Since yesterday, when I saw it five or six times during regional football coverage, I've been trying to track down the latest ad from Saxby Chambliss. Essentially the ad is a remix of the ad "Martin Economics" that ran during the last week or so of the general election campaign (see below). The basic point? Obama's (...and by extension Martin's) tax plan(s) is (are) bad for Georgians. The new version ends with Chambliss promising to lower taxes.
But Chambliss is not alone here. In fact, the DSCC has been quite involved in this campaign over the final weeks of the general election campaign. But Martin, too, has an addition to the discussion as well.
The ad, "Recession," may as well be called, "In His Own Words." It opens, as you can see above, with Chambliss saying, "We may not be in a recession. I don't know what that term means." Yeah, that one is in the same vein as "Read My Lips" and "The Fundamentals of the Economy are Strong." And the intent is exactly the same: Paint your opponent as out of touch on the most salient issue of the 2008 campaign. 61% of voters polled (...in the exit polls) called the economy the "most important issue" and 49% of those went for Martin compared to 47% for Chambliss. That's a pretty even division, and tells us why both are continuing to revisit the issue in ads. If anyone can claim any advantage on the issue before December 2, it could make the difference.
And for the record, the footage of Chambliss in that new Martin ad is from this cycle. Yeah, the topic is timely enough, but still. Those are current Chambliss signs in the background, though.
--------------------------------------
UPDATE
Oh, and here is the latest ad from the NRSC on behalf of Chambliss. There's some good imagery in this one. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer make appearances at the end with Martin's "crazy" picture being blocked out by the words "Liberal Jim Martin" with Pelosi prominently displayed to the right. The "Out of Touch" charge on the economy is the issue of this runoff. Both candidates are saying the other is more out of touch on the economic situation.
Recent Posts:
Reform: First Up? The Texas Primary-Caucus System
Georgia Senate Election Certified
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Reform: First Up? The Texas Primary-Caucus System
Sure the election just ended but why not strike while the iron is hot, right? Well, that's what Texas Democrats are doing. After the Lone Star state's primary handed Hillary Clinton an important comeback victory on March 4 to go with the New York senator's wins in Ohio and Rhode Island, the caucus portion of Texas' delegate selection process favored Obama. And even though the caucus accounted for roughly one-third of the delegates, Obama's edge in that side of the contest gave him enough of a delegate lead to take the state overall.
But some people didn't like that and the Texas Democratic Party is reviewing the process, which on Friday meant the party hearing from members about the primary-caucus system. Here's a report from an Austin-area TV station:
The thing that gets me (Well, other than the claim that the legislature is required to make a change to the system.*) is that it really won't matter for Texas Democrats in 2012. Unless the Obama administration is a complete failure, there will not be a contested primary on the Democratic side in any state, much less Texas. But as I said when I led this post off, why not strike while the iron is hot? If the party, or any of its members, wait to change the way delegates are allocated in the Democratic nomination races in the election years ahead, it's best to do it when there is some controversy to help grease the wheels. This particular delegate allocation system does seem like a relic of the transition from a primary to a caucus in Texas, but unlike most other states that have switched, Texas has let this play out for almost 30 years by not dropping the caucus altogether. I would assume that most of that is due to the fact that other than in 1988, Texas just wasn't a big player in deciding either nomination. And what that meant was that some of the rules that are only now being scrutinized weren't being looked at at all.
For more on the Texas system, have a look back at our run through Texas during the 2008 cycle.
*The claim on both the report and the blog post I got this news from (h/t, by the way to Change the Caucus) that a change to the system requires action on the part of the Texas state legislature is news to me. Unless there is a new rule that I haven't been let in on, it is up to the state party, not the state legislature to decide the method by which delegates are allocated. In most primary states the state parties typically go along with the state-funded contest -- the one put in place by the state government -- and this isn't really an issue with the caucus. But that doesn't match up with the reporting on this. The Republicans in Texas, for instance, don't have a caucus like the Democrats do, just the primary. If the GOP in the state wanted to add one they wouldn't need approval from the state legislature unless that state was paying the bill. They aren't. The nightcap caucus is something the Democratic Party pays for and is thus in no way beholden to the Texas state legislature in any way.
-------------------------------------------
Thanks to Anon4:25 for pointing out a necessary clarification to this post in the comments section below. I certainly painted this caucus issue in black and white terms but didn't account for the gray area in between. In the scenario posited by Anon., it isn't the caucus that's at stake, but rather the proportion of delegates that that portion of the process receives.
And that raises a good question for the comments section: What is a good or proper balance between the primary and caucus if the caucus is kept?
In 2008, the caucus delegates made up just over one-third of the total "pledged" delegates. How far should that be dropped? A quarter? A tenth? Another way or asking this is to ask whether the impact of the caucus is diminished to the point that the party-building and local organizing that CBSmith mentions isn't possible because there isn't a significant enough motivation to participate? Or is that what the state party wants?
Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Election Certified
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
But some people didn't like that and the Texas Democratic Party is reviewing the process, which on Friday meant the party hearing from members about the primary-caucus system. Here's a report from an Austin-area TV station:
The thing that gets me (Well, other than the claim that the legislature is required to make a change to the system.*) is that it really won't matter for Texas Democrats in 2012. Unless the Obama administration is a complete failure, there will not be a contested primary on the Democratic side in any state, much less Texas. But as I said when I led this post off, why not strike while the iron is hot? If the party, or any of its members, wait to change the way delegates are allocated in the Democratic nomination races in the election years ahead, it's best to do it when there is some controversy to help grease the wheels. This particular delegate allocation system does seem like a relic of the transition from a primary to a caucus in Texas, but unlike most other states that have switched, Texas has let this play out for almost 30 years by not dropping the caucus altogether. I would assume that most of that is due to the fact that other than in 1988, Texas just wasn't a big player in deciding either nomination. And what that meant was that some of the rules that are only now being scrutinized weren't being looked at at all.
For more on the Texas system, have a look back at our run through Texas during the 2008 cycle.
*The claim on both the report and the blog post I got this news from (h/t, by the way to Change the Caucus) that a change to the system requires action on the part of the Texas state legislature is news to me. Unless there is a new rule that I haven't been let in on, it is up to the state party, not the state legislature to decide the method by which delegates are allocated. In most primary states the state parties typically go along with the state-funded contest -- the one put in place by the state government -- and this isn't really an issue with the caucus. But that doesn't match up with the reporting on this. The Republicans in Texas, for instance, don't have a caucus like the Democrats do, just the primary. If the GOP in the state wanted to add one they wouldn't need approval from the state legislature unless that state was paying the bill. They aren't. The nightcap caucus is something the Democratic Party pays for and is thus in no way beholden to the Texas state legislature in any way.
