State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/1/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

What effect have the negative charges levied against Chris Christie had in the New Jersey governors race? If you look at the polls that were released a today (yesterday technically), you'd be hard-pressed to conclude anything other than "not much". The fact of the matter is that Republican Christie continues to be in good shape. More often than not recently, the former US attorney has been in themid- to upper 40s in the polls (not a bad spot to be in a three person race) while incumbent, Jon Corzine has remained in the upper 30s to lower 40s range. That wasn't any different in the two polls released most recently.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Quinnipiac	Aug. 25-30, 2009	+/- 2.4%	1612 likely voters	37	47	9	6
Fairleigh Dickinson [pdf]	Aug. 24-30, 2009	+/- 4%	715 likely voters	42	47	1	6

Christie was steady in both at 47% support while Corzine hit both ends of the spectrum in his range; upper 30s in the Quinnipiac poll, lower 40s in the Fairleigh Dickinson poll. The net effect is essentially nil in FHQ's graduated weighted averaging in the race. And for the status quo trajectory to be altered in any noticeable way, there is going to have to be a fundamental and distinct change in the polling. As you can see in the figure below, despite recent fluctuations in polling (for Christie specifically), whether above or below the average, that average has basically flatlined. So despite the fact that there has been something of an accumulation of negative news coming out about Chris Christie, it doesn't seem to be flagging his support in polling. Corzine just appears to be an unpopular incumbent.

The one interesting thing in these two polls is that Corzine and independent, Chris Daggett, appear to be locked in a zero sum game (And yes, this could simply be coincidental.). As Daggett's support rises, Corzine's goes down. This trend has not made itself clear in any of the previous polling in the race, but it is worth noting that Christie's numbers and those in the undecided column are the exact same in both polls. The fluctuation is between Corzine and Daggett.

[Click to Enlarge]

My gut is that ultimately this is a two horse race and that most people will decide between Christie and Corzine. That implies that the 9% support Daggett is garnering in the Quinnipiac poll is a bit high. However, it isn't clear that those folks (those aligned with Daggett in that poll) would move in whole or in part toward Corzine. For the incumbent to win, though, he'll have to count on swaying both a majority of those Daggett "supporters" (and there are some supporters without quotes out there as well) and undecideds. For New Jersey (and national) Democrats trumpeting the "those Democrats will come home in November" trend (something that in gubernatorial races is not that clear), that is the hope. But the hour is getting late, Corzine is still stuck below 42% and those playing hard-to-get are sticking to their guns. Corzine has some room to grow as both these polls show him below 75% with Democrats, but like the Virginia race (though not nearly to the extent), independents are leaning toward the Republican candidate. On average (in these two polls), Christie is about 20 points up. Corzine will have to raise the bar among Democrats and close that gap among independents to have a chance.

...even with the cushion Democrats enjoy in Garden state registration.



Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/1/09)

2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Clarus Research Group): Obama vs. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney

Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/1/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Let's take a quick and dirty look at the Virginia governors race, where today Public Policy Polling released a new poll. Again, this race is in wait-and-see mode at the moment. While the PPP poll was in the field for part of the post-thesis revelation period over the weekend, the full backlash/reaction to it could not have been fully incorporated yet.

2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Deeds	McDonnell	Undecided
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	Aug. 28-31, 2009	+/- 4%	596 likely voters	42	49	9

Even still, there are some interesting numbers to take note of in this poll. For starters, McDonnell's 14 point edge in the PPP poll a month ago has been halved and coincidentally, that matches the decrease in McCain voters in the sample from July to August. So not only is McDonnell's lead down to seven (actually Deeds gained more than McDonnell lost), but the composition of this month's sample is down from +11 for McCain in July to +4 in August. And recall, this is a state Obama turned blue in 2008, winning by seven points. The extent to which McCain voters dominate these polls then really drives home the presence of an enthusiasm gap in this race. Republicans have the edge there, but as I stated yesterday, this thesis matter has the potential to help close that gap by activating Democrats and moving independents (who by the way are favoring McDonnell by a 2:1 margin in this poll) into, if not the Deeds column, then into the undecided column.

For the time being, though, this race is in neutral at least according to FHQ's graduated weighted average. The poll did little to move the needle and in fact pulled the average into pretty close alignment with it. The next polls will tell the tale on where this race will be going for the next little bit or the rest of the race.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Clarus Research Group): Obama vs. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney

Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Clarus Research Group): Obama vs. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney

Last night we looked at the 2012 Republican primary numbers from the recent Clarus Research Group poll. The same poll that found Mitt Romney doing quite well among Republican respondents in the primary setting also found the former Massachusetts governor matching up against Obama the best among the full national sample.*

...but not by much. The Mike Huckabee/Barack Obama pairing was a near mirror image of the Romney/Obama race (Obama's support against Romney was just one percent shy of the president's against Romney's while the two Republicans' shares remained the same). Before we dig too far in, let's look at the toplines:

Obama: 52%
Gingrich: 34%
Not Sure: 15%

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 38%
Not Sure: 15%

Obama: 53%
Palin: 34%
Not Sure: 13%

Obama: 47%
Romney: 38%
Not Sure: 15%

Margin of error: +/- 3.1%
Sample: 353 Republican voters
Conducted: August 14-18, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]

For Gingrich, this is the worst showing since the May Public Policy Polling survey (the one that had the most representative sample until the August poll). There really isn't that much to say about the former Speaker. He has been polled among the Big Four throughout 2009, but has yet to measure up to the Huckabee/Palin/Romney group either in the primaries or against the president. That certainly doesn't change here.

[Click to Enlarge]

And while Huckabee does drop off compared to the PPP poll in the field nearly simultaneously, the former Arkansas governor emerges with something to hang his hat on. Earlier we discussed how this poll had Huckabee as the clear choice of Republican women in the primary race which is noteworthy with a woman in the race. But that doesn't translate once a Democrat is added to the equation. Now, we would expect the gender gap to continue to focus female support behind the Democrat and male support with the Republican in any prospective 2012 match up and that trend is not broken here. However, we do see that the gap is smaller for Huckabee (-20) and Romney (-18) than it is for Gingrich (-34) and Palin (-37).**

[Click to Enlarge]

Odd as it may seem, this is the continuing trend in this data as of now. Palin is doing worse among women than with men against Obama and has the highest gender gap (relative to the other Republican candidates). And that is striking. What's worse is that the overall gap between Palin and Obama is now wider than it was prior to her resignation. The three August polls conducted pitting the former Alaska governor against Obama, show the governor under 40% and the president above 50%. That wasn't the case after she announced her resignation, but actually having step down (at least at first glance) seems to be the line of demarcation between these poll trends.

[Click to Enlarge]

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney continues to place, if not the closest to Obama (Huckabee has been consistently closer in the PPP polls.), then second closest. And the former Massachusetts governor has been among (along with Huckabee) the candidates who have been able to minimize the amount of support the president garners in these polls.

The biggest pro and con in all of this 2012 trial heat polling is that one firm (Public Policy Polling) has been doing most of the work. That is good for the sake of comparison across polls, but by the same token is subjecting us to the same house effect over and over again. In other words, we're just missing out on the view from other polling outfits. That's why the Obama/Romney tie in the July Rasmussen poll was so surprising; it followed up the PPP polls that showed Romney close, but struggling to break the 40% barrier. Again, the one thing Romney could hang his hat on there, was that he was keeping the president under 50% in many of those polls. And honestly, that's not a very strong hook and the hat is somewhat heavy.

I still have to caution that this is all extremely early in the 2012 cycle. But the trend among women with Sarah Palin included continues to be a noteworthy statistic across all of these polls.

*Please note that the full national sample size was used in the write up of the Republican primary poll last night. That has been corrected. The Republican portion of the sample was comprised of 353 respondents.

**This figure is calculated as the sum of the deficits among women and men for each candidate against President Obama. For example, in a hypothetical match up between Obama and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, if the president had a 53-37 advantage among women (-16 for Pawlenty), but the governor had a slight advantage among men, say, 44-42 (+2 for Pawlenty), the gap would be -14 (-16+2).


Recent Posts:
Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

[They haven't in the polls with few exceptions.]

As we get ready to usher in the fall campaign once Labor Day passes next week, both gubernatorial races this year are at something of a crossroads. In both cases, the Democrat is trailing and in both cases, the Republican has been faced with some negative news recently. In New Jersey, Chris Christie is weathering the storm of links to the Bush administration as well as a series of personal issues. [Well, that makes it sound like a drug problem or something of that ilk. Speeding tickets and loans to subordinates aren't drug problems, but they don't come free of any negatives.] Further south, in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell is being haunted by his own words from twenty years ago, in the form of a Regent University master's thesis.

My first reaction to the McDonnell news was that if Democrats wanted to use the thesis effectively, they would have to be selective with it and not bombard people on the chance that it could trigger a backlash. After all, the Virginia electorate that has been picked up in polls since the June primary has tilted to the Republican end of the spectrum. This news isn't necessarily going to change their minds; it might energize them further. The power of this story, though, is in its narrative capacity. Democrats and the Deeds campaign have been pushing the "this isn't the real McDonnell" card since the spring, but they now have something to hang that on and refer back to ad infinitum. Anytime McDonnell says something that in anyway links back to the thesis, Democrats will pull it into the "that's all part of his blueprint" narrative. And while there is the chance that that also risks a backlash, it is a gamble that could also play well with apathetic Democrats and independents, who have to this point remained on the sidelines in this race*. But to say that that isn't a tightrope act for Democrats and Deeds is a mistake. The degree to which Deeds can find that balance between effectively playing this (and making trouble for McDonnell) or seeming desperate will determine the direction of this race down the home stretch.

[That said, I still want an answer to Jonathan Martin's tweet yesterday (I'm paraphrasing): If the thesis is so damaging, how did oppo researchers miss it in the 2005 attorney general race or any other office McDonnell has run for?]

In New Jersey, the narrative has progressed to its second step (beyond the Bush connection). Instead of the debate being on moderate/not moderate turf, as in Virginia, this one seems to revolve around Christie's judgment (the bent of the news does lately, anyway). So, while Christie maintains a lead in the polls, you can certainly see that the stories have shifted in this race from "throw the bum out"/anti-incumbent stories to "does Christie have the requisite judgment to be governor?" stories. And that isn't a good change in the prevailing winds for the challenger.

Does that mean trouble for the Republicans currently leading the polls in both states? Possibly, but it could end up costing the Democrats if their actions are perceived as desperate. The latter is more likely in Virginia simply because of the underlying partisan composition of New Jersey. Corzine just simply has a cushion (even while trailing) that Deeds does not in Virginia.

A couple of other caveats:

1) Timing. Is this too early for a closing narrative to emerge? If either becomes established, will it be stale by time the waning days of October roll around? The press may be looking for something new by then.

2) Decision-making: I need to check on this in the gubernatorial context, but it is true that in presidential races, most likely voters have made up their minds by around Labor Day. James Campbell would also contend (and has shown) that the polling around that time of the race is also the best indicator of the November election results. I'll have to check on both, but I thought I'd throw both ideas out there. Obviously the presidential race is a bit more high-profile, which hypothetically would mean that voters may wait a little longer in a gubernatorial race.

In any event, these items merit tracking over the next few weeks.

*The Public Policy Polling survey due out of Virginia purportedly shows heightened interest from Democrats versus a month ago (and this poll was in the field before the thesis news broke for the most part). However, McDonnell still has a 2:1 advantage among independents (again, pre-thesis).


Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

Nevermind: Democratic Change Commission Meeting Postponed

2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

Earlier this week, Clarus Research Group released the results that included not only a look at the 2012 Republican presidential primary race, but also glanced at the head-to-heads between President Obama and what FHQ will dub the Public Policy Polling Four (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney). In this first part, let's focus on primary race. [We'll get to the general election portion in part two.]

First, the results [pdf]:

Romney: 30%
Huckabee: 22%
Palin: 18%
Gingrich: 15%
Jindal: 4%
Other: 2%
Undecided: 10%

Margin of error: +/- 3.1%
Sample: 353 Republican voters
Conducted: August 14-18, 2009

This is the first evidence anywhere that any of the troika of Huckabee, Palin and Romney are breaking away from one another. Romney has an eight point edge in this poll, the largest margin anyone of the trio has held over anyone else in the group in all of 2009. And this is the first time anyone has eclipsed the 30% mark in any of the polls conducted thus far. That mark is also the highest any prospective 2012 GOP candidate has been since Sarah Palin was at 29% in the February CNN poll. Yes, these are nice factoids, but no, they don't mean that much in 2009. However, as I said, this is the first instance in which there has been any significant light between any of the Huckabee/Palin/Romney group. If one thing has been true in these polls throughout 2009 it is that in any given poll at least two of these candidate are within the margin of error of each other. That isn't the case here.

Also notable is the fact that Jindal made it onto the list of candidates. There isn't anything right or wrong about that, but it is strange to see Jindal included, but someone like Pawlenty left off. I hate that Clarus didn't shed any light on who the candidates were that were among the 2% volunteered group. [I'm willing to bet Mark Sanford wasn't named.] As I've said previously, though, beggars can't be choosers in these situations. Three years out, you can take what you're likely to get.

[Click to Enlarge]

One theme that FHQ will touch on tomorrow is how Palin is doing among women; not that well. We have observed that phenomenon in the context of the head-to-heads with Obama but not in a primary setting. Surprisingly, Huckabee actually does better amongst women than men; the former Arkansas governor is +11 in the female to male comparison. Every other Republican candidate falls well behind that mark, however; all the way into the negatives. Romney has the largest deficit (-7), while Gingrich, Jindal and Palin all have -3 deficits of women to men. That certainly is more in line with where Republican candidates end up in these comparisons versus Democrats, but that Huckabee number is noteworthy.

Tomorrow FHQ will have a glance at how those gender breakdowns look in the trial heats against Obama.


Recent Posts:
Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

Nevermind: Democratic Change Commission Meeting Postponed

Speak of the Devil: The Texas Two-Step in Court

Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

No, not presidential primaries (...at least not directly).

Yesterday the New York Times ran an article about the trouble an amendment buried in this year's defense authorization bill is causing on the state level in New York. Now, this isn't unusual. National legislation, due to our federalist system, often has ramifications on the state and local level. However, this is a defense bill. Yes, that can affect funding for bases and through other means in the states, but this is about elections, specifically primary elections. Where's the connection?

Actually, New York senator, Chuck Schumer, added the amendment that could affect his home state and any other state with a primary election within 45 days of the general election.* The whole point of the amendment is to give military personnel outside of the country ample opportunity to vote, but it could end up causing some headaches for state legislatures and secretaries of state/boards of election in many September primary states.

In 2010, that list is comprised of:

Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin

[Hmmm, all blue states and enough electoral votes to get you a third of the way to 270.]

Well, what's the big deal? Move the primaries to earlier dates, get the ballots printed and mailed out and be done with it, right? Ideally yes, but this is politics. It's never that easy.

A small move back into, say, August would mean that the elections would fall at a time when people are trying to fit vacations in before the schools start or just because the summer is coming to a close. That is the argument the Douglas Kellner, the co-chair of the New York State Board of Elections is making anyway. Honestly though, that is pretty weak. If August is so bad, then why are fourteen states holding their primaries or runoffs during the month (see above list link)? I understand the normative issues behind making it appear as if you are doing things that are supporting higher voter turnout, but even this Times article started off with the line, "It is hard enough to get New York voters to the polls for any September primary." As such, the Board of Elections just appears as if it is stalling.

But let's continue with that charade for a moment. Let's assume that vacationing and the "pressure put on the county boards of election" together are a big enough deal to eliminate August as an option in New York (and maybe even some other September states). What then? What are the options? The Times suggested a return to the June date the state's primary was held on until 1974. What are the pros and cons around a move to June?

The issue then is that such a large move potentially affects the calculus in the state legislature, where this change would have to be initiated and pushed through. Why? Well, the folks in the New York legislature all face primary elections every two years as well. The move could affect their fortunes. Antsy elections officials and antsy legislators. That isn't a recipe for change. Of course, neither is the fact that New York's state assembly has been a touch dysfunctional this session.

Another issue with a move to June is that the economy now comes into the picture. Matt from DemConWatch and I were discussing this in an email exchange earlier, and he speculated that this [a move to June] could put pressure on some of the September primary states to hold their presidential primaries and state and local primaries on the same date.

And it could from an economic standpoint. The whole reason some of the May and June presidential primary states have not frontloaded is because they hold all their primary contests at one time. That gives states with late primaries for state and local offices a huge advantage. Their primaries for those offices were after the end of the presidential primary window earlier on in the post-reform era, so they had to have separate contests. They were forced to fund that extra election (presidential primary) or move the other election up (and we see what a potential issue that can be). In the period between 1976 and 1996, in fact, I've found that those September primary (for state and local offices) states are seven times more likely to frontload their presidential primaries than those states where all the primaries are held concurrently. Once the election cycles through 2008 are included the effect decreases; those split primary states are only twice as likely to frontload once the hyper-frontloaded elections since 1996 are accounted for.

What does that have to do with the economy? Well, if the economy is still in poor shape heading into next year, then there may be some in these late primary states who call for the presidential primary and primaries for state and local offices to be held together as a cost-saving measure. "We're already talking about moving the other primaries, why not discuss the presidential one too?" But I just don't see that happening.

Let's look at that list of September primary states, but this time with their 2008 presidential primary dates and I'll show you why:

Delaware (2/5)
Hawaii (2/19)
Maryland (2/12)
Massachusetts (2/5)
Minnesota (2/5 - caucus)
New Hampshire (1/8)
New York (2/5)
Rhode Island (3/4)
Vermont (3/4)
Wisconsin (2/19)

With the exception of maybe Rhode Island and Vermont, I just don't see any motivation for those states to move their presidential primaries back to June. Rhode Island couldn't make February 5 work prior to 2008 and used to have a late presidential primary (prior to 1984) and Vermont held beauty contests and caucuses until 1992. Those two may be motivated to move, but few others are going to give up their early status unless forced to do so. And if both parties institute a "nothing before March except Iowa and New Hampshire (and maybe Nevada and South Carolina)" policy ahead of 2012, some of these states may be forced to reconsider their positions in the presidential primary calendar. But with decisions on the rules for 2012 coming after the point at which a state legislative decision to come into compliance with this bill (should it become law), I just don't see it happening.

As always, though, it will be fun to track.

*Well, that isn't entirely true. That's the way it reads in the Times article, though. The truth of the matter is that New York's September 14, 2010 primary election is outside that 45 day barrier in the provision. However, the issue isn't necessarily the timing as much as it is holding the primary so that the general election ballots can be printed and mailed off to those in the Armed Services prior to the 45 day barrier. The New York primary is seven weeks before the November 2 election and four days likely wouldn't be enough time to get those tasks done.

Hat tip to Matt at DemConWatch for the link to the New York Times piece.


Recent Posts:
Nevermind: Democratic Change Commission Meeting Postponed

Speak of the Devil: The Texas Two-Step in Court

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in St. Louis

Nevermind: Democratic Change Commission Meeting Postponed

I don't know how I missed this on Thursday (I suppose there are only so many times you can search "Democratic Change Commission" in Google News. At least the news broke after I wrote that all was quiet.), but in the wake of the Kennedy death and funeral, the DNC postponed the Change Commission's meeting "until further notice."

Here's the write-up from the Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog:

Here comes word of the latest cancellation out of respect for the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

A Democratic Party panel that is taking another look at the presidential nominating process -- likely including the timing of the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire -- was scheduled to meet Saturday in St. Louis.

That will be the day of Kennedy's funeral in Boston, expected to draw many Democratic leaders.

The Democratic National Committee said the meeting of the Democratic Change Commission has been postponed until further notice. The panel, created last year, is to address "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 commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than Jan. 1.

There's really nothing new in there other than the delay of the meeting (That January 1, 2010 deadline looms, too though, I suppose). And with the third meeting scheduled for October 24, the panel has a bit of time during September for another meeting. But I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled the second and third meetings into one in October. And I'm going to throw this out there too: It would be nice if they would hold this meeting in the home state of the other commission co-chair, Jim Clyburn (This second meeting was in co-chair Claire McCaskill's home in the Show-Me state.). And yes, I say that for completely selfish reasons. It is far easier to go from North Carolina to South Carolina than it is to go from the Tarheel state to DC or Missouri.


Recent Posts:
Speak of the Devil: The Texas Two-Step in Court

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in St. Louis

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

Speak of the Devil: The Texas Two-Step in Court

...and this is something that the Democratic Change Commission will want to consider if the primary/caucus system in Texas comes up in the discussion at its meeting tomorrow in St. Louis. It is even more interesting because this is bound to come up in the session.

Earlier this week, the US District Court covering West Texas denied the Texas Democratic Party's request for a summary ruling in a case involving the pre-2008 changes to its method of delegate selection. [Here is the full ruling.] The case revolves around a challenge to the Texas Two-Step (primary-caucus combination) on the grounds that it violates the preclearance provisions laid forth in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Honestly this is a very clever way of challenging the system. What is Section 5, you ask? According to DOJ:

"Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable."

Most of the jurisdictions covered are in the states of the former Confederacy and as the map below (also from DOJ) indicates, Texas is on the list. The catch is that Section 5 typically applies to election procedures for general elections and primaries for state and local offices, not to presidential nomination races. It is a logical extension though.

[Click to Enlarge]

As I mentioned the other day, delegate selection plans are submitted by each state to the (national) Democratic Party for approval, but these have not been the subject of a Section 5 preclearance review in the past. Though, it may be a logical extension of the law, it has, to this point at least, been assumed that the national parties held the right to make the determination of what was admissible in terms of presidential delegate selection on a state by state basis.

And the Democratic Party has been approving the Texas Two-Step for years. This isn't a new conflict. In 1988, for instance, Michael Dukakis won the Texas primary and Jesse Jackson won the caucus (There's more about that here.), only there wasn't nearly as much resulting tension as there was between the two main candidates in 2008. Also lacking in 1988 was the fact that less inclusive segment of the plan (the caucus) overturned the results from the more inclusive other segment (the primary). But the thing about the American legal system is that it is not proactive. The legality of something has to be challenged for it to even make its way into the judicial system to be questioned.

However, it isn't really the Texas Two-Step that is being questioned here, but the delegate equation behind it. Specifically, that past voting for the Democratic Party candidate in a statewide campaign in jurisdictions would determine the strength of that jurisdiction in terms of delegates. That's nothing new. In fact, past voting history and population are used by the national party to determine how many delegates each state gets. And the states, in turn use a similar formula to allocate them on their level.

However, the plaintiffs in the Texas case are arguing that the support of 2006 Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Chris Bell, had the effect of undervaluing Latino voters in state Senatorial districts (the jurisdictions in question. Texas used Senatorial districts whereas most of states divvy up delegates across US House districts.). The problem was that the Texas Democratic Party's formula used raw vote totals instead of the percentage of the vote in Senatorial districts. In essence, even though majority white districts provided Bell with more total votes than some majority Latino districts, they were allocated more delegates despite the fact that the percentage of support for Bell in Latinos districts was higher. When population of the district was accounted for, then, those districts were diminished in value.

So while I'm tempted to use the court's words* against it (This is a minute detail.), it is a fairly consequential statistical blunder in my view whether it was intentional or not. The type of snafu that will get you taken to court.

This is very interesting stuff and something that the Democrats at the Change Commission meeting tomorrow would be well-advised to consider if the Texas Two-Step comes up (or even if it doesn't).

*"Our decision does not mean that political parties must preclear every minute change in their operating procedures. Instead, we closely follow Morse in concluding that political parties must seek preclearance for a change that affects voting that the party promulgates under the explicit or implicit authority of a covered jurisdiction and that presents no significant First Amendment concerns. We therefore hold that Morse controls, that the TDP has provided no specific explanation as to how a requirement that it preclear its delegate allocation formula impacts its associational freedoms, and that this case is justiciable. Accordingly, we DENY the TDP's motion for summary judgment." [from the ruling linked above]

A tip of the cap to Ballot Access News for the link.


Recent Posts:
Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in St. Louis

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in St. Louis

The Democratic Change Commission kicks off its second meeting tomorrow morning at 9:30am in St. Louis. A quick glance at C-SPAN's schedules for tomorrow shows that the network and all its various channels will be focused on the Kennedy funeral* instead (That's probably as it should be.), which means that interested parties will be without live (or even taped) coverage of the event. Considering that the event is billed as being open to public comment, that's too bad. But under the circumstances, it is understandable.

But never fear, FHQ will be scouring the web for updates and news and posting them here. Here are a few links I'll be keeping an eye on:

DCC Member Twitter feeds:
Claire McCaskill
Suzi LeVine (Oh, and here is her blog where she posted some great material following the first meeting.)
Rebecca Prozan
Joan Garry

DemRulz (Frank Leone had a great live blog from the first meeting in Washington. I don't know that he'll reprise his role tomorrow. Here, too, is his Twitter feed.)

DemConWatch (I'm sure Matt will be actively covering this as well and I'll likely be pulling double duty and cross-posting over there too.)

I'll add others when and if I come across them. And if there's any interest, I'll open up a thread for comment-in-real-time in the morning. Just let me know in the comments section if you're interested.

*Speaking of the Kennedy funeral, I wonder what effect that event will have on attendance at tomorrow's meeting. It seems like several members of the 37 member group examining the reform of the presidential nomination process would be inclined to attend. Chairs Claire McCaskill and Jim Clyburn would be particularly conflicted to some degree I'd imagine, having served on the Hill with Kennedy (Rep. Clyburn, from his position in the House, didn't serve directly with Kennedy, but Sen. McCaskill did.). I suppose they could appear "via satellite" from Boston/Washington if they had to.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

All Quiet on the Democratic Change Commission Front

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Rasmussen today released a new poll in the New Jersey governors race, and the numbers were good for both candidates; depending on what numbers you were looking at. For our purposes here at FHQ, we have a rule of examining the numbers that come out of Rasmussen without the "with leaners" tag. This is something we have been doing since last summer in the presidential race. All the firm is attempting to do is to fit some of the undecideds and "other" candidate folks into the Corzine or Christie camps. Here, then, are the numbers without those leaners:

New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Aug. 25-26, 2009	+/- 4%	608 likely voters	41	43	7	8
Rasmussen	Aug. 25, 2009	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	37	46	--	11

And if you look at our previous averages for this race, this particular poll nicely echoes the status quo. From that view, that's good news for Chris Christie. Of course, since the last Rasmussen poll, Corzine has held steady while Christie has dropped four points from 50% to 46%. And when the leaners are included in the totals the margin shrinks to just eight points, 50%-42%. That would appear to be good news for Corzine. And the picture is even rosier when the earlier August leaners results are compared. On August 4, Christie's lead was 13 points, 52%-39%.

Update: Of course, none of that was as good as the GQR/Democracy Corps poll that came out later in the day. Both candidates gained since the firm's poll two weeks ago, but Jon Corzine gained more, jumping six points from 35% to 41%. Meanwhile Chris Christie had half as large a jump, moving from 40% to 43%. [Though, if you look at the toplines in the link provide above, you'll see that Christie's numbers, when broken down between Christie supporters and those leaning toward the Republican, sum to 44, not 43. It is a minor quibble, I suppose, but considering the graduated weighted average has been stubborn in this race, the half point difference between running it with the 43 versus the 44 is something to take note of.] However, the net effect on the weighted average was minimal. Once the full weight was removed from the Rasmussen poll and put on the Democracy Corps poll (It was the poll most recently in the field.), the race remained stuck on 46-37 in favor of Christie.

It is troubling that the weighted average isn't as responsive in this instance given the recently polling evidence showing a tightening race. Most of that is attributable to the overall amount of polling data that had the race there in the first place. It will just take much more to pull Christie down and Corzine closer in the race in terms of the average. This weekend I'll run another regression on the polls including these and double check where that projection is. With polling likely to increase in the coming weeks as the race nears its conclusion, we will likely have ample opportunity to see such a trend continue. As for now, it appears that there is at least some tangential evidence showing the Bush link/corruption charges are affecting Christie. The Republican has been tweeting for Corzine to return to the real issues (here, here and here). [The middle link makes me think of the escaped convict from Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Now you're really going to follow those links.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

All Quiet on the Democratic Change Commission Front

About that New Jersey Governor's Poll