Democratic Change Commission Meeting (#3) Tomorrow

The Democratic Change Commission is scheduled to hold its final meeting at 10:30 am on Saturday December 5 at the Capitol Hilton, at 16th & K Sts. NW, Washington DC. The group is to make recommendations to the DNC by the first of the year and this is the final meeting. However, whether that means those recommendations are made public tomorrow is up in the air.

FHQ will be on the lookout 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 and second meetings. Now, whether that happens tomorrow or later is yet to be determined, but this remains a great place for firsthand accounts from inside the process.)
Rebecca Prozan
Joan Garry

DemRulz (Frank Leone has had great live blogs from the first and second meetings in Washington. He has already said he will reprise that role tomorrow. In addition, Frank has a great series of posts up concerning each of the points of emphasis for the commission: timing, caucuses and superdelegates. Here, too, is his Twitter feed.)

DemConWatch (Depending on the news out of Washington on Saturday, I'll likely be cross-posting some thoughts over there. But Matt may or may not have some things of his own to add to the discussion.)


Recent Posts:
The Links (12/3/09)

Who Gains the Most if Huckabee's Out for 2012?

The Links (12/1/09)

The Links (12/3/09)

1. Remember the Idaho Republican Party's complaint? Well, they are moving forward with their court case to close their primaries:

By January 15, the Republican Party will present a summary of the evidence it will be presenting at the upcoming trial. This will include a copy of the expert report by one of the party’s witnesses, Michael Munger, who is a professor of political science and an expert in political parties. Then, there will be another status conference on January 26 to set the details for the upcoming trial.

FHQ might try and pull some strings and get a hold of that report if possible.


2. What exactly happened to those Chris Daggett supporters on November 3? David Redlawsk (at the Eagleton Poll) has a go at explaining it.


3. The Democrats got their man in North Carolina to challenge Richard Burr. We'll see how that turns out. They thought they had their man in 2002 with Erskine Bowles. That didn't work out well in 2002.

...or 2004. But FHQ is on the ground here in the Old North state and has a vested interest in a competitive race.


4. Also, notice that State of Elections (the blog of the William and Mary Election Law Society) has been added to FHQ's blogroll. Welcome State of Elections.


Recent Posts:
Who Gains the Most if Huckabee's Out for 2012?

The Links (12/1/09)

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

Who Gains the Most if Huckabee's Out for 2012?

Bill Pascoe says, in Iowa, Rick Santorum or Unknown Republican X have the most to gain. [This post is great if only for the explanation of the differences in caucus rules between the parties in Iowa.]

Nate Silver is of the opinion that the latter may also find some benefit (...in the nomination race).

Who is Unknown Republican X? FHQ's money is on John Thune. But is he more 2016 material than 2012?

Thoughts?

Hat tip to Paul Gurian for the link.


Recent Posts:
The Links (12/1/09)

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

The Links (12/1/09)

FHQ hasn't done a "The Links" post in quite a while, but there are few interesting things floating around in my neck of the virtual woods that I thought I'd share with FHQ readers.

1. From Florida:

"Florida voters will likely have the opportunity to inject some competition back into legislative races next November. Fair Districts Florida, a nonpartisan issue committee, is sponsoring two ballot measures that will establish fair and impartial standards for redrawing state and congressional district boundaries every decade."

That's all well and good except...

2. From New Jersey:
There has been a bill introduced in the New Jersey Assembly to require the governor to fill US Senate vacancies in the state's delegation with someone of the vacating senator's party (Frank Lautenberg, New Jerseyans are looking in your direction. Alternate question: Are New Jersey Democrats a little antsy about what Governor-elect Christie would do if confronted with that situation?). This is akin to the process that unfolded in Wyoming in 2007 following Sen. Craig Thomas' (R) death. Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal, was required to choose someone from among three selected options put forth by the Republican Party in the Equality state.

3. Finally, FHQ is always tickled pink at how campaigns respond to new media, both for the entertaining pitfalls and masterful successes. This CQ piece on political ads on Hulu is fascinating, particularly for a campaign's ability to target particular audiences. That evolution has been something to take in.


Recent Posts:
Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

From The Washington Post:

Q: If the 2012 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote?

[Click to Enlarge]

Yes, Sarah Palin is leading here, but the real news -- to FHQ anyway -- is that half of the survey respondents in this case either chose no one/other, wouldn't vote or had no opinion one way or the other about the 2012 Republican nomination. That is an awfully high number compared to other similar polls conducted during 2009. Granted, the question was slightly different than some of the other surveys we have seen on this subject as well. In other instances, names were provided, but respondents in the Washington Post were asked not to recognize names but to recall them. In that regard, it isn't terribly surprising that Palin -- someone with the most name recognition currently -- led the list. That neither Huckabee nor Romney fared any better than they did -- 10% and 9% respectively -- was also surprising. [And no, FHQ does not attribute Huckabee's pardon trouble for any of this since the story broke after the poll.]

