2008 vs. 2004: Glass is Half Empty/Glass is Half Full

If you're like I've been today, you've been clicking refresh every so often over at Pollster to see if any new state-level polls have emerged in this post-convention period. [There were several late-day releases, but I'll get to that in a bit when I post the first of the daily electoral college updates. I think we'll have enough polling volume that we'll be able to pull it off. At the end of the election, we'll have a much richer picture of what was happening over these last fifty-seven days.] It is one thing to answer the "convention bounce" question with national polls, but I've always been inclined to discover how this is working out on the state level. Is that national bounce that we've witnessed for McCain uniformly distributed across all states, or is it the case that McCain/Palin just fired up partisans in already-red states with their convention last week? I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle, but I'd like to take an opportunity to cast an eye to the past for a guide in all this. As you'll recall, about a month ago, I examined how, using FHQ methodology, 2004 would have looked at the same, mid-August point of the campaign. The middle of August in 2004 was roughly two weeks after the conclusion of the Democratic convention, so we would expect to have seen Kerry in a somewhat advantageous position in the electoral college projection relative to Bush. And that's exactly what we saw. Kerry had essentially the same projected lead in the electoral college that Obama held in the same mid-August period.

However, given that mid-August was in the time after Kerry's convention, we'd expect to see a bounce for him as well, right? Well, since Kerry got basically no bounce (see the graph and point D04) out of his convention that isn't necessarily the case. The Massachusetts senator didn't get anything out of the convention in the national polls, but did he in the state polls? The thing that marked 2004 was the tight equilibrium that we saw across much of the campaign cycle. The Democratic convention didn't do anything to shake up the steady state of the race. In fact, as you'll see below, that state was held through and even past the Republican convention in 2004. September 8, 2004 was roughly a week after the conclusion of the GOP's convention and at that point there had not been any change to the distribution in the electoral college. Kerry, then, didn't get a bounce out of his convention, nor does it appear that he was hurt in any way by the modest bounce Bush received from his convention -- at least not in the week following the conclusion of the Republican convention.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

After the conventions then, Kerry still held just enough of an advantage in enough states to provide him with a 44 electoral vote edge over the incumbent president. But as I'm sure President Kerry will attest, that lead did not last. While the margin stayed the same the fundamentals of the race were changing. The states that shifted over the last 100 days of the race had begun, in most cases, their moves toward President Bush. New Mexico shifted from a Kerry lean to a toss up favoring Kerry. And though Florida continued to ever so slightly favor Kerry, the Sunshine state was basically a tie and was slowing inching toward the Republican nominee. The only other state that shifted sides was Iowa and the Hawkeye state actually moved slightly toward Kerry in the mid-August to early September period in 2004. Still, the lead was under three points and Bush was obviously able to swing just enough votes to pull out a victory in the state in November.

Colorado was also an interesting case over this period. The Centennial state, like Iowa, moved toward Kerry over this period, in the process shifting from an Bush lean to a toss up state. Why is that interesting? Well, obviously the trend is counter to what we might expect of a Bush state in the post-convention period, but Colorado also had a special measure on the ballot that fall. The measure, if supported by voters, would have distributed the state's electoral votes by congressional district in the manner that Maine and Nebraska do and would have taken effect for the 2004 electoral college session in Washington in December following the election. The measure was voted down, but in the context of this tightening, is an interesting footnote to the election.

So how does this enhance our understanding of what is happening in the current race for the White House. For that let's start by comparing the map above to the map from yesterday's electoral college projection update.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

There is quite a bit of overlap between the toss up states in each cycle. But 2008 has brought several atypical states into the mix. Indiana, Montana, North Carolina and North Dakota are all much closer than they were just four years ago. All still favor the Republican candidate, but are closer. States like Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon and Wisconsin that were toss ups four years ago are all leaning more heavily toward the Democrat in 2008. That has helped to provide Obama with a cushion that neither Kerry nor Gore enjoyed in either of the last two elections. Obama is ahead and doesn't need Florida to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. And though the Illinois senator is slightly ahead in Ohio as of now, he could cede the Buckeye state to McCain and still eke out an eight electoral vote victory assuming McCain also inches ahead in currently tied Nevada. In fairness, we don't have even a partial picture of how the conventions are playing on the state level. [Well, we do now, but I'll get to that in a little while.]

