about close margins in the previous presidential election being a possible determinant of which states could go first. I don't think that passes muster either. Though, one interesting caveat is that both Iowa and New Hampshire were among the closest states in 2000 and 2004; among the few states that actually shifted parties in that time. That indicates that both have a partisan breakdown similar to the ultimate outcome of the election, but that doesn't lend itself to a partisan primary. Though the ideological spectrum in the state is like the nation's to some degree, the spectrum within each party may not be very well represented by anyone state's partisans. Such a plan would potentially work in a Louisiana-style, open primary. But I don't see that happening.
Another possibility is that turnout in the previous presidential election could set the calendar for the next cycle. And even if that didn't advantage the toss up states where competition drives increased turnout, there are still questions over whether that is a good thing or not. Turnout may increase, but is that a good thing? Are the decisions "better" as a result?
Neither of those plans would work, but both would require some intervention by the federal government. And that's something to take away from this. The GOP may be going through the motions in the hopes that Congress steps in in some way to solve this problem for them (...and the state parties and state governments). Yes, that is an odd statement to make about a party that would rather see less government intervention on the whole.
Along those same lines, part of what one commenter recently proposed made some sense. If the federal government got involved, it could technically withhold funding in the way it does highway funds for states that don't have the drinking age set at 21. Now a financial penalty would be effective, but that implies the federal government is in some way funding elections. And withholding funding for elections is a potentially dangerous business. It doesn't and wouldn't look good. But the burden would be on the states in that case. They would have to cover the expenses in that case or take it to court. My guess is a state would lose that PR battle, not to mention the court case.
In the end, the parties will find it difficult to solve this issue. It is just too complicated and too partisan. Some federal action could change that, though. The questions that emerge there are:
Is Congress too partisan to do anything about in the same way that the national parties are?
And more importantly...
Is Congress willing to step in and actually do something that, as Dan Lowenstein has argued, would be challenged but likely would be affirmed in the courts?
Of course Lowenstein concludes with what is essentially the same thing that the GOP seems to have settled on: a cap on further frontloading.
So what are the penalties that would work? That isn't clear to me (or many of the others dealing with this issue for that matter). But it will likely require some action from Congress.
As a footnote, I'll pose just one more question. Does the fact that the Democrats won't deal with the issue for another two years hurt the chances of something being done on frontloading prior to 2012? We know that the GOP has rejected an overhaul of the primary system. But we won't know the direction the Democrats are leaning until that report comes out down the road. This topic is hot now. It is on people's minds to some extent. However, does that heat fade; does that attention wane over the next two years. And will that affect Congress's willingness to weigh in then.
Some of that, I suppose, depends on whether any states begin the frontloading process and antagonize the system. States then may be hesitant to do anything. If Obama wins, though, we may see some Republican-controlled legislatures make movements in that direction. If Michigan, for example, wants its lot improved, Democrats there may want to go along with any Republican initiative to move the state's primary ahead of March 6, 2012. That may be enough to start the ball rolling on the federal level, if such a move incites any backlash and the issue is raised again.
A tip of the cap to Scott for taking the bait that I hadn't really intended as bait.
Recent Posts:
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course.
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course. [Updated]
Update: Apparently, it is Palin.
Pawlenty's out.
Romney's out.
Is it Lieberman?
Palin?
She and Pawlenty apparently switched positions on InTrade overnight and she's approaching 100% now. Thoughts? Does this pull in those Hillary voters? It certainly shakes things up, though perhaps not in the way that David Brooks alluded to on PBS the other night. Does her age take Obama's age/experience off the table to some extent?
Recent Posts:
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
Pawlenty's out.
Romney's out.
Is it Lieberman?
Palin?
She and Pawlenty apparently switched positions on InTrade overnight and she's approaching 100% now. Thoughts? Does this pull in those Hillary voters? It certainly shakes things up, though perhaps not in the way that David Brooks alluded to on PBS the other night. Does her age take Obama's age/experience off the table to some extent?
Recent Posts:
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama is the J.K. Rowling of Politics?
You have to love the call-in portion after C-SPAN's coverage. A caller just linked Obama's brand of politics to the "in one ear and out the other" -- the caller's words, not mine, Rowling fans -- literature from the author of the Harry Potter series.
