Final Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Frank Leone from DemRulz sends this along concerning the final meeting of the Democratic Change Commission today:

The DNC Change Commission held its final (hour-long) meeting this afternoon (by conference call). The Commission approved a draft report that recommends converting most automatic unpledged “superdelegates” to pledged delegates who will fill slots reflecting the voter preferences in their state’s primary or caucuses – thus becoming automatic, pledged, voting convention delegates. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Commission (RBC) will consider the Commission’s report and then forward proposed delegate selection rules to the DNC for action later in 2010.

Frank has more on superdelegates, but FHQ will focus on the primary timing aspect of the proceedings today.

Calendar: Under the Commission’s proposal numerous states (including Virginia) will have to move their primaries back to after March 1. It will be easier to achieve date changes in 2012 if the RNC agrees to have a similar starting date. Nevertheless, some states will be in a situation where there is a state mandated primary date which does not comply with the DNC’s schedule. The RBC will reexamine the delegate selection rules which provide for sanctions and exceptions.

No, there's nothing new there and FHQ has certainly documented the potential pitfalls in this March 1 plan if the Republican Party does not follow suit with a similar calendar.

I'll have more when Frank gets the full recommendations up.


Recent Posts:
Merry Christmas from FHQ

The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Tis the Season

Merry Christmas from FHQ

To all our readers, commenters and contributors, FHQ wants to wish you all the merriest of Christmases and the happiest of new years. This site is nothing without you. Thank you.


Recent Posts:
The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Tis the Season

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Here's the release from the Census Bureau:

Census Bureau: Texas Gains the Most in Population
Last State Population Estimates Before 2010 Census Counts

Texas gained more people than any other state between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009 (478,000), followed by California (381,000), North Carolina (134,000), Georgia (131,000) and Florida (114,000), according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates

California remained the most populous state, with a July 1, 2009, population of 37 million. Rounding out the top five states were Texas (24.8 million), New York (19.5 million), Florida (18.5 million) and Illinois (12.9 million).

"This is the final set of Census Bureau state population estimates that will be published before the official 2010 Census population counts to be released next December," said Census Bureau Director Robert Groves. "We are focused now on ensuring we get a complete and accurate count in 2010. The census counts will not only determine how many U.S. House seats each state will have but will also be used as the benchmark for future population estimates."

Wyoming showed the largest percentage growth: its population climbed 2.12 percent to 544,270 between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Utah was next largest, growing 2.10 percent to 2.8 million. Texas ranked third, as its population climbed 1.97 percent to 24.8 million, with Colorado next (1.81 percent to 5 million).

The only three states to lose population over the period were Michigan (-0.33 percent), Maine (-0.11 percent) and Rhode Island (-0.03 percent). The latter two states had small population changes.

Other highlights:

• Net domestic migration has slowed dramatically in many states in the South and West, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina and Montana.
• Several states have negative net domestic migration, which means more people are moving out than moving in. Florida and Nevada, which earlier in the decade had net inflows, are now experiencing new outflows.
• Louisiana’s July 1, 2009 population, 4.5 million, is up 40,563, or 0.91 percent, from a year earlier.
• The nation’s population as of July 1, 2009, was 307 million, an increase of 0.86 percent since July 1, 2008.
• The estimated July 1, 2009, population for Puerto Rico was 4 million, up by 0.32 percent (12,735) from one year earlier.

The population to congressional seat gain/loss report should be up later this week sometime. I'll get an updated map for 2012 up when that information is made available.


Recent Posts:
Tis the Season

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

Tis the Season

FHQ has been fearful of this happening for a while now. My Google Alert for frontloading activity ahead of the 2012 presidential primary cycle is turning up more and more links to frontloading washers and dryers; the payments on which you can delay until 2012. How exciting! [Hey! I felt the need to share. Maybe you're interested in a new washer and dryer?]

On another note, we'd like to apologize for being quiet the last few days. Winston Salem got hit by the snowstorm that has made its way up the eastern seaboard and, well, I've been distracted. Hopefully something will be up late tonight and with some more regularity this week.