The Electoral College Spectrum*
MA-12 (15)**	HI-4 (168)	WI-10 (264/284)	NC-15 (167)	KS-6 (45)
RI-4 (19)	WA-11 (179)	FL-27*** (291/274)	AZ-10 (152)	AK-3 (39)
NY-31 (50)	ME-4 (183)	NV-5 (296/247)	SC-8 (142)	OK-7 (36)
CT-7 (57)	MN-10 (193/355)	OH-20 (316/242)	GA-15 (134)	MT-3 (29)
VT-3 (60)	NM-5 (198/345)	MO-11 (327/222)	SD-3 (119)	ND-3 (26)
IL-21 (81)	OR-7 (205/340)	AR-6 (333/211)	LA-9 (116)	NE-5 (23)
MD-10 (91)	MI-17 (222/333)	WV-5 (338/205)	KY-8 (107)	ID-4 (18)
CA-55 (146)	NH-4 (226/316)	CO-9 (347/200)	IN-11 (99)	MS-6 (14)
NJ-15 (161)	IA-7 (233/312)	VA-13 (360/191)	AL-9 (88)	WY-3 (8)
DE-3 (164)	PA-21 (254/305)	TN-11 (178)	TX-34 (79)	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, Bush won all the states up to and including New Hampshire (all Kerry's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 323 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Kerry's number is on the left and Bush's is on the right in italics. ***Florida is the state where Kerry crosses (or Bush would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That state is referred to as the victory line.

Both the Electoral College Spectrum and the Watch List of this period in 2004 underscore the precarious position in which Senator Kerry was at the time. His hold on Florida was the only thing keeping him above 270 and then it was only by a fraction. Plus the number of light blue toss up states had snaked all the way into the the second column of Kerry states. This was compounded by the fact that all the states that were near moving -- those on the Watch List below -- were predominantly Kerry states. And while many were on the line between toss up and lean, most had already moved into the toss up category and would end up staying there or in the case of Iowa and New Mexico, would move into Bush's column.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
California	from Strong Kerry	to Kerry lean
Florida	from Toss Up Kerry	to Toss Up Bush
Maine	from Kerry lean	to Toss Up Kerry
Maryland	from Strong Kerry	to Kerry lean
Michigan	from Toss Up Kerry	to Kerry lean
Minnesota	from Toss Up Kerry	to Kerry lean
Nevada	from Toss Up Bush	to Toss Up Kerry
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Kerry	to Kerry lean
New Mexico	from Toss Up Kerry	to Kerry lean
Oregon	from Toss Up Kerry	to Kerry lean
Tennessee	from Bush lean	to Toss Up Bush
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

So, glass is half empty, Obama is in the same position Kerry was in (in terms of an aggregation of electoral votes). But, glass is half full, Obama has built-in advantages that neither Kerry nor Gore before him held in their respective runs for the White House. Where the 2008 race stands now, though, depends on how these states begin breaking with the information the conventions of the last two weeks have added to the discussion.

We'll get to those shortly.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/7/08)

On to the Debates! -- And a Note on Compression

Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?

The Electoral College Map (9/7/08)

We have had just enough of a trickle of polls released over the last two weeks to have kept FHQ from putting up the same ol' map with no means of change. [And during a change election, too!] I would expect a steady stream to start coming out on Monday -- despite the fact that the recent trend has been away from weekend polling and especially releases -- and by the middle of the week we'll begin seeing a vastly larger number of polls. The conventions are over and state polling, like all the other polling, will kick into overdrive as this presidential race enters the home stretch.

New Polls (Sept. 3-7)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Alaska	Moore	+19
Indiana	Howey-Gauge	+2
North Carolina	Democracy Corps	+3

The trickle of polls during the latter half of the week included releases from a trio of McCain states. And that adds a nice symmetry to the week's polls. The first half of the week saw three polls from states favoring Obama. We have to be careful about how we treat the trends we see in each due to the timing of the polls. In other words, Indiana, for example, is close -- closer than one might think -- but it was done in the two days after the Democratic convention. Yes, that is during the time when Sarah Palin's selection was rolled out, but still, the caveat should be added. In the case of the North Carolina poll, it was conducted over the course of a week, the end of which overlapped with the first two days of the Democratic convention. There may, then, be some respondents in the poll who heard Hillary Clinton's speech, but that certainly would have been a late hour for polling firms to have been making their calls. Regardless, this is around where the Old North state has been for much of the summer -- right around the 3 or 4 point range.

