2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

And here I thought the GOP would be the first to move on the issues attendant to the presidential primary system.

"Today, Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the 37 member Democratic Change Commission, which will recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for the 2012 presidential nominating and delegate selection process. Governor Kaine also announced that he has named Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri as Co-Chairs of the Change Commission."

Now, this is significant news, but first let's look a bit more closely at the intent of the Commission and then I'll give my rapid fire thoughts on the commission's membership.

"The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system."

The Intent

No, those don't sound like the sweeping changes that some people would like to see come to the presidential nomination system. [And for the record, I am an impartial observer here. Despite the name of this blog, that is not the system I prefer; only the one I study. But I have a research niche carved out whether change comes or not. And if you've read FHQ at all, you know that we think a national primary is the most likely system to emerge. That doesn't mean another system won't emerge, but because of the barriers that exist, a national primary is the most likely outcome.]

First, changing the window means that the February experiment is over in the minds of some within the party. That's code for, "Let's move the starting point back to March." And there's a lot of talk out there about March being a good starting point. Most of that finds its root in any of the reform regimes that represent the most upheaval to the system (NASS rotating regional primary, Ohio Plan, American Plan, etc.). That, however, would set up quite a few potential showdowns with compliant-turned-rogue states (States that are compliant in February under the current rules, but would be in violation is the window were closed and did not include February.). For example, without some coordination with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party faces the possibility of having quite a few states (those in Republican control) not comply with any such effort to scale back the starting point of the window.

Take my current home state of Georgia. Here's a state that finds both the governor's mansion and the General Assembly in GOP control. Now, are they really going to be inclined to move just because the Democratic Party says so (assuming the GOP holds pat on their own rules)? I doubt it. And Georgia isn't an isolated case here. Of the states holding primaries before March in 2008, Florida, South Carolina (which will likely be exempt anyway) and Tennessee all are in the same position. And Arizona's governor (now Republican after Janet Napolitano vacated to be Homeland Security Secretary) has proclamation power to move the state's contest earlier if the final week in February is not early enough for the Grand Canyon state to be consequential in the process. Add to that the very likely possibility that Oklahoma's next governor will be Republican and you have quite a few potential partisan rogues.

This first point, then, seems like it could be messy.

The second and third points will be talked about, but are more remnants of the unique 2008 primary season than anything. As was the case initially with primary reform in Republican Party during last summer's convention in St. Paul, the winning candidates rarely sanction the change of a system that brought about their nomination. The GOP for the first time created a loophole (allowing for rules to be set outside of the confines of the convention), but Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party and these latter two goals of the commission are among the chief reasons he received the Democratic nomination. Now, that isn't to say that some measure of reform in the areas of superdelegates and caucuses won't come to pass, just that it is less likely. Regardless, it is probable that there will be some scaling back of the number of superdelegates and there may be some incentivizing structure discussed to get some caucus states to shift to being primary states. On the latter point, though, the economy will have a large say in whether that happens. Primaries are the much more expensive route. There is a balance, then, that has to be discovered between the inclusiveness of a primary system versus the price tag of (not to mention the control state parties have over) the caucus system.

The Membership

My first inclination is to look not at who specifically these 37 commission members are, but to focus on where they are from and what that says about the group collectively. Let's look at it by the numbers:

• 37 members (2 co-chairs and 35 members)
• Representing 26 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe)
• 7 members are from 7 red states
• 24 members from 19 blue states (and four more from DC)
  
• Of the 15 states within ten points in the presidential election, 13 are represented on the commission (only Indiana and North Dakota are excluded)
• All of the January 2008 Democratic contest states are represented (Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida)
  

Now, what does any of that have to do with the changes this commission may bring about? Well, it has a "take care of your own" feel to it. The membership hails from the Obama coalition of states and of those outside that coalition, most are states that were within ten points last November. These states won't necessarily have privileged positions on the 2012 calendar but they will be represented on the commission. Part of the Obama success story was primary season organizational efforts that paid dividends in the general election. The flip side here is that the membership isn't a reflection of future goals (in terms of states to target), but represent states where those organizational efforts were the strongest/most vital.

