Launch Week Continues & Biden and the Iowa "Caucuses"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• With state legislative sessions winding down, things have gotten kind of quiet in terms of the primary calendar and rules for 2024. But that does not mean that nothing has been going on. In fact, it is picking up once more with some big-ish changes to delegate allocation for New York Republicans. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

President Biden appearing on any state's primary or caucus ballot next year will depend entirely on whether the state party in question is conducting or involved in a noncompliant contest. That is clear and has been clear for some time. The president has stood behind a primary calendar change for 2024 that disrupts the standard positions that both Iowa and New Hampshire have occupied on the calendar for half of a century. But when those changes are combined with rules that also create penalties on candidates who campaign in states that break those rules, it makes things look rather ominous with respect to president's participation. After all, it is unlikely that a president is going break the rules of the party he leads to campaign in some rogue contest. 

But that did not deter Biden challenger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from saying this to radio host Michael Smerconish in an interview on Monday, June 5:

“I think that President Biden is not going to even put his name in Iowa and New Hampshire. So I think he’s not even going to compete,” Kennedy added.

However, Kennedy is like others who have fallen into the trap of expecting Iowa and New Hampshire to behave the same in the face of changes that strip them both of their customary positions. New Hampshire Democrats have clearly been defiant. But Iowa Democrats have not been. Not yet anyway. And signs pretty clearly point toward an Iowa Democratic Party that is trying to thread a needle with their 2024 process. Those signs indicate a likely compliant preference vote. 

And if that all-mail preference vote occurs at a compliant point on the calendar, then Biden will be on the ballot. If not, well, he will not be. But no one -- not even RFK Jr. -- has an answer to that yet. And as for competing beyond merely being on the ballot, Biden will likely do what most incumbent presidents do in terms of campaigning in compliant contest states.

...

On Christie's launch day, Jonathan Bernstein has a good one up at Bloomberg chock full of advice on how the former New Jersey governor can run a productive campaign despite not having any real chance to win (based on the typical horserace standards).

...

FHQ was at least somewhat skeptical in Invisible Primary: Visible last week about an NBC News look at the potential failings of canvassing on the Republican side. Derek Willis has provided some good additional perspective on the matter in terms of expenditures on those GOTV efforts in the DDHQ newsletter this week. 

The grumbling in the NBC story about the GOP's canvassing operations - "That’s why we’re losing elections," one anonymous source is quoted as saying - doesn't sound like sour grapes from a competing consultant. But it's also not clear to an outsider how effective paid canvassing is, especially in the final weeks of the campaign. 

One thing is pretty certain: paid canvassing isn't going away, and one important reason why is primary elections, where a party apparatus usually isn't available to help pull in volunteers.

...

Invisible Primary quick hits:

• Former Vice President Mike Pence filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission on Monday to run for president ahead of his Iowa launch on Wednesday, June 7.
• Taking a different route than most recent prospective presidential candidates, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu opted not to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, calling on candidates to "not get into this race to further a vanity campaign, to sell books or to audition to serve as Donald Trump’s vice president." Seth Masket has more on Sununu's decision at Tusk. But the University of New Hampshire's Dante Scala pushed back on any impact Sununu would have had one way or the other. All FHQ would add is that a Sununu entry was very unlikely to make New Hampshire irrelevant for 2024. He has basically been flirting with the delegate qualifying threshold (10 percent) in public opinion polling in the Granite state. Sununu is no Tom Harkin in Iowa, circa 1992. He was not deterring anyone.
• On the other hand, North Dakota Republican Governor Doug Burgum has a new extended video out ahead of his announcement on Wednesday, June 7.

...

On this date...

...in 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern swept the Democratic primaries (or won more delegates) in California, New Jersey, New Mexico and his home state of South Dakota. The backstory on the New Jersey primary is a wild read more than 50 years on. 

...in 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore both won primaries in Alabama, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota to end primary season.

...in 2011, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won caucuses in Guam and the Virgin Islands.

--

Recent posts:

The Rules Help Frontrunners in Both Parties, not just Trump

Sunday Series: Demystifying Delegate Allocation and Delegate Selection

[From FHQ Plus] Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Chris Christie's Decision

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

No, not that decision.

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is doing the sorts of things that prospective presidential candidates do. First of all, he is openly talking about the prospect. He additionally says that a decision on a 2024 White House bid is coming in the next couple of weeks. And he has been to New Hampshire within the last month as well.

Christie has also shown a willingness to take on both former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the two candidates, or would-be candidates, who capture the biggest share of support of any two potential nominees in polling on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race. So, many signs to this point in the invisible primary seem to be suggesting that Christie is working on the contours of what a run would look and sound like and whether there is sufficient support for such an endeavor. But "sufficient" may be in the eye of the beholder because Christie is not really registering in primary polling and the financial backing he may be able to muster for a candidacy may be less sincere about Christie being a viable alternative to Trump and/or DeSantis and more about his ability to take it to one or both of them. Of course, that is the path a lot of the candidates not named Trump or DeSantis envision right now. As FHQ said on Monday, the hope is...