Changes (Sept. 3-7)
State	Before	After
Alaska	Toss Up McCain	McCain lean

And that leaves us with Alaska, the home of the GOP vice presidential selection. The Last Frontier has been much closer in the polls than history would otherwise tell us. With the selection of Governor Sarah Palin, though, that closeness -- real or just simply in the polls -- seems to be disappearing quickly. Granted, this is just one poll, but this trend will likely continue. What else could come out about Palin to shift things back toward Obama, and even if it did, it seems that most people have made up their minds about her. On average, only 17% of respondents in recent favorablility polls which have added in the Alaska governor failed to view her either favorably or not. That is the lowest of any vice presidential nominee over the last three cycles. Palin also has, again on average, the highest favorable and unfavorable ratings among that group of VP selections. Even with all the bombshells thus far, perceptions appear to formed.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

So Alaska moves into the McCain lean area and will likely continue to move even further to the right of the Electoral College Spectrum, becoming even more intensely red. This may change some in the coming weeks, but, as of now, the underlying distribution of electoral votes is the same. There is an equal distribution of electoral votes between the McCain and Obama toss up and lean categories, but the real difference is between the strong categories, where Obama still holds a 70 electoral vote advantage. That is built on California and New York being firmly on Obama's side. But that is a large part of Obama's -- and any Democrat's -- electoral math. The truth remains that Obama is ahead but not irreversibly so.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	WA-11 (165)	CO-9*** (269/278)	MO-11 (381/168)	KS-6 (64)
VT-3 (10)	MN-10 (175)	NH-4*** (273/269)	SC-8 (157)	NE-5 (58)
RI-4 (14)	DE-3 (178)	OH-20 (293/265)	AK-3 (149)	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)	IN-11 (328/221)	WV-5 (88)	OK-7 (15)
CA-55 (142)	MI-17 (239/316)	NC-15 (343/210)	AZ-10 (83)	WY-3 (8)
MA-12 (154)	PA-21 (260/299)	FL-27 (370/195)	LA-9 (73)	UT-5 (5)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The line between Colorado and New Hampshire is the where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

We can talk about this cushion that Obama has based on the comparison between his and McCain's strong category electoral votes, but this election is still based on what is going to happen in those toss up states and to a large extent independent voters in them. The top five states in the Spectrum's middle column above are still the states where much of the action will take place. It is no coincidence then that Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin have been in Virginia and Ohio and Colorado. But the race certainly stretches beyond those boundaries. Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are also targets. All four are toss up states as well with the exception of Wisconsin, which is, as you can see both above and below in the Watch List, on the line between being a lean or toss up state favoring Obama.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
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.

Once again, the Watch List shrinks by one this week. With Alaska moving off, and more firmly into the McCain side, the list is down to just eight states. And only three of those states are on the verge of switching partisan sides and just one additional state -- Wisconsin -- is near moving toward being more competitive. The remaining four are either in the high single digits or low double digits. This is one indication that the list of competitive states for these final two months of the campaign are solidifying. What was talked about early on as a map-changing election, then, has narrowed, as can be expected to some extent approaching election day, to the regular group of swing states with a few exceptions (Colorado, Indiana and Virginia to name a few). We will have to see in the coming weeks whether either campaign expands or contracts its operations, as was the case with Georgia recently. That will provide an even clearer indication of where the fight will take place moving forward.


Recent Posts:
On to the Debates! -- And a Note on Compression

Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?

Why Attack the Community Organizer?

On to the Debates! -- And a Note on Compression

Let's not put the cart before the horse here, but this next two months is going to fly by. [And I thought after Labor Day, it was going to take forever to get to UGA's fall break the weekend before the election.] Think about it. Next week will be silly season in the polls as they readjust to the post-convention state of play. And then you have just two weeks until the first debate on September 26. A week ago that seemed far off, but all of a sudden, it's just three weeks away.

This really has been an unusual presidential election cycle from a timing standpoint. Primary season kicked off just three days into the new year and all the talk then was about how 2008 would be the longest general election campaign in history. It just didn't work out that way with the Democratic contest stretching into June. But now that we have been into general election mode since June, things don't look like they did in January. People are just now starting to really tune into the race and now it's not about how long the general election campaign will be, but how compressed it will be. From Tuesday at the Democratic convention to November 4 is just ten weeks.

How is that 10 weeks divided?
Democratic convention = 1 week
Republican convention/VP announcement = 1 week
Debates = 2.5 weeks (September 26-October 15)

That leaves just 5.5 weeks of actual campaigning. Now, I understand that the debates don't cause the campaign to shut down completely, but preparation time will factor in and the media's focus will shift just as quickly. [Hey, isn't this post titled, "On to the Debates!"? Who is shifting the focus here?] There are these next three weeks, the debates and then that leaves just under three weeks until election day. The span is not that different from four years ago, but with the VP announcements and conventions happening so close together it has only fed the perception of compression.*

So what will we be hearing these next three weeks? I'd imagine refined versions of what we have heard over the last two weeks. The Democrats will attempt to keep things focused on the economy and the GOP will make the case for their version of change with reminders of the importance of having the right person in charge in regard to the wars in Iraq and against terrorism. These next three weeks will be crucial to both campaigns as they hone their campaign themes heading into the conventions.

A few other things:
What was the general impression of McCain's speech last night? Sure the consensus seems to have formed around the idea that it was solid if unspectacular. Anyone differ with that assessment?

Did anyone catch Obama with Bill O'Reilly last night? I'm without FOX News Channel and haven't read too much about it today.

Also -- and this I'm sure is a shocker if not a teaser -- the Ivan Moore poll out of Alaska has shifted the Last Frontier into McCain lean territory. I think we'll continue to see it inch closer and closer to McCain/Palin as we approach election day. I'll have more Sunday when the updated Electoral College Map is up.


*Yes, this is very similar to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and Elaine turn five more days in Florida with Jerry's parents into half a day once sleeping, trips to the airport, etc. are taken into account. Perhaps not as extreme, but similar.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?

Why Attack the Community Organizer?

The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)

Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?

In the on again, off again world of politics nothing is ever dead. If you wait long enough, something may actually happen you previously thought impossible. Or to steal a line from last night's speeches, "If you don't give up you can't be defeated." [FHQ's mind is failing right now to accurately attribute that quote. I've seen a speech or two these last two weeks. If I'm lucky, one of our ever-loyal readers will come to my assistance. If not, I'll be called Joe Biden and my political career will be over. Such is life. Back to frontloading.] That's true in this case as well. I spent last week and the weekend railing against the Republican Party for once again failing to do anything regarding presidential primary reform (See here, here, here and here). Ah, but the proponents of reform within the party were not yet ready to let the cause die before 2012. While they did pass a plan to basically maintain the status quo for 2012 (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina go first and everyone else can go no earlier than the first Tuesday in March.), embedded within the new rules describing the formation of a commission similar to the one the Democrats pushed through at their convention last week.

This is actually fairly monumental. The fact that the GOP is allowing for the rules governing the selection of delegates and thus presidential nomination to be altered outside of the convention setting is a big step toward dealing with the frontloading issue. Frontloading is a problem that requires some flexibility from a rule-making body tasked with dealing with it. That the GOP could only confront frontloading and the primary process at their convention, deprived them of the ability to adapt if need be to the changes on the ground (like in Michigan and Florida in 2008). They now have that flexibility and can wait and see how large a contingent of states attempts to move and/or violate the rules for 2012. That's a low threshold and doesn't really confront reform, but I think the GOP will be resistent to anything but the status quo unless something like Florida or Michigan repeats itself in the lead up to 2012. As I've said, with only one party likely active during primary season in four years, the number of states seeking to move their primaries and caucuses to advantageous dates is likely to go down. If the number of states attempting to move (or balking at the idea of having to move back to March after jumping to February in 2008) is small and/or within the rules, the Republicans are likely to ride it out and wait for 2016 if they have to.

Having said that, if McCain loses in November, he won't have the sway over the rules-making powers within the party as he did ahead of this current convention. Remember, Ohio plan supporter and Ohio GOP chair, Bob Bennett was pointing the finger at McCain for the plan's failure to pass the party's rules committee. With that intervention removed, they may actually be able to pull off something meaningful (...if they are so inclined). But that is a huge hurdle removed from the process.

I think that both parties have to work together to make that meaningful though. If both parties can go to the states with a unified plan, it is much stronger than if they do it separately. Mixed messages regarding reforms gives states the excuse to fall back on the status quo, one where they really hold all the cards (hold the relative freedom to decide when they hold their contests).

It is interesting that this should come to light (at least my light) today. The Caucus just this morning had a post up examining the Mitt Romney in 2012 question. Now, let's do a quick exercise here. Let's assume that McCain fails to top Obama in November. [I know. Sorry GOPers. I'm thinking of the future here, though.] Let's further assume that both Romney and Huckabee run again. Yes, this ignores the possibility of Sarah Palin throwing her hat in the ring, but let's focus on the two known quantities -- in terms of presidential primaries -- for the time being. We can add Palin into the mix if you like in the comments section. Anway, which of the two does better under which system?

First, the status quo system: All other things equal, we would expect Huckabee to win in Iowa again and in South Carolina. Romney, due to his roots in Utah and in Massachusetts would likely have advantages in Nevada and New Hampshire. So the two are "tied" heading into Super Tuesday on March 6, 2012. [Yeah, this is kind of silly, but bear with me here. Only one political scientist has a Crystal Ball.] Conventional wisdom tells us that the candidate with the most money would have the advantage as Super Tuesday approaches. I would argue that that favors Romney in large part because of his personal wealth. But hey, we could have a caucus sitation like we had among Democrats in 2008. Both Romney and Huckabee did well in caucuses this time around, so that could be considered a wash. Though, it should be pointed out that Romney nearly swept the caucuses on February 5, 2008.

And a reformed system? Let's assume that Bob Bennett and the other reformers get their way and the Ohio plan becomes guiding rule behind the 2012 process. The Favored Four go first still, and break the same way as under the status quo system. The two emerge tied going into the small states primary. On the one hand, the fact that the smallest states are up next so as to nurture retail politics is something that plays to Huckabee. On the other, the fact that you have campaign in a series of states that, while not large, are not lumped into one geographic area. It is unlikely then that either candidate would sweep those states. Like in 2008 then, each would have to pick and choose their spots. Let's look at the map:

[Click Map to Enlarge]

The states in green are the ones to look at here. And that happens to be a lot of Western states, states where Romney did very well in 2008. He was not in the race for several, but he won caucuses in Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming. Among the small states, Huckabee only did won in West Virginia and the Romney folks would argue that the Huckabee and McCain campaigns were in cahoots to prevent Romney from winning there. On the surface then, it would appear that Romney would have a real good start under either system. If Huckabee and Palin (or any other potential candidate in 2012) begins railing against such a system pre-emptively, we'll have a pretty good early indication of who might do well (...or who the party appears to be coalescing behind.)

*A tip of the cap to Don Means at NationalCaucus.org for bringing the story to my attention.


Recent Posts:
Why Attack the Community Organizer?

The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)

A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004

Why Attack the Community Organizer?

It took me a while last night and this morning to wrap my mind around the mocking line of attack that both Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani pursued in their speeches an evening ago. I mean, why, after a night of extolling the virtues of service, would you attack another person's service? Why indeed. I get the need to attack. That's politics. Everyone does that. I also understand the need to strike back after what Republicans found to be an unnecessary series of attacks on their nominee's choice for vice president after the Alaska governor's roll out last Friday. After all, Bill Clinton's campaigns' modus operandi was rapid response to attacks. That may not remove the fact that last night seemed a petty response, but pettiness in the face of pettiness is just tacky. Regardless, that's politics as well.

So why go after Obama on his experience as a community organizer? Why go against what, on its face, is your best interest? Yes, it fires up the Republican partisans, but it also fired Democrats up as well. But the question is, "How did it play among the independents and undecideds?" Here's where we start to answer the why of this particular line of argument. If both Palin and Giuliani look petty in making the argument, this likely backfires with those independents and undecideds. As one of our loyal readers, Rob, pointed out time and again during primary season -- at least in our discussion group meetings here at UGA -- the candidate or candidates perceived as negative lose. It happened to Romney in Iowa against Huckabee and in later primaries against McCain. And it happened to Hillary Clinton in her battle against Barack Obama. If that logic extends to the general election, then Palin, Giuliani and the McCain campaign have fundamentally misread the mood among the electorate. But does that logic extend in this case? During the primaries, the crowd was made up mostly of partisans. The general election brings in a completely new swath of voters or potential voters. I would argue that yes, this segment of the electorate would be turned off by an attack perceived as petty. Partisans already dislike the other side and expect the attacks. But independents and undecideds, while likely expecting the attacks, don't particularly like them. The point is that they may be turned off and have their mind changed. Whereas, with partisans, they'll be turned off but will have already made up their minds anyway.