And no one candidate cleared the 20% barrier either.

Poll: Washington Post
Margin of Error: +/- 4%, +/-5%
Sample: 485 Republicans and 319 Republican-leaning independents (nationwide)
Conducted: November 19-23, 2009


Recent Posts:
Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

There's nothing like Black Friday for a 2012 polling dump. Earlier this week, Rasmussen provided us with its first glance at the 2012 presidential trial heats since July and back in the summer, the firm only included Romney and Palin against Obama. This time they have added Mike Huckabee to the mix, and more interestingly, Lou Dobbs as a third party candidate. But we'll get to that moment. I'll give you the numbers and figures to start and return later to add in the analysis.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 45%
Huckabee: 41%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 8%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 46%
Palin: 43%
Other: 9%
Not Sure: 3%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 44%
Romney: 44%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 5%

Pollster: Rasmussen
Margin of Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample: 800 likely voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 24, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

Not surprisingly, Lou Dobbs hurts the Republican candidates more so than the president when he is included in the line of questioning in the survey. Romney is hit the hardest; losing 10% off his total from the two candidate question. But the former Massachusetts governor had the most to lose since he did the best of the Republicans against Obama in the two candidate polling.

And here's one more from Democracy Corps [pdf] with Dobbs and Nader included as third party candidates.

[Click to Enlarge]

Pollster: Democracy Corps
Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1000 (2008 election) voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 12-16, 2009


Recent Posts:
Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

I just wanted to take some time out from the day to wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving. I've said this before and I'll say it again, we are nothing without of readers/commenters. Thank you all for making FHQ what it is.


Recent Posts:
Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

There has been a lot of talk about true conservatives (think NY-23) and purity tests within the Republican Party lately. But what's been lost in all of this is a rare -- at least in terms of getting news attention -- instance of pragmatism. Late last week, the North Carolina Republican Party considered a proposal to discontinue allowing independents to vote in the party's primaries.

"Unfortunately there are times when independents are swaying elections to a candidate that is not as conservative as we would like," said Onslow County GOP Chairman Patrick Lamb, identifying moderates as people like John McCain last year and George H.W. Bush in 1988.

"We are not attempting to eliminate independents from the process. We absolutely need them," said Bob Pruett of Beaufort, chairman of the 3rd Congressional District committee, who supports the closed primary idea. "But we want to make sure that we have conservative candidates elected in our primaries."

Compare that sentiment to the line of argument that ultimately prevailed:

"History shows us that the passage of this resolution would not bode well for the goal of a Republican victory in 2010," state party Chairman Tom Fetzer wrote in an e-mail to executive committee members.

"All of us know at least one Conservative Republican – and probably many more – that have switched to Unaffiliated out of frustration with the national or state Republican Party," the three lawmakers [Phil Berger, Paul Stam and Eddie Goodall] wrote. "Are we sending these Conservatives the right message and encouraging them to return to the Republican Party by telling them they cannot participate in a Republican Primary and can only participate in the Democratic Primary?"

Obviously, there was a purist element within the NC GOP pushing this resolution, but they were voted down in the party's executive committee meeting this past weekend. Why? FHQ suspects that state party Chairman Tom Fenty is absolutely correct: with the state legislative elections coming up in 2010, North Carolina Republicans have an opportunity to win both chambers. Limiting the potential base, though, could have affected the calculus for attaining that goal (especially with unaffiliateds in the state growing by leaps and bounds).

Now, why, you may ask, is this any different than what FHQ discussed recently in terms of the Idaho Republican Party's efforts to end the Gem state's open primary -- for much the same reason? Why, indeed? Again, it is up to the state to decide the extent to which its primaries are opened or closed to independent and unaffiliated voters. The state of Idaho, as we highlighted, has allowed not only independents but partisans of the opposite party to participate in primary elections for both major parties over the last nearly four decades. But in North Carolina, the system is slightly different. Technically, the Tarheel state's primaries are closed to independents, but a change to the law in allowed the state parties to decide whether they would invite independents to participate in their primary elections. The North Carolina Republican Party began allowing independents in in 1988 with the Democrats in the state following suit in 1996.

And this not really an issue for the Republican Party in North Carolina to take lightly. The conventional wisdom after the 2008 presidential election was that Obama's organizational efforts during the primaries in North Carolina helped push the president over the top in the Tarheel state in November; turning the state blue for the first time since 1976. Getting independents to vote for you in the primary has the potential to go a long way for a candidate when the general election rolls around. The dynamic, though, has the potential to be different in a midterm election than in a presidential election.

Still, in the battle of pragmatism versus purism with in the Republican Party, pragmatism won out for once.


