Deep in the Heart of Texas: The Lone Star State in 2012

I bet you thought this was going to be a secession post.* Nope, but I have to admit that I let this one slip through the cracks. A while back I touted the usefulness of the National Conference of State Legislatures' election reform legislation database. There really is a lot to see there. So much, in fact, that I've missed one Texas-sized frontloading bill. It turns out that some of the states that hold concurrent primaries (presidential primaries at the same time as primaries for state and local offices) are rather difficult to track when it comes to legislation shifting a state's presidential primary date. NCSL simply treats them as primary changes and not presidential primary changes. In other words, if you just search for those bills affecting presidential primaries, you may be missing out on some of the potential movement on the state legislative level.

That was the case with Texas. They are adamant about holding these things at one time in the Lone Star state. When I contacted the elections division of the Texas Secretary of State's office a few years back, they made it abundantly clear that in Texas, they hold their presidential primaries with their other primaries and that is that. [And thus was born a major variable and subsequent finding about the importance of split primaries and frontloading. But that's a different story.]

In 2007, then, the big story out of Texas -- in the context of the frontloading of their presidential primary -- was the burden the various proposals to move the state's 2008 primaries would put on local elections officials. That was the major reason Texas stayed where it did.** And it proved a masterstroke anyway since the state was so consequential to the nominations of John McCain and Barack Obama. [Yes, Obama. The president did win more delegates in Texas despite losing the primary to Hillary Clinton. Ah, prima-caucuses.]

That burden, however, has not deterred one of the House sponsors of the 2007 bill from introducing legislation to move the Lone Star state's primaries (presidential primary included) to the first Tuesday in February for 2012 and beyond. Rep. Roberto Alonzo (D-Dallas) during the filing period last (gulp) November (Yeah, I really missed that one.) filed HB 246 to shift the state's primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

Now, under normal circumstances I'd try to shoot this one down like I did for both North Carolina and Oregon. In both those cases, members of the out-party are proposing frontloading bills for 2012. And normally that partisanship argument holds water, but not in Texas. First, Texas is a big state. We aren't talking about a handful of delegates here. That the Lone Star state didn't shift, given past movement, was one of the surprises of the movement (or non-movement) in the lead up to 2008. Also, in North Carolina and Oregon we're talking about Republicans pushing a bill on unreceptive Democrats. In Texas, a Democrat is pushing a bill in a Republican legislature. And by all estimates, the 2012 primary season, and especially the timing of events, is more consequential to the Republicans than it is to the Democrats. So, the majority of the Texas legislature may at least be receptive to the idea of a move. Whether it comes to pass...

Well, that's a different story.

Still, we can put Texas up on the big board now to join the other handful of states that are actually looking into moving forward in 2012 and not back like a few others. It is more likely in Texas' case than in North Carolina and Oregon, I'll say that.


* Speaking of secession, I couldn't resist the urge to draw up a Texas-less map. The electoral college map looks strange with that gaping hole and without the second of its Florida-Texas legs holding it up.
** Here's what I wrote about Texas back in the summer of 2007:

Texas:
The plan that made its way through the Texas legislature (HB 2017) to move the primary from the first Tuesday in March to February 5 did not fail because it didn't have bipartisan support in both chambers. It failed because of opposition from both in and outside the capitol. County election clerks fretted over the impact the move would have on local elections (Texas law requires that the presidential and the state and local primaries be held on the same date.). Office-holding candidates seeking higher office (including some in the legislature, no doubt) also protested because filing to run would take place in 2007 (the year before the election), which under the Texas Constitution would force them to vacate their currently held offices. The last action taken on HB 2017 was on May 23, just four days before the legislature adjourned.

Sadly, the link to the story in the original post is dead now. I'll have to try to find that somewhere else and link it back here.


Recent Posts:
The Links (4/16/09): Data, Data Everywhere

Now Obama's Fighting Climate Change Reform?

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

The Links (4/16/09): Data, Data Everywhere

Over the short course of the week that has been, there have been some nice sources of data released.

Pew has a great data set out now on the role of the internet in the 2008 campaign. Good to see that FHQ was one of the...

