You'll notice that I've not really spent all that much talking about national polls much less national tracking polls in our electoral college analyses. They are important, but only to a point. I obviously prefer the state level polls -- though the two are linked in some ways -- due to the way the US presidential election is structured. Having said that, Obama crossed over 50% in both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls today. I find that that to be significant for one main reason: typically September polls are better predictors of the ultimate outcome than those released immediately prior to the election.*
Now Democrats, I don't want to get your hopes up. [It has happened before (see 2000 and 2004).] However, if Obama is able to maintain this level of support through the next couple of weeks (And that is far from a sure thing, folks.), regardless of the fluctuations on McCain's side and thus the margins of the race, he theoretically should be looking pretty good for the general election. Again, this is just one facet of the robust polling regime we have at our disposal. If both the national polls (not the tracking polls) and the polls in certain states are also favorable to Obama over this period, then things will be looking up for the Illinois senator.
Starting tonight, though, the Republicans will start having a bigger say in the matter. Still breaking that 50% mark is worth noting.
*James Campbell has used Labor Day polls in his forecasting models in the past. Speaking of forecasting, following the American Political Science Association meeting in Boston this past weekend, most of those models are out. Here is a link to a synopsis of several of them.
Thanks to Paul Gurian via Del Dunn for the forecasting link.
Recent Posts:
And What About the Green Party?
It's Never as Easy as Taking Away Half the Delegates
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
And What About the Green Party?
This past week we've looked at how both the Libertarians -- behind Bob Barr's candidacy -- and Ralph Nader would fare in the upcoming November election given the information we have at this point in the race. The obvious goal is to see if, in a close race, either would pull enough of the vote away from McCain or Obama to affect the outcome of the race. The conclusion we've drawn is that in the most competitive states there are a few instances where either third party candidate could affect the race, but that across the full list of toss up states, it isn't likely to make all that much difference.
But are we getting the true Nader effect? Often we talk about the potential for a third party candidate to affect the fortunes of one or both of the major party candidates. What we don't discuss is how third party candidates can affect each other. Nader ran as the Green Party nominee in 2000 but as an independent in 2004. In 2004, however, there was something of a redistribution of 2000 Nader voters. Some returned to the Democratic Party having been spurned by the Nader and the perception that he cost Gore the presidency, others followed Nader and some stuck with the Greens and their nominee, Daivid Cobb. [Yes, I'm sure some stayed home as well, but we'll gloss over those folks.] The Nader effect can, then, be thought of as a Nader/Green effect to some extent. So what we really have here are two questions:
Now, I'd like to report that I ran the same sort of model I ran on the other third parties -- and I did -- but the lack of data really screwed up the resulting model. For starters, the relationship between the prediction and the 2004 Green Party vote share was negative; the more support in 2004, the less McKinney would get in the fall election. And that makes sense, right? But the lack of polling data for McKinney during this cycle is simply too sparse at this point. That may change, but at this point getting an accurate prediction just wasn't going to happen. [And yes, that same charge could be levied against the models run for the other third parties. As I argued last week though, the goal was to develop a rank ordering of where each is most likely to have an effect. But I digress.]
What we can do is address the first question posed above: predict a Nader/Green effect for November.
[Click to Enlarge]
If you glance back at the Nader scatterplot from the original post, you can see that the basic ordering of the toss up states is not fundamentally different when the Green data is added into the mix. All that we're really doing is raising the bar a bit. Instead of a series of predictions for Nader just under two points, you have a series of predictions for the Nader/Green vote that ranges from three and a quarter points to three and a half points. Those three states at the upper right of the plot are likely to be states where the Palin selection will play well -- especially in Alaska. That is certainly a point that is up for debate since Palin is "not a hit with undecideds" and is back on In-Trade, but the trading is over whether she'll be dumped as the VP choice. That aside, McCain still has the advantage in that trio of states. Is the Green/Nader presence hurting there? Well, Nader maybe, but McKinney isn't not on the ballot in two and is short over 6000+ signatures in North Dakota. So, perhaps it isn't a factor.