Seriously, though, thoughts on the speech? Assertive and directed right at McCain and the Republicans. The GOP will certainly have an answer next week, but Obama made it more difficult for them to some extent. But there were some openings for them as well. In the same way that the Democrats made the "McSame" argument all week, the convention in St. Paul next week will most likely attempt to paint Obama as the typical big government, tax-and-spend Democrat. What is the price tag on the hope Obama is selling?
Recent Posts:
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
Seriously, though, thoughts on the speech? Assertive and directed right at McCain and the Republicans. The GOP will certainly have an answer next week, but Obama made it more difficult for them to some extent. But there were some openings for them as well. In the same way that the Democrats made the "McSame" argument all week, the convention in St. Paul next week will most likely attempt to paint Obama as the typical big government, tax-and-spend Democrat. What is the price tag on the hope Obama is selling?
Recent Posts:
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Ohio Plan has One More Chance...
...but given the way Ohio Republican Party Chair is lashing out at McCain over the plan's rejection in the rules committee, that doesn't seem like a much of a chance. Nevertheless, the plan will have a final vote tomorrow as the rules committee will vote to approve the rules governing primaries and caucuses for 2012; rules which will be ratified at next week's convention.
CQ added one more piece to the puzzle today, though. States violating the "no one goes before the first Tuesday in March but Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina" rule will be penalized half their delegates in 2012. Yes, the same penalty that kept Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina and even New Hampshire from moving ahead of February 5, 2008. No, not even the Granite state had an exemption in 2008, but all of the above will likely have all their delegations seated next week, and much more quietly than Florida and Michigan this week at the Democratic convention.
It is likely then that we will see a few more renegade states in 2012, though as I explained last night, the identity of those states will have much to do with which party actually wins the 2008 election. States with legislatures controlled by the party out of the White House are the ones more likely to move; more likely to be renegades. That, in itself, will constrain movement of the sort we saw in the lead up to 2008. But it won't completely stop it. And from the looks of, the status quo sanctions the GOP is putting forth won't either. States will forego those delegates in exchange for some level of influence over who the next presidential nominees will be.
Recent Posts:
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
CQ added one more piece to the puzzle today, though. States violating the "no one goes before the first Tuesday in March but Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina" rule will be penalized half their delegates in 2012. Yes, the same penalty that kept Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina and even New Hampshire from moving ahead of February 5, 2008. No, not even the Granite state had an exemption in 2008, but all of the above will likely have all their delegations seated next week, and much more quietly than Florida and Michigan this week at the Democratic convention.
It is likely then that we will see a few more renegade states in 2012, though as I explained last night, the identity of those states will have much to do with which party actually wins the 2008 election. States with legislatures controlled by the party out of the White House are the ones more likely to move; more likely to be renegades. That, in itself, will constrain movement of the sort we saw in the lead up to 2008. But it won't completely stop it. And from the looks of, the status quo sanctions the GOP is putting forth won't either. States will forego those delegates in exchange for some level of influence over who the next presidential nominees will be.
Recent Posts:
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
What, during the Democratic Convention?
Yeah, let's look at what's ahead for and what's in store from the Republicans. First let's look at the St. Paul convention next week. The GOP convention is already under attack, and not just from Democrats. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Gustav is heading into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasts have it making landfall sometime early next week -- during the Republican's convention -- in the New Orleans area. Now, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure remembering Hurricane Katrina was not at the top of the list of things to be highlighted by the Republicans next week. So already, even before the convention kicks off, there have been, now, two things that have "gone wrong" for the Republican Party. First, this developing story in the Gulf isn't helping the party of Lincoln stay on message, and second was the news that the GOP is basically doing nothing to combat frontloading ahead of the 2012 election. Now, one of those is obviously a bit higher up on the priority list at the moment. People won't truly be paying attention to the frontloading thing for another three and a half years, but given the mission of this site, FHQ finds it necessary to include it here.
Already the weather has claimed the speaking spot allotted to Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who has pre-emptively declared a state of emergency in his state. That's a blow to the party because the Republicans now miss out on an opportunity to show off an up-and-coming presence within their party, someone who was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain.
Obviously, this is an unpredictable situation, but it is worth tracking as we approach the Republicans' turn in the spotlight.