"Nearly one in five (18%) internet users posted their thoughts, comments or questions about the campaign on an online forum such as a blog or social networking site."

Open Secrets has now gone open source, opening up their rich data on money in campaigns. I've downloaded the 2008 expenditure data, but haven't had time to delve too deeply into it.

That goes for the new Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) numbers for the 111th Congress as well. I've got those numbers and the 110th as well and would like to do a more in-depth comparison of the changes than the folks at the Cook Report have provided. Not that there's anything wrong with that. What they don't give us in tabular form, they do provide in a nice map, though. And around here, maps remedy everything.

And to put my own (aided) contribution in, I've put together the daily Google Trends data for the top ten GOP candidates for 2012 (FHQ's Elite Eight plus Bobby Jindal and Ron Paul). I'll have something up regarding this data sooner than the others, but they all give us some data to look at in the meantime; data I'll be able to revisit at some point.

Thanks to DocJess over at DemConWatch for the Cook PVI link.


Recent Posts:
Now Obama's Fighting Climate Change Reform?

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

GOP Going the Caucus Route in Oklahoma in 2012?

Now Obama's Fighting Climate Change Reform?

FHQ wishes to apologize for the relatively light posting activity this week. I had a whirlwind job interview during the early part of the week and then had to return to prepare for Larry Bartels' visit to UGA (including him doing a guest stint in my political parties class) yesterday. So allow me to make it up to regular readers and passersby with some hard-hitting policy analysis of the Obama administration in the area of climate change.



It is a well-documented (yet seldom referenced) fact that as the number of pirates worldwide has decreased over time, the higher the average global temperature has risen.




Now comes this...




Yes, that's right: The Obama administration has, by sanctioning the killing of Somali pirates to save Capt. Richard Phillips, struck a blow to the cause of climate change reform. Usually quite vocal, the environmental lobby has not spoken out on the administration's move. But in a rare editorial moment for FHQ, let me say, this isn't change we can believe in. This is taking one side on car emissions and carbon cap-and-trade and another on pirates in the battle against rising global temperatures.

[Click Figures for links to original versions.]




Changing the culture of Washington, indeed.








Hat tip to big crush via Seth at Enik Rising for the pirates killed across presidents figure.


Recent Posts:
2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

GOP Going the Caucus Route in Oklahoma in 2012?

No Caucuses? North Dakota in 2012

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

This is part three in a series of examinations of the fluctuations in the volume of Republican candidate Google searches during the 2008 presidential election cycle. You can find part one (the invisible primary trends among the top six candidates) here and part two (the invisible primary trends minus the Ron Paul skew) here.

Last week FHQ had a look at the development of GOP presidential candidate searches in Google throughout the 2008 invisible primary period (2005-2007). When the 2008 search data is added to the full time series a much deeper glimpse at the significant jump John McCain made heading into the 2008 contests is gained. Also, Ron Paul's 2007 gains peak once primary season commences and then decay rather quickly as a McCain nomination becomes highly likely following the Super Tuesday contests on February 5.

When the Paul numbers are suppressed (see figure above), we see that the two tracks argument mentioned in the previous post (a Thompson/Huckabee track and a McCain/Romney track) breaks down as the contests get underway. Recall, that once Thompson's candidacy failed to take off, Mike Huckabee essentially filled the void entering 2008. But that more social conservative track peaks and collapses after the Iowa caucuses, leaving a two person battle (in terms of Google searches) among the moderate/fiscal conservatives on the McCain/Romney track. Until...

Super Tuesday. Once we zoom in to look at just the 2008 portion of the time series, it is apparent that (again, in terms of Google searches) Huckabee's inability to back up the Iowa win with anything prior to Super Tuesday hurt the former Arkansas governor's chances at the nomination. Romney, despite the money spent, didn't win Iowa but was able to manage victories in several states (Wyoming, Michigan Nevada and Maine) between that point and Super Tuesday. That seems to have kept him viable in Google searches until Super Tuesday when Romney bested McCain in an Obama-esque run through the caucus states while falling further behind McCain in the delegate count because of the Arizona senator's wins in larger, winner-take-all states. The former Massachusetts governor's searches plummet after that point, coinciding with his withdrawal from the race.

