Democratic Change Commission Meeting This Weekend

According to this article in the Helena Independent Record, Montana secretary of state, Linda McCulloch, is off to Washington for a meeting of the Democratic Change Commission. The commission was formed to examine three things:

1. The window of time in which presidential nomination contests are held. [This is where frontloading would be a part of the broader discussion.]
2. The impact of superdelegates
3. The caucus system
   

None of the problems will be fixed this weekend and may not be by the summer of 2010 when recommendations are likely to start emerging. But this is a starting point nonetheless.

McCulloch departs for Washington with some fairly specific ideas.

On Montana's position in 2008 and before:

“Last time, Montana was a player,” McCulloch said, “Now that we’ve been a player, I want to see it continue.”

McCulloch questioned the fairness of having some states holding their primaries and caucuses first every year, referring to New Hampshire and Iowa, and others holding their elections last, as Montana does.

[Montana did try unsuccessfully to move its 2008 presidential primary into February or March. The bill, coincidentally enough, would have given the secretary of state the power to set the date of the state's primary in either of those earlier months. After passing the House in the state legislature, though, the bill died in committee in the Senate. It should be noted that she was not secretary of state at the time. Montana Republicans, in fact, held a caucus and held it on Super Tuesday. But...]

On caucuses:

McCulloch said she prefers primary elections to caucuses in presidential races.

“I’m not a big fan of the caucus procedure, because it includes a few people rather than all the people,” she said. “My focus is to make sure more people vote, more people participate.”

[So, it would appear that circumventing the state legislature by holding a caucus -- as Montana Republicans did in 2008 -- is not the secretary of state's preferred method of dealing with this. It is good way to avoid the partisanship problems that tend to plague state legislatures attempting to shift their presidential primaries, however.]

And on superdelegates...

She’s also not wild about designating top party officials, senators, congressmen and governors as “superdelegates” by virtue of the positions. They automatically become delegates at the national convention.

“It goes against the grain of my belief that everyone should have an equal vote and be equal,” McCulloch said. “In voting, everyone is equal. Everyone is a superdelegate.”

[I need to look at how many former superdelegates are on the Demcratic Change Commission.]

With 37 members, there are going to be a fair number of opinions on what to do about any or all of the three issues above. The process starts Saturday and this will continue to be something to track as we move into a midterm election year next year.


Recent Posts:
Why the Sanford Thing Matters

How Not to Emerge as a GOP Darkhorse, Part II

Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

Why the Sanford Thing Matters

This whole Mark Sanford has been over-hyped to some degree. The disappearance is fine (Well, not when called a disappearance. How about trip?), but the communication is what has been completely botched. Ideally things would have gone like this:

1) Sanford's Press Office: "Yes, the governor likes to take some time off at the end of tough legislative sessions and has decided to hike some of the Appalachian Trail this year. We have not been in contact with him, but he is scheduled to return on Wednesday. We have a plan in place in the event that an emergency should arise."

2) Sanford's wife: "Oh, Mark likes to clear his head from time to time, especially after such a contentious session with the legislature. We talked and I told him to take advantage of the time over this fathers day weekend for that prupose. It's his day after all."

But it hasn't played out like that.

The press team has constantly updated its story making it appear as if there is something to cover up -- whether there is or isn't -- and his wife's not knowing his whereabouts is completely beyond me. I don't mean she needs to have him tagged and can track him with GPS. But she should at least be able to say, "Mark's hiking and will be back in a few days."

The communication network has broken down at so many points that it makes the situation appear much, much worse than I'm sure it actually is.

But this is politics. Perceptions matter and can cement very quickly. For example...

McCain is a Maverick. (2000)

McCain is erratic. (2008)

Kerry is a flip-flopper.

Is "Sanford is flaky" next? We'll see. The thing that we talked about some here at FHQ last fall is this idea of a narrative. If you can construct a simple narrative for your opponent and continually shoe-horn all or most of his or her actions into that narrative, you'll be in good shape.

Kerry is a flip-flopper was an easy one. The Massachusetts' senator's time in that body and his own penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth made the Bush reelection effort much easier. It wasn't necessarily the deciding factor, but there's no denying the fact that it was part of the reason.

Well, how about McCain is erratic? That, too, was an easy one. McCain's position in the race -- the underdog -- forced the Arizona senator to make some decisions that may have been different if he was ahead in the polls and not behind Obama. Once the "erratic" narrative emerged, it was simple to place the Palin as VP selection or his suspension of his campaign due to the economic crisis or his call to postpone the debates into that "erratic" box.

