How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

[Please see a follow up to this post based on some of the comments below here.]

Walter Shapiro picked an opportune time to point out the fact that Sarah Palin could potentially exploit the Republican Party's presidential nomination rules to win the party's nomination in 2012. As I said a few weeks ago in a response to a post at A Plain Blog About Politics (Palin's Future), those approximately 20 states that have winner-take-all delegate allocation rules could prove to be a real boon to Palin's potential chances.

But there are two major caveats that apply:

1. Are these winner-take-all primaries also closed primaries?
2. When are these primaries actually scheduled?

On the first point, I think it is fair to say that, given recent polling Palin would do far better in any contest, winner-take-all or otherwise, if it is a contest closed to all but registered Republicans. She just isn't viewed as qualified among independents and Democrats. Now, yes, I'll grant you the fact that some Democrats may choose the "Operation Chaos" route and vote for the Republican with the lowest odds of beating President Obama, but I'm going to set that aside for now.

Secondly, timing plays a role here as well. Are all these winner-take-all primaries at the beginning of the process, at the end or fairly evenly distributed across the primary calendar? The earlier the better for Palin. If the winner-take-all contests bring up the rear, she likely would be winnowed before the race comes to those states. Since the parties are both re-examining how their presidential nominating calendars will look in 2012, there is a fair amount of uncertainty in this. However, based on current state laws across country, the calendar would look something like this if the parties decided to simply maintain the status quo. [The Democrats have already seemingly set into motion a plan to end all February primaries in all but the exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.] If that calendar is the model, fifteen of the twenty states (plus Washington DC) with winner-take-all contests were on or before Super Tuesday. Again, early -- in this hypothesis at least -- is better for Palin than late.

2012 Primaries by Delegate Allocation Method and Timing
State	Primary Date	Closed	Open*
South Carolina	????		47**
Florida	1/31/12	114**
Alabama	2/7/12		48
California	2/7/12	173
Connecticut	2/7/12	30
Delaware	2/7/12	18
Georgia	2/7/12		72*
Missouri	2/7/12		58
New Jersey	2/7/12		52*
New York	2/7/12	101
Oklahoma	2/7/12	41
Utah	2/7/12		36*
District of Columbia	2/14/12	19
Maryland	2/14/12	37
Virginia	2/14/12		63
Wisconsin	2/21/12		40
Arizona	2/28/12	53
Michigan	2/28/12		60**
Ohio	3/6/12		88*
Vermont	3/6/12		17
Indiana	5/8/12		57
Total	48.64% of total 2008 delegates	586 delegates	638 delegates
*Included with open primaries here are primaries that allow only independents and not, in this case, Democrats to vote. **Assumes no 50% delegate reduction penalty for having gone earlier than that party-designated period for holding contests. Source: The Green Papers

Sure, technically, if Palin were to win all of the winner-take-all states, that would almost put her over the top (approximately 49% of the total number of delegates). But if she won all those, it is a safe bet that the former vice presidential nominee would receive an additional 2% of the total delegates in the proportional and loophole primary states to take the nomination. Again though, that is not how the presidential nomination process works. It is very much dependent upon timing and momentum.

...and the rules!

If you look at those closed primary states above, we're really talking about a more moderate, comparatively speaking, group of states. They are all primary states that McCain won in 2008. But in the context of that race, it was the first closed primary state (Florida) that mattered the most, and not that McCain was a more moderate candidate that appealed to moderate Republicans in closed primary states. It set the tone for the following week, Super Tuesday. And with the exception of Utah, the Arizona senator swept the winner-take-all states and stretched his delegate lead out to a nearly insurmountable margin.

Is there a scenario where Palin wins the Republican nomination? Yeah sure. If she can win Iowa and South Carolina -- eliminating Huckabee (assuming he runs) in the process -- she can attempt to turn whoever is left (especially if it is Mitt Romney and/or Tim Pawlenty) into Dede Scozzafava and the race into an ideological battle that she might be able to win. Of course, if Christian groups are attacking her abortion record, it may be difficult to see that scenario become reality.

The bottom line is that Palin would have to catch on in a major way to be able to take advantage of the winner-take-all rules. And honestly that would take quite the populist revolt against the Republican Party and its rules; something that has never happened. [And no, I don't count McCain as an exception to that rule.] As Jonathan Bernstein rightfully points out, if only 35% (as Shapiro indicates) of primary voters support Palin in the Republican primaries, it means that 65% are against her. Again, that would be an epic failure of the Republican rules that are set up to guard against that very thing: an insurgent candidate.


Recent Posts:
Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

From Ballot Access News:

Idaho is an open primary state and has never had registration by party. On primary day, any Idaho voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. Last year, the Idaho Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit, to force the state to give it a closed primary. But on September 4, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that the lawsuit requires a trial to determine whether it is true that voters hostile to the Republican Party have been voting in its primary. The Republican Party then said it would soon reveal its plans on how to proceed.

However, the party has not met the informal deadlines for revealing its plans for the trial. The Judge has set a status conference for November 30 to get an updated version of the party’s plans.

This sets off a series of questions. Usually, the courts yield to the parties on free association grounds, but it really is interesting to see how much this differs from state to state. In Idaho, the state Republican Party is demanding that the state government -- also dominated by Republican elected officials -- close the state's primaries. As the party argues, open primaries, like the ones held in Idaho for nearly four decades, potentially allow voters from outside the party to influence Republican nominations which by extension negatively impacts the party's freedom of association.

Why not, indeed?

What's interesting is that the same argument has been made in courts regarding open primaries. This movement in the courts -- at least on this particular question -- began with the 1986 Tashjian case before the Supreme Court. At issue in that instance was the fact that the Republican Party of Connecticut wanted to open up its primaries -- not close them as in the Idaho case -- but was prevented from doing so because of a Connecticut law, on the books since the 1950s, that kept primaries closed.

What did the Court decide?

Well, the Court sided with the Connecticut GOP: the law violated the party's rights to free association; specifically the party's right to invite -- in this case independents -- to vote in its nominating contests.

But this is a moving target, isn't it? Some states like Idaho or California have gone in quite the opposite direction. Faced with open primaries, parties in both the Gem state and the Golden state claimed that their free association rights were being threatened by partisans (and non-partisans, for that matter) of the other party. That the parties were unable to determine who would participate in its nominations was something Antonin Scalia, in the 7-2 opinion of the Court in the California Democratic Party v. Jones case, found to be "both severe and unnecessary."

That brings up an interesting distinction -- and there are several, actually -- between the California case and the one in Idaho. In California, all the major parties sued to have the blanket primary law invalidated. In Idaho, however, it is just the dominant Republican state party that is attempting to tear down the open primary system. The Democratic Party in Idaho could almost be considered a minor party in the state. And they could care less about the law simply because no or very few Republicans are crossing over to vote in the Democratic primaries. To top it off, the Democrats have often eschewed the primary as a means allocating presidential delegates; instead opting for a closed caucus on the state party's dime.

This, however, raises the biggest problem for the Idaho Republican Party in this case: the burden of proof is one the Republican Party. Their argument is that independents and Democrats could have undue influence (read: a moderating influence) on Republican nominations in the state. Proponents of the current open primaries law have simply said, "Prove it." In other words, how have nominations been negatively impacted by the inclusion of Democrats and independents in the process?

That's where this Idaho case is currently. It's stuck with the Idaho Republican Party trying to determine the extent to which Democrats and independents have made Republican nominees any less Republican/conservative. If Idaho Republicans want a closed primary or a closed nomination process, they are either going to have to do what the Democrats have done at the presidential level (Though, truth be told, Democrats in Idaho use a caucus as a means of keeping out Republicans and limiting, through a caucus, who participates and decides how delegates are allocated. See Meinke, et al. (2006) for more.) or just deal with it.

For now, though, it doesn't look like this particular case is going anywhere.

Read more about the Idaho case here and here.


Recent Posts:
Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

[UPDATE: Ah, here are the Rasmussen numbers on Pawlenty in 2012.]

If the Minnesota governor follows these numbers (or if they stay the same as 2012 approaches), the answer to that will perhaps be no.

PPP's tweeting about them, Pollster is reporting them, but Rasmussen isn't sharing them. Apparently, somewhere behind the pay wall, Rasmussen is showing in its latest survey of Minnesota that Governor Tim Pawlenty would only have the votes of 42% of Minnesotans if he were to run for president and win the Republican nomination in 2012. 46% would not vote for him. No, that's not necessarily a vote for Obama because the president's name was not used in the question, but it does provide a sense of just how blue Minnesota is.

Here's the question:

Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
Yes 42%
No 46%

This isn't a true trial heat, but it would have been interesting to have seen how the answers to the two questions (the one above and a head-to-head with Obama) would have differed. My hunch is that the difference would have been similar to the difference between polling an incumbent (for any office) against both an actual named opponent or a generic, unnamed one. Look, for instance, at Sen. Burr's numbers in the latest Public Policy Polling survey of the 2010 race for Senate in North Carolina. Burr performs better against named opposition than against Generic Democrat X and I would assume that Pawlenty's numbers above would decrease if we were talking about a ballot question pitting the Minnesota governor against President Obama.

That said, these numbers aren't all that bad. Sure, Tim Pawlenty has the name recognition in his home state that he lacks elsewhere, but in a state where Obama is still garnering higher approval than disapproval numbers -- though that margin has shrunk -- I wouldn't rank this as an awful showing for the governor.

What we're really missing here is a time trend. Rasmussen keeps asking different questions about Pawlenty in regards to the 2012 presidential race in these Minnesota polls. In March, we got this:

Should Tim Pawlenty run for President in 2012?

22% Yes
61% No
17% Not sure

And in May, Rasmussen asked something slightly different:

How likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will run for President?

17% Very likely
42% Somewhat likely
24% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
11% Not sure

Fine, how likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will win the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?

7% Very likely
30% Somewhat likely
39% Not very likely
16% Not at all likely
8% Not sure

No, those aren't flattering numbers for someone in their own state, but this is exactly the reason Pawlenty is making the moves he is in relation to 2012 (starting a PAC, traveling the nation, raising money, etc.). Put simply, he is at a disadvantage relative to the other prospective Republican candidates (Huckabee, Palin and Romney).


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

There are so many double entendres in this interview that college students could start a drinking game.* Stormy Daniels could make this an uncomfortable race for David Vitter. No, she won't win, but she'll make a mark whether she enters or not.

And I'm still laughing uncontrollably at that Kim Jong-Il line for whatever reason.

*Not that FHQ would condone such a thing. For shame. But for a laugh, I recommend reading the rules of the Brent Musberger Drinking Game. FHQ dares college football fans not to laugh heartily.


Recent Posts:
A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

One bit of news that made the rounds today is that Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, will be heading up to the Granite state next month to keynote a fund-raiser for the Republican Senate Majority Committee PAC. So what, you might ask? Well, Pawlenty's visit will be the first of the potential 2012 Republicans to make an appearance in New Hampshire. Does that mean Pawlenty is running for president? No, but he is. Pawlenty is running for 2012, but if he is going to run in 2012 has yet to be determined.

That, though, isn't why we're here. Sure, it's interesting, but something else is interests FHQ about this visit. It is late. Now, we've recently heard quite a bit of chatter online about Republicans skipping out on Iowa in 2012 because the state's Republican caucusgoers are likely to support a more socially conservative candidate. That's hogwash, and I'll shunt it to the side for the purposes of this discussion. However, what was part and parcel of that argument was the fact that Republican candidates not visiting the Hawkeye state was an indicator of this potential problem. What everyone -- FHQ included -- seemingly failed to check on was whether candidates were making stops in the presidential primary process's other first in the nation state, New Hampshire.

Well, as of December 16, Pawlenty will be the first in the 2012 cycle. How does that stack up with the number of visits to the Granite state at this point ahead of the 2008 election? For the GOP, there were already 22 visits from prospective Republican candidates for president. On the Democratic side there had already been 13 visits by that point in 2005. [See below for full list of 2005 candidate visits to New Hampshire.]

However, as I pointed out in the Iowa visits discussion, 2008 may not be the best comparison. Both parties had active nomination and interest in the presidential race was at an unusually fevered pitch earlier than usual. The better comparison, then may be how frequently Democrats were visiting the Granite state in 2001, before the 2004 campaign. Yes, there is a difference in party in that comparison, but the underlying dynamic is the same: incumbent president and one active, out-party nomination race.

And how often were potential 2004 Democratic presidential candidates heading up to the snowy environs of New Hampshire? Allow me to channel my inner Ed Rooney: nine times. Well, that count only includes the visits to this point (November 12) in the 2004 campaign. If you extend that to the time at which Pawlenty's visit is scheduled, that number grows by three visits to 12. [See below for full list of 2001 candidate visits to New Hampshire.]

What does all of this mean? Not that much actually. Well, other than the fact that the prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidates are off to a slower start than the candidates before the 2004 and 2008 elections. Is that a name recognition thing? Romney certainly benefits from having run there before and because of his time spent as governor of neighboring Massachusetts. Huckabee, too, has run in the Granite state before. However, his organizational infrastructure there paled in comparison to his Iowa effort in 2008. The New Hampshire Huckabee campaign was more ad hoc in nature. And Palin? Well, Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. People know who she is. But for someone playing catch-up, visiting New Hampshire and Iowa and any other place you can go is likely a shrewd move. For someone like Pawlenty, it never hurts to say you were the first (or more to the point, that you were there early and often).


______________________________
2001 Democratic Visits to New Hampshire (via P2004)

-In his capacity as recruitment chair for the DGA, Gov. Dean met separately with likely Democratic gubernatorial candidates Bev Hollingsworth, Mark Fernald and Jim Normand in Concord, NH on December 19, 2001.

Rep. Gephardt visited NH on December 15, 2001; his schedule included events with 1st district congressional candidate Martha Fuller Clark: a brunch at the home of Harlow and Barbara Carpenter in Kensington (SE Rockingham County), a walk-around in Portsmouth, a meeting with New Hampshire Young Democrats and a holiday party "to ring in the New Year and a New Congress!," both at the Millyard Museum in Manchester.

On December 6, 2001, Sen. Kerry did a fundraiser for Manchester Democrats in Manchester, NH.

Sen. Lieberman visited NH in the first week of November 2001. On the evening of November 3 he arrived at Berlin-Milan Airport and spoke at the Coos County Democrats' Truman Dinner at the Town & Country Motor Inn in Shelburne. On November 4 he attended a fundraiser brunch for the New Hampshire Democratic Senate Caucus at the home of Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord, a fundraiser for the Committee to Elect House Democrats at the home of Rep. Bette Lasky in Nashua, a roundtable with students at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, and a rally with Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, Mayor Bob Baines, Rep. Martha Fuller Clark and Manchester Democratic candidates at the Sweeney Post on Maple Street in Manchester. (November 3-4, 2001)

On October 26, 2001, Sen. Kerry did a fundraiser for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines in Manchester, NH.

Former Vice President Gore headlined the New Hampshire Democratic Party's "Celebrating Our Democracy" Jefferson Jackson Dinner at the Center of New Hampshire Holiday in in Manchester, NH on October 27, 2001; the next day he did a fundraiser at a restaurant for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines. As he had in Iowa, Gore made an unpublicized drive around the state. On the evening of October 22, he joined Sen. Beverly Hollingworth at Lamies in Hampton (Concord Monitor). Early the next morning found him in Berlin, he then headed south for Concord and ended up on the Seacoast, dining with friends and supporters at the Rusty Hammer in Portsmouth (Concord Monitor). Gore left the state on October 24 for Maine, and returned for the speech. (October 22-23 and 27-28).

Sen. Kerry keynoted the NH AFL-CIO convention in North Conway and was the special guest at the Merrimack County Democrats Harvest Dinner at Pembroke Academy in NH on October 13, 2001.

Rep. Kaptur visited NH on October 13, 2001, speaking at the state's AFL-CIO convention and meeting with campaign finance reform activists.

In August 2001, Rev. Al Sharpton announced a freedom bus tour of NH for early October 2001, however that was put off.

Sen. Kerry did two events in NH on August 5, 2001, a meet-and-greet for state representative candidate Mary Tetreau at Marilyn Hoffman's house in Londonderry (Kerry revealed his poetic skills, reading a poem of his own composition) and a fundraiser for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines at Donna Soucy's house in Manchester. [Tetreau lost the August 14 special election in a Republican stronghold by less than 300 votes].

Rep. Gephardt made a trip to NH on behalf of state Democrats on June 8-9, 2001. On June 8 he was the featured speaker at the annual Cheshire County Democratic dinner in Keene. On June 9 he appeared, with Gov. Shaheen, at a Rockingham/Strafford County continental breakfast in Portsmouth; the Merrimack County Democrats' Annual Pig Roast & Pot Luck Picnic at the home of Beth Walz and Harry Judd in Bow (again w/ Shaheen); and the Manchester City Democrats' Flag Day Celebration at the Manchester Millyard Museum.