In that intervening Iowa to Super Tuesday period, though, the race was on that McCain/Romney track in regard to Google searches. And though Romney dropped below Huckabee upon his withdrawal, Huckabee was more an afterthought in comparison to McCain at that point anyway. We don't, for instance, see Huckabee's search levels go up following Romney pulling out of the race. And that's what we'd expect given the way these nomination campaigns have gone in the recent past: a nominee quickly emerges and everyone else falls by the wayside.

Just for a bit of perspective, let's zoom in a bit further and include just the January to August data (dropping the general election search data). McCain searches don't reach the point at which Ron Paul was at the beginning of 2008 until after the GOP convention. But what is really striking is how much that Paul presence online deteriorates as McCain is sealing the deal on the nomination (Super Tuesday to March 4). Yes, both candidates are quite similar in their search trajectories over that period, but the key is looking at where each began the year. Once the contests started McCain searches took off and Paul searches dropped precipitously.

The other thing we gain from this is that 2008 on the GOP side provides us with a case not of invisible primary candidate emergence, but of primary season candidate emergence. And that's not something that Americans have been able to witness too often in the post-reform era. It is too bad we don't have comparable data for the Ford-Reagan race in 1976.


Recent Posts:
GOP Going the Caucus Route in Oklahoma in 2012?

No Caucuses? North Dakota in 2012

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 2

GOP Going the Caucus Route in Oklahoma in 2012?

"They just ignore us,” [Oklahoma state GOP Vice Chairman, Cheryl Williams] said. "With the caucus system, as has been proven with other states, we actually would gain some pre-eminence back in the party.”

I'll get back to that gem in a minute [because the logic there is puzzling to say the least]. But first the story.

The Oklahoma state Republican Party is meeting this next weekend in Oklahoma City to (re-)elect a chairman. No that's not that exciting, but [see there is a good part] rival factions are forming around candidates based on their support for or opposition to the party opting out of the state-funded presidential primary in 2012 to hold a caucus instead. The current chairman, Gary Jones, is against the idea, while the party's vice chair, Cheryl Williams, is for it. This isn't just about the mode of delegate selection; the split actually dates back to last year's primary and state convention. The latter had an impressive faction of Ron Paul support that now serves as the backbone of the support behind the caucus idea. This is actually a very interesting situation.

But why a caucus over a primary? And where, pray tell, does this idea that caucuses provide a state with a more advantageous position when compared with primaries. I've got to say that the political science literature does not back up that assertion (Gurian 1986, 1993). Granted, these perhaps should be updated, but the anecdotal evidence since that point tells a completely difference tale than the yarn Cheryl Williams is weaving. Sure, the Obama campaign was able to exploit the caucus rules to win the Democratic nomination, but that didn't give those states any more a significant position at the time. Ex post facto, yes, but not at the time. And it didn't really translate into any general election success either. Obama won an overwhelming majority of caucus states in the Democratic race (see Democratic map here), but that may [MAY] have only helped him in Colorado. But even that is a stretch. The president did fare better than his immediate Democratic predecessor in many of those caucus states, but Obama was doing better than Kerry across much of the country (ironically, though, not in Oklahoma).

I can only think of one reasonable explanation here. The faction within the Oklahoma GOP supporting the caucus move wants to cut ties with the date setting part of the Oklahoma state law concerning presidential primaries. In other words, here's the thought process: the state law says we get to go on the first Tuesday in February, and the national party says we can't go before then. Well, why not hold a caucus and challenge the pre-eminence of Iowa/New Hampshire? Yeah, this feels like a rogue move, and the fact that Ron Paul supporter are pushing it isn't helping that perception. But that's perhaps being unnecessarily harsh on the Texas congressman and his supporters. The Maryland GOP is still looking into holding a pre-primary caucus that would allocate a portion of the state's GOP delegates and would also jump the first in the nation caucus and primary.

Moves like these, if they come to pass, are of a type that are really going to put the onus on the parties to fix the primary problem. But this is a different challenge than Florida/Michigan. This isn't state governments challenging national party rules, but state parties challenging their national counterparts' rules. And that's entirely different kind of flying altogether.