Recent Posts:
It's Never as Easy as Taking Away Half the Delegates
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
But are we getting the true Nader effect? Often we talk about the potential for a third party candidate to affect the fortunes of one or both of the major party candidates. What we don't discuss is how third party candidates can affect each other. Nader ran as the Green Party nominee in 2000 but as an independent in 2004. In 2004, however, there was something of a redistribution of 2000 Nader voters. Some returned to the Democratic Party having been spurned by the Nader and the perception that he cost Gore the presidency, others followed Nader and some stuck with the Greens and their nominee, Daivid Cobb. [Yes, I'm sure some stayed home as well, but we'll gloss over those folks.] The Nader effect can, then, be thought of as a Nader/Green effect to some extent. So what we really have here are two questions:
1) Does the separation/combination of the two add anything to our understanding of the effect they are predicted to have?Reader (...and political scientist/blogger), MSS, asked about the latter in the comments to the second Barr/Nader post from last week, and as I said in response, there just isn't enough information out there on McKinney yet to draw any firm conclusions. The handful of national polls that include her give her an average of about .67% (not exactly lighting the world on fire). And the only state polls that have included her are the four released last week by CNN in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, which give the former Georgia congresswoman between 0 and 3%. [It should also be noted that all of the McKinney polling comes from just two polling firms, CNN and Zogby Interactive. We don't, therefore, have the benefit of the view of this from several different angles.] There just isn't at this point enough evidence to state that her presence in the race is having any effect on Nader or anyone else. Part of McKinney's problem in November will be ballot access. It plagued the Green Party in 2004 without Nader as the standard bearer and that trend looks to be repeating itself in 2008. A quick glance at the vote results on Dave Leip's US Elections Atlas shows that the David Cobb was not on the ballot (...or simply written in) in 23 states in 2004. You can't have an effect if you aren't on the ballot. Ballot Access News (and click on "View State-by-State Chart" for more information) confirms as much for 2008 as well. McKinney will be on the ballot in 27 states in November as of September 1. She is in court or petitioning for access in 6 other states. Whether she's on the ballot in those six states or not, there is a sizable enough number of states where not being on the ballot will have an effect on how much influence she could have in the race.
2) Does Cynthia McKinney's presence in polls -- and later on the ballot -- augment the effect and/or detract from Nader's vote share?
Now, I'd like to report that I ran the same sort of model I ran on the other third parties -- and I did -- but the lack of data really screwed up the resulting model. For starters, the relationship between the prediction and the 2004 Green Party vote share was negative; the more support in 2004, the less McKinney would get in the fall election. And that makes sense, right? But the lack of polling data for McKinney during this cycle is simply too sparse at this point. That may change, but at this point getting an accurate prediction just wasn't going to happen. [And yes, that same charge could be levied against the models run for the other third parties. As I argued last week though, the goal was to develop a rank ordering of where each is most likely to have an effect. But I digress.]
What we can do is address the first question posed above: predict a Nader/Green effect for November.
[Click to Enlarge]If you glance back at the Nader scatterplot from the original post, you can see that the basic ordering of the toss up states is not fundamentally different when the Green data is added into the mix. All that we're really doing is raising the bar a bit. Instead of a series of predictions for Nader just under two points, you have a series of predictions for the Nader/Green vote that ranges from three and a quarter points to three and a half points. Those three states at the upper right of the plot are likely to be states where the Palin selection will play well -- especially in Alaska. That is certainly a point that is up for debate since Palin is "not a hit with undecideds" and is back on In-Trade, but the trading is over whether she'll be dumped as the VP choice. That aside, McCain still has the advantage in that trio of states. Is the Green/Nader presence hurting there? Well, Nader maybe, but McKinney isn't not on the ballot in two and is short over 6000+ signatures in North Dakota. So, perhaps it isn't a factor.
Recent Posts:
It's Never as Easy as Taking Away Half the Delegates
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
Monday, September 1, 2008
It's Never as Easy as Taking Away Half the Delegates
Nor is it easy to seat state delegations apparently. The message concerning each wasn't clear it seems.
Yesterday, I discussed the apparent difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on penalizing states violating the timing of delegate selection events. The Democrats stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates before returning half of them and then, just prior to the convention, restoring complete voting rights to both states. The Republicans, at least according to reports out of Wyoming had stuck with their "if you go early, you lose half your delegates" rule. But the statement in the article on seating seems to have been false and so too is at least one aspect of the delegate penalty.
Here's the deal:
1) The Boston Globe reporting on the New Hampshire delegation, and its relationship with McCain since 2000, referred to a delegation that was 37 members in size. Huh? That's large for a small state that was penalized and voted for John Kerry four years ago. Was this referring to the size of the delegation with family members and friends tagging along or did New Hampshire avert the sanction regime?
2) In hunt of an answer to that question, I came across a piece on the Florida situation, one that implied the state would have a full delegation at the Republican convention. What? Are there sanctions or not (or worse yet, why didn't Wyoming get the memo)?
3) The Detroit Free Press finally clarified the situation in its story about the Michigan delegation's trip to the convention. Apparently all of the sanctioned states have their full delegations in attendance (the pre-sanctioned sizes), but only half of those members have voting rights. That number includes both actual delegates and their alternates. And that explains the 37 for New Hampshire; 24 delegates, 13 alternates. But only 12 of those 24 can vote on the presidential and vice presidential nominations.
And the seating position point in the Wyoming story appears to be false, since New Hampshire, according to the Boston Globe, is up front with the Arizona delegation. Michigan didn't look to be at the back either when a member of its delegation spoke not long after the convention kicked off in St. Paul during C-SPAN's converage.
This isn't as large a story as the rumormongering and subsequent revelations about a certain VP nominee and her family, but the clarification was worth bringing to everyone's attention.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
The Barr/Nader Effect Revisited
Yesterday, I discussed the apparent difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on penalizing states violating the timing of delegate selection events. The Democrats stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates before returning half of them and then, just prior to the convention, restoring complete voting rights to both states. The Republicans, at least according to reports out of Wyoming had stuck with their "if you go early, you lose half your delegates" rule. But the statement in the article on seating seems to have been false and so too is at least one aspect of the delegate penalty.
Here's the deal:
1) The Boston Globe reporting on the New Hampshire delegation, and its relationship with McCain since 2000, referred to a delegation that was 37 members in size. Huh? That's large for a small state that was penalized and voted for John Kerry four years ago. Was this referring to the size of the delegation with family members and friends tagging along or did New Hampshire avert the sanction regime?
2) In hunt of an answer to that question, I came across a piece on the Florida situation, one that implied the state would have a full delegation at the Republican convention. What? Are there sanctions or not (or worse yet, why didn't Wyoming get the memo)?
3) The Detroit Free Press finally clarified the situation in its story about the Michigan delegation's trip to the convention. Apparently all of the sanctioned states have their full delegations in attendance (the pre-sanctioned sizes), but only half of those members have voting rights. That number includes both actual delegates and their alternates. And that explains the 37 for New Hampshire; 24 delegates, 13 alternates. But only 12 of those 24 can vote on the presidential and vice presidential nominations.
And the seating position point in the Wyoming story appears to be false, since New Hampshire, according to the Boston Globe, is up front with the Arizona delegation. Michigan didn't look to be at the back either when a member of its delegation spoke not long after the convention kicked off in St. Paul during C-SPAN's converage.
This isn't as large a story as the rumormongering and subsequent revelations about a certain VP nominee and her family, but the clarification was worth bringing to everyone's attention.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
The Barr/Nader Effect Revisited
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Electoral College Map (8/31/08)
During a slow week during the Democratic convention, there wasn't a whole lot of polling work being done out in the field. Rasmussen, which is the largest provider of polling data this cycle, took the week off, but CNN filled the void with four polls in swing states. Overall there were eight polls in eight states. And despite the relative lack of polls, there were some interesting shake ups in our various metrics. Perhaps they weren't as big as McCain tapping Sarah Palin as his running mate, but they were big nonetheless.
There is a lot of blue in the polls on the surface, but there are some interesting quirks in there as well. The CNN poll in Colorado handed McCain a one point edge in the Centennial state, a state that has been favoring Obama throughout, but that was counteracted by a similar, yet opposite, result in Florida, where Obama is up a point. Both are tightening as we enter the traditional kick off to the general election campaign (post-Labor Day). Other than those, there aren't any real surprises. Idaho is a little more strongly McCain in the Greg Smith poll there than it had been in the only other two polls conducted. Both New Mexico and Pennsylvania have favored Obama since he wrapped up the nomination (and before that for that matter), but both had drawn closer in some recent polling. The CNN polls in each then, are running ahead of where we have both states in our weighted averages.