That the indictments get Trump. That DeSantis implodes. That the two candidates currently atop the polls of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race so drag each other through the mud that voters start to flock to another viable alternative on down the line.

However, what Christie says about Trump or DeSantis now, before throwing his hat in the ring, is one thing. What he does once in the race (if he enters) is another. And that is the decision FHQ is hinting at in the lede. Here is the thing: When one reads a headline like this one from Maggie Haberman's piece in the New York Times, it has the potential to conjure up certain memories about Christie. 

"Chris Christie, Eyeing ’24 Run, Takes Shots at DeSantis."

Honestly, FHQ's first thought was that "tak[ing] shots at DeSantis" is a lot like taking shots at another challenger to Trump but in the 2016 cycle, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). After all, aside from not winning the 2016 Republican nomination, Christie is best known for kneecapping Rubio in the lead up to the 2016 New Hampshire primary. He punched laterally rather than up and at Trump, who was coming off a runner-up finish in Iowa the week before. 

And that raises questions about Christie in 2024. Does he continue to go after Trump and DeSantis? Can he do so in high-profile settings like debates when the lights are on and more people are watching or merely on the hustings across the Granite state? Or perhaps more importantly, can Christie effectively go after both? Trump will be ready with a response. DeSantis may not (or may not have an effective one). 

And that strikes FHQ as the biggest strategic decision for Christie 2024: keep taking shots at whomever when they present themselves or train his sights on Trump, aiming to topple the frontrunner unlike in 2016.

...

Trump may, in fact, be in trouble in Iowa, but the social scientist in me still pushes back against the sort of "the people who are talking to the people I have spoken with in Iowa say..." account that Mike Murphy had up at The Bulwark yesterday. The jury still seems to be out on where the former president stands in the Hawkeye state. For every "evangelicals have turned against Trump" story there seems to be an attendant "evangelicals are sticking with Trump" piece. And although there is a clear "Trump protection" angle to the new bill in Iowa to set up a 70 day registration buffer before the caucuses (because the sponsor is an adviser to the Trump campaign in Iowa), there is genuine concern out there among Republicans -- in and out of Iowa -- about Democrats participating in Republican contests in 2024. FHQ has heard it expressed in at least Idaho and Michigan already in 2023. 

On both fronts -- coalition support and state-level rules -- it comes back to the question FHQ continues to ask in this space: Is Trump 2023 closer to Trump 2015 or Trump 2019? Trump can maybe survive without evangelicals in Iowa. He did in 2016. The bigger question may be if folks who identify as evangelical come over to him (or not) as primary season progresses. And on the rules, Trump is vastly ahead of where he was in 2015. Behind 2019's pace, sure, but ahead of 2015. That continues to be an area to watch as the invisible primary advances. 

...

In the endorsement primary, DeSantis went to Washington on Tuesday. Then Trump ended up with two more congressional endorsements and another one of those was from the Florida delegation. DeSantis did not leave empty-handed. Congresswoman Laurel Lee (R-FL) became the first member of the congressional delegation from the Sunshine state to throw her support behind the governor. FiveThirtyEight has more on why these endorsements matter for Trump.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• There was a shake up to the bill that would reestablish a presidential primary bill in Missouri, some  calendar foreshadowing from New York Democrats and an overdue thought on South Carolina as the first Democratic contest in 2024 now that their draft delegate selection plan is out. All at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work.

...

On this date...

...in 1980, North Dakota Democrats caucused.

...in 1988, Jesse Jackson won the Vermont caucuses, edging out eventual nominee Michael Dukakis who had won the early March beauty contest primary in the Green Mountain state. But Dukakis took the big prize of the day, winning the New York primary. George H.W. Bush won the Republican primary in the Empire State unopposed.

...in 1995, Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R) entered the race for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2016, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won the New York primary in their respective parties, both padding leads in the delegate count on the way to the nominations.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Professionalization of Trump's Campaign

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Winnowing of the Republican Field

Sunday Series: Checking in on Biden and the 2024 Democratic Invisible Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Christie's Primary Map May Be the Same as Romney's, But the Order of the Primaries Won't Be.

Dave Catanese over at The Run 2016 has this to say:

With the first four states likely to keep their pecking order, Christie’s team may just adopt the same mindset.  Must wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, with Iowa and South Carolina as only icing. 

… 

The main difference would be Florida, a primary that could be rendered mostly meaningless if one of its homestate contenders jumps into the race. If say, Sen. Marco Rubio is a candidate, then South Carolina may become demonstrably more vital to Christie.

FHQ does not disagree here on the basic campaign strategic point. On the surface, Christie's strategy would theoretically be the same as Romney's. Win in New Hampshire and Nevada, take what you can get in Iowa and South Carolina and win Florida. FHQ has hinted at as much stretching back into primary season 2012.

And Mr. Catanese is absolutely correct that a home state candidate from the Sunshine state -- whether Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush -- upsets the calculus some for the latent presidential campaign of the New Jersey governor.

But here's the thing: We don't know if that is going to be the order of those contests. FHQ is reasonably confident that the four carve-out states will retain their positions with perhaps minimal pressure from any rogue states. FHQ is also fairly confident that Florida will not be one of those states pushing the carve-outs in 2016. However, given the new law scheduling the Florida presidential primary, Florida is also not likely to hold down the fifth position on the calendar as it did in 2012. Right now that distinction belongs to Arizona and Michigan.¹

The situation in Florida -- the scheduling of the primary -- is conditional. The Sunshine state will conduct a presidential primary election on the first date in which there are no penalties assessed by the national parties. Many are interpreting that as the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016). But that misses one other highly relevant point. Florida avoids the timing penalty by holding a March primary, but there is also the matter of the proportionality window in the Republican rules.

Recall that Florida has stuck with a true winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. If the Republican Party of Florida continues with that practice in 2016, the new law would push the presidential primary in the Sunshine state back to the third Tuesday in March according to the proposed penalty structure likely to emerge from the RNC rules subcommittee reexamining the rules. Now, Florida Republicans could merely take the 50% delegate reduction associated with a violation of the proportionality requirement and go on March 1, but that is not what the law says. If Florida Republicans value the presidential primary as a means of allocating delegates, they would have to utilize the state-funded option that is administered by the (secretary of) state and follows the law.

…on March 15, 2016 along with the Illinois primary.

--
Arizona and Michigan now occupy the fifth position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and are the biggest threats to the carve-out states. Florida will play a role, but it will likely be on or two weeks after Super Tuesday. That's different from Romney's map. Like Romney, Christie would like to and likely have to do well in Arizona and Michigan as springboards into Super Tuesday the next week. Christie would also need to employ a similar Super Tuesday strategy to the former Massachusetts governor: rack up wins and delegates outside the South while peeling off as many as possible delegates in the South.

That's what makes the method of allocation Texas Republicans adopt for 2016 so important. Remember "proportionality" on the Republican side isn't mathematical proportionality. There are a number of ways to get there.

--
¹ And that assumes Colorado, Minnesota and Utah do not opt into early February dates for their respective caucuses, caucuses and primary. It also assumes that Missouri either moves its primary back or once again adopts caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. North Carolina is newly rogue as well. …but for how long?

Recent Posts:
Another Take on the RNC's Efforts to Alter the Presidential Nomination Rules for 2016

Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?

Fool Me Once, Shame on Me. Fool Me Twice…

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Death of the Ames Straw Poll?

Here we are a little less than three years away -- a long time in politics -- from the likely August 2015 Ames Straw Poll; an event that is often heralded as the beginning of the Republican presidential nomination process. Of course, the real beginning of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process was sometime either late on November 6 or in the wee hours of the morning of November 7 when the 2012 election was called for Barack Obama. Never the less, many look upon the late summer event in Iowa in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year as important; a point at which people are actually casting ballots for would-be/actually-are candidates in the state that quadrennially kicks off the new primary season.

Non-binding on the actual nomination race or not, some -- Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA) -- are now calling for an end to the process.

To which FHQ responds, "Not so fast." Here's why:

1. It is a little early to be talking about death knells for 2016 campaign events.
2. As Republican Party of Iowa Chairman AJ Spiker rightfully pointed out, Branstad will not be the one making this decision.
3. The 2016 Republican nomination race is wide open from our vantage point here in November 2012. It may not be in 2015 (but probably will be to some extent).
4. Calling for or forecasting the end to events in Iowa is an age-old past time in the political sphere.

There are probably other reasons too, but let's focus on these interrelated four.

At least during the 2012 cycle folks waited until February 2011 to start questioning the utility of the Iowa caucuses. Built on the same house of cards reasoning -- that social conservative Iowa Republicans would select someone who was too conservative to do well in the remaining primaries and caucuses and by extension the general election --  some continued to question Iowa's usefulness at the beginning of the Republican nomination process after Michele Bachmann won the 2011 straw poll. That reasoning is predicated on the false notion that these events -- whether the straw poll or the first in the nation caucuses -- have to be or should be predictive of the final outcome. This is the wrong way to think about the role of either event. Both the straw poll and the caucuses due to their positioning are not predictive events. They are winnowing events. Sometimes the stars align and the straw poll and more often the caucuses crown (or as luck would have it, "pick") the nominee.¹ But that is not always the case. And it doesn't have to be. Leave the picking to other states. Iowa's power has always been in winnowing the choice set.

The only real, definitive bit of information that we have to have at this point in 2012 about the future of the Ames Straw Poll is that the Republican Party of Iowa is not going to unilaterally disarm.² That is certainly true given the discussions of who may run on the Republican side in 2016. There continue to be discussions about how deep the Republican bench is and if that comes to fruition -- if Rubio, Bush, Christie, Jindal, Ryan and Paul all run or even if half of them run -- then Iowa Republicans are not going to discontinue the straw poll.

