NY-20: Does a Tie Mean the Nation is Brutally Divided?

If a Tedisco win meant the beginning of a Republican comeback nationally and a Murphy win meant the nation is on-board with the Obama administration, what does a 65 vote margin with 610 of 610 precincts reporting (and a few thousand absentee ballots to be counted) mean?

[Click for Election Results via The Saratogian]

There's only one answer to that: elections are fun!

UPDATE: As per Jack, via The Saratoagian, it's now down to a 25 vote Murphy edge in NY-20.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
All Eyes on NY-20

Public Financing, Dead?

Florida in 2012: A Companion Bill

All Eyes on NY-20

[Click Map to Enlarge]

FHQ has been quiet on this one, which is unusual for an elections site. But special elections are nice. For elections nerds like myself, they are a welcome respite from the dark period between regularly scheduled elections. However, it is difficult to apply lessons learned from past special elections to any new one that comes along simply because the circumstances from one special election to the next (or from a general election to a special election) vary so widely.

The congressional special elections in the winter and spring of 2008 were nice in that all of them were conservative districts that broke toward the Democrats. There was something of a trend that could be parsed from that; a trend that culminated with Obama winning the White House and Democrats increasing their majorities in Congress. But it's easy to read too much into these specials. For one thing, they aren't always successfully nationalized. Often they hinge on state or local quirks. Scott Murphy is attempting to nationalize the NY-20 special by linking Jim Tedisco to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. And Tedisco, for his part, is running away from national Republicans despite leaning on NRCC money. In the context of decreasing poll numbers, that's never really a good sign.

Can we extrapolate anything from those poll numbers, though? Given that there have only been six polls* conducted (three of them partisan), there isn't a whole lot of information out there. What those polls do tell us is that the trend has been toward Murphy. He has gained 8 points from poll to poll in the Siena sequence of polls and has a lead that is right around the margin of error to slightly above it.

But drawing anything anymore substantive than that from those numbers is a fool's errand. [Just look back to the Georgia Senate runoff for one such example.] Specials always come down to turnout. And with this race being so closely scrutinized on the national level, polling could either energize Republicans (in a Republican-leaning district) to head out to their nearest polling station or it could, given the current trend and the potential perception of reality, keep them away. For Democrats, it is a question of whether they are still as motivated as they were in November when Obama won the district by three points and incumbent Democratic congresswoman (turned senator), Kirsten Gillibrand, took over three-fifths of the vote.

But, does the tide wash a little further up the beach or has it already begun receding? That's what the media will be talking about tonight when the polls close at 9pm, but in special elections it is rarely that black and white. The results will do a better job of telling us whether Murphy was able to successfully nationalize this race.

*You'll have to back out to Pollster's front page to see the information on the sixth poll; the third one conducted by the DCCC.


Recent Posts:
Public Financing, Dead?

Florida in 2012: A Companion Bill

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (2nd Round) Are Now Up

Public Financing, Dead?

John McCain sure thinks so. And that isn't that much of a stretch. [Truth be told, that isn't a stretch at all.]

But as Jay Cost said yesterday over at the HorseRaceBlog, it really isn't as simple as Obama opting out broke the system. The seeds for this were sewn all the way back in 1980 when John Connally shunned the public financing system to go-it-alone in his bid for the Republican nomination. Of course, his $11 million raised (just more than $28 million in 2009 dollars) earned one whole delegate, but the idea was out there. Candidates for office, especially the presidency, could out-raised the matching funds cap, not have to adhere to state spending caps (during the primaries) and be much better off because of it.

Now, Connally's tremendous failure was an example that certainly caused many a presidential campaign pause, but by 1996 the system had (really) outgrown its usefulness. A self-financed candidate like Steve Forbes could enter the fray and make waves without any real political experience. That his efforts and the competition from others in the Republican field that year put Dole at a major disadvantage once the Kansas senator wrapped up the nomination was a lesson to future candidates on both sides of the aisle. In other words, if your gauge is pointing to E at the end of the primary phase and your opponent's (especially an incumbent) is not, then your bid for the White House is going to be that much tougher.

And that lesson was extended to the general election campaign last fall. No candidate can put him or herself behind such a financial eight ball and hope to wind up in the Oval Office.

H/t: John Pitney over at Epic Journey for the Cost link. Good stuff.