Ohio is tied as is Nevada. Ohio had been drawing attention in these posts of late due to the relative volatility in the polls triggering a back and forth between the Buckeye state favoring Obama or McCain. It has settled into Obama territory, but the margin is still razor thin. The real news is that the tie in Nevada has brought the weight average to a tie in the Silver state. This happened with Ohio earlier in the summer, but that is the only incidence of that having occurred here. Nevada, too, is very close -- obviously -- but this shifts the partisan line in the Electoral College Spectrum below to Nevada instead of between Nevada and Virginia. But I'll get to that shortly.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
The map then has a change for the first time since the recent Ohio flip-flop. [Sorry Ohio, I've heard a bit too much John Kerry this week -- at the convention and this morning on This Week on ABC. Flip-flop is fresh in my mind.] The underlying dynamic remains the same though. Obama still has that cushion of strong states, but has lost five electoral votes due to Nevada shifting into the gray area it is currently occupying on the map.
Nevada, Ohio and Virginia remain the states to keep an eye on. Each is tight now, yet together they don't provide McCain with enough electoral votes to surpass 270. Nevada didn't move, but several other states -- states which had polls this week -- did move on the Spectrum. Idaho became even more intensely red while Florida moved in the opposite direction, moving closer to the partisan line -- the point at which states begin favoring the other candidate. On the blue end, New Mexico became bluer, jumping Wisconsin on the weight of that CNN poll while the single digit PPIC California poll pushed the Golden state past New York and closer to the partisan line. California and Idaho aren't going anywhere, but the fact that Florida and New Mexico are moving in Obama's direction is worth noting.
Both move off the Watch List to end August, which brings the list under ten states for the first time since we added it. While this isn't definitive, it is on some level more evidence that the race is settling down and that the true battlegrounds are shaping up. Convention season may do something to shake that up, but we'll settle in again after that as we move further into September and closer to that first debate at the end of the month.
Recent Posts:
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
The Barr/Nader Effect Revisited
The Links (8/30/08): Sarah Palin/GOP Convention Edition
| New Polls (Aug. 27-31) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | PPIC | +9 | |
| Colorado | CNN | +1 | |
| Florida | Mason-Dixon | +1 | |
| Idaho | Greg Smith | +23 | |
| Nevada | CNN | 0 | |
| New Mexico | CNN | +14 | |
| Ohio | University of Akron | 0 | |
| Pennsylvania | CNN | +9 | |
There is a lot of blue in the polls on the surface, but there are some interesting quirks in there as well. The CNN poll in Colorado handed McCain a one point edge in the Centennial state, a state that has been favoring Obama throughout, but that was counteracted by a similar, yet opposite, result in Florida, where Obama is up a point. Both are tightening as we enter the traditional kick off to the general election campaign (post-Labor Day). Other than those, there aren't any real surprises. Idaho is a little more strongly McCain in the Greg Smith poll there than it had been in the only other two polls conducted. Both New Mexico and Pennsylvania have favored Obama since he wrapped up the nomination (and before that for that matter), but both had drawn closer in some recent polling. The CNN polls in each then, are running ahead of where we have both states in our weighted averages.
| Changes (Aug. 27-31) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Toss Up Obama | Tie | |
Ohio is tied as is Nevada. Ohio had been drawing attention in these posts of late due to the relative volatility in the polls triggering a back and forth between the Buckeye state favoring Obama or McCain. It has settled into Obama territory, but the margin is still razor thin. The real news is that the tie in Nevada has brought the weight average to a tie in the Silver state. This happened with Ohio earlier in the summer, but that is the only incidence of that having occurred here. Nevada, too, is very close -- obviously -- but this shifts the partisan line in the Electoral College Spectrum below to Nevada instead of between Nevada and Virginia. But I'll get to that shortly.
[Click Map to Enlarge]The map then has a change for the first time since the recent Ohio flip-flop. [Sorry Ohio, I've heard a bit too much John Kerry this week -- at the convention and this morning on This Week on ABC. Flip-flop is fresh in my mind.] The underlying dynamic remains the same though. Obama still has that cushion of strong states, but has lost five electoral votes due to Nevada shifting into the gray area it is currently occupying on the map.