Well, the party would not end the straw poll unless there was clear evidence that all of the candidates, especially the big name candidates, would skip the event. Even then, the party may persist with the straw poll. But that scenario isn't likely to happen because if all or half of those candidates listed above run, it will only take one opting into the straw poll process -- as is or tweaked in some way, shape or form -- to bring the others in. The Ames Straw Poll is or would be too big of a deal to miss from an organizational standpoint. 2016 is not shaping up to be a John McCain (2008) or Mitt Romney (2012) sort of cycle for the Republicans; a cycle where a seemingly more moderate candidate is the frontrunner -- nominal or otherwise.³ Unless all of the above pass on 2016 for some strange reason, then all will be motivated to participate in the straw poll. That is more true in light of the fact that there does not seem to be a true social conservative on the short list of candidates. In Ben Domenech's taxonomy, Rubio (or Bush) is the establishment candidate, Jindal is the populist, Christie is the moderate and Rand Paul is the libertarian. That leaves room for one dark horse, who could be a social conservative, but absent such a candidate, all of the others would have some selling to do to the social conservative Iowa crowd.  That portion of the caucusgoing electorate would matter, but would likely be split to varying degrees unless one of the candidates emerged or had emerged prior to the straw poll as a clear frontrunner.

The bottom line is that, yes, like Craig Robinson, I agree that the candidates will be the ones deciding the future of Ames Straw Poll. If they show up, it matters. If they don't, then it won't. But depending on how the eternity that is the next two and a half years of the invisible primary progresses, there will likely be incentives for the candidates to throw their hat in the ring. That comes with some consequences -- a poor showing could mean lights out -- but the reward of meeting or exceeding expectations could be greater than that risk of not.

It's just too early folks. Call me in late 2014 to discuss the death of Ames. November 2012 is too early.

--
¹ Much of this has to do with the extent to which a consensus frontrunner has emerged by the time of either the straw poll or the caucuses. If that consensus exists as it did in 2000, for instance, then the majority/plurality of Iowa caucusgoers often make the pragmatic choice whether it overlaps completely with their ideological position or not.

² Terry Branstad might want to discontinue the practice, but the RPI does not and will not.

³ Another way of thinking about this is that there was 1) no clear frontrunner and 2) the overall field was viewed as weak in both cycles. Both factors seem to have applied in 2012, but neither seems to fit the conditions of 2008.

Recent Posts:
2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 2

2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 1

332-206

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Links (4/20/11): Miscellany

Newt's staffing up in Iowa.

Sorry Roy Moore. You're getting the Buddy Roemer treatment (No separate 2012 Candidates post). For the record, as of April 18, the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice formed an exploratory committee. For president.

Pawlenty's message could connect in South Carolina.

Chris Christie may want to move the New Jersey primary to June, and there may be a few bills that have been introduced in the legislature, but the guy behind the 2007 move to February isn't high on the idea.

Florida may cast a shadow over the 2012 Republican nomination race, but it isn't "just like in 2008."

The Economist has their obligatory primary calendar examination up. [Yes, FHQ is just vain enough to mention that.]

Huntsman ascendant?

Recent Posts:

An April Primary in Georgia?

Washington State House Passes Senate Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary

Senate Version of Tennessee Primary Bill Passes Committee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

What do any of the three have to do with each other?

FHQ would argue very little. After examining the polling in both states for the better part of five months, it is fairly clear that these races have virtually no national implications. In New Jersey, the election last night was as much about Jon Corzine as 2006 and 2008 were about George W. Bush. That is to say that each was about an unpopular incumbent. Corzine had not, as FHQ mentioned yesterday, broken the 45% barrier in polling all year and he needed to round his percentage of the vote share up to get there last night. The Democrat's chances hinged completely upon Chris Daggett's ability to siphon off votes from Christie and make 44 or 45% the winning total. When Daggett came up well short of where FHQ and most other monitors expected the independent to end up (He pulled in about half of his expected share; 5%.), Corzine basically had no chance. As was talked about on The Monkey Cage earlier today, someone viewed negatively and behind in the polls has to attack and bring his or her opponent down to their level. Lee Seligman put it better: "It’s not so much that attackers lose as that losers attack." Corzine had to attack, but in the end couldn't bring Christie down to a beatable level.

[Click to Enlarge]

The end result in Virginia was the same -- the Republican won -- but the process of getting there was very different. I don't think that Chris Christie or Jon Corzine were particularly great candidates, but in the commonwealth, Bob McDonnell just outclassed Creigh Deeds as a candidate. McDonnell basically held an advantage throughout the year no matter which Democratic candidate was pitted against him; an advantage that crescendoed rapidly when the votes began to be cast a day ago. Deeds, seeing that McDonnell had been spotted an edge, was essentially in the same position John McCain was in a year ago relative to Barack Obama, except the Democrat was without a presidential-level campaign team. [I'm not talking about folks from within the Obama administration. I'm talking about campaign staff that is steeped in experience. McCain had that. Deeds did not.] FHQ isn't here to throw Deeds under the bus. I just think that McDonnell was in the position of being able to take the high road (as most frontrunners are) through the thesis ordeal. Deeds' campaign, meanwhile, latched onto that story and quickly became associated with it to the point that once the issue faded there was no previously constructed message on which Deeds could lean.

[Click to Enlarge]

One other thing that might also be mentioned (that I haven't seen discussed anywhere) is how the primaries in this race played out. The parties tinkering with their presidential nomination rules would be wise to take note of this. FHQ won't argue that the Democratic primary battle hurt Deeds. It didn't. But Bob McDonnell was ceded the Republican nomination. In the absence of competition, the former attorney general was never forced to run to the right. Not only did that not provide Deeds or any other Democrat with any fodder for the general election campaign, but it also helped McDonnell, even with the thesis out in the open, to foster a more moderate image. In the end, it isn't the primary battle that's negative so much as the easy road to nomination is beneficial.

Fine, both New Jersey and Virginia were "all politics is local" elections. They were, but they weren't without their cautionary tales for next year's midterm elections. Neither race or outcome is a harbinger, at least not directly, but the underlying numbers present the Democratic Party with a real problem. Let's look at the numbers from 2008 and 2009. No, I don't think that is a fair comparison either, but I did want to compare the level of drop-off from last year to this year across parties. In other words, how much bigger was the drop-off difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates at the top of the ballot?

2009 New Jersey & Virginia Voting Drop-Off (vs. 2008)
State	2008	2009*	Drop-Off
Virginia	Obama: 1,959,532 McCain: 1,725,005	Deeds: 774,676 McDonnell: 1,100,470	Dem: 1,184,856 GOP: 624,535
Total:	3,684,537	1,875,146
New Jersey	Obama: 2,215,422 McCain: 1,613,207	Corzine: 1,048,697 Christie: 1,148,651	Dem: 1,166,725 GOP: 464,556
Total:	3,828,629	2,197,348
*Numbers may have changed slightly since these data were collected on the afternoon of Nov. 4, 2009. Sources: NJ 2008, 2009; VA 2008, 2009

In both cases, turnout dropped by approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. But the difference between the way in which the number of votes decreased was not uniformly distributed across each party. These are aggregate numbers, so were not talking about the same people in 2008 and 2009, per se. However, it is more than obvious that the Republican Party maintained more of its voters than did the Democrats. In Virginia, Deeds could only hold about 40% of Obama's voters from a year ago. McDonnell, on the other hand, was able to maintain about two-thirds the level of McCain voters. The story in New Jersey was similar. Corzine held but 47% of Obama's level of turnout to Christie's 71% of McCain's.

But that's not all. Some of the exit polling was noteworthy as well. Race actually didn't play that big a role in either state, for instance. The African American share of the electorate on Tuesday was actually higher in New Jersey (14%) than it was in 2008 (12%). In Virginia, there was a decrease in the black share from 20% a year ago to 16% yesterday, and Deeds got the same 92% of those voters that Obama got in 2008. The exit polling breaks on age were also interesting. McDonnell won every age group on Virginia (not surprising when you win by 17 points), while Obama lost narrowly among 40-49 year old and over 65 year old Virginians. In New Jersey, Obama just lost among the senior set while Christie only lost among the very youngest (18-29) group.

The real difference, though, was in the partisan make up of the 2008 versus 2009 electorates (at least through the lens of the exit polling conducted).

2008 vs. 2009 Exit Polling in NJ & VA (Party ID)
State	2009	2008
New Jersey	41% D 31% R 28% I*	44% D 28% R 28% I*
Virginia	33% D 37% R 30% I**	39% D 33% R 27% I**
*Christie won independents 60-30. Obama won them 51-47 over McCain. **McDonnell won independents 66-33. Obama won them 49-48 over McCain. Sources: CNN (NJ and VA) -- 2008, New York Times (NJ and VA) -- 2009

That paints a fairly stark contrast between the two elections. Republicans made up a larger share of the electorate in 2009 and both Republican gubernatorial candidates ran away with the independent vote. If yesterday's results mean anything for 2010, it is that the Democrats may have an enthusiasm gap riddle to solve between now and next year this time. FHQ still contends that these elections were decided based on local forces, but the tie that binds them is the fact that Democrats seemingly sat these races out. Resting up for 2010, or simply complacent post-2008? That is the question.

Outside of that, I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what a pro-medical marijuana/anti-same sex marriage voter in Maine looks like. Politics is great.


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

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

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

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

[Click to Enlarge]

Prediction: Christie wins.