----
The second topic I want to cover is the GOP VP announcement that is likely to come either today or tomorrow. Well, I suppose McCain has the option of doing it on Saturday as well, but as someone at a football school, I question the wisdom behind timing that announcement on the first full day of the college football season, not to mention a holiday weekend. Those issues aside, who is going to be the addition to the Republican ticket? Much of the recent buzz -- FHQ included -- has centered on Mitt Romney, but in the wake of the Biden selection and the Democratic convention, has that sentiment changed? David Brooks on PBS's coverage of the events last night in Denver said that Biden's performance and the course of the Democrats' convention had put the onus on McCain to shake things up with a Lieberman, or someone similar, selection. So we have three basic questions here:
1) When will the decision be announced? Today? Tomorrow? Some other time?
2) Who will it be?
3) Have the Biden selection and the Democratic convention given McCain reason to reconsider an already made choice or to alter the thought process on the matter altogether?
The comments section awaits for not only answers to those questions, but your thoughts on last night's proceedings in Denver.
H/t to Daniel for alerting me to the weather implications for the Republican convention yesterday.
NOTE: Also, I'm going to try and add in the 2000 data on the third party post from the other day. If I get to that, I'll have something up later in the day.
Recent Posts:
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
Yeah, let's look at what's ahead for and what's in store from the Republicans. First let's look at the St. Paul convention next week. The GOP convention is already under attack, and not just from Democrats. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Gustav is heading into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasts have it making landfall sometime early next week -- during the Republican's convention -- in the New Orleans area. Now, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure remembering Hurricane Katrina was not at the top of the list of things to be highlighted by the Republicans next week. So already, even before the convention kicks off, there have been, now, two things that have "gone wrong" for the Republican Party. First, this developing story in the Gulf isn't helping the party of Lincoln stay on message, and second was the news that the GOP is basically doing nothing to combat frontloading ahead of the 2012 election. Now, one of those is obviously a bit higher up on the priority list at the moment. People won't truly be paying attention to the frontloading thing for another three and a half years, but given the mission of this site, FHQ finds it necessary to include it here.
Already the weather has claimed the speaking spot allotted to Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who has pre-emptively declared a state of emergency in his state. That's a blow to the party because the Republicans now miss out on an opportunity to show off an up-and-coming presence within their party, someone who was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain.
Obviously, this is an unpredictable situation, but it is worth tracking as we approach the Republicans' turn in the spotlight.
----
The second topic I want to cover is the GOP VP announcement that is likely to come either today or tomorrow. Well, I suppose McCain has the option of doing it on Saturday as well, but as someone at a football school, I question the wisdom behind timing that announcement on the first full day of the college football season, not to mention a holiday weekend. Those issues aside, who is going to be the addition to the Republican ticket? Much of the recent buzz -- FHQ included -- has centered on Mitt Romney, but in the wake of the Biden selection and the Democratic convention, has that sentiment changed? David Brooks on PBS's coverage of the events last night in Denver said that Biden's performance and the course of the Democrats' convention had put the onus on McCain to shake things up with a Lieberman, or someone similar, selection. So we have three basic questions here:
1) When will the decision be announced? Today? Tomorrow? Some other time?
2) Who will it be?
3) Have the Biden selection and the Democratic convention given McCain reason to reconsider an already made choice or to alter the thought process on the matter altogether?
The comments section awaits for not only answers to those questions, but your thoughts on last night's proceedings in Denver.
H/t to Daniel for alerting me to the weather implications for the Republican convention yesterday.
NOTE: Also, I'm going to try and add in the 2000 data on the third party post from the other day. If I get to that, I'll have something up later in the day.
Recent Posts:
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
Though tempers flared, the GOP rules committee rejected the Ohio Plan which would have completely reworked the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses for the 2012 cycle and beyond. What was left in the wake was anger, finger-pointing at the McCain campaign and accusations of behind-the-scenes meddling. I was always skeptical that the GOP would do anything on this front, but I didn't expect that news to come out in this way. It isn't that I thought the GOP would drag its feet on curbing frontloading, but there was dissension within the party from the point at which the committee passed the plan for a hearing at the upcoming convention back in the spring. And as I said, back when I speculated on how McCain would have fared in this year's contests under the Ohio Plan, successful nominees just don't tinker with a system in which they were successful.
What does this decision mean? It means that if the Democrats win this election, there will be no difference between the 2008 cycle and 2012. Correction: There will probably be even more frontloading as the progression toward a national primary continues. If the Democrats are successful in November, they will not be seriously interested in changing things for 2012. 2016 maybe, but not 2012. Even if McCain wins in November, I suspect the Democrats won't do too much on their part simply because they won't have the cooperation of the GOP. To completely change things will require an effort on the part of both parties to rein in the partisanship that stems from state legislatures and state parties.