| 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) | NE-5 (58) |
| RI-4 (14) | DE-3 (178) | OH-20 (293/265) | SC-8 (154) | AR-6 (53) |
| IL-21 (35) | OR-7 (185) | NV-5 (298/245) | SD-3 (146) | TN-11 (47) |
| CT-7 (42) | NJ-15 (200) | VA-13 (311/240) | TX-34 (143) | ID-4 (36) |
| ME-4 (46) | IA-7 (207) | ND-3 (314/227) | GA-15 (109) | KY-8 (32) |
| MD-10 (56) | NM-5 (212) | MT-3 (317/224) | MS-6 (94) | AL-9 (24) |
| NY-31 (87) | WI-10 (222) | NC-15 (332/221) | WV-5 (88) | OK-7 (15) |
| CA-55 (142) | MI-17 (239/316) | FL-27 (359/206) | AZ-10 (83) | WY-3 (8) |
| MA-12 (154) | PA-21 (260/299) | IN-11 (370/179) | 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. | ||||
Nevada, Ohio and Virginia remain the states to keep an eye on. Each is tight now, yet together they don't provide McCain with enough electoral votes to surpass 270. Nevada didn't move, but several other states -- states which had polls this week -- did move on the Spectrum. Idaho became even more intensely red while Florida moved in the opposite direction, moving closer to the partisan line -- the point at which states begin favoring the other candidate. On the blue end, New Mexico became bluer, jumping Wisconsin on the weight of that CNN poll while the single digit PPIC California poll pushed the Golden state past New York and closer to the partisan line. California and Idaho aren't going anywhere, but the fact that Florida and New Mexico are moving in Obama's direction is worth noting.
| 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 Tie | to Toss Up McCain/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. | |||
Both move off the Watch List to end August, which brings the list under ten states for the first time since we added it. While this isn't definitive, it is on some level more evidence that the race is settling down and that the true battlegrounds are shaping up. Convention season may do something to shake that up, but we'll settle in again after that as we move further into September and closer to that first debate at the end of the month.
Recent Posts:
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
The Barr/Nader Effect Revisited
The Links (8/30/08): Sarah Palin/GOP Convention Edition
From Wyoming: An Answer to the "Will the GOP Sanctions Have Teeth" Question
This week, as convention season has kicked off, we've cast an eye on the various sanction regimes that could be employed to deal with the frontloading of presidential primaries and caucuses in the future.
Along the way I've done my fair share of mocking the current hollow sanctions. One question about 2008 remained though: Would the McCain campaign and the RNC let the sanctions slide for Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida? All five had their delegations cut by half for holding nominating contests prior to February 5.
[What about Iowa and Nevada? They went early too. They did, but both held caucuses, the first steps of which were not determinative. No delegates were directly chosen in those January precinct meetings. In Wyoming on the other hand, nearly half the state's delegation was chosen in the January 5 meetings.]
Well, the word out of Wyoming is that those sanctions are alive and well. Furthermore, those from the Cowboy state will be sitting in the back of the hall in St. Paul (That rhymes a bit too much. I feel like Jesse Jackson describing what he felt was the "inclusion illusion" at the 2000 GOP convention now.) with the other states in violation. The obvious question now is, does it really matter? Would any of these five states have changed what they did?
I doubt it.
But sticking to their guns isn't something the GOP will be able to highlight with any great effectiveness this week. They can't come out and say, for example, "The Democrats flip-flopped on this, but we didn't. We're the party of reform." Well, I suppose they could, but they'd risk turning off some people in hotly contested states like Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire. They would not be able to fall back on the excuse Florida Democrats used in defense of their position to remove the stripping of all of Florida's delegates by the DNC. In other words, they wouldn't be able to blame it on the actions of the other party. Florida's state government (legislature and governor) is controlled by the Republicans.
In Michigan, Republicans also had their hand in the state's move, though not to the extent that Florida Republicans did. Only New Hampshire's move was solely due to the decisions of Democrats. But that's due to the quirk of New Hampshire election law that leaves the decision up to the secretary of state, Bill Gardner -- a Democrat. He was given the ability by the Granite state legislature in the 1970s -- Yes, he's been the secretary of state there the whole time -- so that the state could quickly and efficiently to deal with challenges to their first in the nation status.
This will not see the light of day this coming week in the press, but given our discussions here this week, it is certainly worth noting.
NOTE: I'll be back later in the day with a later-than-usual Sunday update of the electoral college projections.
Recent Posts:
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Barr/Nader Effect Revisited
Earlier this week, we looked at a prediction of how well both Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would do in November based on the Libertarian/Nader vote in 2004 and the state of polling on them both on the state and national levels thus far in 2008. A simple model, but one we can enhance. FHQ commenter and Election-Projection proprietor, Allen, spoke about the 2000 election in response to that post (...posing an altogether different question, but certainly one to look at.). And that got me thinking: What would adding in the data from 2000 do to the regression? It would do a couple of things. First, it provides a more consistent measure -- across two elections -- of the libertarian vote. This is advantageous because it eliminates the possibility that the events unique to 2004 are driving the changes we see. However, the drawback to adding in that data in is that it likely inflates to some extent the vote share Nader would be predicted to receive in November. As I said earlier in the week, though, the goal right now -- especially with the limited amount of polling we have for both third party candidates during this cycle -- is to get an idea about the relative effect each will have across the 14 states that FHQ has as toss ups at the moment in our electoral college projections.