-------------------------------------------
Thanks to Anon4:25 for pointing out a necessary clarification to this post in the comments section below. I certainly painted this caucus issue in black and white terms but didn't account for the gray area in between. In the scenario posited by Anon., it isn't the caucus that's at stake, but rather the proportion of delegates that that portion of the process receives.
And that raises a good question for the comments section: What is a good or proper balance between the primary and caucus if the caucus is kept?
In 2008, the caucus delegates made up just over one-third of the total "pledged" delegates. How far should that be dropped? A quarter? A tenth? Another way or asking this is to ask whether the impact of the caucus is diminished to the point that the party-building and local organizing that CBSmith mentions isn't possible because there isn't a significant enough motivation to participate? Or is that what the state party wants?
Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Election Certified
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
Friday, November 14, 2008
Georgia Senate Election Certified
There will be a runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. [Now, there's a shock!]
Early voting for the December 2 runoff will start as early as Monday (November 17) in some counties and no later than Wednesday (November 19) according to Secretary of State Karen Handel's press release yesterday.
One other interesting fact about the rules behind the runoff system in Georgia is that when the 50% plus one vote threshold was reapplied to statewide races in 2005, the interim period between the general election and the runoff election was expanded from three weeks to four weeks. I suspect that is due in large part to the potential for overlap with the Thanksgiving holiday, but I can't verify that. One thing is for sure, the advance voting week will fall during Thanksgiving week and has been condensed from five days to just three as a result.
What's the difference between early and advance voting, you ask? Well, in Georgia it seems to boil down to a matter of the number of voting locations. Early voting is confined to one location per county but over an extended period of time (September 22-October 31 for the November 4 election), whereas advance voting has a greater number of polling places in the larger counties during just the business week (Monday -Friday) prior to the election.
Some of Jim Martin's success in the general election was dependent upon early and advance voting and that was driven in large part by the efforts of the Obama campaign to get out the (early) vote in Georgia. We have talked about Obama as a wildcard in this runoff race, but whether he appears in Georgia between now and December 2 -- John McCain and Mike Huckabee have already lined up stops to campaign for Chambliss -- may not matter as much as the remnants of the Obama campaign's infrastructure in Georgia (and from workers pouring into the state from other locales) banking those early votes for Martin as they did for Obama prior to November 4.
Question for the comments section: What impact might that extra week between elections have on the outcome? I can see it going both ways: the enthusiasm behind Martin dies down or another unintended consequence of the GOP-driven law change -- more time for Martin to mobilize -- coming back to haunt them. Thoughts?
Recent Posts:
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
Early voting for the December 2 runoff will start as early as Monday (November 17) in some counties and no later than Wednesday (November 19) according to Secretary of State Karen Handel's press release yesterday.
One other interesting fact about the rules behind the runoff system in Georgia is that when the 50% plus one vote threshold was reapplied to statewide races in 2005, the interim period between the general election and the runoff election was expanded from three weeks to four weeks. I suspect that is due in large part to the potential for overlap with the Thanksgiving holiday, but I can't verify that. One thing is for sure, the advance voting week will fall during Thanksgiving week and has been condensed from five days to just three as a result.
What's the difference between early and advance voting, you ask? Well, in Georgia it seems to boil down to a matter of the number of voting locations. Early voting is confined to one location per county but over an extended period of time (September 22-October 31 for the November 4 election), whereas advance voting has a greater number of polling places in the larger counties during just the business week (Monday -Friday) prior to the election.
Some of Jim Martin's success in the general election was dependent upon early and advance voting and that was driven in large part by the efforts of the Obama campaign to get out the (early) vote in Georgia. We have talked about Obama as a wildcard in this runoff race, but whether he appears in Georgia between now and December 2 -- John McCain and Mike Huckabee have already lined up stops to campaign for Chambliss -- may not matter as much as the remnants of the Obama campaign's infrastructure in Georgia (and from workers pouring into the state from other locales) banking those early votes for Martin as they did for Obama prior to November 4.
Question for the comments section: What impact might that extra week between elections have on the outcome? I can see it going both ways: the enthusiasm behind Martin dies down or another unintended consequence of the GOP-driven law change -- more time for Martin to mobilize -- coming back to haunt them. Thoughts?
Recent Posts:
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
Now here is an interesting twist to the Florida primary debacle of 2008 and it has implication for the future of frontloading.
The Case: Ausman v. Browning
The Argument: The Florida legislature violated the national Democratic Party's right to free speech when the legislature set the Sunshine state's primary for January 29, 2008. In other words, the national party was unable to choose its nominee in Florida according to the Florida Delegate Selection plan approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. [Yeah, remember them?]
This is fairly significant (...whether it is getting much press or not). If there is one thing we know about the courts' involvement in these sorts of disputes, it is that they typically side with the parties. A recent example of this was when the within-casino caucus sites were challenged by the Clinton campaign before the Nevada caucuses last January. The courts yielded to the parties (and the pre-approved delegate selection plan) in that instance.
One byproduct of the plaintiff winning this case (...and any subsequent appeals) is that, if anything, states, and the actors setting the date on which their delegate selection event is held within them, would seemingly have to adhere to the delegate selection plans that are usually due in to the national party by the end of the summer before a new election cycle begins. For 2008, both national parties had September deadlines. In Florida and Michigan in 2008, those plans were violated when their legislatures shifted up their primary contests.
The bottom line is that the national parties would gain a bit more power in this process based on the approval power they would (and do, for that matter) hold over states' delegate selection plans. So, if the courts validate these plans from each state, they essentially become something similar to a binding contract on allocating delegates. And the date on which a primary or caucus is held is a vital component of those plans.
Does that prevent rogue states from popping up? No, but it does give the national party some potential legal standing to challenge them in court if it were to come to that. This case reaches "one to watch " status here at FHQ.
Recent Posts:
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
The Case: Ausman v. Browning
The Argument: The Florida legislature violated the national Democratic Party's right to free speech when the legislature set the Sunshine state's primary for January 29, 2008. In other words, the national party was unable to choose its nominee in Florida according to the Florida Delegate Selection plan approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. [Yeah, remember them?]
This is fairly significant (...whether it is getting much press or not). If there is one thing we know about the courts' involvement in these sorts of disputes, it is that they typically side with the parties. A recent example of this was when the within-casino caucus sites were challenged by the Clinton campaign before the Nevada caucuses last January. The courts yielded to the parties (and the pre-approved delegate selection plan) in that instance.
One byproduct of the plaintiff winning this case (...and any subsequent appeals) is that, if anything, states, and the actors setting the date on which their delegate selection event is held within them, would seemingly have to adhere to the delegate selection plans that are usually due in to the national party by the end of the summer before a new election cycle begins. For 2008, both national parties had September deadlines. In Florida and Michigan in 2008, those plans were violated when their legislatures shifted up their primary contests.
The bottom line is that the national parties would gain a bit more power in this process based on the approval power they would (and do, for that matter) hold over states' delegate selection plans. So, if the courts validate these plans from each state, they essentially become something similar to a binding contract on allocating delegates. And the date on which a primary or caucus is held is a vital component of those plans.
Does that prevent rogue states from popping up? No, but it does give the national party some potential legal standing to challenge them in court if it were to come to that. This case reaches "one to watch " status here at FHQ.
Recent Posts:
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 1.0)
For a look at the 2012-2020 electoral college map based on the 2010 Census click here. And for look at how those changes would have affected the 2008 presidential election click here.
There is no shortage of projections on how the 435 House seats will be reapportioned following the 2010 Census and like anything else, they range from modest changes to volatile, far-reaching changes. [And you can also see Nate Silver's attempts to update the 2007 projections -- the basis of both the linked projections above -- here.] What's funny is that both the links cite the same source, Election Data Services, yet describe very different projections. Well, the CQ article cites EDS while The Washington Times uses a combination of the EDS projections and those from Polidata. The Polidata end seems to be adding all the volatility. As such, I'm going to lean on the more conservative EDS projection (Silver's is in between but closer to EDS.).
[Alright, get to the point. How's the map going to look in four years?]
Well, here you go, complete with map and seat gains/losses:
[Click Map to Enlarge]
I jokingly ended the electoral college map slideshow with a blank map that had the election date of the 2012 election on it. But that one wasn't accurate; it didn't reflect the changes due to reapportionment that will happen between now and 2012. So what do we know about the changes? As all the articles that discuss the upcoming apportionment typically say, the South and southwest gain while the Rust Belt and into the northeast states continue to lose seats. But a blank map isn't really telling you a whole lot, is it? How about a real world application?
What would the McCain-Obama contest have looked like if this projected 2012 map was used instead? [Well, I made that one too.]
[Click Map to Enlarge]
McCain would gain three electoral votes on Obama and that is it. For the record, the Polidata projection, wacky as it is, would only yield McCain a few additional electoral votes. In a year that tilts toward the Democrats, those changes are manageable, but in a year with conditions triggering a more competitive contest, those changes might help the GOP. Then again, if the changes in Colorado and Nevada are lasting, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia remain competitive, and Arizona and Georgia continue to trend toward the Democratic Party, they may benefit the Democrats.
UPDATE: One other way we can look at the changes more in-depth is to examine how that six electoral vote shift toward McCain in the projected 2012 apportionment changes the outlook on the Electoral College Spectrum. So, we can see how/if the campaigns' target states would have shifted if the map was different.
In September 2008, there was a time when Colorado or New Hampshire would have put Obama or McCain over the top in the electoral college. If Obama had won all the states favoring him up to and including Colorado the president-elect would have netted 269 electoral votes. The same was true of John McCain in terms of New Hampshire. Obama would have needed New Hampshire and McCain would have needed Colorado to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. But Colorado eventually swapped positions with New Hampshire and moved into sole possession of the "victory line" distinction. To win Colorado, then, meant that the winner was the victor in the presidential race (...if they won the other states ranked behind the Centennial state).
Would that have been the case, though, if the 2012 map were in place for this past election?
Well, no. That reapportionment-triggered shift toward McCain would have brought Virginia into the mix on the cycle's final Electoral College Spectrum. As was the case in the Colorado/New Hampshire situation, no one state would have been the Victory Line state. Instead, the possibility of an electoral college tie would have been put on the table. Both Virginia and Colorado would have to be won fo either of the candidates to pass the 270 electoral vote barrier. Of course, Obama won and held a six state cushion beyond that, but if the race had been, say, five or six points closer, Virginia would have been in play and the likelihood of an electoral college tie would have increased substantially.
Recent Posts:
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
There is no shortage of projections on how the 435 House seats will be reapportioned following the 2010 Census and like anything else, they range from modest changes to volatile, far-reaching changes. [And you can also see Nate Silver's attempts to update the 2007 projections -- the basis of both the linked projections above -- here.] What's funny is that both the links cite the same source, Election Data Services, yet describe very different projections. Well, the CQ article cites EDS while The Washington Times uses a combination of the EDS projections and those from Polidata. The Polidata end seems to be adding all the volatility. As such, I'm going to lean on the more conservative EDS projection (Silver's is in between but closer to EDS.).
[Alright, get to the point. How's the map going to look in four years?]
Well, here you go, complete with map and seat gains/losses:
[Click Map to Enlarge]I jokingly ended the electoral college map slideshow with a blank map that had the election date of the 2012 election on it. But that one wasn't accurate; it didn't reflect the changes due to reapportionment that will happen between now and 2012. So what do we know about the changes? As all the articles that discuss the upcoming apportionment typically say, the South and southwest gain while the Rust Belt and into the northeast states continue to lose seats. But a blank map isn't really telling you a whole lot, is it? How about a real world application?
What would the McCain-Obama contest have looked like if this projected 2012 map was used instead? [Well, I made that one too.]
[Click Map to Enlarge]McCain would gain three electoral votes on Obama and that is it. For the record, the Polidata projection, wacky as it is, would only yield McCain a few additional electoral votes. In a year that tilts toward the Democrats, those changes are manageable, but in a year with conditions triggering a more competitive contest, those changes might help the GOP. Then again, if the changes in Colorado and Nevada are lasting, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia remain competitive, and Arizona and Georgia continue to trend toward the Democratic Party, they may benefit the Democrats.
UPDATE: One other way we can look at the changes more in-depth is to examine how that six electoral vote shift toward McCain in the projected 2012 apportionment changes the outlook on the Electoral College Spectrum. So, we can see how/if the campaigns' target states would have shifted if the map was different.
In September 2008, there was a time when Colorado or New Hampshire would have put Obama or McCain over the top in the electoral college. If Obama had won all the states favoring him up to and including Colorado the president-elect would have netted 269 electoral votes. The same was true of John McCain in terms of New Hampshire. Obama would have needed New Hampshire and McCain would have needed Colorado to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. But Colorado eventually swapped positions with New Hampshire and moved into sole possession of the "victory line" distinction. To win Colorado, then, meant that the winner was the victor in the presidential race (...if they won the other states ranked behind the Centennial state).
Would that have been the case, though, if the 2012 map were in place for this past election?