Recent Posts:
Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker is Now in FHQ's Side Bar

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

[Click to Enlarge]

Are liberals serious about this? FHQ is sure some are -- there are only 35 votes on that poll -- but c'mon. I don't understand the purism on the extreme end of both parties. If you want to get something -- anything -- done, you have to have members of your party in power (And yes, that means members of the same party with differing viewpoints.). Undercutting this president or any other is simply political fratricide. All or nothing is no way to approach American politics. It never has been, and in a supermajoritarian body like the Senate, it never will be.


Recent Posts:
Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker is Now in FHQ's Side Bar

Public Policy Polling: December 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

Well, the early states, of course.

In New Hampshire, they are taking the news that the state will be spared its customary quadrennial battle over its first-in-the-nation primary status with a grain of salt. To Granite stater residents being exempt by the parties to hold a February primary while everyone else (except Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina) goes after the beginning of March, but...

First, it’s only 2009 and anything could happen. President Barack Obama didn’t win New Hampshire last year, so his loyalty to the local cause may not be as urgent as we would like. It’s possible too, of course, that he has other things on his mind. Additionally, who knows which late-calendar state is quietly plotting against us? Remember Michigan? Remember Delaware? Challenges to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status can come from anywhere at any time, regardless of what the party leaders are saying today.

I don't know that I buy the "Obama didn't win here, so he might not care one way or the other about our primary status" logic. The president will need New Hampshire in the general election in 2012. [It is one of only three states that flipped sides between 2000 and 2004, after all. New Hampshire is likely to be competitive.] And the Democratic Change Commission has not even considered stripping the Granite state's of its distinction. In most years, there has at least been some discussion of why New Hampshire, and that was true of the Change Commission's discussion as well. However, that action was never a vital part of the mission of the group. Now, it could be that the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee looks at the Change Commission's recommendations and decides that New Hampshire and the other exempt states are too favored when they decide on the rules for 2012 over the summer, but there is absolutely no indication that that is going to happen.

On the second point, all FHQ has to add is what we have been saying all along. For there to be true reform of the primary process or at least meaningful sanctions for rules violators, the parties will have to coordinate their efforts and represent a united front. This is something New Hampshire and its citizens should be highly interest in. Both parties are letting the New Hampshire/Iowa question slide for this cycle, and as such, the only real threats to the Granite state's status are rogues states like Florida and Michigan. And even if the parties cannot offer a cohesive rules regime on the 2012 presidential nominations, the Granite state still has the easiest time of shifting its primary date as any other state. The secretary of state, Bill Gardner, has the ability to place the primary wherever he wishes while most other primary states have to get such a change through the state legislature and past the governor -- something that is easier said than done.

But New Hampshire isn't the only early state with its eyes on the 2012 calendar rule-making. South Carolina is also keeping watch (...and also, like their Granite state brethren, taking the early news of the 2012 rules with a grain of salt).


Recent Posts:
USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker is Now in FHQ's Side Bar

Public Policy Polling: December 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

The Links (12/10/09)

USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker is Now in FHQ's Side Bar

This is something FHQ should have done when this interactive presidential approval tracker was first posted over the summer. Better late than never, I suppose.


You can now find a link to the USA Today's Interactive Presidential Approval Tracker in the left sidebar. Obama's approval has come up too much in the comments in the time since this summer not to have a permanent and up-front link to this tool. Enjoy and use it wisely.



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

The Links (12/10/09)

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Dec. '09): Huckabee within 1 Point of Obama

Public Policy Polling: December 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

You can find the archive of all the 2012 trial heat polls here.

In a month when President Obama slipped into the 40s against each Republican polled against him in a hypothetical 2012 general election match up (via Public Policy Polling [pdf]), things obviously were not looking that good across the board. In an overall sense, we quickly get a feel for that tightening simply by looking at the trendlines for each of the prospective Republican presidential aspirants (There's now even a trendline for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty -- see below and in the left sidebar).