But the question remains: Why attack Obama's past as a community organizer, especially when that could come back to haunt you and your party among the most crucial portion of the electorate in this election? Well, I think it all depends on this perception of pettiness. And that is affected by who this message was intended for. Yes, there was a lot of "red meat" in both Palin's and Giuliani's speeches last night. That played to the base of the Republican Party. But if we focus on Sarah Palin and the context of not only her but the speech as well, we can begin to see where the GOP was headed last night.

Fire up the base?
Check.

Appeal to independents and undecideds?
Check.

Huh? Why did you just write all that only to come to that conclusion? Good question. Palin's speech was about her background, her small town background. It was about life as a regular American. Fine, that appeals to independents and undecideds, but how is this attack in any way appealing to those folks? Well, it likely wasn't appealing to all independents and undecideds, but it was targeted at as many of them as the GOP could get to. And much of that is dependent upon how the concept of "community organizer" is defined in people's heads. If you tuned in to the Democratic convention a week ago, you learned about this aspect of Obama's life. In fact, I'm sure that most people could easily parrot the line, "He could have written his ticket to Wall Street but chose to be a community organizer instead," with relative ease -- with as much ease as they could tell you that John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, put country first. But even if someone could tell you exactly what a community organizer is based on what they heard last week, I doubt that in most cases it is something most voters can relate to. Folks from urban environs can relate to it, but folks who have a background similar to Sarah Palin's may find it a stretch. So Palin can "get away with it" because she spent the first third of her time last night explaining what her background was and getting people to relate to her and her vantage point. To people in her corner, at least background-wise, community organizer is something of a foreign concept, nevermind the service aspect of it. [Incidentally, coming from Rudy Giuliani, this line of attack is somewhat disingenuous, given his experiences in New York. He likely knows very well what a community organizer is. But he was the keynote speaker. He can fire up the crowd and the base without it being overinterpreted. That's the role of a keynote address...or can be.] Soldier, people get. That's a concept that people can grasp. But community organizer is a concept that is as unknown to people as Sarah Palin was just a week ago.

Now, does that make it okay to attack that experience? I don't know. But does a pretty good job of drawing "community organizer" out as a foreign concept. And once you've accomplished that, mocking becomes a much more palatable enterprise. Granted this interpretation is vulnerable to the "politics of division" rebuttal from the Obama campaign since it cuts across an urban and not urban (I won't say rural because the suburbs and exurbs fall in between and may or may not gravitate toward the argument.) divide. And of course that brings with it some racial undertones that I won't get into here. At the same time, though, it is worth bringing up.

Among persuadables, did this work? Again, I can't say for sure, but it is a clever way to potentially peel off some of them at the margins. Nate Silver Sean at FiveThirtyEight mentioned in his wrap-up post to the evening (and especially the Palin speech) that the Democrats outnumber Republicans and that firing up both bases is somewhat counterproductive. While that's true, all the McCain campaign has to do is persuade enough of these small town, average Americans to swing a state like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, or Ohio, or Michigan or Pennsylvania to win the election. Now getting from A to B in that is easier said than done, but I can see how they are trying to get there with that speech last night.

*For the record, I thought Palin was fantastic last night. The bar was lowered due to the firestorm surrounding her because of and since her selection, and that helped, but she did a great job for someone who was thrust into the spotlight only five days earlier. She passed the first test, but she will still have to withstand direct questioning from the media and/or in the debates. For that, stay tuned.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)

A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004

Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?

The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)

Kudos to CNN for filling state polling void present since last week. Granted CNN continues to call Iowa and Minnesota swing states when they've been anything but. But hey, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, right? In addition to the North Star and Hawkeye states, there is also a new poll out in Ohio. Now that's enough to get your attention; a poll in one of FHQ's three most competitive states.

New Polls (Aug. 31-Sept. 3)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Iowa	CNN	+13
Minnesota	CNN	+14
Ohio	CNN	+1

And these are three states that have, of late at least, been favoring Obama, continuing to do so here. Though CNN has yet to poll any of these three states, each of the results seems about right. I don't want to read too much into any of these polls, especially considering these are CNN's first efforts in each, but given where the polling had been in Iowa and Minnesota, both appear to be showing a bounce for Obama coming off the Democratic convention a week ago. The margins in the Hawkeye and North Star states had been tightening recently, but these three polls and the four state polls the Cable News Network conducted a week ago seem to be pretty close to what we've seen in all seven states on average over the course of the campaign. If Iowa and Minnesota are bouncing toward Obama, Ohio, like Colorado and Nevada last week, is in a holding pattern. All three are consistently polling within the range that would place each in the toss up category here at FHQ. Though Colorado is not as close in our averages as Nevada and Ohio, the Centennial state is trending toward McCain, or had been prior to the Democratic convention.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Despite the widened margins in Iowa and Minnesota, neither changes categories, though Minnesota is threatening to move back into the strong Obama category after a stint in the lean category through much of August. Iowa just seems to be stuck in the mid- to upper single digits, just beyond McCain's reach, but not yet comfortably in Obama's. Ohio? Well, the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes seem destined to be fought over intensely throughout the general election campaign in a reprise of its role from four years ago.