Recent Posts:
Florida in 2012: A Companion Bill

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (2nd Round) Are Now Up

How 'Bout Dem Heels!?!

Florida in 2012: A Companion Bill

File this one under things I should have checked for when I was updating the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar last week. What I missed was the fact that there is a companion bill to HB 759 in the Florida State Senate.

Now, here's the thing about HB 759 and the Senate version, S 2304: They are sponsored and being pushed by Democrats in a Republican-dominated legislature. Rep. Kevin Rader filed the House version in early February, but the Senate version was not filed by Sen. Arthenia Joyner (the minority whip) until the end of February. While both bills call for a return to the second Tuesday in March date the Sunshine state used for presidential primaries between 1976 and 2004, that outcome isn't likely during this session unless and until the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee makes a recommendation to the full RNC that would potentially put Florida's current (last Tuesday in January) position in violation of those rules.

In other words, there is no urgency to the matter at the moment (...from either party's perspective). The Democrats just want to get something done while the issue is still somewhat salient. And the Republicans are just taking a wait and see approach.


Recent Posts:
NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (2nd Round) Are Now Up

How 'Bout Dem Heels!?!

McCain's 2012 Name-Dropping on Meet the Press

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (2nd Round) Are Now Up

[Click Bracket to Enlarge or HERE to Vote in the Third Round]

Round three voting is now underway in NPR's Political March Madness (link above). And if round two is indicative (a significant increase over the first round's paltry number of upsets), the third round should be pretty unpredictable. I think it is safe to say that this thing has been hijacked in a way that Diebold could even appreciate.

But a Ron Paul-Barack Obama general election should be a fun one.

NPR does seem to be trying to combat this hijacking to some extent. There's a quick turnaround on round three voting. Results will be out on Wednesday April 1. [Then again, they have to fit this in before the real tournament ends next Monday.]


Recent Posts:
How 'Bout Dem Heels!?!

McCain's 2012 Name-Dropping on Meet the Press

Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

How 'Bout Dem Heels!?!

Looks like Obama's pick (a wise one it was) to win it all in college basketball has advanced to the Final Four.


I have to make some effort to put a political spin on things, but I am an alum. Well, this is the only team he actually played a pick-up game with on the campaign trail last spring.


Recent Posts:
McCain's 2012 Name-Dropping on Meet the Press

Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

McCain's 2012 Name-Dropping on Meet the Press

Look folks, we're in the midst of the 2012 invisible primary right now. Whether you like it or not, prospective candidates are attempting to position themselves for a run at the White House in three years time. Part of what gets the ball rolling on future fundraising, consultant networking and valued endorsements is having your name mentioned in those discussions. If your name is being dropped in the context of a White House run it makes it much more believable than if it were not.

That being said, former GOP presidential nominee, John McCain, was on Meet the Press this morning and was asked about future leaders of the Republican Party. Here's the question from David Gregory and McCain's response (from the show's transcript):

MR. GREGORY: In terms of future leaders of the Republican Party, would you like to see Sarah Palin become president?

SEN. McCAIN: I’d like to see her compete. I think we’ve got some very good candidates: Jon Huntsman and–the problem when I run down these names, I always leave, leave out a, a name–Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty. There’s, there’s so many. There’s a lot of good, fresh talent out there.

Jindal and Pawlenty are not newcomers to this discussion, nor is Sarah Palin, for that matter. All were talked about as potential running mates for McCain last fall, and VP talk to future White House run is a logical extension. And though Huntsman wasn't in the VP chatter, his name has been bandied about as a darkhorse for 2012. FHQ has been quite high on the current Utah governor in our 2012 brackets discussions (see here and here), and as GOP 12 notes, McCain hasn't been shy about mentioning the governor (an early supporter of the Arizona senator's presidential bid ahead of 2008).

My question (and it is one I see the folks over at GOP 12 asked as well): You know who isn't being mentioned?

Mitt Romney.

But neither is Mike Huckabee. And that sets up an interesting dichotomy to the emerging GOP field for 2012. There's an old guard/new face split there. And that came into play with the seeding in FHQ's bracket yesterday. Among those top four Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich all represent the conventional wisdom on GOP presidential nominations: The next guy in line gets it. The bottom half (Pawlenty, Huntsman, Sanford and Crist) are the fresh faces. [Bobby Jindal fits here too.] Sarah Palin has elements of both groups. For his part, McCain seems to be a fresh face kinda guy. But having the former nominee of the party mentioning your name in the context of a presidential run can't hurt.

[For comparison's sake John Kerry during a similar point in 2005 was fielding more questions about his own potential 2008 run than offering his thoughts on alternatives. But McCain's age puts him in a unique position in that regard. He is more a Bob Dole circa 1996 than a Kerry post-2004.]


Recent Posts:
Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

Minnesota in 2012

Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

[Click to Enlarge]

Last week when I posted the retrospective 2008 presidential candidate bracket, I said that I wanted to put one together for 2012 as well. Well, I did before NPR put out their bracket with the top 32 GOP contenders for 2012. Still, some were interested in seeing FHQ's top 8. Here, without comment, is that Elite Eight (with an Obama Tanks and is Challenged scenario tacked on).

The comments section awaits your cheers and boos.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

Minnesota in 2012

Illinois in 2012 Redux

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

Since FHQ has added some states to our examination of state legislative frontloading action this week, a 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar update is in order. Here again are the rules (updated too) from the last update:

1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not.
2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days.
   
3. You'll also see that some of the states on the calendar are live links. These are links to active legislation that would shift the date on which that state's presidential primary would be held in 2012. That allows us to track the status of the legislation more easily.
4. You'll also see that the live link has been removed from Illinois. This reflects the fact that the legislation before the legislature there applies only to the date of the primary for state and local offices. For the sake of tracking relevant legislation dealing with presidential primaries generally, but not dates directly, FHQ will include links in parentheses next to such states.
   

New Additions: New Hampshire, New Jersey and Oregon

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois (H / S), Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma (H), Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana (S), North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas (-104), Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana, New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge Nevada and South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

Notes:
Illinois: The House bill proposes moving the state's primaries for state and local offices back to the traditional third Tuesday in March date while leaving the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in February. Senate action has a similar intent, but the non-presidential primaries would move to June.

Indiana: The Senate Concurrent Resolution would form a committee to examine the wisdom of a potential frontloading move.

Minnesota: Companion bills in the House and Senate would change the state's mode of delegate selection from a caucus to a primary on the presidential level.

Oklahoma: A House bill would shift the financial burden of the presidential primary from the state to the parties with nominations at stake.

Remember that a less messy version of the calendar is always present in the left hand side bar.


Recent Posts:
Minnesota in 2012

Illinois in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

Minnesota in 2012

Minnesota, like Oklahoma, isn't examining a repositioning of its delegate selection event for 2012, but the state legislature (both chambers separately) is considering altering the mode of delegate selection. [No, that isn't in keeping with the week's focus on date-shifters, but it is relevant to the 2012 primary calendar discussion.] Traditionally the North Star state has used the caucus system as its means of allocating national convention delegates. In fact, the only time during the post-reform era (1972-present) that Minnesota used a primary as its means of delegate allocation was in 1992. And then it was only the GOP that opted for the primary (in a year with an incumbent Republican running virtually unopposed).

It is fairly significant, then, that the most populous remaining caucus state is considering adopting a primary system for presidential nomination delegate allocation. [Technically, Washington is the most populous caucus state, but the Evergreen state uses a hybrid system (primary/caucus) on the Republican side and a caucus with beauty contest primary on the Democratic side.] There are companion bills in both the state House and Senate that would keep the state's delegate selection event on the first Tuesday in February but change the selection mode from a caucus to a primary. This is a mostly Democrat-driven initiative (with only one Republican representative among the group of sponsors) that would address many of the problems heavy turnout in last year's presidential caucuses caused. Mainly, with state funding the process would likely have an increased number of polling places that would prove more accommodating than the jam-packed (especially Democratic) caucuses were during 2008. Now, both HF 31 and SF 157 were introduced in January and have been in committee ever since. That could either mean that both are the victims of the legislative process and/or that they have fallen victim to the current economic climate. Primaries mean increased state expenditures and those are much harder to justify given current economic circumstances. Another layer to add into the state legislature's calculus is considering whether 2008 was an anomaly in terms of turnout. If the overarching expectation among experts and, then, legislators is that future turnout will revert to previous levels then the desire to move from a caucus to a primary likely drops (and even more so given the interaction between that idea and the cost effectiveness of such a move.).

Like the other bills we have examined in other states this week, though, this legislation is worth tracking in the (now long) lead up to 2012.


Recent Posts:
Illinois in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012