After looking back over the states FHQ incorrectly predicted a year ago in the presidential election (Indiana and North Carolina), we have come to the conclusion that close races are where our graduated weighted average can get into trouble. Yes, those are races that happen to be just like New Jersey. In our defense, Indiana was the only surprise. North Carolina was at least moving in Obama's direction. And though, New Jersey has moved in Corzine's direction in October, there is too much running against the incumbent Democrat. For starters, Corzine will likely have to poll over or around 45% to win unless Chris Daggett wins more than the 10% we have the independent projected to win. If Daggett doesn't get a larger share, Corzine will have to clear a barrier that he has yet to clear in any poll conducted in the race this year. He never got better than 44%. On top of that, Christie won no matter how we calculated our average, or more accurately what polls FHQ decided to include.

If all the 2009 polls were used, Christie won by the 3.4% you see above.

If only the polls since the June primary were included, Christie won by 2.2%.

If a simple average of all the final day polls is used, Christie won by one-third of a percentage point.

That may indicate that the momentum is behind Corzine in the aggregate. It could, but it could also mean that Corzine is still coming up short. Ordinarily, FHQ might be inclined to say that the tie goes to the one who has won statewide before because they would have some organizational advantage in a close race. In this case, though, Corzine's inability to crack 45% in any poll is the biggest piece of evidence against him.

And for FHQ, that is why we're giving the slight nod to Republican Chris Christie in this race.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

Final Virginia Update coming between 2 & 3 this afternoon.

Election Day 2009: What's on Tap? -- A Viewing Guide

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/2/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

On Election Eve, things in New Jersey are pretty much where they were when the day began: close. All that remains is for the votes to be cast tomorrow. First, however, we here at FHQ have to reconcile how we are going to look at this as the Garden state gubernatorial race comes to a close. As I mentioned last night, the margin between Chris Christie and Jon Corzine was likely to get tighter as the last flurry of polls were released, but that the chance of Christie falling behind Corzine, as has been the case at other poll aggregating sites, was very slim indeed. In fact, the Republicans advantage only fell to 3.4 points.

However, one of the criticisms that FHQ should have gotten, but never did, during the examination of the polling in this race, was the cut off for polls being included in our graduated weighted averages. Somewhat arbitrarily, we have been looking at polls conducted since the first of the year. Again, the earlier a survey was in the field the less it counted in our averages. Still, being that as it may, some of those polls were among the worst for Corzine throughout the year. Out of curiosity, we wanted to see what moving that cut off would do to the numbers. Yes, the first of the year made sense to some extent: people technically closed the book on 2008 and began looking forward to 2009. It could reasonably be argued, though, that some folks didn't really begin paying attention until the general election field was set following Christie's primary victory on June 2. [Others, perhaps, would make the point that even some of those polls are outdated.]

What, though, would FHQ's averages look like if the cut off was moved to June 2 instead of January 1? [Yeah, I thought it was a good question, too.] Well, as might be expected Christie dropped off some; moving from the 43.3% you see above to 41.6% in the post-primary period. Somewhat surprisingly, though, Jon Corzine dropped as well. Given that Corzine was stuck in essentially the same polling position throughout (at least until this last month), that decrease was less pronounced. The incumbent Democrat shifted downward from 39.9% to 39.4%. Yet, the overall margin between the two major party candidates was cut by just about a quarter; from 3.4% to 2.2%

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 3.1%	994 likely voters	41	47	11	2
Monmouth/Gannett [pdf]	Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 3.7%	722 likely voters	43	41	8	7
Survey USA	Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 4.1%	582 likely voters	42	45	10	3
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 4%	606 likely voters	41	36	14	8
Quinnipiac	Oct. 27-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 2.5%	1533 likely voters	40	42	12	6
Fairleigh Dickinson [pdf]	Oct. 22-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 3%	1119 likely voters	43	41	8	5
Average				41.67	42	10.5	5.167

Even if we constrain the examination to just a simple average of the days final round of polling (And I've got to admit I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a last minute Rasmussen poll to accompany the six above. I mean, come on, the firm is located in New Jersey.), the underlying message is the same: Christie is ahead, but only slightly so. What does that mean? It means this race -- one in a traditionally blue state -- is tied*. Christie is ahead with something of a national, anti-incumbent wind at his back. Yet, Corzine is within striking distance, has the financial wherewithal, and can lean on a GOTV effort in a blue state that can equalize matters. Oh, and can have fake pro-Daggett robocalls made on the final night of the campaign -- not that it was Corzine directly. My point isn't to crash on Corzine so much as it is to say that this is a close one and while Christie may be slightly ahead, that is offset by the partisan conditions on the ground and the fact that Corzine has run successfully for statewide office twice this decade.

That's got to count for something. But as they say on the sporting fields, that's why they play the game. Score-keeping in that game starts tomorrow at 6am and ends at 8pm.

[Click to Enlarge]

*This is what Pollster shows; a 42-42 dead heat. But I've got to say, I'm kind of disappointed in their explanation for not including the new numbers from Fairleigh Dickinson. FHQ backed out the original numbers and treated today's re-release as a new poll. All the FDU folks did was add four days worth of interviews on top of the last survey release. I don't know what the problem is there other than it would have broken up this convenient tie. I'm not buying this overlapping polls explanation, but that's FHQ.

Final Virginia update coming in the morning.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/1/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/1/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/31/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/1/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

While the special election in NY-23 may have forced Virginia's gubernatorial race on the backburner, the race for control of the New Jersey executive branch has not met a similar fate. The Garden state contest is every bit as close as things in the 23rd if only lacking in sheer unpredictability. Many talked about Corzine coming back to win, but the incumbent certainly took his time getting started on that trail, and may have an independent candidate's catching fire in the closing weeks for the tightening margin between the Democratic governor and Chris Christie, his Republican rival.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Monmouth/Gannett [pdf]	Oct. 28-30, 2009	+/- 3%	1041 likely voters	42	42	8	5
YouGov/Polimetrix [pdf]	Oct. 27-30, 2009	+/- 4.4%	780 likely voters	43	41	8	8

The two polls released today in the race did nothing to change that. Christie and Corzine are knotted in the low 40s and Chris Daggett seems to be fading slightly heading into Tuesday's vote. Whether that makes his supporters rethink the wisdom of casting a ballot for a third party candidate dropping in the polls, though, remains to be seen.

As for FHQ's averages, they continue to show a tightening race. The margin between the two major party candidates has now slipped below four points with Corzine flirting with the 40% mark and Christie narrowing in on the 43% level. With just a couple of days left for polls to emerge in this race, it is likely safe to say that, unlike other sites that have shown Corzine take the lead, that won't be the case here. There isn't enough time and won't be enough polls to change that in our averages. That said, we will offer an alternative model that shows slightly different results on Monday. It isn't an official change, but it will make for an interesting comparison.

Stay tuned...

Of course, there may be a new poll out in this race before then.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/1/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/31/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/31/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/31/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ is a day late on the updates in New Jersey and Virginia, but it was all for a good cause. Of course, we wanted to do our yearly homage to Halloween, and what better way to do that than in the context of the gubernatorial races in the Garden state and the Old Dominion. [I still like last year's celebratory Halloween post better.]

I had the pleasure of talking with my two favorite New Jerseyans tonight about their thoughts on the gubernatorial race in the Garden state. Both are politically knowledgeable and extremely independent thinkers who spend five to six months out of the year out of the state taking in the rest of our beautiful country. If I had to guess -- and they certainly aren't terribly up front about this -- one is a Democratic leaner and the other is a Republican leaner. And that's if I was forced to guess.

Needless to say, I was excited to have the opportunity to speak with them once I found out they were passing through on their way home to vote on Tuesday. Sure, it is nice to look at poll numbers -- representative ones at that -- but the chance for a two respondent poll was too much to pass up.

The results? Bad news for Corzine.

The money quote? "We're going home to vote; not to vote for someone, but to vote against someone."

President Obama was efficient at "banking" early votes a year ago. A year later, Jon Corzine, the incumbent Democrat Obama is trying to pull over the finish line in this race, has a couple of unbanked votes trekking the final leg of their yearly odyssey across the United States coming home to the Garden state. No, my friends aren't necessarily the bellwether that a state like Missouri has been on the presidential level, but they are a pair of what Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling has identified as grudging voters; arguably the face of this election on Tuesday.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Rasmussen	Oct. 29, 2009	+/- 3%	1000 likely voters	43	46	8	3
Stockton/Zogby	Oct. 27-29, 2009	+/- 3%	1093 likely voters	40	39	14	6

What does any of this mean? Everything and nothing in the close race that is being depicted in the representative samples that are being polled about this contest. The race for governor is still one that finds the two major party candidates consistently within the margin of error of each other. The two surveys from Rasmussen (no net change from earlier in the week) and Stockton/Zogby didn't stray from that pattern. The former found Republican Chris Christie ahead by a handful of points while the latter (the first poll from this collaboration statewide in this race) found Corzine up a point.

And independent Chris Daggett? Well, he's still the wild card. No, the former Republican is not likely to win on Tuesday, but he and those grudging voters will go a long way toward deciding who will eventually win on November 3. Daggett has leveled off in FHQ's averages of this race (between the 10 and 11 point range). Meanwhile the margin between Corzine and Christie continues to shrink. Christie is still ahead, but that lead is under 3 points now.