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 46%
Huckabee: 45%
Undecided: 9%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 50%
Palin: 44%
Undecided: 6%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 48%
Pawlenty: 35%
Undecided: 17%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 47%
Romney: 42%
Undecided: 12%

Margin of Error: +/- 2.8%
Sample: 1253 registered voters (nationwide)
Conducted: December 4-7, 2009

There isn't really much to the poll other than to say that overall, things are much closer than they were, say, at the beginning of PPP's process of looking at the the 2012 back in March (Palin) and April (Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney added). And that largely tracks with the president's approval numbers throughout the year. FHQ would be remiss, though, if we didn't at least bring up a few nuggets from the internals of the poll.

On the 2008 presidential vote:

• Huckabee does the best of any of the Republican candidates at pulling together the most McCain voters (85%) and minimizing the number of repeat Obama voters (89%). The former Arkansas governor was the only Republican to keep Obama's support among his former voters below 90%.

On ideology:

• President Obama is still approaching 90% approval among liberals and is right at two-thirds approval among moderates. Not surprisingly, the president is taking the biggest hit among self-described conservatives (only 15% approve).
• Sarah Palin is the most favorable candidate to conservatives, but both she and Mike Huckabee garner 79% support from the group against the president.
  

On age:

• Obama consistently loses the 65+ set and essentially breaks even (to slightly loses) the 46-65 demographic to all the Republicans polled. However, the president is well above 50% with everyone under 45.

On race:

• Palin is the most favorable Republican among Hispanic respondents, but only reaches 37% favorability. The president continues to hold over 90% support among registered African American voters and about two-thirds of Hispanic voters against all four Republicans.

On gender:

• Men still prefer Republicans and women Obama, but this is noteworthy because it is the first time Sarah Palin has led the president among men (48-45) in a PPP survey.
  

On region:

• The quirk is gone (...in December at least). Obama didn't sweep the South as he has on several other occasions in these PPP polls. Instead, the president was swept in the region where the Republican Party found its base in the 2008 presidential election. More troubling to Obama from an electoral standpoint is that the president was swept by all four Republicans in the midwest. The president was able to make inroads in the peripheral South in 2008 and can potentially afford to jettison states like Virginia and North Carolina in 2012. But if Michigan and Indiana and Ohio begin to creep into the mix in terms of competitiveness, things could get interesting in the fall of 2012. Much of that will depend on the state of the economy, though.
  

What will January and a new year bring? Stay tuned.


Recent Posts:
The Links (12/10/09)

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Dec. '09): Huckabee within 1 Point of Obama

Democrats and Republicans Unified on a March Primary Start? All Signs Point Toward Yes

The Links (12/10/09)

1. John Thune has your gubernatorial presidential aspirations right here.

...in the Senate. The South Dakota senator is still FHQ's 2012 darkhorse of the moment. I still think 2016 is more likely, though. If Thune is anything, it's shrewd.

2. South Carolina Republicans are like Idaho Republicans: They want closed primaries in the presidential delegate selection races in the Palmetto state.

3. Local fare: Cal Cunningham's chances in North Carolina depend on DSCC investment.

...in his primary race against Elaine Marshall first (to even have a shot at Richard Burr).

4. State of Elections has another great redistricting reform post up. Read away.


Recent Posts:
PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Dec. '09): Huckabee within 1 Point of Obama

Democrats and Republicans Unified on a March Primary Start? All Signs Point Toward Yes

Coakley, Brown Win Parties' Nods in MA Senate Specials

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Dec. '09): Huckabee within 1 Point of Obama

Public Policy Polling [pdf] today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential playing field. Here's a quick look a the toplines (I'll be back later with a full analysis and updated figures.*):

Obama: 46%
Huckabee: 45%
Undecided: 9%

Obama: 50%
Palin: 44%
Undecided: 6%

Obama: 48%
Pawlenty: 35%
Undecided: 17%

Obama: 47%
Romney: 42%
Undecided: 12%


Margin of Error: +/- 2.8%
Sample: 1253 registered voters (nationwide)
Conducted: December 4-7, 2009

Quick notes:
1) Palin is ahead of Obama among men (a first).
2) Obama didn't sweep the South this month. Every GOP candidate was ahead of the president in the region most loyal to the GOP and the midwest isn't looking too good either.
3) Huckabee was the only Republican to break even in terms of favorability/unfavorability. The other three Republicans had higher unfavorables.
4) Palin still has yet to bring Obama under the 50% mark in these PPP polls.