Regardless, the ball is rolling now from the parties' perspective and not just at the state government level.

----------
Full Press Release:

WASHINGTON, March 23 -- Today, Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the 37 member Democratic Change Commission, which will recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for the 2012 presidential nominating and delegate selection process. Governor Kaine also announced that he has named Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri as Co-Chairs of the Change Commission.

"This Commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate," said Kaine. "I want to thank all the members of the Commission who have agreed to serve, including Congressman Clyburn and Senator McCaskill who have graciously agreed to serve as co-chairs."

Governor Kaine went on to say that he hopes to work with the Republican National Committee on a common approach that puts voters first.

President Obama first announced his intention to form the Democratic Change Commission in August 2008, during his presidential campaign. Delegates to the Democratic National Convention adopted President Obama's proposal on Monday, August 25, 2008.

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system. A copy of the convention resolution establishing the Commission is below. The Commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than January 1, 2010.

The Commission is made up of 35 members and two co-chairs and represents a diverse mix of DNC members, elected officials, representatives of State Parties, academics, labor, business, grassroots activists and other Party leaders. A complete list of the Commission's members is below.

Co-Chairs:

-

Congressman Jim Clyburn

Columbia, South Carolina

-

Senator Claire McCaskill

St. Louis, Missouri

-

Commission Members:

-

Grassroots Activist Jeremy Alters

Miami, Florida

-

Political Strategist Jeff Berman

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Ashley Bliss

Atlanta, Georgia

-

State Representative Dan Blue

Raleigh, North Carolina

-

Political Strategist Bill Carrick

Los Angeles, California

-

Mayor Michael Coleman

Columbus, Ohio

-

Political Strategist Jeff Forbes

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Joan Garry

Montclair, New Jersey

-

State Chair Larry Gates

Overland Park, Kansas

-

School Board Member Adelita Grijalva

Tucson, Arizona

-

Professor Rob Hampshire

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

-

Former State Chair Ned Helms

Concord, New Hampshire

-

Former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman

McLean, Virginia

-

Chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

-

IBT President James Hoffa

Detroit, Michigan

-

Grassroots Activist Roseanne Hope

Minneapolis, Minnesota

-

State Senator Steven Horsford

Las Vegas, Nevada

-

Grassroots Activist Suzie LeVine

Seattle, Washington

-

UAW CAP Director Dick Long

Detroit, Michigan

-

Grassroots Activist Andres Lopez

San Juan, Puerto Rico

-

Former Attorney General Patricia Madrid

Albuquerque, New Mexico

-

DNC Member Debbie Marquez

Edwards, Colorado

-

State Senator Iris Martinez

Chicago, Illinois

-

Delegate Jennifer McClellan

Richmond, Virginia

-

Secretary of State Linda McCulloch

Helena, Montana

-

Attorney General Tom Miller

Des Moines, Iowa

-

DNC Member Minyon Moore

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Sunah Park

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

-

Campaign Manager David Plouffe

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Rebecca Prozan

San Francisco, California

-

DNC Member James Roosevelt, Jr

Cambridge, Massachusetts

-

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez

Lakewood, California

-

AFT President Randi Weingarten

New York City, New York

-

State Chair Meredith Wood Smith

Portland, Oregon

-

Grassroots Activist Martin Yeung

Rapid City, South Dakota

-

Resolution Establishing the Democratic Change Commission

(This resolution was recommended by the 2008 Convention Rules Committee at its August 23, 2008 meeting and adopted by the 2008 Democratic National Convention on August 25, 2008 in Denver, Colorado)

Section 1. Establishment of Democratic Change Commission.

BE IT RESOLVED: That no later than 60 days after the date of the next election of the National Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the National Chair shall establish a commission (the "Commission") to review the Delegate Selection Rules in light of developments during the 2008 presidential nominating cycle and to recommend changes to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, not inconsistent with these resolutions, to improve the nominating process.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall be known as the "Democratic Change Commission;" that it shall consist of 35 members and two co-chairs, all with the right to vote on Commission business, appointed by the National Chair of the DNC; that its membership shall be equally divided between men and women and shall be geographically and demographically diverse; that the DNC shall provide the Commission with adequate staff and resources to carry out its mandate in accordance with this Resolution; and that the Commission shall issue its report and recommendations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC no later than January 1, 2010.