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | ME-4 (155) | NM-5 (260) | ND-3 (377/164) | AK-3 (62) |
| VT-3 (10) | OR-7 (162) | CO-9*** (269/278) | GA-16 (161) | KY-8 (59) |
| DE-3 (13) | WA-11 (173) | VA-13*** (282/269) | WV-5 (145) | TN-11 (51) |
| NY-30 (43) | NJ-15 (188) | NV-6 (288/256) | AZ-11 (140) | KS-6 (40) |
| IL-21 (64) | IA-6 (194) | OH-19 (307/250) | SD-3 (129) | NE-5 (34) |
| MD-10 (74) | WI-10 (204) | FL-28 (335/231) | LA-8 (126) | AL-9 (29) |
| RI-4 (78) | MN-10 (214) | NC-15 (350/203) | AR-6 (118) | WY-3 (120) |
| MA-11 (89) | PA-20 (234) | MO-10 (360/188) | TX-36 (112) | ID-4 (17) |
| CA-55 (144) | MI-17 (251) | IN-11 (371/178) | MS-6 (76) | UT-6 (13) |
| CT-7 (151) | NH-4 (255) | MT-3 (374/167) | SC-8 (70) | OK-7 (7) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The point between Colorado and Virginia is where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. Obama would need Virginia and McCain would have needed Colorado to have surpassed that barrier. That line is referred to as the victory line. Under the actual 2008 electoral college distribution, Colorado was the state that each candidate needed to cross 270. | ||||
Well, no. That reapportionment-triggered shift toward McCain would have brought Virginia into the mix on the cycle's final Electoral College Spectrum. As was the case in the Colorado/New Hampshire situation, no one state would have been the Victory Line state. Instead, the possibility of an electoral college tie would have been put on the table. Both Virginia and Colorado would have to be won fo either of the candidates to pass the 270 electoral vote barrier. Of course, Obama won and held a six state cushion beyond that, but if the race had been, say, five or six points closer, Virginia would have been in play and the likelihood of an electoral college tie would have increased substantially.
Recent Posts:
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
The electoral college wrap up post got hijacked this afternoon by a comments thread that veered off into a discussion over this past election and whether it was one that has triggered a realignment. [Allow me a Seinfeldian moment: Not that there's anything wrong with that.] Let me reproduce those comments here and augment them along the way:
Rob started things out by linking to Jay Cost's piece that tied the events surrounding the economic collapse this fall to other historical corollaries: the Civil War, the gold standard debate and the Great Depression. [There were some nice maps there -- even some that had Long Island colored differently than the rest of New York -- but I was left wondering where the maps for the most recent elections were. I like maps. What can I say.] Cost has not been alone in this realignment discussion. In fact, John Sides over at the Monkey Cage was recently bemoaning the overabundance of realignment talk in the press following last week's election.
That aside, our discussion here has centered on a few basic ideas:
1) A realignment does depend on some sort of lasting change.
2) Much of this talk rests with how well Obama does over the next four to eight years.
3) And finally, how lasting the shift is depends in part on how the GOP responds and who they line up behind as the face of that response.
Scott thinks there has been one change that is likely to last as a result of Obama's election, though stops short of calling it a realignment:
Rob drops the first bomb here:
Time will tell.
Recent Posts:
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Rob started things out by linking to Jay Cost's piece that tied the events surrounding the economic collapse this fall to other historical corollaries: the Civil War, the gold standard debate and the Great Depression. [There were some nice maps there -- even some that had Long Island colored differently than the rest of New York -- but I was left wondering where the maps for the most recent elections were. I like maps. What can I say.] Cost has not been alone in this realignment discussion. In fact, John Sides over at the Monkey Cage was recently bemoaning the overabundance of realignment talk in the press following last week's election.
That aside, our discussion here has centered on a few basic ideas:
1) A realignment does depend on some sort of lasting change.
2) Much of this talk rests with how well Obama does over the next four to eight years.
3) And finally, how lasting the shift is depends in part on how the GOP responds and who they line up behind as the face of that response.
Scott thinks there has been one change that is likely to last as a result of Obama's election, though stops short of calling it a realignment:
"Not a "realignment." But for lasting changes, I'd identify this election as the last gasp of the anti-intellectuals on a national level. The percentage of Americans who are college-educated keeps creeping up, so it didn't quite work this time to pit "real" people against "elitists"--there are too many who side with the elitists in that division. And the demographics there will keep tilting further and further toward the educated.But Jack disagreed:
"It was once possible to espouse a kind of populism that set workers against landowners--but eventually, demographics shifted so that now too many voters own homes, and any attack on property owners would be political suicide. We've just crossed that Rubicon with education, and we won't be going back."
"I don't think populism which plays to the uneducated is dead. But the increase in education certainly requires one to be more subtle. One can't go around insulting educated Americans, but you can get away with playing up the virtues of rural American values, etc.I fall in the middle on this one. I certainly see some of what Scott is talking about, but if you read the back end of Adam Nossiter's article in The New York Times today and then look at those nice county maps they put up last week, there's still an area of the country that is seemingly being left behind in terms of education. But as John McCain's electoral college coalition proved, that group of states from east Texas and then fanning out to capture the Deep South and Appalachia, is not really the basis of a winning formula in the future. Playing to those states as the main cog of an electoral college coalition isn't a winning strategy but incorporating them somehow in a broader coalition -- something similar to the Republican Party Colin Powell envisioned in his endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press -- will be the only viable route. Of course, stories like that only buoy the hopes of Democrats. Whether that falsely buoys them depends in large measure on how well Obama does and who the Republicans put out there as the face of their party in 2010 and 2012.
"I've been reading a lot about the 'death of Rovian politics,' 'end of the politics of fear,' etc., and I've just had a hard time believing it. Just because it didn't work this year doesn't mean it will never work. After all, there were a lot of other reasons why McCain didn't win; they might work in a year in which the conditions are more favorable."
Rob drops the first bomb here:
"I heard on NPR that Newt Gingrich is planning on running in 2012. Here is a man who is brilliant and who can appeal to intellectuals as well as the uneducated. If Obama falters, Newt could be a very appealing candidate -- one who can appeal to the social conservatives despite his divorces. For those of you who think that 1996 finished him off, I point to the 1962 gubanatorial race where "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more", Bill Clinton's career-ending speech at the 1988 convention, and Hillary Clinton's national reputation in 2000. A Gingrich/ Palin primary contest could be as entertaining as the Obama/ Clinton contest this year!"Indeed, but Gingrich may be trying for a kind of reverse Howard Dean effect here. He and former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele are locking in a behind-the-scenes battle for the chairmanship of the RNC according to The Washington Times. To complete the reverse Dean effect though, Gingrich would have to lose this fight and then go on to win the GOP nomination in 2012. Throwing that idea out for a moment, if the former Speaker was to run in 2012, would that make Bobby Jindal the Mark Warner of 2012: an up-and-comer who drops out of the race before it even starts? And this on the heels of me thinking about Sarah Palin in terms of being a combination of John Edwards 2004 and John Edwards 2008. I think she has more Obama potential in her than Edwards though. But the next couple of years will give us a better idea as to whether she'll be a lasting figure in the GOP, much less someone who will attempt to prevent a lasting change from cementing.