What happens is that we don't see any monumental shake up, but there are some subtle shifts.
[Click to Enlarge]
In looking back at the Libertarian scatterplot from the previous post, there's not much difference in the predicted vote share that Bob Barr would get in November here. [Though there is a bit more dispersion here the focus should be on how high or low the point is.] There are three main groupings of states: Alaska and Indiana in the upper right, a group nine states in the middle, and Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire at the bottom left. To reiterate a point from earlier, the three closest states on the most recent Electoral College Spectrum -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- are close enough that two to three points won by Barr could make a difference. However, if those states are that close, what we see here is likely to have been an exaggeration come November. Swing states across the 2000 and 2004 data typically yielded smaller vote shares to third parties than the less competitive states. Voters are willing to vote in protest if the candidate from their party has already seemingly won or lost the state.
One more thing we can add to this is how Ron Paul did this year in the Republican primaries. These are voters -- his supporters -- who are organized and perhaps inclined to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Ultimately, what this is measuring is the intensity of Paul support across states. A variable controlling for caucus states has been included to deal with contests where Paul did better on the whole than in primary states.
[Click to Enlarge]
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Pennsylvania all see modest jumps while the remaining states hold relatively steady when compared with the plot above. That's three caucus states (Montana held a caucus on the Republican side) and one primary state; two McCain toss ups and two Obama toss ups. Again, the same caveats as above apply in the case of a competitive state -- which all of these are. However, Nevada is in a bit of a gray area here. Yes, it did have a caucus, but Nevada was a state where the Paul forces were very well organized. They completely disrupted the state convention in the Silver state and left Nevada without a delegation to next week's convention until just hours ago -- when the state Republican Party named the delegation. In a state that is as close as Nevada, this matters. Whether Barr's numbers are inflated in the state is beside the point. If those Paul supporters turn out and if -- this is a big if -- the opt for Barr, then McCain may have issues turning the tide there.
That's the story on the Libertarian front, but what about the impact Nader is predicted to have later in the fall? As I said at the outset in explaining the inclusion of the 2000 data, Nader would be expected to gain as a result of the inclusion of an election where he outperformed the 2004 numbers we used before.
[Click to Enlarge]
This distribution is also largely similar to the original plot with just the 2004 vote data. Ohio is the only state that really makes a move. Even with that 2000 data, Nader's predicted vote share for the upcoming election is still modest, only just more than 2 points at the most.
In the end though, the message is largely the same as what we saw earlier in the week among these toss up states with regard to the Barr/Nader effect. There is the potential for influence, but the main question is whether close states follow form, not giving third party candidates as large a share of the vote as in other states.
Somewhat tangentially, there's another issue I'd like to raise in this context. Earlier this week when FiveThirtyEight ran the latest CNN state polls, they used the version with the two party vote question as opposed to the four way race data. That has since been changed, but it started something of a discussion over there, and that is a discussion that is relevant here as well. It has implications for our electoral college projections. As I've discussed in this post and in others on the subject, it is likely that the third party percentages in polls are inflated in relation to where vote choices will ultimately be. That being said, is it beneficial to proceed with the four way polls or to go for the two way race version? In one version the third party aspect is supressed and that has an impact on the accuracy of that poll. But the accuracy of the four way polls are questionable as well since those numbers may be skewed here during the late summer weeks. What are people's thoughts on this? I have, to this point, included that four way race data when available.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/30/08): Sarah Palin/GOP Convention Edition
More Thoughts on Penalties to Prevent Frontloading
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
What happens is that we don't see any monumental shake up, but there are some subtle shifts.
[Click to Enlarge]In looking back at the Libertarian scatterplot from the previous post, there's not much difference in the predicted vote share that Bob Barr would get in November here. [Though there is a bit more dispersion here the focus should be on how high or low the point is.] There are three main groupings of states: Alaska and Indiana in the upper right, a group nine states in the middle, and Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire at the bottom left. To reiterate a point from earlier, the three closest states on the most recent Electoral College Spectrum -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- are close enough that two to three points won by Barr could make a difference. However, if those states are that close, what we see here is likely to have been an exaggeration come November. Swing states across the 2000 and 2004 data typically yielded smaller vote shares to third parties than the less competitive states. Voters are willing to vote in protest if the candidate from their party has already seemingly won or lost the state.
One more thing we can add to this is how Ron Paul did this year in the Republican primaries. These are voters -- his supporters -- who are organized and perhaps inclined to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Ultimately, what this is measuring is the intensity of Paul support across states. A variable controlling for caucus states has been included to deal with contests where Paul did better on the whole than in primary states.
[Click to Enlarge]Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Pennsylvania all see modest jumps while the remaining states hold relatively steady when compared with the plot above. That's three caucus states (Montana held a caucus on the Republican side) and one primary state; two McCain toss ups and two Obama toss ups. Again, the same caveats as above apply in the case of a competitive state -- which all of these are. However, Nevada is in a bit of a gray area here. Yes, it did have a caucus, but Nevada was a state where the Paul forces were very well organized. They completely disrupted the state convention in the Silver state and left Nevada without a delegation to next week's convention until just hours ago -- when the state Republican Party named the delegation. In a state that is as close as Nevada, this matters. Whether Barr's numbers are inflated in the state is beside the point. If those Paul supporters turn out and if -- this is a big if -- the opt for Barr, then McCain may have issues turning the tide there.
That's the story on the Libertarian front, but what about the impact Nader is predicted to have later in the fall? As I said at the outset in explaining the inclusion of the 2000 data, Nader would be expected to gain as a result of the inclusion of an election where he outperformed the 2004 numbers we used before.
[Click to Enlarge]This distribution is also largely similar to the original plot with just the 2004 vote data. Ohio is the only state that really makes a move. Even with that 2000 data, Nader's predicted vote share for the upcoming election is still modest, only just more than 2 points at the most.
In the end though, the message is largely the same as what we saw earlier in the week among these toss up states with regard to the Barr/Nader effect. There is the potential for influence, but the main question is whether close states follow form, not giving third party candidates as large a share of the vote as in other states.
Somewhat tangentially, there's another issue I'd like to raise in this context. Earlier this week when FiveThirtyEight ran the latest CNN state polls, they used the version with the two party vote question as opposed to the four way race data. That has since been changed, but it started something of a discussion over there, and that is a discussion that is relevant here as well. It has implications for our electoral college projections. As I've discussed in this post and in others on the subject, it is likely that the third party percentages in polls are inflated in relation to where vote choices will ultimately be. That being said, is it beneficial to proceed with the four way polls or to go for the two way race version? In one version the third party aspect is supressed and that has an impact on the accuracy of that poll. But the accuracy of the four way polls are questionable as well since those numbers may be skewed here during the late summer weeks. What are people's thoughts on this? I have, to this point, included that four way race data when available.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/30/08): Sarah Palin/GOP Convention Edition
More Thoughts on Penalties to Prevent Frontloading
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
The Links (8/30/08): Sarah Palin/GOP Convention Edition
Who is Sarah Palin? The race is on to find out.
Chris Cillizza at The Fix weighs in as do the folks over at The Caucus.
The Caucus also describes the battle to define the Alaska governor...by both parties.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight provides a glimpse into the early polling being done on McCain's VP selection and the breakdown among men and women is surprising.
Here's the speech from her first appearance with McCain following the announcement.
----
With the Republican convention set to kick off on Monday -- weather permitting -- the talk has shifted from the bounce the Democrats got or may have gotten to projections of how well the GOP will do in the polls after their own gathering.
Recent Posts:
More Thoughts on Penalties to Prevent Frontloading
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course.
Chris Cillizza at The Fix weighs in as do the folks over at The Caucus.
The Caucus also describes the battle to define the Alaska governor...by both parties.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight provides a glimpse into the early polling being done on McCain's VP selection and the breakdown among men and women is surprising.
Here's the speech from her first appearance with McCain following the announcement.
----
With the Republican convention set to kick off on Monday -- weather permitting -- the talk has shifted from the bounce the Democrats got or may have gotten to projections of how well the GOP will do in the polls after their own gathering.
Recent Posts:
More Thoughts on Penalties to Prevent Frontloading
If Taking Away Delegates Won't Stop Frontloading, What Will?
Who's McCain Going to Pick? Why, Sarah Palin, of course.
More Thoughts on Penalties to Prevent Frontloading
**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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)