Section 2. Timing of the Primaries and Caucuses.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Convention shall provide that no meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) shall be held prior to the first Tuesday in March of the election year, except as otherwise provided in the Delegate Selection Rules and recognizing the valuable role played by the approved pre-Window states in 2008; and provided that no such meeting, caucus, convention or primary shall in any event be held prior to February 1 of the calendar year of the National Convention; and that the Commission also shall review the sequence and scheduling of primaries and caucuses with a view towards reducing the scheduling of such events on the first allowable date that resulted in 22 primaries and caucuses being held on such date in 2008 and toward reducing frontloading within the Window period; and that the Commission shall review the rules for proper enforcement of the primary and caucus timing requirements and delegate allocation matters, particularly with respect to action by the Rules and Bylaws Committee; and that in making its recommendations, the Commission consider any revision of the Rules of the Republican Party of the United States adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention regarding the scheduling and sequence of presidential nominating events.

Section 3. Delegates.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall consider and make appropriate recommendations for revisions to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention to provide for a significant reduction of the number of unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus voters in the presidential nominating process. The Commission also shall review the formulas for delegate allocation to assure that delegates are fairly allocated to accurately reflect the will of the voters and that the right of the delegates to reflect the sentiments of those who elected them shall be secured to all delegates.

Section 4. Caucuses.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall consider and recommend appropriate revisions to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention to provide that:

a. the use of a caucus/convention system for any stage of the delegate selection process by any State Democratic Party shall be approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in accordance with any new specific criteria to be set out in the Delegate Selection Rules, and which will be designed to ensure that at each stage, any caucus or convention will be adequately planned, organized, and staffed; will take place at such times and in such locations as will meet the requirements of Rule 3 of the Delegate Selection Rules and will otherwise maximize the opportunity for full participation by Democratic voters; will be run using appropriate balloting methods and, as to tiers following the first stage caucus, will utilize accurate lists of participants; and will afford the opportunity for meaningful communication of presidential candidates with their pledged caucus participants reasonably in advance of caucuses and conventions.

b. the use of a caucus/convention system for any stage of the delegate selection process should be organized in a manner that will ensure the maximum ability of Democratic voters to feasibly participate in the first-tier caucuses, including consideration of absentee voting in caucuses to benefit those who cannot attend a scheduled caucus due to military service, work, health conditions, family obligations and other similar reasons that prevent attendance in person.

Section 5. Status of Resolutions

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission may address other matters related to the presidential nominating process and Delegate Selection Rules as may be identified by the National Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and that for the purposes of Article Ten, Section 2 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, these resolutions shall be deemed to be "otherwise designated."

----------

Recent Posts:
Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

[Click to Enlarge]

I'm not sure that NPR is going to fix the flaws in their 2012 GOP nomination bracket, so I took the liberty of correcting it. First off, as I said in the comments over at the other post, the seedings weren't matched up properly. The way these things are set up, the top seed is supposed to play the lowest possible seed in the next round assuming there are no upsets. Why should the number one seed have to play the 6-11 winner when the three seed gets the 8-9 winner. If there were no upsets, the top seed plays the six and the three seed plays the eight. Look, politics isn't fair, but if were going to go this route, let's at least do it the right way.

The other issue is a minor point, but one I thought should be addressed. These brackets need names. I'm going with the Reagan and Lincoln brackets.

So, without further ado, my picks in what should be the real NPR 2012 bracket.

In the Reagan bracket:
Palin outduels Steele. DeMint advances against Corker in an SEC showdown. Rob Portman upsets Jeb Bush based on Bush fatigue. Newt takes out Cantor, and Mike Pence narrowly avoids being upset by Jeff Flake because Flake resembles Will Forte who used to do a mean John Edwards on Saturday Night Live. Huckabee dispenses Chuck Hagel and Jon Kyl inches past favored Paul Ryan. Finally, Pawlenty stays silent and lets Tom Tancredo eliminate himself. Hey, save it for the second round.

In round two, Palin edges DeMint in an underrated showdown, Portman's fairy tale journey ends at the sweet sixteen against Gingrich, Huckabee outlasts Pence, and Pawlenty's first round rest pays off against Kyl.

Round three see Gingrich upturn the former vice presidential candidate, and Pawlenty send Huckabee back to the book signing circuit.

And in the Reagan bracket final, Gingrich emerges victorious against the Minnesota governor.

In the Lincoln bracket:
Romney romps over a "before his time" George P. Bush. Hey, he'll turn 36 during primary season (...or after its over, if the calendar remains the same). John Thune takes out Meg Whitman and Mitch Daniels vanquishes Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Charlie Crist puts down yet another Arizonan, John Shadegg. [Is it me, or are there disproportionately too many Arizona Republicans filling out this group of 32?] Haley Barbour uses his insider connections to beat back a strong fight from Ron Paul and meets Mark Sanford who eliminated Rudy. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman bests Jon Ensign in a Battle of the Jons and Bobby Jindal is able to put down a challenge from Alan Keyes.

In the second round, Romney outdoes Thune, Mitch Daniels upsets Charlie Crist, Mark Sanford wins the southern governors showdown and Huntsman surprises Bobby Jindal.

Round three sees Romney crush Daniels and Huntsman keep the upsets going with a defeat of Sanford.

In the Lincoln bracket final Huntsman does the unthinkable and advances to face Gingrich in the finals.

The Finals:
Not bad. A three seed against a seven. Just like my typical basketball brackets, I go for some upsets that aren't likely to happen. I like underdogs. What can I say? [You can say there's no chance this is going to happen.] I've Gingrich winning this one and moving on to face Barack Obama in what would be an interesting general election campaign.

What do you think?


Recent Posts:
Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

Now, here's an interesting "what if" from John Pitney over at Epic Journey.

[Note: This is a newish blog from a handful of political scientists and John has ramped up the number of posts this month. Note 2: I need to update my blogroll.]

What if candidate Obama had made this quip on Leno six months ago in the midst of the general election campaign? What would the reaction have been? I'll take firestorm for $1000, Alex. With Sarah Palin being the mother of an infant with Downs, that likely would have been an interesting point in the campaign.

But there's the difference: Candidate vs. President Obama.


Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

NOTE: You can see more on the prospective 2012 GOP candidates with FHQ's candidate tracker or a broader look at candidate/nominee emergence here.

[Click Map to Vote at NPR]

Ha!

Well, so much for me putting together a bracket for prospective 2012 GOP presidential candidates. And I was only going to include the top eight candidates. How quaint.

NPR's Ken Rudin has put together a list of the top 32 candidates potentially vying for the chance to challenge Obama in the fall of 2012. Yeah, you have to stretch a bit to get to that many, but it will be nice to check back on this to track who rises and falls as we head into the 2010 midterms and beyond. First round results will be revealed on Tuesday March 24.

Head on over to NPR to vote and come back here to post your Final Four and ultimate winner. I'll say this: Jon Huntsman is a dangerous 7 seed.

H/t: Nicki's Nook


Recent Posts:
Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35

Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Look, I'm a basketball fan. It is hard to grow up in North Carolina and not be. Indiana may get the Basketball State distinction, but that's high school basketball. So I say Indiana Schmindiana. I'm talking about college basketball. And North Carolina is the home of college basketball (in my opinion).

The fact that I'm a fan, then, may have been lost during last year's NCAA tournament, but I was much more involved in the presidential tournament that coincided with the Big Dance. This is true every four years, but 2008 was unusual. Typically the presidential candidates take care of their party business and clear out in time for the basketball start. But not in 2008. No, the top two seeds in the Democratic bracket had to extend their contest until June. And even though there weren't any contests after March 11 (or before April 22 for that matter), the battle was still on. Who can forget Obama's "bittergate" injury or his association with the now infamous agent, Jeremiah Wright, which jeopardized his amateur status?

[Note to self: No more bad jokes linking politics and basketball.]

Well, maybe just one more.