Time will tell.
Recent Posts:
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
2008 Electoral College Wrap Up
"How did we do?"
In the last week, several of our electoral college analyst brethren have asked about the level of accuracy each achieved. Let's have a look at how well and/or poorly FHQ did in that regard. [What, you thought we were going to be any different?] Below, you see how the race actually played out on election day, except now we've added some gradations to reflect states where candidates won by a substantial margin or where the final spread between Obama and McCain ended up being narrow.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
As Nate Silver explained recently, Obama could have given 9.3 points on average back to John McCain in every state and still have come away from Tuesday night's election with an electoral college tie. We have spoken time and again about the electoral college cushion Obama had in this race, but we have done so in terms of how many states past the victory line Obama's campaign was able to push. If George W. Bush would have given 9.3 points to John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have been able to snatch up Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia and Colorado to get to around the same number of electoral votes (360 EVs) Obama had in 2008 (365 EVs).
We knew, for instance, that when and if New Hampshire and Pennsylvania went for Obama on election day, that all it was going to take, given where Obama was likely to do well the rest of the evening, to push Obama over the top was the victory line state (Colorado) or some state below it. So when Ohio fell into Obama's column the race was over. And that can be seen on the Electoral College Spectrum for the final results above.
Great, FHQ's weighted averages granted us the ability to see that Obama would win and what states to watch on election night. Lots of people saw that coming. But where did FHQ fail to capture in its average what actually happened on election day?
[Click Map to Enlarge]
There were a handful of states that FHQ missed (...as did several other outlets). Most notably, North Carolina and Indiana turned blue for the first time in decades. We had discussed North Carolina at length during the last month of the campaign and the Tar Heel state's average had crept closer and closer to a complete tie in that time. But it never moved into the blue for Obama. Between the average and the actual outcome, North Carolina moved about a point on election day. So, while North Carolina wasn't correctly predicted, the result wasn't out of left field either. The state was already close and on the Watch List for a potential switch toward Obama.
Indiana, on the other hand, was a bit of a surprise given where the graduated weighted average has the Hoosier state ranked on the Spectrum. Consistently on the McCain side of both Missouri and North Carolina, Indiana jumped over two points on election day (from where FHQ's average placed the state and where it ended up after the votes were counted). Heading into the day, Missouri looked much more likely to end up on Obama's side of the ledger than Indiana. What's strange is how both those states split their votes between the presidential and gubernatorial level. Missouri gave McCain its 11 electoral votes while electing a Democratic governor and Indiana provided Obama with a narrow margin and at the same time reelected a Republican governor. Yes, local factors played a role in each case, but that's still an interesting occurrence.
[The final electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd congressional district was one that was never accounted for in our averages. Now that the first split allocation of electoral votes has occurred, that may be something that FHQ will have to attempt to factor in in subsequent cycles. But we'll talk about possible improvements momentarily.]
Also, when we compare the predicted map and Spectrum to the actual results above we find that while several states were correctly predicted, they were either more or less competitive than our averages would have let on. On the McCain end, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia ended up being less competitive than expected while South Dakota and Indiana and North Carolina, obviously, were closer to Obama on Tuesday than had been predicted.
On the Obama side, there were several states that were "off" in terms of how their averages and results matched up, but the rank ordering fell pretty much in line with what had been expected. Nevada ended up being much less competitive then the polling in the Silver state otherwise would have indicated. As UNLV political scientist, Dave Damore, told FHQ back in September, pollsters tend to oversample the the rural and more Republican areas of Nevada which in 2004 meant support Bush was overestimated in the polls conducted in the state. But even adding that 4-5 points to FHQ's average falls short of where the Silver state fell on November 4. What was the deal then? Well, it could be that we didn't have enough information on Nevada -- it certainly had fewer polls conducted within the state lines than many of the other toss up states -- or it could be that rural/Republican oversampling really overestimated McCain's support in the state.
[Click Figure to Enlarge]
But how well did FHQ's averages match up with where the individual states actually fell on election day? A simple bivariate regression with our averages as the explanatory variable and the actual results as the dependent variable show that the averages explained over 95% of the variation in the vote margins witnessed on election day. All 50 states are clustered pretty tightly around that regression line above. But how closely? And which states were problematic?
[Click Figure to Enlarge]
We can eyeball it or we can add a 95% confidence interval to the plot above. Sure, you can see that Alaska and Hawaii are outliers in that original scatterplot, but are there states that fall outside of that confidence interval? There are and we come full circle with the earlier discussion of Nevada. One of the potential problems with the Silver state that I mentioned was that there were fewer polls there than in other toss up states. If you look at the states that fall outside of the gray area in the second plot, you see that most of them are less competitive and thus less frequently polled states. That indicates that some sort of repeated simulation -- akin to what FiveThirtyEight, the Princeton Election Consortium or Hominid Views use -- could be useful in providing more information on those states and a greater level of confidence in their averages. Ah, something to work on for 2012. Isn't that just copying them? Yeah, but FHQ would remain different in that it would include all the older polls in a given cycle while the others phase them out gradually or focus on only the more recent ones.
On the whole, though, this first run in 2008 was a relatively successful one for FHQ in terms of the electoral college. 48 of the 50 states were correctly predicted with a simple weighted average and one of those two, North Carolina, was certainly within range of a switch heading into election day.
Recent Posts:
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
In the last week, several of our electoral college analyst brethren have asked about the level of accuracy each achieved. Let's have a look at how well and/or poorly FHQ did in that regard. [What, you thought we were going to be any different?] Below, you see how the race actually played out on election day, except now we've added some gradations to reflect states where candidates won by a substantial margin or where the final spread between Obama and McCain ended up being narrow.
[Click Map to Enlarge]As Nate Silver explained recently, Obama could have given 9.3 points on average back to John McCain in every state and still have come away from Tuesday night's election with an electoral college tie. We have spoken time and again about the electoral college cushion Obama had in this race, but we have done so in terms of how many states past the victory line Obama's campaign was able to push. If George W. Bush would have given 9.3 points to John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have been able to snatch up Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia and Colorado to get to around the same number of electoral votes (360 EVs) Obama had in 2008 (365 EVs).
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | ME-4 (157) | NH-4 (262/279) | GA-15 (159) | NE-4 (58) |
| VT-3 (10) | WA-11 (168) | IA-7 (269/274) | SD-3 (144) | KY-8 (54) |
| RI-4 (14) | MI-17 (185) | CO-9*** (278/269) | ND-3 (141) | LA-9 (46) |
| MA-12 (26) | OR-7 (192) | VA-13 (291/260) | AZ-10 (138) | AR-6 (37) |
| NY-31 (57) | NJ-15 (207) | OH-20 (311/247) | SC-8 (128) | AL-9 (31) |
| DE-3 (60) | NM-5 (212) | FL-27 (338/227) | TX-34 (120) | AK-3 (22) |
| IL-21 (81) | WI-10 (222) | IN-11 (349/200) | WV-5 (86) | ID-4 (19) |
| MD-10 (91) | NV-5 (227) | NC-15+1**** (365/189) | MS-6 (81) | UT-5 (15) |
| CA-55 (146) | PA-21 (248) | MO-11 (173) | TN-11 (75) | OK-7 (10) |
| CT-7 (153) | MN-10 (258) | MT-3 (162) | KS-6 (64) | WY-3 (3) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 269 electoral votes. McCain's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***Colorado is the state where Obama crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. ****Nebraska allocates electoral votes based on statewide results and the results within each of its congressional districts. Nebraska's 2nd district voted for Barack Obama on November 4. | ||||
We knew, for instance, that when and if New Hampshire and Pennsylvania went for Obama on election day, that all it was going to take, given where Obama was likely to do well the rest of the evening, to push Obama over the top was the victory line state (Colorado) or some state below it. So when Ohio fell into Obama's column the race was over. And that can be seen on the Electoral College Spectrum for the final results above.
Great, FHQ's weighted averages granted us the ability to see that Obama would win and what states to watch on election night. Lots of people saw that coming. But where did FHQ fail to capture in its average what actually happened on election day?
[Click Map to Enlarge]There were a handful of states that FHQ missed (...as did several other outlets). Most notably, North Carolina and Indiana turned blue for the first time in decades. We had discussed North Carolina at length during the last month of the campaign and the Tar Heel state's average had crept closer and closer to a complete tie in that time. But it never moved into the blue for Obama. Between the average and the actual outcome, North Carolina moved about a point on election day. So, while North Carolina wasn't correctly predicted, the result wasn't out of left field either. The state was already close and on the Watch List for a potential switch toward Obama.
Indiana, on the other hand, was a bit of a surprise given where the graduated weighted average has the Hoosier state ranked on the Spectrum. Consistently on the McCain side of both Missouri and North Carolina, Indiana jumped over two points on election day (from where FHQ's average placed the state and where it ended up after the votes were counted). Heading into the day, Missouri looked much more likely to end up on Obama's side of the ledger than Indiana. What's strange is how both those states split their votes between the presidential and gubernatorial level. Missouri gave McCain its 11 electoral votes while electing a Democratic governor and Indiana provided Obama with a narrow margin and at the same time reelected a Republican governor. Yes, local factors played a role in each case, but that's still an interesting occurrence.
[The final electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd congressional district was one that was never accounted for in our averages. Now that the first split allocation of electoral votes has occurred, that may be something that FHQ will have to attempt to factor in in subsequent cycles. But we'll talk about possible improvements momentarily.]
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | ME-4 (157) | NM-5 (264) | ND-3 (381/160) | AK-3 (61) |
| VT-3 (10) | OR-7 (164) | CO-9*** (273/274) | GA-15 (157) | KY-8 (58) |
| DE-3 (13) | WA-11 (175) | VA-13 (286/265) | WV-5 (142) | TN-11 (50) |
| NY-31 (44) | NJ-15 (190) | NV-5 (291/252) | AZ-10 (137) | KS-6 (39) |
| IL-21 (65) | IA-7 (197) | OH-20 (311/247) | SD-3 (127) | NE-5 (33) |
| MD-10 (75) | WI-10 (207) | FL-27 (338/227) | LA-9 (124) | AL-9 (28) |
| RI-4 (79) | MN-10 (217) | NC-15 (353/200) | AR-6 (115) | WY-3 (19) |
| MA-12 (91) | PA-21 (238) | MO-11 (364/185) | TX-34 (109) | ID-4 (16) |
| CA-55 (146) | MI-17 (255) | IN-11 (375/174) | MS-6 (75) | UT-5 (12) |
| CT-7 (153) | NH-4 (259) | MT-3 (378/163) | SC-8 (69) | OK-7 (7) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***Colorado is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. It is currently favoring Obama, thus the blue text in that cell. | ||||
Also, when we compare the predicted map and Spectrum to the actual results above we find that while several states were correctly predicted, they were either more or less competitive than our averages would have let on. On the McCain end, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia ended up being less competitive than expected while South Dakota and Indiana and North Carolina, obviously, were closer to Obama on Tuesday than had been predicted.
On the Obama side, there were several states that were "off" in terms of how their averages and results matched up, but the rank ordering fell pretty much in line with what had been expected. Nevada ended up being much less competitive then the polling in the Silver state otherwise would have indicated. As UNLV political scientist, Dave Damore, told FHQ back in September, pollsters tend to oversample the the rural and more Republican areas of Nevada which in 2004 meant support Bush was overestimated in the polls conducted in the state. But even adding that 4-5 points to FHQ's average falls short of where the Silver state fell on November 4. What was the deal then? Well, it could be that we didn't have enough information on Nevada -- it certainly had fewer polls conducted within the state lines than many of the other toss up states -- or it could be that rural/Republican oversampling really overestimated McCain's support in the state.
[Click Figure to Enlarge]But how well did FHQ's averages match up with where the individual states actually fell on election day? A simple bivariate regression with our averages as the explanatory variable and the actual results as the dependent variable show that the averages explained over 95% of the variation in the vote margins witnessed on election day. All 50 states are clustered pretty tightly around that regression line above. But how closely? And which states were problematic?
[Click Figure to Enlarge]We can eyeball it or we can add a 95% confidence interval to the plot above. Sure, you can see that Alaska and Hawaii are outliers in that original scatterplot, but are there states that fall outside of that confidence interval? There are and we come full circle with the earlier discussion of Nevada. One of the potential problems with the Silver state that I mentioned was that there were fewer polls there than in other toss up states. If you look at the states that fall outside of the gray area in the second plot, you see that most of them are less competitive and thus less frequently polled states. That indicates that some sort of repeated simulation -- akin to what FiveThirtyEight, the Princeton Election Consortium or Hominid Views use -- could be useful in providing more information on those states and a greater level of confidence in their averages. Ah, something to work on for 2012. Isn't that just copying them? Yeah, but FHQ would remain different in that it would include all the older polls in a given cycle while the others phase them out gradually or focus on only the more recent ones.
On the whole, though, this first run in 2008 was a relatively successful one for FHQ in terms of the electoral college. 48 of the 50 states were correctly predicted with a simple weighted average and one of those two, North Carolina, was certainly within range of a switch heading into election day.
Recent Posts:
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
Monday, November 10, 2008
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
This seems silly, but I'll start another post by saying, in last week's post about the Georgia Senate runoff. Anyway, in that post, I discussed the other two uncalled Senate races, those in Alaska and Minnesota. Specifically I brought up the idea of Ted Stevens winning reelection but being forced out by the Senate and that opening the door to Sarah Palin appointing herself to fill the vacancy. As I said there, Alaska actually has two, somewhat conflicting laws on how to deal with such vacancies. But first, let's start with a time line of how the Last Frontier got to this point:
Prior to 2002
The governor had the ability to appoint someone to such a vacancy and the appointee didn't have to stand for election until the next election period.
|
|
|
2002
Frank Murkowski is elected governor, resigns his Senate seat and appoints his daughter to fill the Senate vacancy. Lisa Murkowski doesn't have to face the voters until 2004.
|
|
|
2004
The Alaska legislature acts to close the loophole, granting the governor the option of appointing a replacement on an interim basis until a special election can be held within 60-90 days.
|
Wanting to remove the governor from the equation altogether, a petition-triggered initiative (Prop 4) was, upon challenge, ruled sufficiently different from the original law by the Alaska Supreme Court and subsequently passed.
|
|
|
2008
Governor Sarah Palin is named vice presidential running mate by John McCain. Senator Ted Stevens is convicted of seven felony counts and the whole discussion begins as to what the correct senatorial succession procedure is.
Essentially what's at stake here is that if Stevens wins and is forced from his position in the Senate, Sarah Palin will have a decision to make: wait the 60-90 days until the special election is held, or test that initiative by appointing someone in the interim. It isn't a Florida 2000-type constitutional crisis, but it is an interesting constitutional situation, nonetheless. And when you throw in the possibility of the former vice presidential nominee appointing herself as a stepping stone to 2012, it gets even better.
For a more detailed explanation of the situation, see the following link.
Recent Posts:
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
The governor had the ability to appoint someone to such a vacancy and the appointee didn't have to stand for election until the next election period.
|
|
|
2002
Frank Murkowski is elected governor, resigns his Senate seat and appoints his daughter to fill the Senate vacancy. Lisa Murkowski doesn't have to face the voters until 2004.
|
|
|
2004
The Alaska legislature acts to close the loophole, granting the governor the option of appointing a replacement on an interim basis until a special election can be held within 60-90 days.
|
Wanting to remove the governor from the equation altogether, a petition-triggered initiative (Prop 4) was, upon challenge, ruled sufficiently different from the original law by the Alaska Supreme Court and subsequently passed.
|
|
|
2008
Governor Sarah Palin is named vice presidential running mate by John McCain. Senator Ted Stevens is convicted of seven felony counts and the whole discussion begins as to what the correct senatorial succession procedure is.
Essentially what's at stake here is that if Stevens wins and is forced from his position in the Senate, Sarah Palin will have a decision to make: wait the 60-90 days until the special election is held, or test that initiative by appointing someone in the interim. It isn't a Florida 2000-type constitutional crisis, but it is an interesting constitutional situation, nonetheless. And when you throw in the possibility of the former vice presidential nominee appointing herself as a stepping stone to 2012, it gets even better.
For a more detailed explanation of the situation, see the following link.
Recent Posts:
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Late last week, we examined the Georgia counties where both Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin did well in Tuesday's Senate race election. That investigation provided an idea as to where each of the candidates may be focusing between now and the December 2 runoff and where either may be vulnerable. But let's look at some of the other numbers from last Tuesday's vote and see if there are any other clues to whether Martin actually has a chance or if Chambliss is something of a foregone conclusion.
One thing that I was interested in seeing was the amount of ballot roll-off* from the presidential race to the Senate race. In other words, who voted for president and then just skipped voting for the Senate race and/or all the other down-ballot races? The idea here is that if there were a significant number of Obama voters that didn't vote for Martin, then he 1) is already starting with a smaller base or 2) has some other potential voters to mobilize for the runoff election.
What we see is that overall there were approximately 169,000 fewer votes cast in the Senate race than in the presidential race. But how we get to that 169,000 figure is an interesting sidenote. There were about 182,000 fewer Chambliss voters than McCain voters and 86,000 fewer Martin voters than Obama supporters. In the best case scenario for Martin, if he was able to mobilize all those Obama voters behind him, the former stateSenator representative would gain almost 100,000 votes on Chambliss. That would bring the margin between the two candidates down to less than 25,000 votes. That's certainly closer, but not close enough to make Chambliss really sweat it out.
There are three wildcards here, though. First, we know that turnout is likely to be far lower on December 2 than it was on November 4. The above is a better (not best) case scenario for Jim Martin. But we know that all those voters aren't going to come back to the polls for the runoff. That means that attempting to handicap that turnout will help us to better understand how competitive the runoff will actually be. The other two wildcards will help us there.
What about those Libertarians? Native son and Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, wasn't able to sway all that many voters over into his corner. Barr was seen as a major potential factor in bringing Georgia into play for Obama, but after polling well over the summer, Barr's support wavered in the polls down the stretch. In fact, the Libertarian's senate candidate, Allen Buckley, polled much better on November 4, totalling about 100,000 more votes than Barr did in the presidential race. That can be chalked up to strategic voting. Buckley, slim though his chances were, had a better chance of winning that Senate seat than Barr did of winning the presidency.
For comparison's sake, I looked at North Carolina as well. Here's a state that had a competitive Senate race as well and has a pretty good base of Libertarian support. The outcome was very similar in the Tar Heel state. McCain and Obama crowded Bob Barr out in the presidential race, but Libertarian, Chris Cole did comparatively better in the Dole-Hagan Senate race. The roll-off in North Carolina was about a third of what it was in Georgia, but the Libertarians did around 100,000 votes better on the Senate level in both states' Senate races.
Well, what does all that mean? For starters, there are likely a sizable number of people who voted for McCain and Buckley who Chambliss could target in some way. I would imagine some reprise of the McCain campaign's socialism, big government, big spending liberal arguments could persuade some of those voters to participate in the runoff and vote for Chambliss.
The other wildcard will affect the turnout Jim Martin is likely to expect. And we talked about this one at the close of the previous post on this race. Very simply, how involved will President-elect Barack Obama be. Are 58-59 seats in the Senate better than 57, or does it even matter since 60 seats are basically off the table for the Democrats. If the 44th president feels like getting involved, Georgia is a place where there's the most potential for impact. Counting and recounting in Alaska and Minnesota, respectively, aren't arenas where Obama can make all that much difference. In a campaign, a newly elected president could make a difference.
And as we saw, there were a fair number of Obama voters who dropped off after that vote and didn't cast a vote in the Senate race. If the primary/general election campaign infrastructure that Obama had in place can be recharged to some degree, Jim Martin figures to be the beneficiary in the December 2 runoff.
And what about those McCain voters? Chambliss could activate some of those, right? Sure, I just think it is less likely than Obama voters who rolled off turning out for the runoff given the enthusiasm gap that was present before the election and the actual cumulative results from November 4. In any event, we aren't talking about a ton of voters here, but in a close race, those voters at the margins could prove consequential.
In the end, we can add a few more parts to the equation. We already knew about the likely turnout drop between the general election and the runoff, but now we can factor in -- at least in our thinking if not statistically in some way -- the possible influence those Libertarian and Obama voters from the original vote.
*One other cause for this ballot roll-off might have been the negative tone of the Senate campaign over the final weeks. There is some research to suggest that this has happened before. It could also be argued that the presidential race was also negative, but it isn't a stretch to say that it was outpaced in negativity by the Chambliss-Martin Senate race. Also, though Georgia got some last minute attention from the presidential candidates, neither campaign was focused too heavily on the Peach state despite the shrinking polling gap during the final week. That wasn't the case in the Senate race.
Recent Posts:
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
| 2008 Presidential Vote: Georgia | ||||
| McCain (R) 2,046,419 | Obama (D) 1,840,397 | Barr (Lib) 28,771 | Totals 3,915,587 | |
| 52.3% | 47.0% | 0.7% | 100.0% | |
| *Source: Georgia Secretary of State | ||||
One thing that I was interested in seeing was the amount of ballot roll-off* from the presidential race to the Senate race. In other words, who voted for president and then just skipped voting for the Senate race and/or all the other down-ballot races? The idea here is that if there were a significant number of Obama voters that didn't vote for Martin, then he 1) is already starting with a smaller base or 2) has some other potential voters to mobilize for the runoff election.
| 2008 Senate Vote: Georgia | ||||
| Chambliss (R) 1,864,909 | Martin (D) 1,754,108 | Buckley (Lib) 127,785 | Totals 3,746,802 | |
| 49.8% | 46.8% | 3.4% | 100.0% | |
| *Source: Georgia Secretary of State | ||||
What we see is that overall there were approximately 169,000 fewer votes cast in the Senate race than in the presidential race. But how we get to that 169,000 figure is an interesting sidenote. There were about 182,000 fewer Chambliss voters than McCain voters and 86,000 fewer Martin voters than Obama supporters. In the best case scenario for Martin, if he was able to mobilize all those Obama voters behind him, the former state
There are three wildcards here, though. First, we know that turnout is likely to be far lower on December 2 than it was on November 4. The above is a better (not best) case scenario for Jim Martin. But we know that all those voters aren't going to come back to the polls for the runoff. That means that attempting to handicap that turnout will help us to better understand how competitive the runoff will actually be. The other two wildcards will help us there.
What about those Libertarians? Native son and Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, wasn't able to sway all that many voters over into his corner. Barr was seen as a major potential factor in bringing Georgia into play for Obama, but after polling well over the summer, Barr's support wavered in the polls down the stretch. In fact, the Libertarian's senate candidate, Allen Buckley, polled much better on November 4, totalling about 100,000 more votes than Barr did in the presidential race. That can be chalked up to strategic voting. Buckley, slim though his chances were, had a better chance of winning that Senate seat than Barr did of winning the presidency.
For comparison's sake, I looked at North Carolina as well. Here's a state that had a competitive Senate race as well and has a pretty good base of Libertarian support. The outcome was very similar in the Tar Heel state. McCain and Obama crowded Bob Barr out in the presidential race, but Libertarian, Chris Cole did comparatively better in the Dole-Hagan Senate race. The roll-off in North Carolina was about a third of what it was in Georgia, but the Libertarians did around 100,000 votes better on the Senate level in both states' Senate races.
Well, what does all that mean? For starters, there are likely a sizable number of people who voted for McCain and Buckley who Chambliss could target in some way. I would imagine some reprise of the McCain campaign's socialism, big government, big spending liberal arguments could persuade some of those voters to participate in the runoff and vote for Chambliss.
The other wildcard will affect the turnout Jim Martin is likely to expect. And we talked about this one at the close of the previous post on this race. Very simply, how involved will President-elect Barack Obama be. Are 58-59 seats in the Senate better than 57, or does it even matter since 60 seats are basically off the table for the Democrats. If the 44th president feels like getting involved, Georgia is a place where there's the most potential for impact. Counting and recounting in Alaska and Minnesota, respectively, aren't arenas where Obama can make all that much difference. In a campaign, a newly elected president could make a difference.
And as we saw, there were a fair number of Obama voters who dropped off after that vote and didn't cast a vote in the Senate race. If the primary/general election campaign infrastructure that Obama had in place can be recharged to some degree, Jim Martin figures to be the beneficiary in the December 2 runoff.
And what about those McCain voters? Chambliss could activate some of those, right? Sure, I just think it is less likely than Obama voters who rolled off turning out for the runoff given the enthusiasm gap that was present before the election and the actual cumulative results from November 4. In any event, we aren't talking about a ton of voters here, but in a close race, those voters at the margins could prove consequential.
In the end, we can add a few more parts to the equation. We already knew about the likely turnout drop between the general election and the runoff, but now we can factor in -- at least in our thinking if not statistically in some way -- the possible influence those Libertarian and Obama voters from the original vote.
*One other cause for this ballot roll-off might have been the negative tone of the Senate campaign over the final weeks. There is some research to suggest that this has happened before. It could also be argued that the presidential race was also negative, but it isn't a stretch to say that it was outpaced in negativity by the Chambliss-Martin Senate race. Also, though Georgia got some last minute attention from the presidential candidates, neither campaign was focused too heavily on the Peach state despite the shrinking polling gap during the final week. That wasn't the case in the Senate race.
Recent Posts:
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
Friday, November 7, 2008
Omaha to Obama
Unless, Missouri somehow flips to Obama, this will be the final tally of the 2008 electoral college.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Recent Posts:
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
What About Nebraska's 2nd District?
[Click Map to Enlarge]Recent Posts:
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
What About Nebraska's 2nd District?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)