Recent Posts:
No Caucuses? North Dakota in 2012

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 2

2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

No Caucuses? North Dakota in 2012

Well, not exactly. However, just this past Wednesday (April 8), North Dakota Governor John Hoeven signed SB 2307 into law.

The intent of the bill? To repeal the state's presidential preference caucus.

Yeah, that sounds somewhat ominous, but it is more local quirk than anything. During the 2003 session of the North Dakota legislature, SB 2288 was proposed and passed (and ultimately became law). That started as a bill designed to coordinate both major parties' presidential preference caucuses at the state level (specifically the timing aspect). My guess here -- and it is an educated guess I'd like to think -- is that since neither party was utilizing the state's June primary as a means of allocating national party presidential delegates (instead opting to hold separate caucuses), there needed to be some effort to coordinate the parties' caucuses in order to maximize the state's impact on the nomination outcomes.

Under the new law, then, both parties had the opportunity to consult with and recommend dates (for the caucuses) to the North Dakota secretary of state, who would then designate a day (after Iowa and New Hampshire, but before the first Wednesday in March -- see NDCC 16.1-03-20 here) on which the caucuses would be held.

But here's the thing: no money exchanged hands (as evidenced by the fiscal note attendant to the original 2003 law). There was no money going from the state to the parties to fund or reimburse the parties for the caucuses. In other words, there is one thing that likely prevents the courts from overturning frontloaded primaries (specifically when there is a conflict between the timing designated by the state and when the party would actually like to hold its delegate selection event -- see Florida 2008) as unnecessary state government intervention in an internal party matter. The fact that the state is funding the election. And the state of North Dakota was not funding these caucuses. And "loose framework" though this may have been, it likely would have been a law that would have been struck down by the courts were it to be challenged.

For the 2004 and 2008 elections this wasn't a problem. The caucuses were held on the first Tuesday in February in each cycle. But in 2012, the parties will be freed from those previous restrictions to decide on their own when their presidential delegate selection events will be held. And for the first time since the 2000 cycle, that will mean that one party will not necessarily be restricted by the input of the other party in terms of when that date will fall. Republians in the state, then, won't be held hostage by the state because the Democratic Party wanted an earlier/later date than the GOP in the state wanted.

Interesting stuff from the Peace Garden State.


Recent Posts:
2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 2

2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

What About 2008? Democratic Presidential Candidates Through the Lens of Google Trends

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 2

This is part two in a series of examinations of the fluctuations in the volume of Republican candidate Google searches during the 2008 presidential election cycle. You can find part one (the invisible primary trends among the top six candidates) here.

As the figures in part one showed, once we get to the 2007 segment of the invisible primary time series, the exponential growth of Ron Paul's search volume detracts from our ability to see the trends among the viable Republican candidates vying for the GOP's 2008 nomination. When the Ron Paul data is suppressed, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee appear to be bigger players. Both at various points during the latter half of 2007 tower over their remaining competitors in terms of their Google search traffic. You can see that in the full (2005-2007) figure above, but the 2007 snapshot below is more indicative.

In many regards we can see both candidates spikes as inter-related. Huckabee didn't jump all that much after his win in the September Iowa straw poll, but his win there coupled with the failed roll-out of Fred Thompson's candidacy seemed to boost Huckabee's profile entering the caucuses in Iowa. Essentially though, we have two tracks going here; one representing each side of the Republican Party (in its simplest binary terms). Huckabee and Thompson best typified the social conservative wing of the party; the segment of the Republican base that seemed least represented by and least enthusiastic about this pool of candidates. So much of the Republican invisible primary was about either how McCain was attempting to appeal to those voters or who the alternative would be. Through that lens, Thompson/Huckabee was that alternative.

But there was another track here as well; a more moderate or economic conservative track. This was a three person race between McCain (once the Arizona senator's campaign hit the wall in the summer of 2007), Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani's progression throughout the year though isn't all that variable, and as such, this was more of a two person battle between Romney and McCain.
[This is where Glenn's point on polling the other day is interesting: Giuliani was leading many of the polls during 2007 (see below), yet had basically flatlined in terms of search volume.]

[Click Figure for Link to Actual Polls at Pollster.com]

And what we see in that 2007 Google search snapshot is that Romney rises and passes McCain as the Arizona senator is falling throughout 2007. The former Massachusetts governor, then stays ahead of McCain until the calendar turns and the contests begin. With those two simultaneous trends, the GOP side is a little more interesting from a candidate emergence perspective than the Democratic side. And that the search time series doesn't comport with the polling going on during the 2007 portion of the Republican invisible primary raises some questions for us to pursue here in the future, especially regarding Giuliani. Why is it that America's mayor was polling so well, but got so little interest online?

There seems to be a better match between the two metrics concerning the other candidates. Yes, there is a Huckabee lag from search data to polling and Romney is consistently behind, though, close to McCain during the final quarter of 2007. On the whole though, the rising and falling of each candidate roughly corresponds across both measures (it is a matter of shifting the whole line that differs across both) with the exception of Giuliani, whose numbers are widely divergent between the two.

These data are designed to elicit questions rather than answer them, and I think we've got that here.

Up Next: the GOP candidates in 2008


Recent Posts:
2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

What About 2008? Democratic Presidential Candidates Through the Lens of Google Trends

From One Contest to Another: Ohio Redistricting Competition

2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

To avoid chart saturation here, I'll break this examination of 2008 GOP candidates into three parts. The first part will focus on Republican candidate emergence during the invisible primary, the second part will drop Ron Paul in the context of 2007 to better ascertain search volume shifts during the latter half of that year, and finally part three will look at how things changed once primary season began.

As I mentioned in the series of posts investigating the shifts in Democratic candidate search volumes, the early speculation following the 2004 election and entering the 2008 invisible primary centered on a potential John McCain-Hillary Clinton general election. Well, the US got half of that last November, but early on Google searches favored both the New York senator and the Arizona senator overall. On the Republican side, though, there certainly is McCain red hovering over the other colors across much of the 2005-2006 period. And that's somewhat in keeping with the "next one in line" nominations that the GOP has had more often than not throughout the last generation.

But the full invisible primary (2005-2007) time series does not really provide us with the true nature of McCain's search volume relative to his most viable competitors for the nomination (for reasons that seem obvious simply by looking at the charts, but that FHQ will get into momentarily). If we zoom in on each of the three years individually, though, we get a better glimpse of what McCain's real advantage was. Again, McCain's volume is ahead of the other five candidates through 2005 (other than when Fred Thompson shot up in the summer when Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court and the former Tennessee senator was named by the Bush administration as the head of an informal group to guide her replacement, John Roberts, through the confirmation process.). Now, it is important to note here that there are no doubt endogeneity issues here as the media coverage of events in the political realm certainly has an impact on the volume of search traffic for a particular keyword. In other words, a search for anyone of these candidates is not necessarily a presidential run-related search.

However, that certainly changes somewhat as attention shifts toward the presidential race at the conclusion of the 2006 midterms (see above). All six candidates see at least a modest jump following the elections that brought the Democrats back into control of both houses of Congress. Again though, McCain is ahead across much of that year.

Heading into 2007 that progression continues. Mitt Romney's stock rises and finally surpasses McCain during the summer 2007 low point for the Arizona senator's campaign. More interestingly, though, Fred Thompson's search volume increases upon the formation of his presidential candidacy exploratory committee. The online chatter behind his potential candidacy continued into the summer months. As McCain's prospects waned, Thompson's grew. But Thompson's strength was as a potential candidate. Upon officially entering the race in September 2007, the former Tennessee senator quickly underwhelmed hopeful conservatives, losing ground online.

Of course, much of this Thompson spike is -- which is really quite an interesting case of candidate emergence -- is clouded by the sudden and consistent growth of Ron Paul online. The Texas congressman's close in 2007 dwarfed even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's heading into the election year. And those were two of the top three candidates in a Democratic field most Democratic voters were very enthusiastic about. Despite the following online (and this was something the power of which FHQ readers were recently reminded of), Paul just wasn't a serious candidate, and his numbers affect our ability to see the movement among the other five candidates who were all viable options heading into 2008.