Seeding above is a bit post hoc, but I had to weigh the difference between issue/longshot candidates and when each candidate dropped out. There is no perfect formula. However, this is my opinion of where everyone would have been slotted. And as is the case with the NCAA Selection Committee, the FHQ Committee of One is second-guessed to no avail (...or those watching usually forget about the selection process and get wrapped up in the tournament process once it begins).

Just for fun, I'll try and put up a prospective 2012 bracket at some point in the next couple of days.

Related reading:
The Obama Basketball Bracket

FiveThirtyEight's Swing State Bias Analysis of the Obama Bracket and [UPDATE] Nate Silver's overall projections as well.

Now, let the real upsets begin.


Recent Posts:
Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35

Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?

The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition

Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35

It's just too bad Public Policy Polling didn't do this at the state level. I would have been tempted to start a new spreadsheet.

...three years in advance.

I would try to draw a comparison, but Pollster's archives only go back to late 2006. Plus, the inevitable Clinton-McCain head-to-heads that likely would have been done probably would have been much closer than 20 points. As the PPP release indicates, that's in Nixon-McGovern blowout territory. We know, for instance, that presidential elections are typically "closer" races than those downballot on average. Let's put it this way: Obama would have to do really well relative to expectations (Yes, that's a moving target.) and Palin would have to come across as really (probably extremely) conservative for 2012 to come anywhere close to that margin.

A couple of points on that last statement:
1) Some probably already view Palin as extremely conservative. But those are mostly Democrats (only 3% of which were undecided in this poll; compared with 18% of Republicans.).
2) Yes, there are extenuating circumstances that are confined to the campaign environment that could also help push that margin up or make it closer.

And here's the caveat to the poll:
This was a national poll conducted between March 13-15, but there were only a shade under 700 respondents. Yeah, that's a few hundred under where the usual national sample is in terms of numbers.

But hey, it's a 2012 poll, right?

(A doff of my cap to Pollster for the heads up.)


Recent Posts:
Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?

The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition

More on 2008 Candidate Visits

Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?

A little more than a week after posting the revealing Nearly Three Dozen GOP House Members Dodged Obama's Coattails -- an article that clearly laid out the number of president/House split districts in last year's election and thus indirectly the electoral vote total under a Maine/Nebraska system -- CQ finally followed with a piece that made mention of the 301-237 electoral vote advantage President Obama would have had under a system of congressional district electoral vote advantage.

No, they didn't have a map, but they include a pdf file with a nice breakdown of the totals by state:

[Source: CQ Politics -- Click to Enlarge]

Now why didn't I think of that?


Recent Posts:
The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition

More on 2008 Candidate Visits

2008 Presidential Candidate Visits by State and Party

The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition

There has been no shortage of blog posts by political scientists using the newly released American National Election Study since the latest wave went public a little more than a week ago.

Below are a handful of good examples:

John Sides over at The Monkey Cage has a look at respondents' campaign donations
during the 2008 campaign (and over time since 1952). The percentage contributing to political campaigns rose to the highest level witnessed since 1976. However, that didn't hold (for all groups) once the sample was grouped according to income.

Tom Holbrook used the NES to examine just how far behind the eight ball John McCain was in 2008 because of the economy. The answer? Very much behind it. Respondents judging the economy to have been somewhat or much worse off than it was a year prior reached an all-time high (1980-2008). That the "much worse" crowd totalled two-thirds of the sample indicates just how much ground McCain had to make up with that Republican brand in tow. [The same basic pattern holds when party identification is controlled for as well. ...even among Strong Republicans. Nearly half of those in that group found the economy to be much worse off.]

The question I had for Tom (and you can read the exchange we had in the comments via the link to the post above) was whether there were any differences in the economic evaluations based on when the interview was conducted. There was an almost two week period on the front end of the interviewing window that preceded the Lehman Brothers collapse/McCain suspension of his campaign. Were views during that period any less negative than they were after that new broke (and until election day)? Sadly (surprisingly?), the NES doesn't provide an "interview date" variable in the data. However, the separate panel data set (that interviewed and re-interviewed respondents throughout the campaign) did not find any significant differences from the summer to the fall. They were slightly more negative later, but not surprisingly so. In other words, opinions on the economy were already cemented prior to the Lehman news.

Finally, John Sides also tried his hand at whether racial prejudice had any impact on presidential vote totals (1972-2008). In 2008, Obama's total would have risen by one percentage point among white voters if those white voters who had a "less favorable view of blacks, relative to whites, were magically transformed into someone with equivalent views of blacks and whites." So, not that much.

Interesting stuff that will only multiply as the data gets into more people's hands.


Recent Posts:
More on 2008 Candidate Visits

2008 Presidential Candidate Visits by State and Party

Should Indiana Frontload in 2012? (Part Two)

More on 2008 Candidate Visits

Let's look a bit deeper at the 2008 presidential candidates data I posted the other day. Instead of looking at it in terms of raw percentage shares for each state, I grouped the states according to the size of those shares. These cut points are rather arbitrary, but it does drive home the point. Recall that if all states were created equally, each would receive two percent of the total number of candidate visits in each presidential cycle. And just by eyeballing it, that 2% mark is a good cut off for the uppermost grouping. That group, then, is comprised of those states that garnered at least a two percent share of total candidate visits. I wanted to allow for another couple of categories, but no natural breaking point really emerged. What I did was to set the upper bound of the bottommost grouping at .5%, but as you'll see below, an additional category could have been created to provide for further differentiation. [I'll discuss this a bit more below.] The resultant three groups, then were states that received a:

1. 0-.5% share of 2008candidate visits
2. .5%-2% share of 2008 candidate visits
3. greater than 2% share of 2008 candidate visits
   

If we look at the picture overall, here's how the states fall into those groupings:

[Click Chart to Enlarge]

In other words, only nine states got anything more than a two percent share of candidate visits (including both parties' candidates). Over three times that many states had a less that half a percent share of overall visits during the 2008 primary campaign. Now, this lowest category could further be broken down into states that got less than .25% of visits and between .25% and .5%. That would basically split that group in half with the former group containing 14 states and the latter, 16.

Looking at those below that .25% line, half (7 states) had concurrent Democratic and Republican contests on Super Tuesday. Of the other seven states, four had their Democratic contests on Super Tuesday while the Republican Party's contests came later (after the point at which McCain had wrapped up the nomination). There are several factors at work here. First, size is a common theme among these seldom-visited states. I'll use electoral votes as a proxy here. Of those 14 (<.25%) states, all fell at or below the 10 electoral vote line and nine have five or less electoral votes. The other obvious points here are that competition for candidate visits matters, and so too does the fact that a contest may fall after the point at which the nomination has been decided. Small states already fighting for attention are even more up against it when there are, say, 25 other states going on the same date. The saving grace for those Super Tuesday small states is that their voters at least had the opportunity to weigh in on both nominations. And while those states with split GOP contests (the ones with Democratic contests on Super Tuesday) were able to avoid the competition for attention, they missed out on the attention altogether by being so late in the process. The voters in those states were in a lose-lose situation. But shifting back to those top nine attention-grabbing states, we see that they accumulated 84% (57% in Iowa and New Hampshire) of the total amount of attention. Now granted, the advance build up of visits in Iowa and New Hampshire in the year(s) prior to the presidential election year skews these figures to some extent. However, when the Iowa and New Hampshire visits are dropped altogether, there are still only 11 states overall with visits shares over 2%. That's a net gain of two states in that category, but the cumulative share of visits to that group of states now drops to just under 73% of the total. Whether Iowa and New Hampshire are withheld does not change the fact that this group of states had one or more of three basic properties. These states were early, big and/or the only event on a given date. Ah, but what happens when these figures are separated by party?

[Click Chart to Enlarge]

The distribution of visits across Republican primaries and caucuses didn't stray too far from the overall distribution above. But once the same procedure as in the above example is employed there are some subtle differences under the surface.

If the large collection of seldom-visited states is split along the .25% line, 18 of the 31 states fall below that line and 13 above it. The thing about the Republican nomination race was that it conformed for the most part to previous nomination races, and that leaves us with two main sets of contests: the compressed states held prior to the nomination being decided and those that are more spread out yet fall after the contest is over. Those are the two categories represented by an overwhelming number of those 18 states below the line. Just three of those states weren't either on Super Tuesday or after March 4 when John McCain became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

On the flip side of the chart, those 7 states in that (>2%) category made up 84% (52% in Iowa and New Hampshire) of the Republican candidate visits. That matches the percentage in the overall case. Yet, if Iowa and New Hampshire are dropped from consideration, there are only six states that exceed that 2% level and they only comprise just under 70% of the total Republican visits.

[Click Chart to Enlarge]

In the Democratic contests, the distribution looks pretty much the same, but there is a trade-off between the lower two categories, with the the two being closer in frequency than they were in the previous two examples. Splitting the lowest category along the .25% line doesn't have the same effect as it did in the previous two instances. 20 states fall below that point and just six above it. Three-quarters of those 20 very seldom-visited states were on Super Tuesday. And that is telling. Since the Democratic race extended to the final contest, many more states had an opportunity to have attention that otherwise would not have. The states that paid the price, then, were those in the most compressed environment, Super Tuesday.

And the attention-grabbing states? Well, those seven states received just under 80% (62% in Iowa and New Hampshire) of the Democratic candidate visits. And that number hardly changes when Iowa and New Hampshire are dropped. However, double the number of states fall into that (>2%) category when the two lead-off contests are withheld. Those fourteen states make up 76% of the Democratic contests. Again, that speaks to the longevity of the competition on the Democratic side. The tie that binds those contests (with or without Iowa and New Hampshire) is the fact that most were stand-alone contests or on a date where there was far less competition for attention.

NOTE: I have to confess that I've put most of these last two posts together for an exercise on descriptive statistics that I'm doing in one of my classes. But I thought I'd share and provide a bit of background information in the process. That will help us down the road if I get around to doing a projection model for 2008 based on candidate visits.


Recent Posts:
2008 Presidential Candidate Visits by State and Party

Should Indiana Frontload in 2012? (Part Two)

Michael Steele by the Numbers

2008 Presidential Candidate Visits by State and Party

I don't know that I set out initially to put data directly up on this site, but since I've been looking into the candidate visits data from the 2000 and 2004 primary seasons (see here and here), I thought I might also look into the availability of similar data for 2008. The great thing about the 2008 cycle -- other than it being fantastic overall -- was that there was no shortage of data collection going on. The drawback in many cases was that it wasn't cataloged in a way that could naturally be transferred into a spreadsheet for the type of analyses I like to do. One case of this was the fabulous candidate tracker (with maps!) Slate.com ran during the primaries. The problem with Map the Candidates was that, despite the great documentation, there was only individual candidate aggregation of visits and not party by party visit tabulations. Easily remedied, right?

Well, that's what I've tried to provide below:



Let me add a few notes:

1. Only visits where there was an "active" competition going on were counted. That does include the Republican primaries after McCain wrapped up the nomination on March 4, but only because those contests were still scheduled to happen. In other words, there was some, albeit small, draw for the candidate(s) there. This also includes Democratic caucuses past their initial steps. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showed up at the North Dakota State Democratic Convention in early April, for instance, after the initial caucuses took place on February 5. Those visits count. The two candidates were seeking delegates. GOP contests of a similar ilk were not included (though Ron Paul supporters tried to and in some cases did overrun some of those state conventions).
2. I highlighted the top 5 states overall and for each party. The key is at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (in that order) were the top three draws overall and for both parties. Florida was fourth overall and in terms of GOP visits. The half-delegation penalty by the Republican Party did not have an impact on Florida's share of attention and overall the Sunshine state was not terribly negatively affected by the Democrats stripping the state of its entire delegation for a period. Michigan wasn't hurt too badly either; garnering the fifth slot in the percentage of GOP visits. California drew that distinction overall, while Pennsylvania claimed the final spot for the Democrats. The rules mattered in this regard for the Democratic Party. All four exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- placed one through four (Nevada was fourth), while the two penalized states -- Florida and Michigan -- fell much further back.
   

Interesting stuff that I'll have to come back to at some point. Maybe another projection could emerge?


Recent Posts:
Should Indiana Frontload in 2012? (Part Two)

Michael Steele by the Numbers

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee for 2012