*Two polls now for Pawlenty (v. Obama) means we have a new trendline to add to the sidebar.


Recent Posts:
Democrats and Republicans Unified on a March Primary Start? All Signs Point Toward Yes

Coakley, Brown Win Parties' Nods in MA Senate Specials

Huckabee's Favorability in the Post-Commutation Environment

Democrats and Republicans Unified on a March Primary Start? All Signs Point Toward Yes

The Concord Monitor has a great piece this morning looking at the thinking within both the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning the rules (RE: timing) for 2012 presidential delegate selection. The consensus seems to be that the Democratic Change Commission and Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (meeting today) are both committed to closing the window (of time in which primaries and caucuses can be held) to exclude February from the equation. The Democrats are still willing to let Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina go in February and the Republicans are committed to same thing (with the exception of Nevada*). Still, the commitment appears to be there on the part of both parties to scale the length of the presidential primary process back with regard to timing.

Both groups making 2012 recommendations are committed to this, but will the actual decision-makers within the parties (the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee and the full RNC) who will sign off on this actually do that? That is the question of the moment. For the time being, though, the fact that the parties are working separately together on this speaks to the idea that both acknowledge the necessity of teamwork to change the system and avoid additional Florida and Michigan situations in either party.

NOTE: This article has also done a good job at looking at some of the rules changes from 1996 onward that brought the primary system to where it was in 2008. A good read.

*What will Nevada Republicans do if this comes to pass? It seems like they would have an incentive to shirk on this discrepancy if the penalty isn't just right to dissuade them. That will come up at some point.


Recent Posts:
Coakley, Brown Win Parties' Nods in MA Senate Specials

Huckabee's Favorability in the Post-Commutation Environment

Thoughts on the Special Democratic Primary Election in Massachusetts Today?

Coakley, Brown Win Parties' Nods in MA Senate Specials

[Map courtesy of The Boston Globe--Click to Enlarge]

UPDATE: The map above shows the complete results with 100% reporting.

With 95% of the precincts reporting, Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, and Republican state senator, Scott Brown have earned their respective parties' nominations to face off in the January 19 special (general) election to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate. Coakley, in a multi-candidate race nearly reached 50% (at 47% as of now) while Brown amassed over 80% of the Republican primary vote.

It may not be the most exciting thing in the world, but there will be a high profile election on January 19 and FHQ will be watching.


Recent Posts:
Huckabee's Favorability in the Post-Commutation Environment

Thoughts on the Special Democratic Primary Election in Massachusetts Today?

Democratic Change Commission 2012 Rules Recommendations Taking Shape

Huckabee's Favorability in the Post-Commutation Environment

Tom Jensen over at Public Policy Polling's blog got the ball rolling on this today, by giving us all a sneak peek into the firm's monthly 2012 presidential trial heat poll (due out Thursday). The early conclusion? The former Arkansas governor's commutation of Maurice Clemmons, who subsequently went on a shooting rampage, killing four Washington state police officers, has not affected Mike Huckabee's favorability compared to a few weeks ago. And he'll be even closer against Obama than he has been all year in the head-to-head match up.

Granted, some of the reaction has been Huckabee Unscathed and Huck holding on and FHQ isn't really buying that due to a couple of caveats (We would add a "yet" to the end anyone attempting to glean a long-term pattern in all of this.). First, I'm treating this like the McDonnell thesis revelation in the Virginia gubernatorial race. That news had been out in the open for two solid weeks before there was any noticeable tightening in the race between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds. I don't think that the two week pattern is any hard and fast rule for finding the true impact of some moderately large piece of news (positive or negative), but the thesis example does indicate that it takes some time for that news to filter into the public's consciousness and into survey results. In this case, the Huckabee news broke coming out of Thanksgiving weekend.

Were/are people even paying attention? And speaking of attention, all this Huckabee speculation concerns 2012. Some people -- present company included -- are certainly thinking about that election, but most out there are not. This Clemmons/Huckabee connection isn't like the McDonnell thesis; it did not come out in the middle of a campaign. Well, the invisible primary campaign is active for the 2012 Republican nomination whether anyone wants to admit to that or not, but that is on the candidate end and not the voter end of the matter.

Long story short, then, this matter has not fully played itself out yet. It is just too early. It would have been different had this happened in the midst of the actual 2012 campaign or if PPP had posed a question about the Clemmons situation prior to asking the Huckabee favorability question. But it didn't. As such, wait for the effect. Keep an eye on the January numbers.


Recent Posts:
Thoughts on the Special Democratic Primary Election in Massachusetts Today?

Democratic Change Commission 2012 Rules Recommendations Taking Shape

Democratic Change Commission Meeting (#3) Tomorrow

Thoughts on the Special Democratic Primary Election in Massachusetts Today?

Who is going to win this thing, FHQ readers? Will Coakley be able to maintain the same level of support at the polls today that she has had through most of the polls that have been conducted in this short race. Or will Capuano mount and complete a comeback victory for the Democratic nomination to potentially succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate?

UPDATE: Here are the particulars on the election today from The Green Papers:

On Tuesday 8 December 2009, Massachusetts will hold a Special Primary for the Senate Class 1 seat. The seat is currently held by Senator Paul G. Kirk, Jr. who was appointed 24 September 2009 by Massachusetts Governor Deval L. Patrick to fill the vacancy caused by the 25 August 2009 passing of Senator Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (Democrat).

Dates: Special Primary to fill the seat: Tuesday 8 December 2009. Special Election: Tuesday 19 January 2010. Next regular election: Tuesday 6 November 2012.

Polling hours are 7:00a EST (1200 UTC) to 8:00p EST (0100 UTC). By local option, municipalities may open their polls as early as 5:45 a.m.

Recent Posts:
Democratic Change Commission 2012 Rules Recommendations Taking Shape

Democratic Change Commission Meeting (#3) Tomorrow

The Links (12/3/09)

Democratic Change Commission 2012 Rules Recommendations Taking Shape

Frank Leone from DemRulz sends this along:

As to timing, the discussion was relatively brief and consistent with prior discussions – Iowa/NH/SC/Nevada can go after Feb. 1, every other state goes after March 1, the rules should encourage regional clusters by offering incentives such as bonus delegates, the RBC will address enforcement procedures and sanctions, and the DNC will try to coordinate timing with the RNC rules committee. The RNC coordination process is ongoing.

Commission members recognized that the best hope for a spread out process lies with agreement with the RNC on starting date, both parties imposing the same penalties for going out of turn, incentives to states to move back and cluster, and the states recognition that frontloading is no longer the best way to get attention. One caveat – the Commission should consider the effect of offering bonus delegates both for moving back and for clustering – too many bonus delegates may distort the traditional delegate allocation which is typically based on Democratic vote and population.

Now the puzzle pieces are starting to come together in terms of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party coordinating their efforts to curb primary frontloading. Those efforts are certainly still in their formative stage, but as FHQ has indicated, if reform of the nomination process is truly desired, the two major parties will have to work together to incentivize going later in the process and punish those states that go too early.

DemRulz also has in that post (linked above) a look at the prospects for change in terms of the caucus process and the folks formerly known as superdelegates.

UPDATE: Commission member Suzi LeVine had this and more to say on the discussion regarding the timing of delegate selection events at today's Democratic Change Commission meeting in Washington:

#1: recommended encouraging regional primaries and spreading out the calendar – with incentives (ie – bonus delegates). RBC to determine incentives. (We did not address penalties or how to handle when a state’s legislature breaks the windows without the party’s permission).

Recent Posts:
Democratic Change Commission Meeting (#3) Tomorrow

The Links (12/3/09)

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

Democratic Change Commission Meeting (#3) Tomorrow

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

FHQ will be on the lookout for updates and news and posting them here. Here are a few links I'll be keeping an eye on:

DCC Member Twitter feeds:
Claire McCaskill
Suzi LeVine (Oh, and here is her blog where she posted some great material following the first and second meetings. Now, whether that happens tomorrow or later is yet to be determined, but this remains a great place for firsthand accounts from inside the process.)
Rebecca Prozan
Joan Garry

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

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


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

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

The Links (12/1/09)

The Links (12/3/09)

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

The Links (12/1/09)

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Hat tip to Paul Gurian for the link.


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

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

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

The Links (12/1/09)

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

1. From Florida:

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

That's all well and good except...

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

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


Recent Posts:
Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

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

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

From The Washington Post:

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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

And no one candidate cleared the 20% barrier either.

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


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

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

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

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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

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

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

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

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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


Recent Posts:
Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

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

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

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


Recent Posts:
Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

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

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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


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

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

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

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

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

[Click to Enlarge]

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

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

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


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

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

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

NOTE: Please note that you can now track past updates of these trial heat polls by clicking here or on the "2012 trial heat polls" tag at the bottom of the post.

For the ninth straight month Public Policy Polling released a series of 2012 presidential trial heat polls matching President Obama up against four prospective Republican candidates. And despite the fact that Obama slipped below 50% for the first time in a few polls this past week (see Gallup, Quinnipiac, PPP), the president wasn't in any significantly different position relative to the Republicans than he was a month ago; just under 50% against all but Sarah Palin and still ahead across the board. Yet, this month while Mike Huckabee remained the closest to the president, he was not alone in that distinction. Mitt Romney climbed to within five points of the president as well, climbing above the 40% mark for the first time in any PPP poll this year.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 44%
Undecided: 7%

That said, Huckabee does better consolidating the conservative and Republican bases. Romney, however, nearly evenly divides the independent support with the president. And that really demonstrates the current tension within the GOP; the battle we've been talking about here at FHQ since Obama claimed victory a year ago. Will Republicans nominate someone in 2012 from a far more conservative background than, say, John McCain, or will efforts be made to make the party's nominee more inviting to independent voters? That continues to be the question as 2009 draws to a close.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Undecided: 5%

What's more, this poll from PPP is not without its quirks. [No poll ever is, really.] First, the same bizarre regional disparity that popped up in the polling firm's July poll again reared its head this month. Obama inexplicably swept the South (except for a tie with Ron Paul) again while losing out completely in the midwest. I can foresee the midwest potentially being a problem for Obama in 2012, but there's absolutely no way that the South is vulnerable to Obama inroads; not even if Steve Schmidt's catastrophe occurs. Palin, indeed, proves to be trailing by the largest margin (a distinction shared with Ron Paul), but still loses the South while winning the midwest against the president.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 46%
Paul: 38%
Undecided: 16%

If that wasn't enough, Paul actually pulls Obama's support to its lowest level in any of PPP's surveys this year. But is that Ron Paul's impact or is the Texas congressman merely serving, as I asked earlier today, as a proxy for a generic Republican in a hypothetical race against Obama? There are enough undecideds in that match up to raise that question. Independents are not necessarily on board with Paul, but Democrats are least with Obama against Paul than against any other Republican in the survey. As Christian Heinze at GOP12 asked, "Is an Anybody But Obama theme starting to take hold?" Intriguing as that question is, FHQ is almost more interested in a slightly different question: Is an Anybody but Huckabee/Palin/Romney theme starting. Certainly, neither question is being answered very adequately at this point, not in the direct context of the 2012 race anyway. Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush and especially Tim Pawlenty did not see anywhere near the numbers Paul has in this particular poll. And I say "especially" in Pawlenty's case because he doesn't carry the baggage that Gingrich and Bush carry and is unknown enough to potentially fill the void of generic Republican in a ballot question. But Pawlenty from last month lags well behind Paul's numbers here.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Undecided: 9%

All in all, it was another interesting round of numbers from the good folks over in Raleigh. Ron Paul may have earned a spot in next month's poll simply due to his showing here. We'll see.
__________________________
NOTE: And just as a bonus, here's the updated Obama/Gingrich trendline. And no, it isn't so much an update as a reminder that Gingrich has not been polled against Obama since August.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

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

Public Policy Polling [pdf] today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential playing field. Here's a quick look a the toplines (I'll be back later with a full analysis and updated figures.):

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 44%
Undecided: 7%

Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Undecided: 5%

Obama: 46%
Paul: 38%
Undecided: 16%

Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Undecided: 9%

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1066 registered voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 13-15, 2009

FHQ's biggest question? Is Ron Paul a proxy for a generic Republican candidate? Obama fares worst against the Texas congressman. And remember, this is among registered voters and not likely voters.


Recent Posts:
Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

[UPDATE: Here's a rundown from CNN of the day that was at the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting. There are some interesting tidbits there. FHQ will have a broader comment on the piece later on.]

As has been the case with other Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings, news from within the event (yesterday's meeting in Washington) took a bit of time to surface. Just as a refresher, the TDSC is the 15 member group that is charged with examining the rules under which the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will be governed. The group has met before, but very little has come out in terms of what they have been considering. Sure, there's been talk of regional primaries and perhaps even an instant runoff system, but the information that has come out of these handful of meetings has paled in comparison to the cornucopial plethora of news that has emerged from the two Democratic Change Commission meetings. Now granted, it always helps when there are people on the inside who are willing to share (Suzi LeVine and Frank Leone to a name a couple.) publicly.

But did anything groundbreaking come out of the meeting yesterday? It depends on what you mean by groundbreaking. Nothing was released that in any way fundamentally reshaped the way in which Republican presidential nominees are selected. But that won't come until the group settles in on a decision to do so (...if then). What we do have are a couple of inside accounts. The first comes from TDSC member and former Michigan Republican Party chair, Saul Anuzis. The meeting was a late-day affair, so his tweets of the events didn't start appearing until 5pm. Here are a few of Anuzis' observations (via Twitter):

1. RNC 2012 Rules underway Huckabee, Giuliani managers have testified. SOS from WA now testifying.

2. RNC 2012 hearing options on timing, rotational options, primary vs caucus systems.

3. RNC 2012 has strong contingency from NH, IA and SC:)

4. RNC 2012 update, this will be the last public hearing with lots of ideas coming forward. Detailed proposals coming at December mtg.

5. RT @dcseth: @sanuzis Any talk of closed primaries? // no...that is up to states.

Let's put the pieces together:

The group heard from Chip Saltsman (Huckabee's former campaign manager) and, I'd guess, Michael DuHaime (from the Giuliani campaign in 2008). I can verify the former (Anuzis and Saltsman shared a call and response on Twitter following the meeting.), but the latter is, as I said, a guess. DuHaime is a part of the Christ Christie gubernatorial transition team in New Jersey (not that that has anything to do with this). [Ah, here's confirmation that DuHaime spoke before the TDSC.]

Also speaking before the committee was Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. FHQ has discussed Reed in the past. Earlier in the year, he was urging RNC chair, Michael Steele, to fill out the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee with other secretaries of state. [There are none.] For his part, Reed toed the company line: He pushed for the National Association of Secretaries of State's rotating regional primary plan. But he also added that voters would prefer a later start to the process and that "There is a growing call for a process that is logical, orderly and fair."

Anuzis' second tweet seems to have been borne out of some of Reed's comments or at least a discussion stemming from it. [We've heard about the rotating regional primaries before, so I asked him about the timing aspect in relation to what the Democrats are planning on. I'm still waiting to hear back.]

Are you surprised that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had large contingents in attendance? No, I wasn't either. The last two points were more worthwhile anyway. Firstly, the next TDSC meeting will be in December when they will hear "detailed proposals." Again, the RNC isn't slated to vote on anything coming out of these meetings until next summer. Still, the GOP will have something on the table by the end of the year, the point at which the Democratic Change Commission will make their recommendations to the DNC.

Finally, we also see that the neither the TDSC nor RNC are on the offensive to enact closed primaries (see recent FHQ discussion here). I briefly thought about a mass Republican switch to caucuses when I saw the "primaries vs. caucus systems" comment above, since caucuses are, on the whole, closed to independents and Democrats (from the Republican perspective). But Anuzis shoots that idea and the idea of the RNC forcing states to close their primaries (They can't.) down.

Now, what did we learn from all this? There won't be anymore closed primaries than there already are unless the state governments make a change or state parties opt out in favor of a party-funded caucus. [Yeah, you knew that already.] We also learned that there is another Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting next month.


Recent Posts:
Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In