Before examining the 2008 context, though, we'll look at the GOP invisible primary sans Ron Paul. Fred Thompson searches will appear much more significant and we'll better see the movement around other candidates (especially Mike Huckabee after his Iowa straw poll win and Fred Thompson's false start.). That's where we'll turn our attention next.


Recent Posts:
What About 2008? Democratic Presidential Candidates Through the Lens of Google Trends

From One Contest to Another: Ohio Redistricting Competition

Newt on 2012: "We'll See"

What About 2008? Democratic Presidential Candidates Through the Lens of Google Trends

Yesterday, FHQ looked at the Google Trends search volume for the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates between 2005 and 2007. The goal was to look for the emergence of the candidates during the invisible primary. And what happened, on the Democratic side at least, was more a case of candidate displacement than candidate emergence. Barack Obama basically overtook John Edwards as the Hillary Clinton alternative.

Invisible primary aside, though, what does the search volume look like for each of the top five candidates once primary and caucus contests begin providing tangible results in January 2008?

Well, for starters, tacking on that extra year and the election day spike really dwarfs some of the earlier data. What's important, though, is that red line (Obama) spikes in early 2008 and stays above the yellow line (Clinton) through mid-June when Clinton's volume trails off. Sure this gives us some scale, but that election day jump for Obama is deterring us from seeing some of the changes from the invisible primary.

If we cut off the data at September 2008 -- just after the Democratic convention -- we lose some of the skew from that election day spike. Instead of one multi-colored line running across the bottom of the time series from January 2005 to November of 2006, we can actually see Hillary Clinton hovering above the other potential candidates instead of appearing to be one in the crowd (while still appearing to be at the top).

The picture is clearer still when just the 2008 data is isolated. Obama still is clearly ahead of Clinton throughout the time series, but there are certainly some fluctuations given the events on the ground. The space between Obama and Clinton is widest following Super Tuesday in early February and Obama's streak of wins to close out the month. Wright, bitter-gate and losses to Clinton in Texas and Ohio in March, however, closed that gap. Obama, though, maintains that lead, diminished though it is until the nomination contests end and Clinton withdraws.

Again though, much of this tracks with the events that were happening in the contest at the time, but Glenn does raise an interesting point. What does polling look like during this period? That's obviously another layer to add into this; one that Cohen, et al. (cited in original post) considered. In the original study, (actually Karol et al. 2003), they found that endorsements had three times the impact on polls than polls had on endorsements during the invisible primary period. No, that doesn't answer the question in the context of the primaries and caucuses, but it does indicate that polls (like the data here) are likely next in line on the causal chain behind events in the nomination race.


Recent Posts:
From One Contest to Another: Ohio Redistricting Competition

Newt on 2012: "We'll See"

2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

From One Contest to Another: Ohio Redistricting Competition

Ohio Redistricting Competition

The goal of the Ohio Redistricting Competition is to demonstrate that an open process based on objective criteria can produce fair legislative districts in Ohio. During the competition, it is our belief that a robust public conversation about the process can occur, leading to the development of the best possible redistricting recommendations for consideration by the Ohio General Assembly.

The Ohio Redistricting Competition represents the culmination of over nine months of planning amongst the League of Women Voters of Ohio (LWVO), Ohio Citizen Action, Common Cause, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Former State Representative Joan Lawrence, and State Representative Dan Stewart.

--via the Ohio Secretary of State's website

This isn't filling out fictitious brackets for prospective presidential candidates. No, this is a far more involved simulation that folks in Ohio and outside its boundaries can participate in. Draw your own congressional districts. The contest sign ups end and the competition begins on Friday, April 10 and concludes on May 11.

Hey you get to use an online version of GIS software. How bad could it be? My only gripe is that the current number of districts are being redrawn. Ohio is likely to lose a congressional seat or two after the 2010 Census, so why not have this competition reflect that reality? [I suppose no one wants to admit that their state is losing clout.]

The rules of the competition and other information are at the site linked at the top.

Tip of the cap: John Sides at The Monkey Cage


Recent Posts:
Newt on 2012: "We'll See"

2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

Live Blog: UGA Getzen Lecture featuring Newt Gingrich