The map, though, doesn't shift in any way based on the addition of these three polls to our weighted averages. Nevada remains a tie and will until the next poll is released from the state -- hopefully some time next week. Nevada, Ohio and Virginia should be among the first states polled once convention season ends tomorrow. But I suppose that's my personal preference.

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.

The widened margins in Iowa and Minnesota don't even alter the Electoral College Spectrum or the Watch List. Though, as I said, Minnesota is on the verge of jumping back into the strong Obama category based on this new poll in the state. The election, at this moment, still comes down to those five states at the top of the middle column of the spectrum. If Obama can hold Colorada and New Hampshire, he has the luxury of ceding the three closest states and still acheiving a victory in the electoral college. Maintaining that state of play, though, depends to a large degree on how the polling shakes out in the aftermath of the conventions and VP selections.

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.

By the way, with Mike Huckabee up next at the GOP convention, I'm hopeful that someone will finally invite this Abe Lincoln look-a-like up on stage. Again, just a preference. The guy has maybe gotten enough face time already.

Recent Posts:
A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004

Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?

And What About the Green Party?

A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004

Yesterday I made note of Barack Obama clearing the 50% mark in the daily tracking polls from both Rasmussen and Gallup. Now, I mentioned the significance of the 50% barrier and the timing -- September polls are better predictors of November results than late October or November polls -- but let's try and add a bit of context here. What did things look like in the national polls four years ago and how does that mesh with what we have seen and are seeing in this current race?

A quick glance at what Real Clear Politics has to offer from four years ago gives us a good start. By my count, there were 155 national polls that were conducted between March and election day. 76 came prior to the beginning of convention season in late July and the remaining 79 polls were conducted in the period during and after the conventions. Obama became the first candidate during this cycle to hit the 50% mark, just after the beginning of September. By contrast John Kerry hit that mark in early April. He didn't stay there, but the Massachusetts senator broke that barrier first. In fact, he hit it at various other points 10 other times prior to the Democratic convention in late July. President Bush, by contrast, was only over 50% in any of the national polls two times out of those 76.

The post convention story was a bit different. Of those 79 polls during and after the conventions, Bush broke the 50% threshold 27 times (over one-third of the time) while Kerry managed only five polls over that mark in that time. Granted, across the entire 155 polls (before and after the conventions), that leaves 61% that showed a closely contested race with both candidates in the mid- to upper 40s.

In fairness, this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison (Alright, perhaps a Granny Smith to red delicious comparison.). Yesterday's numbers were from tracking polls, but the above data are from national polls, yes, but not tracking polls. As I mentioned, though, the 50% trend would have to extend to state polls in battleground states and national polls and last for a period of time for this to resonate in any way. The other caveat is that 2004 was a different year with a different set of variables. The presence of an incumbent in the race may have a lot to do with the differences we see. In a campaign without one, voters are still attempting to figure out who the two candidates are in 2008. They got a pretty good idea about Obama last week, and are hearing the rebuttal and McCain pitch this week.

Still, those 2004 numbers speak for themselves. During September, Bush led in 23 of the 25 polls that were conducted (Kerry led in one and was tied in the other.). Once we clear the next week or so (past the conventions), we should get a pretty good idea of where the race stands in 2008.

For a deeper look into the history of the national polls during the course of the presidential campaign, Andrew Gelman had a post up in June that had a figure from his 1993 paper with Gary King charting the polling trends from the 1952-1992 elections.


Recent Posts:
Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?

And What About the Green Party?

It's Never as Easy as Taking Away Half the Delegates

Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?

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)

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:

1) Does the separation/combination of the two add anything to our understanding of the effect they are predicted to have?

2) Does Cynthia McKinney's presence in polls -- and later on the ballot -- augment the effect and/or detract from Nader's vote share?

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.

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

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