What the GOP did do in Minneapolis was to close the window on frontloading a bit. Like the Democrats, they too have stressed the importance of shifting the earliest possible date on which contests could be held to the first Tuesday in March. So let's go ahead and mark Tuesday March 6, 2012 on our calendars. There will be a lot of contests that day. It won't be just Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island in the spotlight that day like in 2008.
But one question remains: What are the sanctions for violation of the potential new timing rules? There are over a dozen states that permanently moved their primary elections through action in their state legislatures. That work will have to be redone. But what is motivating states to do that work? What will they gain by moving back and what will they lose if they don't? The answers to those questions will tell us in quick order whether the calendar of contests is going to be any different in 2012 than it was this past winter and spring. And there still isn't a good answer.
UPDATE: Here are the reactions on the move from New Hampshire and from Ohio.
Recent Posts:
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
What does this decision mean? It means that if the Democrats win this election, there will be no difference between the 2008 cycle and 2012. Correction: There will probably be even more frontloading as the progression toward a national primary continues. If the Democrats are successful in November, they will not be seriously interested in changing things for 2012. 2016 maybe, but not 2012. Even if McCain wins in November, I suspect the Democrats won't do too much on their part simply because they won't have the cooperation of the GOP. To completely change things will require an effort on the part of both parties to rein in the partisanship that stems from state legislatures and state parties.
What the GOP did do in Minneapolis was to close the window on frontloading a bit. Like the Democrats, they too have stressed the importance of shifting the earliest possible date on which contests could be held to the first Tuesday in March. So let's go ahead and mark Tuesday March 6, 2012 on our calendars. There will be a lot of contests that day. It won't be just Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island in the spotlight that day like in 2008.
But one question remains: What are the sanctions for violation of the potential new timing rules? There are over a dozen states that permanently moved their primary elections through action in their state legislatures. That work will have to be redone. But what is motivating states to do that work? What will they gain by moving back and what will they lose if they don't? The answers to those questions will tell us in quick order whether the calendar of contests is going to be any different in 2012 than it was this past winter and spring. And there still isn't a good answer.
UPDATE: Here are the reactions on the move from New Hampshire and from Ohio.
Recent Posts:
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
Rob brought this issue up in the comments to last night's convention post, but the traffic has likely shifted from there and the roll call is certainly worth its own place. Here are a few things I've been able to dig up regarding the process.
1) DemConWatch has it that the floor vote will be a truncated affair. The voting will take place beforehand.
2) In fact, jack-of-all-trades, Seth Masket, who is a delegate, a blogger and a political scientist confirms that the Colorado delegation voted this morning at the delegation breakfast.
What we'll see tonight is a part of the deal hammered out between the Clinton and Obama teams. We'll get a limited number of states announcing their results and then they'll move on. I'd guess the New York delegation plays a prominent role.
Regardless, the roll call will take place between 5 and 7pm ET, so C-SPAN will be where I'll be able to catch it. I don't know what the cable news outlets have been doing (gavel-to-gavel coverage?). Bill Clinton is on at 9pm and Biden follows during the latter half of the 10pm hour.
[See the full schedule of the night here.]
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
1) DemConWatch has it that the floor vote will be a truncated affair. The voting will take place beforehand.
2) In fact, jack-of-all-trades, Seth Masket, who is a delegate, a blogger and a political scientist confirms that the Colorado delegation voted this morning at the delegation breakfast.
What we'll see tonight is a part of the deal hammered out between the Clinton and Obama teams. We'll get a limited number of states announcing their results and then they'll move on. I'd guess the New York delegation plays a prominent role.
Regardless, the roll call will take place between 5 and 7pm ET, so C-SPAN will be where I'll be able to catch it. I don't know what the cable news outlets have been doing (gavel-to-gavel coverage?). Bill Clinton is on at 9pm and Biden follows during the latter half of the 10pm hour.
[See the full schedule of the night here.]
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
This is certainly a step back from the multitude of polls that were released during the latter half of last week, but 11 polls from 8 states isn't too shabby. And six of those eight states are toss ups here at FHQ. There is the potential, then, for some movement on both our electoral college projection map and on the Electoral College Spectrum.
In most cases, these polls confirm what we already know about the state of the races in each. Texas remains comfortably in McCain's column, though perhaps not as comfortably as recent electoral history would lead us to believe. In Rhode Island the story is similar. This is just the fifth poll in the state and the only one since the end of June, It, nonetheless, is in line with where FHQ's weighted average was with the 21 point margin in Brown University's poll.
The real action is in the toss up states, though. Even though there were no shifts -- between candidates or categories -- there was some some rearranging as far as how states were positioned relative to each other. None of these toss up states through these polls really performed outside of what our expectations would be at this point. The possible exceptions are Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. The five point margin in the Suffolk poll of Colorado is about twice what we have it in our average. And that margin certainly differs from the tightening in the Centennial state that we have seen in recent polling. In Florida and Pennsylvania the story is slightly different. While the 7 point margins in the Strategic Vision and Quinnipiac polls, respectively, show wider margins than our average would otherwise indicate, they are not out of line with other polls in either state. Pennsylvania has been consistently within the mid-single digit range in Obama's favor since he claimed the Democratic nomination. And Florida had shown a similar margin in McCain's favor as recently as the end of June. The Sunshine state has since seemed more competitive, but this result is not as out of whack as the Suffolk poll in Colorado.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
The result is that the map retains its 298-240 electoral vote margin, giving Obama a slight lead overall. Most of that margin can be accounted for by the difference in the Strong and Lean tallies on each side. In Democratic strong and lean states, Obama has 222 electoral votes, while McCain, in his strong and lean states has 154 electoral votes. That 68 electoral vote deficit mirrors pretty closely, though not exactly, the 58 electoral vote margin that the map shows today. But that's 222 electoral votes and not 272 for Barack Obama in those strong and lean states. In other words, the toss up states still matter. If any one candidate claims the momentum down the stretch, those 14 states, in whole or in part, could move in the direction of the candidate with the momentum. And as the Electoral College Spectrum below shows, Obama still needs to maintain a lead in three or four of those Obama toss ups to clear the 270 electoral vote barrier. Due to that lead in strong and lean states, though, the Illinois senator still has more paths to victory than does his Republican counterpart from Arizona.
Obama maintains the ability to cede some of those toss up state and still win the election. McCain, at this point, does not have that luxury. Even if McCain is able to keep or sway the three most competitive states -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- in his direction, he still falls short of 270 electoral votes. The spectrum does look largely similar to the rankings on Sunday. Florida and Alaska flip-flopped -- Yeah, that means something different in this context, doesn't it? -- positions, but that is the only shift. I will note that Pennsylvania is continuing to move further into the blue. As of now, the Keystone state is close to surpassing Michigan as the final toss up state on Obama's side. Biden effect? Eh, I'll hold off on making that claim for the moment.
On the Watch List, there isn't much to talk about. Florida's trip off the list was short-lived as it has returned to a position closer to switching to a McCain lean state. But the Sunshine state is still within Obama's reach. Not as close as a state like Virginia though. I suspect Obama will continue to spend in Florida, but some of those resources may be shifted in Virginia's direction at some point. Let's recall that McCain has yet to do any spending in Florida. Obama, then, has made up some ground, but has yet to bring the Sunshine state into his column. The flip side of this is that there is likely a pretty large contingent of Clinton voters in the state that, if won over during this week's convention, could make a difference. Only one act of the unity effort is complete, though. Act two is tonight and act three follows tomorrow night from Invesco Field. Both may tell us something about how successful Obama is at pulling those Clinton folks into the Democratic fold.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
| New Polls (Aug. 24-27) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Suffolk | +5 | |
| Florida | Kitchens/Chamber of Commerce | +3 | |
| Florida | Quinnipiac | +4 | |
| Florida | Strategic Vision | +7 | |
| Michigan | EPIC/MRA | +2 | |
| North Carolina | Public Policy Polling | +3 | |
| Ohio | Columbus Dispatch | +1 | |
| Ohio | Quinnipiac | +1 | |
| Pennsylvania | Quinnipiac | +7 | |
| Rhode Island | Brown | +21 | |
| Texas | Rasmussen | +10/+9 | |
In most cases, these polls confirm what we already know about the state of the races in each. Texas remains comfortably in McCain's column, though perhaps not as comfortably as recent electoral history would lead us to believe. In Rhode Island the story is similar. This is just the fifth poll in the state and the only one since the end of June, It, nonetheless, is in line with where FHQ's weighted average was with the 21 point margin in Brown University's poll.