Sen. Feingold visited NH on April 23, 2001, in a trip that was primarily focused on appearances in Maine with Sen. Collins. He toured Timberland footwear, met with Gov. Shaheen, and spoke with College Democrats at the University of New Hampshire.

Sen. Biden visited Manchester, NH on March 25, 2001 at the invitation of state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro. He spoke at the Manchester Democratic committee's 4th annual St. Patrick's breakfast ($25/plate fundraiser), marched in the St. Patrick's Day parade, and visited the VA Hospital.

______________________________
2005 Republican Visits to New Hampshire (via P2008)

>Gov. George Pataki visited NH on December 14, 2005; he did some interviews and private meetings and attended the NH Republican Party's Christmas Party at the Upham Walker House in Concord. [speech]

>Gov. Mitt Romney was a special guest at the Manchester Republican Committee's Annual Holiday Celebration at the Wayfarer Inn in Bedford, NH on the evening of December 7, 2005.

>Sen. Bill Frist did several private events in NH on December 6, 2005. Frist met with legislative leaders at the Capitol in Concord; had lunch with the New Hampshire Republican State Committee's executive committee at the law offices of Rath Young and Pignatelli in Concord; visited the Devine Millimet and Branch law firm in Manchester; and attended a reception with several local Republican activists and friends from his days at Harvard Medical School and Mass. General at the 100 Club in Portsmouth.

>Gov. George Pataki campaigned with Manchester mayoral candidate Frank Guinta in Manchester, NH on October 23, 2005, going door to door and doing a fundraiser at the home of Sharyn Kelley.

>Sen. George Allen visited NH on October 15, 2005. He attended a breakfast fundraiser at the invitation of Oracle PAC at Seedling Cafe in Nashua; spoke at a Stratham Republican Committee reception at the home of Phil ? Anne Caparso in Stratham; and helped kick off the NH Republican State Committee's Founders Program (new major donor program) at the home of Wayne Semprini in New Castle.

>Sen. Sam Brownback spoke at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anslem College in Manchester, NH on October 11-12, 2005. On the evening of October 11 he held a town meeting attended by members of the public, faculty and students. On October 12 he gave a guest lecture in an Introduction to Politics class and another class.

>Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited NH on October 7, 2005. Arriving from Vermont he overnighted in Hanover on October 6, then traveled to Concord. Here he met privately with Harry Levine (the co-founder of Victory NH), met with the Republican Alliance (the House conservative caucus), and had lunch in the Speaker's office with the House Speaker, the Governor, the senate President, the deputy Speaker, and Amb. Joseph and Augusta Petrone. Gingrich spoke to legislators and members of the public in Representatives Hall at the State House. While in Concord he stopped by Republican headquarters, the AARP office, and Charlie Bass' congressional office. Proceeding to Manchester, Gingrich spoke to a group of college students at the UNH Manchester campus organized by Prof. Mark Wrighton.

>Rep. Tom Tancredo visited NH on September 25-26, 2005. On September 25 he delivered the keynote speech at the New Hampshire Center for Constitutional Studies, Inc.'s 9th Annual Dinner Celebration in honor of Constitution Day at Grappone Center in Concord; and on the morning of September 26 he appeared at the Bedford Republican Committee Annual Breakfast at CR Sparks in Bedford.

>Gov. Mitt Romney hosted an afternoon fundraising reception for the New Hampshire Republican State Committee at his home on Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, NH on September 17, 2005.

>Gov. Mike Huckabee visited NH on August 27, 2005. At the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester he did a photo op with New Hampshire Young Republicans doing a voter registration drive; attended a NHRSC Issues ? Answers Series breakfast at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire; and did a media roundtable with members of the New Hampshire and Arkansas media. He spoke at the Nashua Republican City Committee's Steak Out at the Alpine Club in Hollis (substituting for Gov. Romney who had bowed out); attended the Strafford County Republican Picnic/Pig Roast at Three River Farm in Dover [speech]; did a book signing at the Barnes ? Noble in Newington; stopped in at the Seacoast Irish Festival at Dover Elks Lodge in Dover; and attended a reception at the home of Turner and Wendy Stanley Jones in Durham.

>Gov. Mitt Romney had been scheduled to attend the Nashua Republican City Committee Steakout in Nashua, NH on August 27, 2005 but cancelled a few days before the event citing a family commitment.

>Gov. Mitt Romney held an "intimate gathering" with about a dozen leading New Hampshire Republicans at his home on Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, NH on August 14, 2005. Source: The Union Leader's John DiStaso (The Granite Status, 8/18)

>Sen. George Allen addressed the NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Luncheon at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NHon June 25, 2005. [speech]

>Rep. Tom Tancredo visited NH on June 11, 2005. He addressed a NHRSC Issues ? Answers Series breakfast at the Holiday Inn in Concord, delivered the commencement speech at Nashua Christian High School, and spoke at a Nashua City Committee reception at Langdon Place in Nashua.

>Gov. Mitt Romney was the featured speaker at the NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NHon June 3, 2005. [speech]

>Sen. George Allen held two fundraisers for his re-election campaign, one at the Bedford Village Inn in Bedford and the other also in the Manchester area, in a quiet trip to NH on May 3, 2005.

>Sen. Chuck Hagel visited NH on May 2-4, 2005. On the evening of May 2 he attended the Manchester Republican Committee's Second Annual Springtime Reception at the home of B.J. Perry. On May 3 he spoke to students at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College; stopped to meet with Republican legislators at the State Capitol in Concord; spoke to students at Plymouth State College; and in the evening received an award for "leadership in public communication" from the Franklin Pierce College Marlin Fitzwater Center at the College's Manchester campus. On May 4 he spoke at the "Politics and Eggs" breakfast in Bedford[speech]; spoke to students at New England College in Henniker; and stopped in at the Union Leader. State Sen. Bob Odell (R-Lempster), a longtime acquaintance, helped organize the trip.

>Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited NH on April 18-19, 2005. On April 18 he did a signing to promote his book "Winning the Future" at the Barnes ? Noble bookstore in Manchester; met with the Concord Monitor ed board; spoke to a Republican grassroots group called Victory New Hampshire > at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Goffstown; met with the Manchester Union Leader ed board; taped an interview for New England Cable News; did a fundraising reception for the state party at C.R. Sparks in Bedford; and appeared live on Fox News Channel's "Hannity ? Colmes." On April 19 in Hanover Gingrich did an ed board meeting with the Upper Valley News; did a signing to promote his book at the Dartmouth Bookstore; lectured in Prof. Jeffrey Smith's government class; did an interview with the Dartmouth Review; spoke in the living room at Sigma Alpha Epsilon as part of the Andrew J. Scarlett Lecture Series; and spoke the Upper Valley Republican Club at a lunch at Jesse's Restaurant. He then proceeded to Harvard in Cambridge, MA.

>Sen. Sam Brownback spoke at the "True Blue Breakfast" sponsored by the Concord-based Cornerstone Policy Research at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH on April 16, 2005. (Note Brownback was in the region to deliver a speech on cloning and stem cell research at the Harvard Law School Society for Law, Life, and Religion spring symposium on April 15).

>Sen. Bill Frist spoke at the Merrimack County Lincoln Day Dinner at Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH on March 18, 2005. On March 19, 2005 he spoke at a Grafton County Republican breakfast at Plymouth Senior Center and a Nashua Republican luncheon at the Crowne Plaza in Nashua.

>Sen. Bill Frist delivered the keynote speech at the Manchester Republican Committee Lincoln-Reagan Dinner at The Executive Court Conference Center in Manchester, NH on March 4, 2005. [speech] He spoke at a Cheshire County Breakfast at the Keene Country Club in Keene on March 5, 2005.

>Rep. Tom Tancredo, accompanied by Angela "Bay" Buchanan and New Hampshire activist Paul Nagy, visited NH on February 3-4, 2005; the trip focused on immigration reform (Buchanan is chairperson and Tancredo is founding chairman of Team America, a PAC focused on illegal immigration). On February 3 they presented an American Patriot Award to New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain in New Ipswich; stopped for lunch at the Merrimack Restaurant in Manchester; spent a couple of hours at the Union Leader; did a live in-studio radio interview on Gardner Goldsmith's "Against the Grain" show at WGIR-AM in Manchester; and had dinner with conservative leaders at CR Sparks in Bedford. On February 4 they had breakfast with a group of New Hampshire House members; attended a Team America reception held in conjunction with the Nashua Republican Women's Club at a condominium complex in Nashua; and spoke at Nashua Christian High School. They then proceeded to Boston, MA.

2004
>Sen. John McCainwas first to venture into NH, albeit briefly; he addressed the second annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award dinner in Manchester on November 18, 2004.

______________________________
2005 Democratic Visits to New Hampshire (via P2008)

>Gov. Mark Warner visited NH on November 18, 2005. He arrived in Nashua late on the night of November 17 (earlier that day he spoke on education at Harvard's Institute of Politics). On November 18 he participated in an education roundtable with Gov. Lynch at Nashua High School South, focusing on at-risk youth and dropout prevention; and spoke at a NH Senate Democratic Caucus lunch at Puritan Backroom Restaurant in Manchester. [speech]

>Sen. John Kerry helped kick off GOTV weekend with Mayor Bob Baines at Manchester City Democrats' headquarters on Elm Street in Manchester, NH on the morning of November 5, 2005.

>Sen. Joe Biden spoke at a fundraiser for Mayor Bob Baines hosted by the New Hampshire Building & Construction Trades Council at the Alpine Club in Manchester on November 1, 2005.

>Sen. Evan Bayh visited NH on October 29-30, 2005. On October 29 he keynoted the NHDP's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner fundraiser at the Center of New Hampshire Radisson Hotel in Manchester. [speech] On October 30 he held a town hall meeting with students and local residents at New England College in Henniker; held a town hall meeting organized by State Rep. Jim Ryan at The Golden Crest in Franklin; and campaigned with Mayor Bob Baines at the Puritan Backroom restaurant.

>Former Sen. John Edwards spoke at The Collis Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH on October 21, 2005 as part of a two-week tour (Oct. 17-28) of 10 colleges and universities during which he launched the Center for Promise and Opportunity's "Opportunity Rocks." He and a group of students also did some repairs on a house prior to the speech.

>Sen. Russ Feingold visited NH on September 30-October 1, 2005. On September 30 he called in to "The Exchange" with Laura Knoy at NHPR (he had hoped to appear in studio but there were votes in the Senate); took a short walking tour of downtown Manchester with Mayor Bob Baines and did a press availability in the courtyard next to City Hall; met with New Hampshire political leaders at the SEIU office in Concord; met privately with Gov. Lynch at the Capitol; and keynoted the Rockingham County Democrats' first annual Eleanor Roosevelt Covered Dish Dinner at Epping American Legion Hall. [speech] On October 1 Feingold held a listening session in the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover.

[>Sen. Joe Biden had planned to speak at the Cheshire Democratic Committee's annual spaghetti supper in NH in mid-September 2005, (reported by the The Union Leader's John DiStaso). However he changed his plans to focus on the Supreme Court nomination process following the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Bush's nomination of John Roberts].

[>Gov. Tom Vilsack had planned to attend the Seacoast Democratic Coalition annual Labor Day picnic (sponsored by the Hampton, North Hampton and Hampton Falls Democratic Committees) at Pitlochry Farm in Hampton Falls, NH on September 4, 2005. He canceled the trip to focus on coordinating Iowa's efforts to house evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, and instead delivered his speech to assembled activists by speakerphone].

>Sen. John Kerry attended a thank you barbecue at the home of State Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord, NH on August 23, 2005.

>Former Sen. John Edwards visited NH on July 29-31, 2005.
On July 29 he appeared at a birthday party/fundraiser for State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro at the American Legion Sweeney Post in Manchester.
On July 30 he was the special guest at the 11th annual Merrimack County Democrats Pig Roast and Potluck Picnic at the home of Rep. Mary Beth Walz and Selectman Harry Judd in Bow; attend Plymouth Democrats' Blue BBQ at Riverfront Park in Plymouth; and attended a Coos County Democratic fundraiser at the home of Elaine and Carl Belanger in Gorham.
On July 31 he attended a "Politics and Pie" event sponsored by Cheshire County Democrats at the Keene State College Camp on Wilson Pond in Swanzey.

[>Sen. John Kerry had planned to attend a thank you reunion/cookout with a group of supporters at the home of former state party chair Joe Keefe in Manchester, NH on the afternoon of July 29, 2005but the trip was cancelled due to Senate votes].

>Sen. Evan Bayh visited NH on July 10-11, 2005. On July 10 he did a meet and greet at Manchester City Democratic headquarters in Manchester; did a meet and greet at The Pub Restaurant in Keene; and held a fundraising event for the New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus at the home of Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord. On July 11 he appeared on "The Charlie Sherman Show" on WGIR in Manchester; appeared on "The Exchange" with Laura Knoy at NHPR in Concord; held a private meeting with Gov. Lynch in Concord; held a private meeting with the House Democratic leadership in Concord; held a private meeting with environmental leaders in Concord; and toured GT Equipment Technologies, a small manufacturer, in Merrimack.

>Former Sen. John Edwards spoke at a fundraiser for Senate Democrats at the Nashua Country Club in Nashua, NH on June 21, 2005.

>Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) spoke at the Manchester City Democratic Committee's annual Flag Day dinner at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH on June 12, 2005. [speech]

>Gov. Bill Richardson visited NH on June 7-8, 2005. On June 7 he spoke at a "Politics and Eggs" breakfast at the Bedford Village Inn in Bedford [speech]; at the Vision Hispana Latino Summit at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester; at a fundraiser for the NHDP at the Common Man restaurant in Concord; and attended a private party at the Centennial Inn in Concord. On June 8 he started the day with a live radio interview with Charlie Sherman on WGIR; spoke to the Franco-American Club at America's Credit Union Museum in Manchester; did a live radio interview with Laura Knoy at NHPR in Concord; and addressed the Carroll County Democrats at the Grand Summit Hotel in Bartlett. Also during this trip Gov. Richardson held private meetings with officials of the NEA-New Hampshire, the State Employees Association of NH (SEIU Local 1984), the Teamsters, Gov. John Lynch and Manchester Mayor Robert Baines and, in Portsmouth, a group of workers from Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

>Former Sen. John Edwards visited NH on February 4-5, 2005. On the evening of February 4 he attended a high school basketball game at Manchester West High School. On February 5 he met people at Manchester Community Health Center, met privately with Gov. Lynch, and was the "Very Special Guest" at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's 100 Club Dinner at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester. [speech]


Recent Posts:
Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

I had a very interesting paper make its way into my inbox today from the Political Methodology section of the American Political Science Association. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden examine the inherent bias against urban -- in this case Democratic -- parties in the redistricting process. As they describe it [pdf]:

"Our central claim is that a substantial, systematic bias against the urban party does not require any intentional manipulation of maps by its opponents. On the contrary, our contention is that under political geography conditions that are quite common in industrialized societies, virtually any districting scheme that privileges compactness and contiguity will produce a bias against the urban party."

In other words, if you were to take an evenly divided state with some number of urban centers and randomly divide the state into congressional or state legislative districts -- while adhering to the court mandated principles of compactness and contiguity -- the party most representative of the urban areas would garner substantially fewer than 50% of the seats in the congressional delegation or in either state legislative chamber. If, for example, you were to take, say, Florida and its basically tied election in 2000 and just randomly draw some districts (Well, not randomly. You'd have to keep the population in each district proportionate to the other districts.), the urban party wouldn't receive 50% of the seats (to approximate 50% of the statewide vote). That party would be more likely to get between 39-42% of the seats.

And in fact, that is what Chen and Rodden have done. They took the Florida 2000 election data and simulated thousands of redistricting plans. The result? Democrats, not through any nefarious plot to pack their partisans into as small a number of districts as possible, were disadvantaged. The bias results from the fact that those higher density population centers so homogeneously Democratic, it takes more less heavily Republican districts spread out in suburban/exurban and rural areas to round out the representation. As such, a state can end up with a tie in terms of the statewide, two-party vote, but end up with the non-urban party taking a significantly higher percentage of the congressional and state legislative seats.

And yes, this assumes there wasn't an overtly partisan redistricting plan put into place in the first place. Stated differently, there wouldn't be any of Elbridge Gerry's salamanders on the map.

This one is well worth your time with a new redistricting cycle on the horizon. Read away. I'll be revisiting some of the issues discussed in this piece in future posts. It really is rich with very pertinent information.


Recent Posts:
If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

I alluded to the 2012 trial heats last night, but Public Policy Polling has upped the ante today. Initially, PPP was taking suggestions for who to add to list of 3 possessors of recognized names* to poll against President Obama in the polling firm's monthly survey. Hey, we're all for democracy around these parts, but I will admit to being disappointed that they didn't keep Tim Pawlenty among the list of Republican candidates. One month of information doesn't tell us much. Well, it told us that more people had an opinion of the balloon boy than they did of Pawlenty. Still, FHQ would like to have seen the trendline.

[What? To see that it hadn't changed? Touche.]

Anyway, PPP has opened that fourth choice up to a vote. Your choices are:

[Click to Enlarge]

I'd like to see John Thune tested or Giuliani for the sake of having a more moderate Republican included, but honestly, Ron Paul needs to be polled. The chatter online in Ron Paul circles this year has been all about getting the Texas congressman in a poll. Well, here's their chance. Though, truth be told, if word gets out -- like other votes -- PPP's vote widget will either crash or end up being the highest turnout vote they've had over there for one of those.

So, go vote.

*I'm calling the group something and this gives Huckabee, Palin and Romney a regal air.


Recent Posts:
Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

FHQ is late to this, but in the interest of including all these early 2012 presidential polls, here is the latest from Gallup:

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

Fine, that's not any different than any of the other polls, horserace or otherwise, we've seen in 2009. How about among the nation as a whole?

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

No, that still doesn't stray too far from polls earlier in the year. Palin is still roundly dismissed. At least Barbour and Pawlenty's "nays" are based on a lack of name recognition. What's Gingrich's excuse? That can't be the 90s dragging him down, can it?

How about that Dan Quayle "qualified" question?

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

No, Palin isn't getting any better. Huckabee and Romney fare well, Gingrich breaks even and the masses still don't know Barbour and Pawlenty. But more than three out of five find the former Alaska governor to be unqualified.

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

And when things are broken down by party, not even Republicans see her as qualified as Huckabee, Romney or Gingrich. But more Democrats find her more qualified than Haley Barbour. It has been a slow crawl down in the polls this year for Palin, but it will be interesting to see how the book release/tour and Oprah visit affect these numbers.

Sadly, Public Policy Polling's 2012 trial heats will be in the field this weekend -- ahead of the book launch. Too bad.

NOTE: FHQ apologizes for the slow start to the week. The end of the semester around here is rapidly approaching and things are picking up. Amends will be made.


Recent Posts:
40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

Why exactly is it wrong from the perspective of the majority party in Congress to have members of Congress defect on a high salience vote? Does this make any sense? From the current Republican perspective, yeah, it does make sense. The party of Lincoln is in the minority and needs every one of its members to stand their ground against anything the Democrats want to pass through the chamber and hope that at least 41 Democrats see it their way. To the credit of the Republican leadership in both chambers of Congress, they have been able to do this very well in 2009.

What I don't understand, though, is why some Democrats are complaining about the 39 strays on the health care vote (HR 3962) on Saturday night. So what? Very plainly, the majority party in the House controls the agenda. The leadership from that party is never going to bring anything to the floor that would lose; not on purpose anyway. Let's assume that's a given in the case of the health care bill that came to the floor over the weekend. The other given here is that the Democratic coalition (or cartel if we want to put this in the agenda-setting terms of Cox and McCubbins, 2005) has forty votes to spare. As the majority, you have a choice between 1) watering the bill down even further to get all your members on board or 2) strategically distributing those 40 votes (FHQ will call them passes from now own.) to electorally vulnerable members.

Knowing that it had the votes, the Democratic leadership allocated its passes to freshmen, those in Republican leaning districts or a combination of the two. Could the leadership have run up the score?* Sure, but it likely would have cost them. They'd either have to water the bill down now or likely watch as Democrats in close or Republican-leaning districts lose in 2010. As I see it, that's not a winning strategy. If you've got -- as a majority party -- some votes to spare, you have some wiggle room and an opportunity to provide some cover for at most 40 of your more electorally vulnerable members. On a high salience issue like health care reform, why not use those passes?

Well, Pelosi, Hoyer and the others among the Democratic leadership did. But they didn't use them all (by design, some have speculated -- FHQ agrees). They only used 39 (and actually ended up having two to spare because of Joseph Cao's late defection from the right side of the aisle). So sure, Democrats can be upset that they lost 39 votes, or they could be happy that the leadership didn't have to use their full allotment of passes and gave cover to some of their members at the same time.

What's wrong with that?

*Winning 218-217 is the same as winning 258-177: the bill passes. A wider margin would not have affected anything in the Senate. It would have been/will be close in the upper chamber regardless.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

[FHQ doubts it can get anything but worse after a title like that.]

The last two classes in POL 113 (American Government and Politics) here at Wake Forest have been devoted to a voting simulation I like to do in classes to attempt -- and I cannot emphasize that word enough -- to drive home the importance of the rules behind systems of voting. The main idea is that even when your preferences are stable, the outcomes of elections can differ depending on how the vote is conducted.

The first order of business in this exercise is to have everyone to rank order a list of twenty candidates of a variety of partisan backgrounds from 1 (most preferred) to 20 (least preferred). Here's the list (rank away and share in the comments below if you'd like):

_____ Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)

_____ N.Y.C. Mayor Mike Bloomberg (independent-NY)

_____ Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)

_____ Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

_____ Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)

_____ Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)

_____ former N.Y.C. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)

_____ former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)

_____ Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)

_____ Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

_____ Sen. Joe Lieberman (independent-CT)

_____ former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

_____ Ralph Nader, consumer advocate (independent)

_____ former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)

_____ Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

_____ former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R-VA)

_____ former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK)

_____ Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)

_____ Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)

_____ Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Argue if you will about the list. I'm still moderately upset that I didn't include Tim Pawlenty and was questioned in my second class about the relative weakness of the list of Democratic candidates. As I explained -- and I really thought this was a good question -- I could have included Hillary Clinton, but she likely would have won the Democratic nomination repeatedly and ruined the intent of the whole exercise. Ideally, you want to simulate an environment where some "voters" know the candidates and others are uncertain -- it reflects the reality of the first part of the, in this case, presidential nomination process. I wasn't bothered then that no one knew who John Thune was or who Brian Schweitzer was. I did use the latter to illustrate the fact that for the Democratic field of candidates is, by its nature, more difficult to formulate because it requires a crystal ball to see 2016 even remotely clearly. I could have included the president but that is always a no-no, though, with both Republican-laden groups it likely would have been quite fun to them to see the president defeated in an "election" just a year after he'd won the real thing. But when you're doing this you never want a consensus choice because it ruins the exercise.

That is why it is at this point that I like to collect the ballots so that I can make sure that we can avoid this problem. If I see a candidate winning over and over again, the electoral god emerges and strikes said candidate from the ballot. For one class, that candidate was Colin Powell (Apparently this was a group that was not deterred by the former Secretary of State's endorsement of Barack Obama a year ago.) and for the other class it was Mitt Romney. I also looked for who got the greatest number of #20 rankings just for fun. [Any guesses?*] Yet, both only amassed five or six votes out of almost 30 in each class. "Ah, that won't be enough to ruin the exercise."

Famous last words.

On Wednesday, then, I plowed through a single vote plurality election simulation (with all 20 candidates) and a single vote plurality plus runoff. The results? Powell and Romney won. In the case of the former, that was a given. Still, I began to wonder if my decision as electoral god not to strike either one was a mistake. [Well, gods can't make mistakes, but that's an entirely different argument for a blog focused on something else altogether.] So, I figured I would experiment in my first class (the Powell class) this morning and remove Powell from the equation. Well, then we got to a simulated version of our current presidential nomination process. I like to do this in a couple of ways. First, I do a national primary for only registered Republicans and Democrats. This drives home the point that independents can't vote and have no say in the matter until the general election. Inevitably, someone always says, "But I didn't get to vote."

"Exactly."

After that, I'll go into a more accurate simulation of our current nomination process. I'll pick someone at random from each party (or ask for volunteers) to be Iowa. Their top three move on. Then I'll select someone to be New Hampshire. From those Iowa three, who are the New Hampshire representative's top two. Everyone else, then, is Super Tuesday and gets to choose from the winnowed field of two candidates. Once you do this a couple of times, it usually makes quite clearly the point that Iowa and New Hampshire have an out-sized impact on the nomination races.

But there was a problem in my first class: Romney (filling in for the now-absent Powell) began gobbling up all the wins (and continued to do so whether we were doing an instant runoff election or through approval voting or with an on-the-fly electoral college** both current and pre-12th amendment). Seeing this after the first go-round of the current nomination process and having Romney come in first in "Iowa" again, I made the rather rapid-fire decision to kill Romney off -- for the sake of the exercise. [Yes, I realize that by killing off "characters" I'm really defeating the purpose of the activity anyway.] Anyway, I concocted the all-too-familiar politician dies in a plane crash story, highlighting it with the joke that no one can lose to a dead guy.

...unless you're John Ashcroft.

Of course, later I wanted to bring Romney back to illustrate the impact of third party candidates. It was then that I said, "Alright, let's pretend that Romney was cryogenically frozen and once they found a cure to his cause of death they brought him back. Now he can participate in elections again."

This was met with silence; well, a split second of it at least. It was in that period of time that I remembered how I had killed Romney off in the first place. But I quickly recovered. "See, isn't it amazing how far medicine has advanced in the time Mitt Romney was gone. Now they can even save you from a horrific plane crash."

Now I bet you're wondering if this was the "fun" you read all this through to the end to find. If you aren't wondering that, you're probably wondering how to 1) get in my classes or 2) how I am teaching in the first place. Hey, I never make American government boring.

...not until I get to frontloading at least.

*It was Sarah Palin. She was by far the most unpopular candidate in both classes. Over a third of the voters ranked her dead last, many among them Republicans. Now, a few weeks ago I did a lunch and talk with a group of College Republicans about the 2010 and 2012 elections and not a single one of them thought Palin would be the nominee. Personally, FHQ doesn't either, but if certain things happen (again the rules), I can see a scenario where the former Alaska governor consolidates enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. I digress only because I held off judgment on this, well, judgment. I didn't want to chalk it up to being a Wake Forest thing. Well, these two classes have brought me closer to that particular judgment. I won't say it is representative necessarily, but if it is, Palin is going to have a very difficult time repeating what Bob McDonnell did the other night in Virginia -- win the youth vote.

**One other thing I learned (actually continued to learn) from all this is that I absolutely cannot do math in front of people. My efforts to add electoral votes on the board were disastrous and that's being nice about it. Part of the problem was that I constructed the electoral college vote distribution at random. I assigned a row of students to collectively be a big state worth 10 electoral votes and then divided up the rest of the individual students as medium states (7 electoral votes) and small states (3 electoral votes). That unnatural distribution always throws me. [God help me when I start doing the new series of maps with the new electoral vote distribution in 2012.] The "big state" in my first class was evenly divided along partisan lines, but the second class big state was comprised all of Republicans. At first the group was calling itself California until the first electoral college vote. Then they said they were South Carolina, to which I added, "Yeah, South Carolina on steroids."


Recent Posts:
New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/3/09) -- Final