And incidentally, I think I've got a couple of Daggett voters staying with me tonight.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/31/09)

On Overseas Military Voting and September Primaries: Epilogue/Prologue

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/29/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/29/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Further north in New Jersey, the race for governor is shaping up to be a potential all-nighter. [Well, we have to have at least one every election cycle, I suppose. It won't be in New York City or Virginia.] FHQ will resist the urge to say that Corzine has comeback from the dead in this contest. Sure, the governor has inched up slightly of late, but he can't claim to have momentum other than to say that the race is tighter in a traditionally blue state. Fine, that could be considered momentum to some degree, but it pales in comparison to the negative momentum Republican Chris Christie has had in the surveys that have been released over the last handful of weeks. His descent since the end of September (at least in FHQ's measure -- see below) has been a marked contrast to the steady state that was typical of his summer in the polls. [There's no doubt that others saw a more pronounced gain for Christie during June and July.]

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Oct. 27-28, 2009	+/- 4%	604 likely voters	43	38	12	7
Daily Kos/Research 2000	Oct. 26-28, 2009	+/- 4%	600 likely voters	41	42	14	3
Survey USA	Oct. 26-28, 2009	+/- 4%	640 likely & actual voters	43	43	11	3

Those differences aside, this race is much closer than it was when the temperatures were hotter outside. You don't have to look much further than the three new polls released today to see that. But the race is so close, in fact, that people are starting to take note of things like the difference between the method in which polls are conducted -- via live interview or an automated phone call. FHQ mentioned this yesterday and Nate Silver has added his two cents on the matter today. I'm not trying to say I was on top of this first. I wasn't. Jim Geraghrty pointed it out first. Regardless, if you look at the chart at FiveThirtyEight you'll see that Corzine does well in live interview polls and Christie fares best in the automated surveys. Given FHQ's averages at the outset of the post, it is pretty easy to see that, at least statistically, we come down on the side of the automated polls. Our numbers reflect that side more. But that may be more a function of the fact that those polls have been more prevalent throughout the year (Those three polling firms alone make up about a third of the total number of polls conducted since the first of the year.). If you take the FiveThirtyEight data for what it is on the surface, we can look at the averages across the two types of polls and call it a tie; at least a race within the margin of error.

And that's likely where this one is headed on election day. For now, though, we grade Christie as slightly ahead of Corzine with the margin continuing to shrink.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/29/09)

Palin's Poll Numbers Look a Lot Like Quayle's

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/28/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/28/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ is going to go with a Twitter-like, quickie post of the events of the day in both Virginia and New Jersey.

Like in Virginia, the polling in New Jersey maintained the status quo in this race.

The new Quinnipiac poll today mirrored the PPP poll from yesterday except that the two major party candidates traded positions

There was an interesting discussion about the difference between polls based on live interviews or a recording over the phone.

Phone polls are showing Christie ahead. Interviews favor Corzine.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Quinnipiac	Oct. 20-26, 2009	+/- 2.8%	1267 likely voters	43	38	13	5

Still, this poll represents a six point gain for Corzine over the last Quinnipiac poll two weeks ago.

Unlike yesterday's PPP poll though, this one showed Daggett supporters opting for Christie over Corzine by a 43-27 count.

The PPP count of Daggett supporters found Corzine had the advantage 44-32. Again, there's a difference in poll type there.

As I said, this one merely maintained the state of the race from a day ago. Here at FHQ that means Christie is slightly ahead.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/28/09)

CNN 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Huckabee Pulls in Almost a Third of Support

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/27/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/27/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

While Virginia is quickly being supplanted by the three way race in New York's 23rd congressional district in terms of competitive interest, New Jersey is not; buoyed by a three way race of its own. Of course, things were seemingly back to normal on Tuesday, a day after a Suffolk poll found incumbent, Jon Corzine ahead by an unseen-to-that-point 9 point advantage over Republican Chris Christie. Today, though, it was back to the within the margin of error polling leads that have marked this race in the Garden state for the last few weeks. Both Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling found as much in the state, though PPP's margin between the two major party candidates was technically outside of the margin of error.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Rasmussen	Oct. 26, 2009	+/- 3%	1000 likely voters	43	46	7	4
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	Oct. 23-26, 2009	+/- 3.9%	630 likely voters	38	42	13	6

Still, both polls found Christie to be slightly ahead. The PPP survey is much more in line with where you no doubt see FHQ has the race pegged currently. Rasmussen, on the other hand, has a much more optimistic view of both the Democrat's and the Republican's position in the race, seemingly at the expense of independent, Chris Daggett. That is the real difference here: that Daggett has twice as much support in the PPP poll than in the Rasmussen one. Of course, the PPP survey also found that Daggett's unfavorables are rising and that he is more likely to hurt Corzine than Christie. 44% of Daggett supporters called Corzine their second choice to only 32% for Christie. The independent continues to play the wildcard in this race. Christie, however, maintains the advantage. The Republican actually gained a bit today (a function of the fact that yesterday's 33% in the Suffolk poll was replaced by the Rasmussen 46% as the most recent, fully weighted survey). Corzine, meanwhile, held steady.

What will tomorrow bring?

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/27/09)

Why the Democratic Change Commission's March 1 Mandate Will Be a Tough Sell Without a Bipartisan Primary Reform Plan

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/26/09)