The real action is in the toss up states, though. Even though there were no shifts -- between candidates or categories -- there was some some rearranging as far as how states were positioned relative to each other. None of these toss up states through these polls really performed outside of what our expectations would be at this point. The possible exceptions are Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. The five point margin in the Suffolk poll of Colorado is about twice what we have it in our average. And that margin certainly differs from the tightening in the Centennial state that we have seen in recent polling. In Florida and Pennsylvania the story is slightly different. While the 7 point margins in the Strategic Vision and Quinnipiac polls, respectively, show wider margins than our average would otherwise indicate, they are not out of line with other polls in either state. Pennsylvania has been consistently within the mid-single digit range in Obama's favor since he claimed the Democratic nomination. And Florida had shown a similar margin in McCain's favor as recently as the end of June. The Sunshine state has since seemed more competitive, but this result is not as out of whack as the Suffolk poll in Colorado.
[Click Map to Enlarge]The result is that the map retains its 298-240 electoral vote margin, giving Obama a slight lead overall. Most of that margin can be accounted for by the difference in the Strong and Lean tallies on each side. In Democratic strong and lean states, Obama has 222 electoral votes, while McCain, in his strong and lean states has 154 electoral votes. That 68 electoral vote deficit mirrors pretty closely, though not exactly, the 58 electoral vote margin that the map shows today. But that's 222 electoral votes and not 272 for Barack Obama in those strong and lean states. In other words, the toss up states still matter. If any one candidate claims the momentum down the stretch, those 14 states, in whole or in part, could move in the direction of the candidate with the momentum. And as the Electoral College Spectrum below shows, Obama still needs to maintain a lead in three or four of those Obama toss ups to clear the 270 electoral vote barrier. Due to that lead in strong and lean states, though, the Illinois senator still has more paths to victory than does his Republican counterpart from Arizona.
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | WA-11 (165) | CO-9*** (269/278) | FL-27 (373/192) | 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) | AK-3 (346/195) | 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. | ||||
Obama maintains the ability to cede some of those toss up state and still win the election. McCain, at this point, does not have that luxury. Even if McCain is able to keep or sway the three most competitive states -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- in his direction, he still falls short of 270 electoral votes. The spectrum does look largely similar to the rankings on Sunday. Florida and Alaska flip-flopped -- Yeah, that means something different in this context, doesn't it? -- positions, but that is the only shift. I will note that Pennsylvania is continuing to move further into the blue. As of now, the Keystone state is close to surpassing Michigan as the final toss up state on Obama's side. Biden effect? Eh, I'll hold off on making that claim for the moment.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | 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. | |||
On the Watch List, there isn't much to talk about. Florida's trip off the list was short-lived as it has returned to a position closer to switching to a McCain lean state. But the Sunshine state is still within Obama's reach. Not as close as a state like Virginia though. I suspect Obama will continue to spend in Florida, but some of those resources may be shifted in Virginia's direction at some point. Let's recall that McCain has yet to do any spending in Florida. Obama, then, has made up some ground, but has yet to bring the Sunshine state into his column. The flip side of this is that there is likely a pretty large contingent of Clinton voters in the state that, if won over during this week's convention, could make a difference. Only one act of the unity effort is complete, though. Act two is tonight and act three follows tomorrow night from Invesco Field. Both may tell us something about how successful Obama is at pulling those Clinton folks into the Democratic fold.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Links (8/27/08)
Hey, political scientists like to have their egos stroked too. Below, Karl Rove weighs in on Hillary Clinton's convention speech and discusses convention bounces, citing Tom Holbrook along the way.
Hat tip to Melissa for the heads up.
UPDATE: And Kayla sends us a video from ABC showing some anecdotal evidence of speech effects from Clinton's address last night. Now a question: Were the delegates more easily swayed than swing voters/Hillary supporters not in the hall last night? On the one hand, they are loyal to Clinton, but as a result are they more likely to follow the New York senator's wishes than folks who, while they supported her, may not be as likely to go along with her on this one?
Recent Posts:
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
Hat tip to Melissa for the heads up.
UPDATE: And Kayla sends us a video from ABC showing some anecdotal evidence of speech effects from Clinton's address last night. Now a question: Were the delegates more easily swayed than swing voters/Hillary supporters not in the hall last night? On the one hand, they are loyal to Clinton, but as a result are they more likely to follow the New York senator's wishes than folks who, while they supported her, may not be as likely to go along with her on this one?
Recent Posts:
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)