So no, this Sanford episode, if you want to call it that, is silly in the grand scheme of things. It is is summer news fare (as RedState rightly points out). It's Chandra Levy. It's shark attacks. But it does matter in that this is an event from which the sort of narrative alluded to above can emerge. And if Sanford seeks to run for another and/or higher office, his opponents will likely take a second look at whether this "flaky" narrative has legs.

Of course, candidate response factors into this as well and we've yet to hear from the governor himself for his version of what happened.


Recent Posts:
How Not to Emerge as a GOP Darkhorse, Part II

Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

How Not to Emerge as a GOP Darkhorse, Part II

What is going on with the prospective GOP presidential nominees for 2012? First Jon Huntsman joins a Democratic administration, then John Ensign (was blackmailed?) admitted to an extramarital affair and now Mark Sanford has apparently taken a tour of Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. And this doesn't even take into account all of Sarah Palin's "issues" since the Alaska governor burst on the scene last September.

Who is responsible for this? Other Republicans vying for the 2012 nod? [I knew that Mitt Romney had a suspicious look about him.] The Obama administration trying to "hand-pick" a GOP patsy? [Chicago politics at its finest.] Lee Harvey Oswald? [From the grave. Take that Warren Commission.] I don't know. What I do know is that I spend my life looking for patterns like these and one has definitely surfaced here. Lightning striking the same place three times is not a coincidence.

...not anymore.

One thing's for sure: If you're thinking about a run for the GOP nomination in 2012, keep that thought to yourself until this thing blows over.

Oh, this just in from New York. Residents of the Empire State are blaming David Paterson for this rash of GOP troubles. Poor Paterson.


Recent Posts:
Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

NOTE: FHQ doesn't typically wander into the area of policy polling, but I'm in the midst of a unit on sampling and survey research in my summer course political science research class and I'm looking for examples for illustrative purposes. At the moment, the contradictory findings from NY Times/CBS and Resurgent Republic offers the perfect example.

Depending on who you're listening to, the Obama adminstration's efforts to push meaningful (perhaps, "meaningful" as that is certainly in the eye of the beholder) health care reform through Congress is either going swimmingly or is a complete non-starter. [Actually, the sense I get from my view up in the nosebleed section -- definitely not on the sidelines -- is that the obstacles appear more daunting now than they did prior to health care officially being placed on the agenda.] You will find no better example of this than in the divide between the latest New York Times/CBS News and Resurgent Republic* polls (both pdfs) released in the last few days on the matter. Now, these aren't identical polls, but there are a few questions that offer a glimpse into the true contrast here. First, let's focus on question wording on the overlapping questions before we look at the underlying demographics of each poll's sample. For example:

On higher taxes and health care funding...
NYT/CBS:

Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have
health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?

57% Willing, 37% Not willing

RR:
Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?

RAISE TAXES/HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.....................39%
NO TAX INCREASE/NO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL....52%
DON'T KNOW...................................................................10%

On the federal government versus private health care... (And no, these questions do not necessarily offer an apples to apples comparison.)
NYT/CBS:

Do you think the government would do a better or worse job than private insurance
companies in providing medical coverage?

50% Better, 34% Worse

RR:
Which would you prefer: (ROTATE: a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through the federal government, or a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through a private insurance company)?

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.............................................31%
PRIVATE INSURANCE....................................................60%
DON'T KNOW.....................................................................9%

Now, the first set of questions provides us with a much better direct comparison than the second set, but the nearly diametrically opposed numbers from each poll is eye-catching, to say the least. Question wording in each case, of course, may have a lot to do with this, but let's look at the partisan breakdown just for the heck of it. It wasn't all that long ago -- over this past weekend in fact -- that Nate Silver cautioned that these NYT polls typically trend Democratic in terms of sampling (He further adds that the ten point spread isn't all that extraordinary in the grand polling scheme recently.). And it also may not surprise you that a polling outfit called Resurgent Republic would have a more Republican-leaning sample. But let's have a look under the hood, shall we?

Samples (by party ID)...
NYT/CBS:

GOP: 24%
DEM: 38%
IND: 31%
DK: 8%

RR:

GOP: 32%
DEM: 38%
IND: 26%
DK: 3%

The dispute isn't over the Democrats, where both polls have an equivalent proportion, but among the percentage of Republicans and Independents included. How does this stack up against the national poll average over the last six months (via Pollster)?
That NYT/CBS sample appears to be closer to the current D-R polling gap than the Resurgent Republic sample.** But does that mean health care reform is a done deal? Well, we'll have more polls over the next few weeks and months to tell us whether it is or isn't.

...not to mention some action or inaction on Capitol Hill.


*Incidentally, here is the scoop on Resurgent Republican for those interested.
**It should be pointed out that RR had 1000 cases while NYT had a sample size of 895.


Recent Posts:
Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

I take issue with some of the "wide lead" talk concerning Arlen Specter's position in the Democratic primary polling relative to Joe Sestak. This isn't a new development: that I have an issue or that the media is talking up the numbers without digging terribly deeply into them. And for the record, Political Wire is technically right. It is a wide lead.

But is that what we should be focused on at this point in the race?

The margin isn't what matters. At this point, Specter's position in the polls relative to the 50% mark is what's important. And the Republican-turned-Democrat is hovering just over that point currently. The other thing to eye is the fluctuation in the level of undecideds in this race. That number is important because of a few things that are likely to keep the number higher [than they would be minus these factors]. First, this race involves a Republican-turned-Democrat. Secondly, Sestak has not "officially" entered the race. And finally, it is very early in the process.

So early in fact, that polling wasn't conducted nearly so soon in the cycle the last time an incumbent Pennsylvania senator was challenged in a primary. And for that information you have to stretch all the way back to 2004 when a political unknown, Arlen Specter, was challenged in the Republican primary by Pat Toomey. What pattern can we glean from that data?

First of all, polling on the Specter/Toomey race did not begin until the fall of 2003 before the April 2004 primary. Polling in May and June of 2009, then, precedes that point in the senate electoral cycle. The starting point is largely the same for the candidates in the polls, though. You can see the trendline here (see "Matchup Poll Graph" on the right side). But what OurCampaign provides is the polling without verification of the sources and without that undecided number. So let's look at the polling data and a better graphic of the trends from the fall of 2003 through primary day in Pennsylvania in late April of 2004.



The thing is that Specter jumped above the 50% mark in a few polls but for the most part was stuck just under 50% throughout. All the movement, not to mention momentum, was with Toomey across the five months of polling in the campaign. The more undecideds decided, the more Toomey gained on Specter among likely (Republican) voters in the closed Pennsylvania primary.

[Click to Enlarge]

If we contrast that with the average Pollster has for the six polls conducted in the last month and a half on this hypothetical Democratic primary race, we see that Sestak has already cut further into Specter's advantage without having even formally announced his intention to run. The 17 point advantage Specter now holds is more than half of what it was in the week after his switch to the Democratic party and all the Sestak talk began (The average of the three polls conducted during the first week in May had Specter up by 41 points.). The kicker is that that is with less than ten points having been cut off the undecideds value (The average undecided mark in those same three polls mentioned above was 21 points with the latest Rasmussen poll showing 13% undecided). In other words, Sestak is taking away from Specter more than he's picking up undecideds.

And it's still early (for polling in this race and for the levelling of wide lead charges).


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (6/18/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Of all the lines I'd imagine penning, this would probably not have been at the top of my list, but here goes:

That's more like it. An independent poll in the Virginia governor's race from Daily Kos.

When compared with the Anzalone Liszt poll conducted on behalf of the Democratic Governors Association that was released a couple of days ago, though, the Kos/R2K poll withstands the independence test better. A new poll, then, means FHQ must recalculate the average standing of the candidates in the governor's race in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And what do you know? The deadheat from a week ago is still a deadheat today. But Bob McDonnell edges past Creigh Deeds here (and the map above becomes ever so slightly more reddish purple than it was).

Our typical caveats remain, however. There are still but five polls total in this race (since the point at which Deeds became viable following the Washington Post endorsement), and that means we are still likely to see some "wild" fluctuations. With the "Deeds leads" poll not receiving the full weight of the most recent poll, the full body of evidence outside of the most recent poll continues to favor McDonnell overall. That should be said with a note of caution, though. This is still a close race; not the virtual tie from a week ago, but still very much within the margin of error.

That said, I'll add one more helpful graphic now that we have a couple of averages in the books. As we saw recently in the 2012 presidential primary poll tracking, two points on a graph aren't terribly exciting. But you have to start somewhere. To keep track of the ebbs and flows of the FHQ averages over the course of the campaign is something that I think will prove instructive for us all in both the New Jersey and Virginia contexts. [And this is something that would have been helpful during the presidential race a year ago on a state by state basis. When I have more time on my hands for combing back through that data, that may be something I'll add here in the future.] The graph really tells the tale -- at least as it is scaled with the inclusion of the undecideds. This is just a close race.

It should continue to be fun to track.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

One question: What's worse for a prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate?

• Taking an ambassadorial position with the Obama administration.
• Admitting to having had an extramarital affair.
  

My hunch is that neither plays terribly well with primary voters on the right. We may be able to mark John Ensign off the list of those in consideration for inclusion on FHQ's candidate emergence tracker in the same way Jon Huntsman was recently removed.


Recent Posts:
A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

A new poll is out from Anzalone Liszt Research on the Virginia governor's race. Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire has the results up showing Deeds ahead of current Virginia attorney general, Bob McDonnell, by a 42%-38% count. That spread is in line with the Rasmussen poll conducted in the aftermath of last week's Democratic primary, but the drawback here is that this poll was conducted by the Democratic polling firm on behalf of the Democratic Governors Association. No, that doesn't compromise the results necessarily, but the numbers certainly have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Our traditional action in this case is to hold out any polling from partisan firms from our polling averages. That was done during the 2008 election cycle and will continue to be employeed in FHQ's tracking of the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.

In other words, interesting results, but...

UPDATE: Pollster's got the results up now with a link to a pdf of the full poll.


Recent Posts:
Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

With the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee slated to meet next week to begin its discussions on altering the presidential primary calendar for 2012, The Hill is reporting that a new ally in the effort has emerged. New Hampshire Democrat and Democratic Change Commission member, James Roosevelt has been in contact with several members of the Republican committee about ways in which the two parties can work together to head off the problems with the perceived inevitability of a national primary (de facto or not) in 2012 and/or beyond.

And this appears to come through in some of the comments from the story:

“If we don’t try to coordinate, [the primary process] just keeps leapfrogging into the previous year,” Roosevelt added.

“If we don’t do it now, we’re not going to get another chance,” Bennett warned.

One thing we can glean from this is that way the 2008 calendar played out added a sense of urgency to the issue of frontloading; enough of a sense that the parties have realized that time is short and that they are potentially willing to work together to avoid the worst case scenario. And that's a fairly significant step.

Oh, and a hat tip to Don Means over at the National Presidential Caucus for the link to The Hill article.


Recent Posts:
Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/11/09)

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

There were a couple of pieces that came out this weekend -- one from former McCain consultant Mike Murphy in Time and the other from Dan Balz at the Washington Post -- that paint a rather dire picture for the Republican Party's future electoral prospects. The premise is simple: Demographics are changing and unless the GOP does too, the Party of Lincoln will fall into minority status long term.

Is that the case, though? It wasn't that long ago that the Democratic Party was equally "leaderless" and pundits were offering their suggestions for how the party could turn it around. One such cautionary tale was from David Brooks just after the 2004 presidential election. In an op-ed that has stuck with me since, Brooks pointed out the importance of the exurbs in electoral politics. Further he noted that, as is often the case in the elections game, those first to recognize the importance of a new demographic are likely the first to reap the benefits of sending campaign resources their way. The Bush campaign understood the power of this segment of the electorate and used its advantage in those exurban areas (among others) to outpace John Kerry overall.

The interesting thing is that of the three states Brooks mentions, all three -- Florida, Nevada and Virginia -- voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. And of the counties/cities Brooks cites, two of the three -- Loudoun County in (northern) Virginia and Henderson outside of Las Vegas -- flipped similarly. Only Polk County along the I-4 corridor in Florida stayed red, though it was six points less red than it had been in 2004.

In other words, the Democrats, or the Obama campaign at least, learned something from that 2004 election by turning a positive for the GOP into an advantage for their party. [The counterargument there is that the Democrats may have learned something, but it was the economy that was their advantage.] Is a similar turnaround even on the table for the GOP, though? At this point in the presidential election cycle, it is difficult to perceive. Murphy points out the Obama administration's spending as a potential opening for Republicans, but even that is underscored by the demographic advantages both he and Balz chalk up for the Democrats.

The real thing to look at is who the Republicans ultimately turn to as a spokesperson for their party and that brings us full circle back to the leadership question. Who is delivering the message and how the party reacts to that person counts. Does the party find, then, a Ronald Reagan, circa 1980 or a Bob Dole, circa 1996? Yes, the conditions were different for both of those candidates, but I don't think there is any debate as to the identity of the superior spokesman among the two.

But who is that person for the GOP in 2009? 2010? 2012? If we glance at the FHQ Candidate Emergence Tracker (in the left sidebar also), Sarah Palin outdoes all others included, but is she the candidate to counter Obama and mute the demographic advantages the Democrats hold? Currently, I'd be willing to wager that the concensus answer would be no and if that's the case, who is that candidate that could turn things around for the GOP? That's why this leadership question is important: because who emerges is the quickest and most effective way to counter the Obama effect and shift the narrative long term.

The problem? We just don't know who that is.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/11/09)

Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition