A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

Over in the comments to the post with an updated projection of the 2012 electoral college map, we've been discussing the likelihood of a close election four years from now. More specifically, we've talked about, given the current trends, the structural advantages the Democrats appear to have heading into future elections. Despite potentially losing ground via the post-census reapportionment, Democrats still look to hold advantages in enough states to clear the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

But let's take a step back for a moment here and assume that we will see a close presidential election in 2012. And let's use a version of the election results Electoral College Spectrum adjusted for the seat shifts projected after the census.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	ME-4 (154)	NH-4 (256/286)	GA-16 (167)	NE-4 (58)
VT-3 (10)	WA-11 (165)	IA-6 (262/282)	SD-3 (151)	KY-8 (54)
RI-4 (14)	MI-16 (181)	CO-9*** (271/276)	ND-3 (148)	LA-8 (46)
MA-11 (25)	OR-7 (188)	VA-13 (284/267)	AZ-12 (145)	AR-6 (38)
NY-30 (55)	NJ-14 (202)	OH-18 (302/254)	SC-9 (133)	AL-9 (32)
DE-3 (58)	NM-5 (207)	FL-29 (331/236)	TX-38 (124)	AK-3 (23)
IL-20 (78)	WI-10 (217)	IN-11 (342/207)	WV-5 (86)	ID-4 (20)
MD-10 (88)	NV-6 (223)	NC-15+1**** (358/196)	MS-6 (81)	UT-6 (16)
CA-55 (143)	PA-20 (243)	MO-10 (368/180)	TN-11 (75)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (150)	MN-9 (252)	MT-3 (371/170)	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.

If, in 2012, the momentum swings against the Democrats and Barack Obama, the GOP is likely to pull Nebraska's 2nd, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida and Ohio back into their column. And even with those 74 electoral votes, generic Republican (Let's call her Sarah Palin for the heck of it.) still comes up 16 electoral votes short of victory. Virginia is next in line, gets the "close but not quite" distinction with 13 electoral votes, and, as Jack points out, is trending away from the GOP.

Depending on the candidates and conditions, though, I think that Virginia and Colorado are the most likely candidates for the Florida (2000)/Ohio (2004) distinction in 2012 should the election be that close. And whoever the GOP candidate is will need both states if they all fall in line in the same order four years from now. [I'll have to look into how long or short the odds of this are. But that's another research idea to look at later.] Virginia would be closer to the GOP compared to Colorado based on the 2008 results and that would make the Centennial state the victory line state. But given what happened last month, it is somewhat difficult to see Colorado swinging back. However, ask me in a couple of years and see if I've changed my mind.


Recent Posts:
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

The Race for RNC Chair

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

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.

On Monday, Election Data Services released the US population estimates for 2008 and a series of projections for 2010. So let's have a look at how the electoral college map would change given the new information we have.

The first set of numbers we have is the estimate of the population changes during 2008. This is more of an "if the Census was done today" scenario. It was this set (from 2007) that we used to project the the map for 2010 before. In other words, this gives us an idea of what the changes might be for 2010, but not the full picture. EDS even said in its report that they expected quite a bit of volatility over the next two years despite the economic downturn's impact on mobility.

[You'll notice that the map has taken on the red and black color scheme that denotes gains and losses in the financial world. Red states are states losing seats while black states are those likely to gain seats following the 2010 Census.]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Despite that, we can set a baseline of potential changes based on the changes from 2008 (Well, from 2000-2008). The picture here isn't that much different from what we witnessed a little more than a month ago. Basically, Texas would gain an additional seat, Missouri wouldn't lose the seat it was projected to have lost and Michigan and New Jersey would lose a seat apiece. That would have fueled an additional two electoral vote swing toward John McCain in November's electoral college. Taken with the information we had before, though, that still would have put the Arizona senator at a 360-178 electoral vote disadvantage. Still, we're talking about a population shift toward redder states. Of course the traditional question is, "Who are those people?" Are they more Democratic or Republican? Are these states becoming redder, like, say, Georgia, or purple like Virginia (though the latter is not a state projected to gain or lose any congressional seats)?

But let's move from an estimate of the map based on the population changes we have seen during 2008 and focus on the projected changes we could see in 2010 based on likely changes over the next two years. Now, EDS set up several different models: one that projected population shifts based on what has happened since 2000, and four additional models that took a midterm approach; focusing on population shifts from 2004 onward, 2005 onward, 2006 onward and 2007-2008. For our purposes, we'll take the model with the most information: the full model based on the changes since the last Census.

That version shows Arizona (2 seats total), Florida (2) and Texas (4) gaining additional seats on top of the gains shown in the map above. It also has South Carolina picking up a seat.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

On the opposite side of the ledger, Ohio is likely to lose a second seat, while Missouri once again loses the seat it lost on the initial version of this map. Illinois and Minnesota round out the remaining list of states either losing population or not growing at rates fast enough to stay apace of the states gaining seats. If this projected map had been used in the November election that would have netted McCain an additional two electoral votes from the first map above. In other words, playing on the map immediately above, the 2008 election would have come to a count of 358-180 in favor of Obama. Again, this isn't a big shift in an election like we just witnessed. In a more competitive election, however, such a shift could prove consequential. Recall that the generic ballot question favored the Democrats throughout the 2008 cycle. If that divide had been more even, a seven electoral vote swing could have been decisive.

So what does all this mean? Well, not much. Projections are nice, but they aren't the real thing. I really ought to look back at how well these EDS projections were prior to the last Census. That might be a factor to throw into a more inclusive model -- similar to the house effect that FiveThirtyEight factored into their electoral college projections late in the game in 2008. With EDS cautioning that there could be volatility in the forecasting over the next two years, you have to take these numbers with a grain of salt. However, it is interesting to note what the map might look like in four years' time.


Recent Posts:
The Race for RNC Chair

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

The Race for RNC Chair

Allow me to take a brief respite from putting the finishing touches on grades for the semester to weigh in on something that I came across today.

Over at Red State, Erick Erickson and company have come up with and posed a list of ten issues important to the readers and contributors at the right-leaning blogging community to the candidates for chair of the Republican Party. [You can see that list here.] The first of the six candidates in the running, Saul Anuzis, responded today. Anuzis is the Michigan Republican Party chairman and was a proponent of the state's 2008 primary move to January 15 -- a date that defied both national parties' rules governing delegate selection.

Now why would I push this on the readers of FHQ, a group I think is fair to assess as left of center ideologically? Well, as I've mentioned, theoretically, it will be the Republican Party that will be the most apt to tinker with its rules between now and the 2012 presidential election. Thus, who they choose could have an impact on the direction of the party and who they ultimately settle on for their nominee. Anuzis doesn't reveal anything too exciting in that regard, but in the comments section he is asked about the possibility of closing the Republican primaries in 2012. I have no idea if Anuzis will respond, but that line of questioning will be something to track in the subsequent iterations of these chair candidate discussions, should they come to pass.


Recent Posts:
Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

Back in May, just before Arkansas was to hold its primaries for state and local offices, State Rep. Nathan George (D-Dardanelle) went public with a call for legislation to move the state's 2012 presidential primary back to May from February to again coincide with the other primaries. On Thursday that call got a bit closer to reality as George and State Rep. Jon Woods (R-Springdale) prefiled a bill (HB 1021) that would come up for consideration once the 87th General Assembly convenes in January. The proposed legislation very simply strikes the changes made to Arkansas election law in 2005 when the separate February Arkansas presidential primary was signed into law by Governor Mike Huckabee.

Arkansas, then, was one of the first states to move in anticipation of 2008 and may again be quick to react with 2012 on the distant horizon. Well, why would Arkansas want to do this; to go against the frontloading trend? Here are a couple of points I made back in May about the reasoning behind such a move when this story came up the first time:

1) Financial concerns: If the return on investment is viewed as sub-par, then the decision may be made to move back and save the money. Having an influence over who the nominee is before the decision is made, though, may outweigh that. Which brings up...

2) Will 2012 more closely resemble 2004 or 2008? If it is the former, Arkansas may value that influence even if it means scant attention from the candidates among a crowded field of contests. If 2012 looks like 2008, Arkansas could move back and get more attention.

Well, if the state is making their decision on 2012 now -- in this economic climate -- then that first point will likely play a major role in the legislature's thinking on this particular piece of legislation. "Return on investment? Who needs that? Let's just save some money!" And the second point could be rendered moot by the first. "We didn't have an impact in February and we never really had an impact when the presidential primary was in May. So what does it matter when we do this? Let's just save some money!"

Now, it could be viewed as rash for the Arkansas General Assembly to act now, but the Natural state isn't likely to prove decisive anyway. [Sorry Arkansans.] The thinking in the past has been "if you can't be decisive at least be a part of the decision." In other words, make sure to hold your primary before the nomination has been decided. That rationale has spurred an awful lot of frontloading in the past. However, that could change if states continue to pinch pennies.

The implication here isn't really the backloading but the potential for coincidental primaries as a budgetary measure. Could we see, for instance, some of the northeastern states (ie: Connecticut, New York, Vermont) with late summer/early fall primaries for state and local offices move those up to coincide with their presidential primaries as a cost-saving mechanism? Instead of backloading the presidential primary, then, we witness the frontloading of state and local primaries.

I don't suspect we'll have an answer to this in any substantial way until after the 2010 midterms, the point after which most state begin mulling their plans for the next presidential election year. Regardless, it will be worth keeping an eye on.

UPDATE: Kate Bodenhamer over at CapSearch adds that the separate presidential primary cost the state $1.7 million in 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that could be a pretty good chunk of change in 2012.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

This verges on the ludicrous, but last week I thought I would glance back at the state laws in place regarding the timing of presidential primaries for 2012. My intent was to see if the changes made for the 2008 cycle were permanent shifts or merely one and done changes for this past cycle.

This is certainly a fluid process and will change over the course of the next few years, but I thought it might be instructive to start with a baseline from which we can compare changes. As I have stated, there will likely be less frontloading in 2012 for a couple of reasons:

1) Most of the 2008 moves were permanent. What that means is that fewer states will have the ability to move to earlier dates if the rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses remain the same for 2012. Most are already at the earliest allowable date -- the first Tuesday in February.

2) Barring a failed Obama presidency, the president-elect will not be challenged in the Democratic primaries. Only one party, then, will have an active contest for its nomination. And as the Maryland case demonstrated only yesterday, partisanship is a powerful potential factor in the frontloading equation. When both parties have a contested nomination, both parties within a state (or state legislature) can take an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach to frontloading. In other words, if both parties are motivated to move forward, then where's the harm? This is why I've said that GOP-controlled states will be the most likely movers for 2012 holding all other factors equal. They face only token Democratic opposition to a move that could potentially help a Republican nominee. In Democratic-controlled states or competitive (evenly divided) states, that opposition is greater.

Take the Maryland example: The Maryland GOP is discussing a split to the their delegate allocation structure. Some delegates would be at stake in the party's February 2012 primary, but they want to establish a caucus that would jump Iowa and New Hampshire. So the first salvo has already kinda sorta been fired. And the thing is, Maryland's GOP is considering this because there's no way the Democratic-controlled legislature is going to go along with a plan to move the state's primary to an earlier date [especially when that could help a potential nominee build grassroots in the state and challenge Obama in the state. Yes, yes, I'm fully aware that Obama's efforts in South Carolina during the primary campaign didn't prove fruitful in November. But my point is that there is no way the Maryland legislature is going to pass off on such a move, much less the Democratic governor, if there is even a slightly chance that it would slightly help the Republican candidate.].

Regardless, here is how things look for 2012 more than three years away from the opening contests of the nomination campaign (All of the following are primaries unless otherwise noted.).

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana primary

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana, New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge Nevada and South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

I've obviously added some caveats already, but there is one big one that I should note as well. On the surface this looks like a far less frontloaded calendar. However, it only accounts for a handful of caucuses -- the most predictable early ones and those that are controlled by state law. Montana and West Virginia Republicans in 2008, for instance, opted for caucuses as opposed to primaries and shifted them to Super Tuesday. That could certainly happen again. The other caucus states will be determined at a later date, as the states' delegate selection plans emerge in probably 2011.

Now that we have a baseline for comparison let the frontloading begin. You're on the clock Maryland.


Recent Posts:
Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

Let me save the Maryland Republican Party's newly minted pre-primary caucus study committee the trouble: save your money and lobby the state legislature to move the Old Line state's 2012 primary to an earlier date. Well, I suppose the party realizes it will be futile to attempt to sway a Democratic-controlled legislature to move the state's primary to help nominate a Republican that might do well in Maryland in November 2012.

[Wait! What are you talking about?]

As PolitickerMD reported this afternoon, the Republican Party in Maryland has formed a study committee to look into the wisdom in establishing a pre-primary caucus in the state for 2012. The plan would align the state with the system in Washington more so than the one in, say, Iowa. In other words, the Maryland Republicans are trying to circumvent the system on this one to some extent by holding more than just a beauty contest straw poll as Iowa does in the August before an election year. Their potential plan would establish a delegate-binding caucus that would be held prior to Iowa and New Hampshire. This is similar to what happened in Washington state this past cycle.

The Evergreen state's primary was held on February 19 and allocated just under half of the Republican Party delegates from the state. The caucus portion was held ten days prior -- just after Super Tuesday and well after Iowa and New Hampshire -- allocating a little more than half the state's GOP delegates.

Maryland Republicans are going a step beyond that though; splitting their delegate selection contest in two and pushing one portion of it forward far enough to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation status among the states.

Now, this is certainly a new twist, but I suspect that this will be greeted by the national party in much the same way that Wyoming's move did prior to the 2008 cycle. [What you don't remember Wyoming Republicans moving the first step of their caucus to January 5. And mind you this was before Iowa and New Hampshire settled in on January 3 and 5 as the dates for their respective caucus and primary.] Wyoming opted to, unlike Iowa, make the first step in its caucus delegate-binding. [Iowa doesn't officially allocate any delegates until the state convention toward the end of the nomination process.] That translated into the Equality state, like all the other states that violated the NRC's delegate selection rules by holding delegate-binding contests prior to February 5 -- a list that included Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire -- losing half its delegates to the convention. I suspect that any move similar to the one being discussed in Maryland would meet the same fate in 2012.

...unless the commission the NRC formed at their convention to deal with these frontloading issues comes up with anything fruitful to reform the nomination system first. There's a long way to go until 2012, but my money is on a system similar to what we witnessed in 2008 coming back and Maryland getting burned and not having much of an effect. It won't be Wyoming-ignored, but the Old Line state Republicans won't get the desired effect. Iowa and New Hampshire won't let them.

Maryland now joins Florida and Louisiana as the first potential rogue states of 2012. I'll have more on that shortly, though. It's too bad Kansas couldn't join the fun.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

The Georgia Senate Runoff: A Polling Projection

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Alright, FHQ has been on a bit of an end-of-the-semester, conference-paper writing hiatus since the Georgia Senate runoff finished up last week. And no, this isn't necessarily a sign of things to come. Though, with elections talk rapidly reaching its nadir as the focus shifts toward actual governance, updates won't be as regular as they once were. No more of those three [plus] post days.

Anyway, loyal readers deserve to know what's going on with the uncharacteristic silence. Regardless, I have one more Georgia early voting post that is more updating the data than anything [There were some after-the-fact revisions on Wednesday.], and I've got a neat little 2012 post I put together over the weekend. Look for those later today.


Recent Posts:
Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

The Georgia Senate Runoff: A Polling Projection

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Final Day)

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

9:30pm: Alright, I'm off for the night. If there are any unofficial reports in from the counties in the morning I'll give a glance toward the changes in early voting between November 4 and today. But SOS may not have those figures up until next week some time or when the election is certified.

9:20pm: Wow! Half of Fulton is in and Martin only holds an exactly 2000 vote lead. That pretty much sums this one up.

9:10pm: Now come the questions:
Was Obama wise to stay away?
Seems that way.

Did the Palin, et al. visit(s) have an impact?
Maybe, maybe not.

And the big one: Should this race have even been this close to begin with?
It didn't look close at all during the summer when Chambliss was up over 10 points. But it took a perfect storm for Martin to get this thing into a runoff. He got it then, but the storm dissipated without Obama and the attendant enthusiasm along for the ride.

9:05pm: Or not.

Associated Press has called the race for Chambliss.

9:00pm: My hunch is that there won't be a call until Fulton gets closer to the half way point of counting.

...and perhaps not then.

But with over 70% in, Chambliss is still over a 60% share of the vote. He started out high on November 4 as well before the count drew closer and closer. The start tonight was much higher though. The incumbent Republican crested at like 57% or so at one point on election night and it only got closer. We may see the same thing tonight (In fact we are.), but the crest point for Chambliss was about 10 points higher tonight.

8:47pm: DeKalb County is a little less than half in and is running about nine points lower for Martin tonight than it did on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Meanwhile Fulton is still stuck on about one-seventh reporting and and Martin is up by a shade more than 400 votes. I don't think it is overstating the matter to say Martin is underperforming the numbers he enjoyed last month.

8:43pm: Here's a question: Have those early votes been counted yet? My guess is that there is a rolling tally that the Secretary of State's folks do each night when those numbers came in, but that they'll come in rolled into the counties' totals tonight.

8:38pm: Over half the results are in (so sayeth SOS in Atlanta) and Chambliss is still over the 60% mark in terms of his share of the vote. I can see some of those Democrats' eyes shifting northward to Minnesota.

8:30pm: Quitman County, where political corruption and vote fraud nearly kept Jimmy Carter out of his first elective office, is 100% in. Turnout there is down about 50% today versus four weeks ago. There were 990 total votes cast there on November 4 and 482 today. If that figure were to apply to the entire state, turnout would be down more than it was for the Senate runoff in 1992. But Quitman County does not an election make. And plus, Martin's margin was reduced to just 14 votes this time in a county he won by more than ten times that on election day.

8:26pm: 30% are in and Martin has pulled it under 30 points fueled in large part by a 20,000 vote lead in DeKalb County (only about an eighth of the county's precincts are in). All that's really doing is canceling out those Gwinnett numbers for Chambliss.

8:19pm: About a quarter of the precincts are in and Chambliss' advantage has dipped under the 2:1 mark for the first time this evening. I've talked about several Martin strongholds being silent thus far, but Cobb County has yet to report anything either. Remember that was the county with the most early votes cast and one that Chambliss won by about 12 points on November 4.

8:14pm: Henry County, one of the tight counties from the general election, is not shaping up to be as close for Martin this time around. We pegged it as one of the counties where Martin would have to do well to pull this out. Still nothing out of Fulton or DeKalb. The way things are looking, though, Martin is really going to have to sweep his November 4 hotspots to have a chance.

8:03pm: Chambliss is still comfortably ahead with 12% reporting. It should be noted, however, that most of the counties with any returns in are Chambliss counties. And Gwinnett County seems to be driving the early lead. 68 of the 163 precincts are in and Chambliss has a commanding 32,000 to 18,000 vote advantage. None of the big ones for Martin have reported anything. On that list: Fulton, DeKalb and Clarke. [Well, I had to throw Clarke in there. That's where I am.]

7:52pm: Chambliss currently holds a two-one lead over Martin with 5% of the precincts reporting. Sean over at FiceThirtyEight said about an hour ago that they had heard about lines in Athens. That may be true but I saw no indication of that this afternoon. However, this afternoon, my polling station looked as busy as it did on general election day four weeks ago (...minus four or six voting machines).

7:47pm: And it's show time, folks. I'm late getting started but we can all follow the results here at the Georgia Secretary of State's web site. I'm keeping a close eye on the county-by-county results.


Recent Posts:
The Georgia Senate Runoff: A Polling Projection

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Final Day)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 7)

The Georgia Senate Runoff: A Polling Projection

Before we get to the projection let's add in the four polls that have been released since FHQ examined the Georgia Senate runoff polls last week.

Georgia Senate Runoff Polls (as of Dec. 2)
Poll	Chambliss	Martin	Margin
Insider Advantage	50	46	+4
Public Policy Polling	53	46	+7
Research 2000/Daily Kos	52	46	+6
Insider Advantage	50	47	+3

There just isn't that much breaking news here. Sure the two Insider Advantage polls have Chambliss right on the line of where the incumbent Republican needs to be to win tonight, but the firm has had a tendency to show tight margins dating back to a couple of president polls during the summer. It was the one and two point McCain leads in June and July that put Georgia on the board as a possible battleground state. Am I discounting Insider Advantage? No, but the two Research 2000 polls checked in with six point margins and the two PPP polls out during this runoff campaign gave an extra point to Chambliss from the first to second one.

Altogether, the eight polls released in the four weeks since the general election provide us with a graduated weighted average of just north of 5 points for Chambliss. The current Senator would have 51% of the vote to Martin's 46% if these polls (weighted for when they were released) reflect the outcome later tonight. So, even if Martin was able to sway all the undecideds, the former state rep would come up short in his bid to unseat Chambliss.

And that makes sense when we take into account the early voting trends we've witnessed here over the last couple of weeks. Martin leaned on the Obama-fueled early voting during the general election as well as the presence of Allen Buckley -- the Libertarian candidate -- to pull Chambliss' share of the vote just under where the incumbent needed to be to avoid a runoff. Without the third party presence and without the advantage in early voting, Martin was indeed up against, to borrow a phrase overused during the general election campaign, a headwind. This time, however, it was something of a Republican headwind.

Again, given the polls and an even distribution of the undecideds, Chambliss is projected to win 52.5 to 47.5. The polls and early voting give us two pieces to the puzzle but tonight's results will give us the final piece.

I'll be back with more after 7pm when polls close here in the Peach state.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Final Day)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 7)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 6)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Final Day)

The final numbers from last Wednesday -- the final day of the early voting period -- are in for the Georgia Senate runoff. With the general election early voting total as a baseline, the just under half a million early votes cast in the runoff are under a quarter of those votes cast prior to November 4. Is that a harbinger of what to expect tomorrow? I doubt it. My hunch is that the proportion of early to election day voters will be skewed toward the latter in this instance; the opposite of what we saw during the general election voting. [Early voters comprised over 51% of the general election electorate.] Our only (similar) guide here is the 1992 Senate runoff between incumbent Democrat, Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdale Coverdell. Coverdale Coverdell managed to overcome an general election day deficit in a runoff that witnessed a 45% drop in turnout from the beginning of November to the end when the runoff was held. [There were just three weeks between the elections in 1992, whereas there were four in 2008; another change the Republican-controlled general assembly made here in Georgia when they changed the runoff threshold from 45% 5o 50%.]

Let's assume that the early votes make up half of the total runoff turnout. If that's the case, then turnout will have dropped by almost 75% from the November 4 total. My guess is that that is a bit too steep a drop off. But I don't think that something between that mark and the 45% figure from 16 years ago is a stretch. Much depends on the each of the candidates' ground games. My observation has been that Chambliss has been on the air more (at least in Clarke County via the Atlanta TV market). This was confirmed this morning by my less than representative American government class, which while not representative from a sampling standpoint was at least dispersed throughout Georgia during UGA's weeklong Thanksgiving break.

That, of course, is only part of the equation though. The GOTV efforts on the ground in the Peach state are where the real difference is going to be felt. There is at least some anecdotal evidence that Martin has marshaled a superior ground game to Chambliss based on the Obama infrastructure and an influx of Obama volunteers to the state. But as you can see below, those efforts have not made a dent in one of Martin's vital voting blocs (...at least not in early voting).



The proportion of African Americans coming out to vote early barely varied throughout the early voting period. From November 14 - 26, that proportion only broke 23% twice; the day that early voting began in Fulton County (Atlanta) on the 18th and on Friday the 21st. And even then, that day's total of African Americans only amounted to 24% of the day's early voters. Even that is far below the over 34% of the early voters African Americans comprised ahead of the November 4 general election. The extent to which Martin's (Obama's) supporters can reach that segment of the electorate prior to 7pm Tuesday night will to a large degree determine whether the former state rep can overcome the three point deficit from November 4 (...not to mention the 3-6 point lead the handful of polls conducted have shown Chambliss enjoying).

One thing Martin may be able to lean on is the steady rise of women early voters across the runoff's early voting period. Though that demographic, too, fell below the mark it reached in the general election early voting, it was, at the close of early voting, only two points below the general election level (54% for the runoff to 56% in the general). That may bolster Martin's numbers, but it could also be that those female voters are coming from Chambliss areas. It may not be a coincidence that the rise in women voters came at the same time as the Cobb County (a Republican stronghold) rose to the top of the pack in terms of raw numbers of early voters county-by-county.

If we break women early voters down by racial groups, we don't gain too terribly much more information. Both demographics increased subtly over the three days in which early voting was conducted prior to Thanksgiving last week. Though white women made up anywhere from 34% of daily early voters to 39%. Black women, on the other hand, varied from just shy of 12% to just north of 14% on any of the ten days early voting was held.

Much of that speaks volumes of the current state of the race. Chambliss looks to be in good position heading into Tuesday's vote, but whether that is a comfortable margin come Tuesday night will depend on the GOTV efforts being made throughout the state today and tomorrow.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 7)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 6)

Georgia Senate Runoff: The Polls

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 7)

Well, Atlanta was late getting the Tuesday numbers out today.


Once again, the female proportion of early voters rose, now to just over 53% of early runoff voters. Most of that upward shift was due to a 55-45 female to male split in Tuesday's voting. That split is more in line with where the gender breakdown ended up during general election early voting.

But let's put the runoff into perspective. After including Tuesday's numbers, the total number of early runoff voters just surpassed the number of mail-in absentee voters from the general election. With just one day left to include (And remember, Atlanta won't likely have Wednesday's numbers up until Monday.), the total early voting thus far approximates 17% of general election early voting. If Wednesday's total grew as we've seen the daily numbers grow during the runoff early voting period, then the runoff early voting will end up at about 25% of the general election total (in the Senate race).

That's a significant drop off for a runoff election. But keep in mind that we are just talking about early voting here. Some of that discrepancy can and likely will be made up by election day voting. The impetus may be there to wait until election day this time around. Urban Atlanta voters wanting to avoid the hours long early voting lines they waiting in before November 4 may opt to vote on election day (December 2) this time around. And if we consider voters at least somewhat sophisticated, we can also factor in the knowledge that turnout -- and thus waiting in line -- is going to be lower for the runoff. In other words, why vote early when you can just go on election day? [Well, convenience obviously.]

We have all heard a lot about Obama's field operation being transferred to Georgia for this runoff and that may be true, but I haven't seen a lot of it. This isn't the same as a field operation, but I've seen a lot more Huckabee emails for Chambliss than I've seen Obama emails for Martin. No one's come knocking on my door in Athens as of yet. Nor have they rung me up on th phone. I will say this: Chambliss has been on the air a lot more than Martin has. Granted my TV exposure is limited to a football game on Saturday and the Sunday morning shows, but Chambliss has outdone Martin on TV in those time slots. And yes, that includes ads from the senate campaign committees on both sides of the aisle.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 6)

Georgia Senate Runoff: The Polls

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 5 & The Weekend)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 6)

Here are the numbers for Monday.



The one thing that we can say for sure is that turnout has increased each day that early voting has been going, topping 85,000 on Monday. Despite the growth the patterns remain virtually unchanged along racial lines. African Americans continue to comprise 22% of early voters. The one thing that has consistently changed since last Monday when early voting began on a wider scale (There were two counties that began on the Friday before.) is that the share of early voters that are women has increased. Again, the 52% level women are at as of Monday is about four points lower than in the general election early voting, but still much higher than the 48% on that first day.

Tomorrow morning I'll have the usual update but will follow it up with an examination of county-level early voting.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: The Polls

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 5 & The Weekend)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 4)

Georgia Senate Runoff: The Polls

Those of you who have followed FHQ throughout the presidential campaign have probably been wondering when we would get back to our roots and look at the polls in the race for Georgia's Senate seat held by Saxby Chambliss. [Well, truth be told our roots are in the primaries -- specifically the frontloading of them -- but most people found their way here because of our coverage of the electoral college throughout 2008.] There's a limited amount of information out there on this race when it comes to polling, but it appears as if Chambliss has added to the lead he held on election day. Recall that the incumbent Republican narrowly missed out on winning the election in the first round, 49.8%-46.8%. But that three point edge has increased by almost 70% in the nearly three weeks since the general election.

But let's take a closer look:

Georgia Senate Runoff Polls (as of Nov. 24)
Poll	Chambliss	Martin	Margin
Public Policy Polling	52	46	+6
Research 2000/Daily Kos	51	45	+6
Rasmussen	50	46	+4
Research 2000/Daily Kos	49	46	+3

First of all, the four polls that we have access to move chronologically from bottom to top, wi the most recent poll at the top. Importantly, Chambliss is over 50% in three of the four polls. [Better late than never, I suppose. Though, I'd be willing to bet the Senator would have preferred to have gone ahead an cleared that bar three weeks ago.] That's important in a two person race because one of the candidates is beyond that point before the undecideds are factored in, that candidate is in a great position. Recall that we discussed the importance of Obama's position above that 50% threshold with more than a month left in the presidential race. With time so compressed in runoff race, though, being above that point matters.

But let's give these polls the old graduated weighted average treatment. The idea is that the more recent a poll is, the more weight it carries. The most recent poll gets a full weighting while the past polls are discounted based on the midpoint that the poll was in the field. In other words, a poll a week ago means less than a poll that was released a day ago. There is one slight alteration that I've made to the average because of the small number of post-election polls and in recognition of the limited amount of time in which they can be conducted: The weighting on the past polls is left as is instead of being halved as it was in the context of the electoral college (where polls from February were still being included).

The basic result is that Chambliss has gained a point at the expense of Jim Martin. Chambliss averages 50.8% of the support across these four polls to Martin's 45.7%. The average margin between the two is at 5.11 points in Chambliss' direction. And that is an awful lot of ground for Jim Martin to cover in a week.

...in a low turnout runoff election.

...when early voting doesn't appear favorable.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 5 & The Weekend)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 4)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 3)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 5 & The Weekend)

FHQ obviously didn't update the Georgia Senate runoff early voting numbers over the weekend, but there wasn't anything to update anyway. The Elections Division over at SOS didn't add in the Friday and weekend numbers until this morning. I should note that most of the changes below are from Friday. The only early voting conducted over the weekend was in Sumter County on Saturday while the rest of the state shut down their early voting operations after Friday. Things will pick back up today and be augmented by the start of advance voting* before everything comes to a close -- because of Thanksgiving -- at the end of the day on Wednesday. And if the reporting by the Secretary of State at the end of early voting ahead of the general election and the halt over this past weekend are any indication, we likely won't get the Wednesday statistics until next Monday. But we'll have updates tomorrow morning and on Wednesday to account for the changes from today and Tuesday.



And what is the newly added data telling us? Not much more than we already knew actually. With the exception of last Tuesday, the African American proportion of early voters has consistently hovered around 22%; well below the mark that demographic group acheived during the early voting period before the general election. The most likely, though probably not the only, reason that the black proportion of early voters broke 24% on last Tuesday was that that was day that early voting began in Fulton County. We also have continued to see the gender balance of early voters shift toward women. Women now make up nearly 51% of all early voters. That too is down from the 56% of early voters that women made up during the general eleciton. And as we've been saying, the fact that both groups are below the points they were at before November 4 does not bode well for Jim Martin.

That, however, is not the whole story. We have already examined the potential impact the staggered start to early voting might have, but one additional factor we can look at is how the early vote breaks down on the county level. We can combine the latter with the former to get a much clearer picture of the influence early voting may have on the tally on December 2. I'm working with some of that data now. Hopefully I'll be able to put something informative together.

*Advance voting is conducted during the business week before election day. It basically continues the early voting process but opens up more polling locations to increase the ease of voting during that final week.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 4)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 3)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 2)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 4) -- UPDATED

The data are in for Thursday's early voting across Georgia, and the trends are largely similar to what they have been across the first few days. African American participation has settled into a position just under a quarter of the early voters, but women now make up a small majority of them; gaining a slightly since the opening day was more male than female.



That provides both candidates with mixed results. Obviously, lower African American participation is detrimental to Jim Martin's chances, but women eclipsing men in early voting is an important marker for the former state rep. While the female proportion of early voters overall is lower than it was for the general election -- down from 56% -- that is a group of voters that broke for Martin over Chambliss by a 54 - 42 margin in the election day exit polls (problematic, though they are).

The bottom line here seems to be that there is a general fatigue with elections among Georgia voters. Though we've witnessed an increase in the numbers of early votes cast every successive day thus far, turnout is, simply put, way down as compared to the early voting in the Peach state from September 22 - October 31. Visits by Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee and John McCain may yet have some effect, but it doesn't appear as if there is much of one on the early voting in the state. [Fulton County votes did go up following Clinton's visit on Wednesday, surpassing Gwinnett County as the county with the second most early votes through Thursday. Now, whether Clinton's appearance drove that is a completely different question.]

There are a couple of things I should make note of today. First, five more counties begin early voting today, leaving only four two that either haven't started or haven't reported their plans to the secretary of state's office. Secondly, I don't know SOS's plans for updating their data over the weekend. It could be that they won't update to reflect today's numbers until Monday. Then again, a few counties are open for early voting on Saturday. We may, then, get additional updates over the weekend, but I'm not sure. If there are updates, though, I'll make the proper changes here.
----------------------------------------------------------
Let me add in a revised map of the staggered early voting starts to reflect the fact that I tracked down when early voting for the runoff began in Towns and Treutlen Counties. The Elections Division had that information online but not on the pdf file I had been using. Towns County began on Wednesday while Treutlen started on Tuesday.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 3)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 2)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 1)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 3)

Three days does not an election make, but the pattern emerging in the Georgia Senate runoff is looking more and more ominous for Jim Martin and better and better for Saxby Chambliss. Why? Well, as the data below clearly suggests, women and African Americans -- two groups that typically favor Democratic candidates -- are just not turning out at levels that will reverse the preference ordering from the first round on November 4. If anything, the fact that women and blacks are turning out at lower levels suggests that Chambliss will do even better on December 2 than he did earlier.



But let's parse this out a bit. The one thing that cannot be stressed enough is that early voting trends don't necessarily portend how the ultimate election outcome will look. Back before the election, I made the case that the 2008 presidential election could play out in a way similar to the 2004 election, just over an extended period of time. If you'll recall, early exit polling on election day in 2004 showed that John Kerry was ahead and likely to be the next president. But it didn't turn out that way. As the actual returns came in, the outcome was the opposite of what the early exit polls had suggested. Earlier, I argued that early voting could cause a similar effect to play out, but instead of across just election day, across the last month or so of the campaign. In other words, the early voters could be Democratic (which they were throughout much of the nation) while election day voters were more Republican. Again, it didn't turn out that way...exactly.

The argument has been made that the reports on early voting and the direction is appeared to be heading may have pushed election day turnout down. The perceived direction of the count, then, caused voters to question whether their vote was necessary in achieving their desired outcome. In the presidential election, this was more likely to affect Democrats. The most extreme example of this phenomenon was what happened in Alaska on November 4. Early voting that favored Obama and other down-ballot Democrats in the state when coupled with the 9:30pm (EST) reality in the presidential race, made it much more difficult for some Alaskans (who were getting off work around that time -- four hour time difference) to justify turning out to vote. This is part of the reason it looked -- at least on election night -- as if Ted Stevens had been reelected to his Senate seat. Those election day voters were more Republican. It wasn't until all the early votes and provisional ballots were counted that that changed.

So why am I taking this discussion to the Last Frontier and to the national level? Again, early voting may not necessarily help us to determine the ultimate outcome of the race. But here is why early voting is likely to be a fairly strong cue as to what will happen on December 2: enthusiasm. The enthusiasm that caused so many to turn out to vote early for the November 4 election doesn't seem to be there in this runoff. Now, we would expect turnout to be lower in the runoff, but it isn't proportionally lower across the various demographic groups listed in the data from the Karen Handel's office here in Georgia. It is lower among the groups that would be expected to help Jim Martin.

But couldn't we see an opposite effect from what we saw in Alaska? In other words, Republicans see that the early voting is going well for Chambliss and don't come to the polls on election day. Meanwhile Democrats, knowing they are behind, are motivated to come out to their polling places on December 2 to vote for Jim Martin.

That is possible, but it is not as likely as it would be if Georgia were not as conservatively tilted as it. If the Peach state was more competitive between the parties, then I'd be more inclined to listen to that argument. [Yes, Alaska is just as conservative as Georgia, if not more so, but it is a different kind of conservative, shaped by a completely different set of circumstances.] And this certainly works with the enthusiasm angle posited above. Georgia Republicans are on the defensive while Democrats in the state already have something they wanted out of this election: an Obama victory. Sure the talk after November 4 was that Republicans would be depressed because of what had happened cumulatively on election day, but it may be that Democrats are too elated to care instead.

An Obama appearance is still the wildcard here. But what would that signal? That he cares about the 60 seats potential in the Senate (Why, when he's going to be working across party lines anyway?) or that Martin is in danger of falling short in his effort to unseat Chambliss (Is that a good way to expend this political capital everyone is talking about?). If Obama came to Georgia to stump for Martin and Martin still lost, it likely wouldn't look good for the president-elect. And you don't want to look bad before you are even president.

---------------------------------------------------------
As promised, below is a map that shows the different dates on which the counties throughout Georgia started (or will start) the early voting process. Today another five counties kick off early voting with five more to follow tomorrow. The counties in light purple will have advance voting starting next Monday and those in white have yet to inform the Secretary of State's office of their plans (Of course, it is also possible that the counties have shared that information with SOS but SOS hasn't updated their online information yet.)

[Click Map to Enlarge]

That sounds like a hit on the good folks at the Secretary of State's office. It isn't one. The folks in Atlanta have been very helpful to me in putting the data I've been using the last few days together. And they have also been good about updating the early voting totals. So a heart-felt thank you is extended to them.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 2)

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 1)

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 2)

Yesterday, we got our first glimpse at the early voting statistics for the Georgia Senate runoff. We also raised the question over the potential impact the staggered starts to early voting in the 159 counties across Georgia might have for the fortunes of the two candidates involved. First, let's incorporate the new data from yesterday and then I'll make some further comments on the staggered early voting starts.

[Note: I should add that early voting began in Fulton County on Tuesday and not on Wednesday as I said yesterday. In other words, there was only a one day lag for one of the most Martin-friendly counties in the Peach state. There were conflicting reports on the Fulton situation, and I opted for the AJC report, thinking it would be the most reliable. I was wrong. The Secretary of State still has a list of when early voting will take place and in which counties. But I'll have more on that in a moment.]


So, what's new?

• With Fulton added to the mix on Tuesday, the African American proportion of early voters increased, but only by a couple of percentage points. But at just under a quarter of the early votes, the African American proportion still lags almost ten points behind where it did over the course of the entire general election early voting period.
  

• Once the second day numbers are added, we also see that the female percentage of early voters increases by a modest amount. Like the African American vote, though, the percentage of women voters lags behind the overall proportion during the general election early voting.

• Also be sure to note that the spreadsheet now has tabs at the bottom for additional statistics on each of the individual days of early voting thus far.
  

The overarching message? Well, for starters, we may not want to read too much into the early voting numbers in a runoff election. [But you know I'll read into them, don't you?] Both of the demographic breakdowns above don't particularly favor Jim Martin's in his quest to reverse the general electorate's candidate preference ordering in the runoff. But let's look at the when each of Georgia's 159 counties actually started (or will start) early voting and see if the late starting counties favor one candidate over the other. First, how did the general election look on the county level? The typical red for Republicans, blue for Democrats color scheme applies.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Now, let's remove the counties that started early voting on Monday. [I would say on or before Monday, but the two counties -- Gordon and Richmond -- that began early voting last Friday are shaded in dark gray below. However, neither is included in the analysis that follows. The same is true of the two counties -- Towns and Treutlen -- on which the the secretary of state's office still has no early voting information. They are shaded in pink on the map below. Finally, the two counties in light bluish gray -- Madison and McIntosh -- are counties where there is no early voting. Advance voting will start on Monday in both areas. Both Madison and McIntosh are included in our analysis.]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

What can be gleaned from that map? At first glance, not much. Just eyeballing the red and blue counties -- those counties that started early voting after Monday -- doesn't really turn up any noticeable trends. Once we combine the information from both maps, though, we start to get a clearer picture of whether one of the candidates benefits from the staggered starts to early voting. On November 4, Saxby Chambliss won 121 of Georgia's 159 counties. Of those 121, 45 counties started their early voting operations after November 17. Jim Martin, on the other hand, won 38 counties on election day and 18 of those had late starts to early voting.

Yeah, but Georgia isn't under the county unit system anymore, is it? So the county counting is irrelevant. That's true, so let's look at the proportion of the November 4 vote total from each of those collections of counties. I've removed Allen Buckley's vote total, and as a result, I'm just looking at the share of the two-party vote each candidate's late-start early voting counties comprises. [Yeah, I agree. "Late-start early voting counties" is confusing.] Basically, the result is a wash. The 45 Chambliss counties that began (or will begin) early voting after Monday made up 12.3% of the two-party vote on November 4, while the 18 Martin counties (including Fulton) that got off to a late start in early voting accounted for 11.77% of the total two-party vote during the general election. If anything, then, Chambliss is at an ever so slight disadvantage due to the staggered start to early voting in counties across the Peach state. Again though, it isn't by much. And with the proportion of early African American and female voters down from where they were during the general election's early voting period, it may not matter anyway. That drop likely outweighs any disadvantage Chambliss may be getting because counties he won on November 4 are off to a late start in early voting.

Let me note again today that I'll be updating this data daily and that I'm still trying to track down the day-by-day data for the general election's early voting period. That information will help to a more informed projection of the runoff vote. Also, tomorrow I'll add in a map to reflect the different start dates for each county's early voting windows.


Recent Posts:
Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 1)

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

The Ads: Georgia Senate Runoff--UPDATED

Georgia Senate Runoff: Early Voting (Day 1)

Below are the numbers from the first day of early voting in the Georgia Senate runoff:


Now, you can also get this data from the Georgia Secretary of State's web site, but I've augmented the numbers to include the percentages and the totals by gender and race.

So, what do we know after one day of voting in the Peach state?

• Turnout is down, but that's not a surprise. Barely 13,000 votes cast is a fraction of what we were seeing early on in the general election early voting. [I'm still trying to get a hold of the day-by-day data on this in order to draw a proper comparison.]
• The percentage of African American participation is down. This isn't a fair comparison, but over the entire early voting period for the general election, blacks made up nearly 35% of early voters (via Michael McDonald). For that proportion to sink to 22% is not good news for Jim Martin.
• The female percentage of the early vote is also down; another possible omen for Martin. Again, according to McDonald, women made up over 56% of early voters prior to the November 4 election. That proportion is now down to just under 48%.

Alright, now that we've got the numbers out of the way let's add in the caveats.

• Monday, the only day reflected in these numbers, was only the first day of early voting in some counties throughout Georgia.
• African American-heavy counties, like Fulton, don't start until Wednesday. You'll notice that the spreadsheet doesn't have Fulton among the top five counties for early voting. Fulton was the number two county overall for early voting ahead of the general election. So pack up those doomsday scenarios for Martin for the time being.
• I spoke with someone at the Elections Division at the Secretary of State's office today and was told that some counties would not be offering early voting at all. What!?! They instead are offering only advance voting. The difference is that there are more locations for advance voting but over a shorter period of time.

All this staggered starting to the early voting brings up an interesting question: What impact will it have? I took a lot of flak in the comments section last week for giving the general election's county results in the Senate race an electoral college treatment. In light of these differing windows of early voting, though, it really could have an impact on turnout. In other words, if the counties that have early voting the longest are Chambliss counties, the the Republican incumbent could potentially bank some votes in a way similar to what Obama did nationwide in the presidential race.

The complicating factor is that a county like Fulton will only have the final three business days of this week and the first three business days of next week -- truncated due to the Thanksgiving holiday -- for early voting. And those advance voting-only counties will only have the three days next week. Again, if those are predominantly Martin counties, then the challenger may be getting the short end of the stick. And to think, there was all this fuss over the Republicans having lengthened the time between the general election and the runoff when they reinstituted the 50% rule for the runoff. The talk over the last week or so here in Georgia was that the extra week would give enthusiastic Democrats even more time to vote. Well, not if they can't. So, the 50% rule hurt Chambliss, but the time between the general and the runoff may not.

I'm going to be augmenting this daily (Well, week-daily as there won't be any new data on the weekends.) as we approach election day on December 2. I'll add in the new data each day and share that with everyone, but I also hope to, as I said, get a hold of some other data in order to potentially make some projections. Stay tuned.


Recent Posts:
Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

The Ads: Georgia Senate Runoff--UPDATED

Reform: First Up? The Texas Primary-Caucus System

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

I spent a lot of time last week looking at the county-level 2008 v. 2004 map that The New York Times was running online (see below). It really is a fascinating feature, but if you've been around here long enough, this doesn't really come as any surprise. I like maps. [Incidentally, you can now compare 2008 to the past presidential elections back to 1992. Just click on "Voting Shifts."]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Anyway, the more I looked at it, the more it looked like something I had remembered seeing somewhere before. In fact, it was right here at FHQ. One of the things that the early days of this election year allowed us was this wonderful three month period after John McCain had wrapped up the Republican nomination, but in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still actively competing for the Democratic nomination. The polling that was released during that period produced what FHQ liked to call the McCain margin.* The formula was simple: Subtract Hillary Clinton's margin against John McCain in head-to-head trial heat polls in each state from the similar margin between Obama and McCain.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Above is the final McCain Margin map from June 3; the day of the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. Now what you see isn't anything groundbreaking, but the areas in green (those where Clinton was doing better against McCain than Obama was) overlap to a large degree with the Times map above. It is that same swath of land from Oklahoma eastward and north into Appalachia. Now, Massachusetts and New York would have given their votes to either Democrat, and neither ever seemed terribly viable in those Appalachian states, but at the time Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania lent some validity to that Clinton campaign argument that the New York senator would fare better in the electoral college against John McCain than would her senate colleague from Illinois. As it turned out, Obama won two of those three anyway.

While things changed for Barack Obama after the economic crisis hit (and even before that, for that matter), the same areas that vexed him during the primaries, ended up going against him on November 4. But they would have gone against either Democrat, right? Well, I'm not so sure Hillary Clinton (and by extension Bill Clinton) wouldn't have made things interesting in Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia. I could see a scenario where she exchanged the 16 electoral votes from North Carolina and Nebraska's 2nd district for the 22 from the three states above. That could have drastically recolored that Times map (...with North Carolina being much lighter blue and Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia turning blue in the process.).

That would have given Clinton 371 electoral votes (to McCain's 167). Where else would Clinton have potentially been more successful? More vulnerable?


*In 2012 the McCain Margin will be redubbed the Obama Margin because, unless Obama fails over the course of the next four years, the president-elect will run unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Translation: we get to compare the various Republican candidates against how they are doing versus President Obama in each of the states. And we probably won't have to wait until 2012. There will likely be some state level polling done in some of the more competitive states in 2011. [And I'm sure we'll start seeing national level trial heats as soon as the 2010 midterm elections are complete.]


Recent Posts:
The Ads: Georgia Senate Runoff--UPDATED

Reform: First Up? The Texas Primary-Caucus System

Georgia Senate Election Certified