Recent Posts:
Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

FHQ has been closely watching the meetings of the groups within both national parties reexamining the rules by which delegates will be allocated and presidential candidates nominated in the 2012 election. And we have done our part to bring the developments to our readers (click on the Democratic Change Commission and/or Temporary Delegate Selection Committee tags at the conclusion of the post for the full discussion). And while there has been a fair amount of individual analysis here, we have been lacking in attempts to reconcile what each party is doing with its counterparts across the aisle.

For all the talk about working together, there actually hasn't been any overt contact between the two parties other than a post at The Hill over the summer bringing the idea up. Of course, I've also tried to do my part here. Absolutely nothing revolutionary is going to get done on the presidential primary reform front unless the parties work together. And even then, FHQ is not necessarily of a mind that reform is acutely necessary. Democrats ended up with a winner in 2008 and Republicans, purity tests aside, got the candidate best positioned to actually beat any Democrat in a year that favored the party of Jefferson and Jackson. The weak links from the 2008 cycle are the ones being addressed now by both parties: what to do about caucuses (or the larger caucuses vs. primaries question), how can we stop frontloading, and for the Democrats, what should we do about those superdelegates? And though the Republican Party has items such as rotating regional primaries and instant runoffs on the table, FHQ is hesitant to take them seriously.

Why?

Well, those ideas are grand in scope and are going to take cooperation from Democrats to implement. And as of yet, there has been, again, no action taken on that front. In fact, those ideas aren't anywhere near the Democratic Change Commission's agenda. This isn't all the Democrats' fault either. For their part, the Change Commission is firmly committed to altering the timing of delegate selection events. No, the group isn't seemingly going to advance any radical recommendation, but they are intent on closing the window in which primaries and caucuses can be held; effectively starting the process in mid- to late February instead of at the beginning of the year as in 2008. [Non-exempt states -- everyone but Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada would be allowed to hold their delegate selection events on the first week in March or there after until the process comes to a close in June.]

This, however, does not necessarily jibe well with the goals of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee. Indeed, this March starting point has not seemingly been on the Republican group's radar for their meetings to date. That isn't to say the GOP won't go along with the idea eventually, but their motivation is counter to the plan the Democrats are advancing. The Republican Party will be more interested in a quick nomination decision, a la 2004 for the Democrats, simply because they are going to be facing an incumbent president. [Plus opening up the Tea Party rift in 2012 will likely be suicidal for Republicans. The GOP just hasn't as of yet seemed willing to take a more pragmatic route in order to win. Democrats were at that point in 2008 -- and that isn't to suggest that they "settled" for Obama. The RNC is mindful of that and would likely opt for the status quo to maintain the quick selection mechanisms that are in place within the party's nominating apparatus.]

What that means is that the Republican Party's goals are not necessarily congruent with those of the Democratic Party. On top of that, time is running out. [For 2012? Yes, for 2012.] The Democratic Change Commission's recommendations are due to the party by the first of the year in 2010. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will then decide upon the rules for 2012 some time over the summer; roughly the same time period the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is slated to finish up its work. That essentially leaves about nine months for the parties to put their heads together on the matter of primary reform. Sure, that's an eternity in politics, but when distractions like health care and midterm elections pop up, the task becomes even more difficult. Besides, a year has already passed since the 2008 election and the parties have not actively opened a dialog on this front.

They're going to fix that in nine months? Color FHQ bearish.


Recent Posts:
Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

FHQ likes how the Des Moines Register raised the alert a few weeks ago about the potential 2012 Republican candidates not coming to the state and now has a poll out concerning the prospects chances in the Hawkeye state's 2012 caucus. It is strange to juxtapose the overall numbers among all Iowans and then leave the "only Republicans" numbers for the footnote at the bottom of the graphic. Huckabee's well-liked overall and among Republicans. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, has cornered the market on opinion. Everyone has one about her; well, except for just 8% of all Iowans. Still, that's the lowest among all the candidates in the question. On the other end of the spectrum from Palin, though, are Pawlenty, Jindal and Pataki. All three have a lot of room to grow in Iowa since nearly three quarters of Iowans are unsure of who they are or how favorable they are of them.

[Click to Enlarge]

Of course, the main thrust of the write up in the Register was about Sarah Palin. While she doesn't do as well among Republicans (in terms of favorability) as Mike Huckabee, the former Alaska governor does top Arkansas' former chief executive among conservatives. And last but not least, the Register tells us that Palin's favorability numbers are not unlike those of Hillary Clinton when she was setting out to run ahead of 2008 (opinion had solidified on both). But is that really the analogy they want to draw? Clinton did end up finishing third in Iowa behind Obama and Edwards.

The bottom line? Palin has a steep climb even in a state that some have thought she'd seriously battle Huckabee for in 2012?

UPDATE (as per AKReport's request -- FHQ should have included it. Thanks.):
Margin of Error: +/- 4.2%
Sample: 800 Iowans
Conducted: November 8-11, 2009 (pre-Palin book release)


Recent Posts:
Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting