Chicken Little and the Iowa Caucuses

It is bothersome that the same stories keep getting rehashed and continually have to be shot down. Several of these revolve around Mitt Romney, Iowa or some combination of the two. Though Mitt Romney has not returned to Iowa (or South Carolina), the stories of the former Massachusetts governor skipping the Hawkeye state have largely and thankfully died down. [FHQ doesn't know whether to attribute that to the reality of Romney's campaign strategy -- less emphasis on Iowa -- having set in with the press or what.] But various sources, now including New Hampshire Republican Fergus Cullen, keep returning to the Iowa-isn't-important well, assuming that it runs deep when the reality is that it is close to dry.

First of all, the fact that the nominal frontrunner is not making regular visits to Iowa certainly gives the impression that the 2012 Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state are less meaningful. The other candidates, however, aren't behaving as if Iowa is anything other than one of the first states in the presidential nomination process. [I'll focus on candidate visits here, but this concept could also be operationalized as money spent in the state thus far, staff hired and/or money contributed to the campaigns of 2010 candidates running for office in the state(s).] FHQ has looked at the visits data already and there is little to no evidence there that Iowa's role is shrinking.

Does the state have a smaller percentage of candidate visits than in 2008?

Yes.

Is that being driven by Romney staying away from the Hawkeye state to this point?

Yes, partially.

Are the other candidates, prospective or otherwise, following suit?

No, not really.

Can the rest of the shift in the percentage of candidate visits from 2008 to 2012 be explained by regular cycle to cycle variation?

More than likely, yes.

Let's take a look. Democratic candidates in 2004 split their time pretty evenly between Iowa and New Hampshire. Out of 1660 combined candidate visits to both states only 60 visits separated the two (with Iowa having more.).¹ In 2008 the story was different. Obama's increasing viability throughout the invisible primary, coupled with visits by the then-Illinois senator and Edwards' near-permanent presence in the state forced frontrunner Hillary Clinton to have a substantial presence in Iowa as well. Visits and poll position have a way of triggering increased activity from your opponents.

Of course, the point is well taken that these are data for Democrats, and there isn't an equivalent progressive movement within the Iowa Democratic Party that is pushing less "pure" candidates away in the way it has been hypothesized with Romney (and/or other candidates) and Iowa's GOP. Iowa did have a fairly healthy advantage over New Hampshire in terms of the number of visits from Republicans in 2008. No, the discrepancy between Iowa and New Hampshire wasn't as great among Republicans as it was among Democrats, but there were over 200 more visits to Iowa than New Hampshire. But that wasn't the case in 2000, the last competitive Republican nomination race, when most of the Republicans ceded the Hawkeye state to George W. Bush. The focus instead was on New Hampshire which got more attention relative to Iowa. The point here is that there are great number of factors involved in determining how much attention one of these first two states receives and it varies from cycle to cycle.

Is there something to the argument that a rightward shift among the Iowa GOP caucusgoers is forcing anything resembling a revisitation of strategy from the campaigns' perspectives?

Yeah, there's probably something to it, but its impact is being grossly overstated in typically very narrow examinations of the circumstances. And the fact that the nominal frontrunner is the one who isn't showing up -- especially to the level he did in his prior run -- it exacerbates the the perception that Iowa will take a backseat. The take home message is that we shouldn't look at Iowa in 2012 in a vacuum. There is a much broader picture here beyond "Iowa Republicans are lurching to the right and the state is suffering as a result".

--

Now, having set up the proper context through which the Iowa attention situation should be viewed, there is some evidence that Iowa is dropping off. It all depends on the window of time (in which visits occur) is used. According to the Politico 2012 Live Candidate Tracker Iowa has had 182 [prospective] candidate visits since the day after the 2008 election -- the point at which the 2012 invisible primary started. Over that same period of time, New Hampshire had 127 visits. That particular time period is going to contain visits that were made on behalf of candidates running for state and congressional office and Iowa's size and number of competitive districts would have to be accounted for as well. Even then, it wasn't as if New Hampshire was not competitive in 2010 in terms of congressional or state legislative races. But for the sake of this examination, let's close that window to include visits since the day after the 2010 elections. Over that period, Iowa had 79 visits to New Hampshire's 82; a near even distribution of total candidate visits. Since the first of the year that gap is only slightly wider: Iowa has had 68 visits and New Hampshire 78.

New Hampshire, then, has had a greater number of recent visits, but the sky is hardly falling on Republicans in Iowa. Again, the composition of the state party may be a contributing factor to the discrepancy, but it is only one of many and would have a less significant impact than the usual cycle to cycle variation that we normally observe. Plus, once Romney sets foot in the state, a lot of these stories will disappear (or be re-spun as "Romney isn't paying as much attention to Iowa this time" stories).

--

¹ See Ridout and Rottinghaus (2008)

Recent Posts:

Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee Bill Passes Florida House

The Links (4/20/11): Miscellany

An April Primary in Georgia?

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

Companion House Bill to Move Primary to March Moves Forward in Virginia

Earlier in the week the Virginia Senate passed SB 1246 which would shift the date on which the state's 2012 presidential primary would be held from February to March. On Friday, the effort in the House of Delegates -- HB 1843 -- inched closer to following suit. The legislation emerged from the House Privileges and Elections Committee after a unanimous vote (22Y, 0N). Despite the fact that the bill was reported from committee "with substitute", it appears to be identical to the Senate bill. It not only seems that the legislation in both chambers has bipartisan support, but that crossover of the bills -- since they are identical -- will be a seamless transition as well. The date for crossover is on Tuesday, so a vote on passage will likely take place sometime this week.

Hat tip to Frank Leone at DemRulz for passing this along to FHQ.

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

Really, Seriously!?! New Hampshire Wants to Keep Its First in the Nation Primary Status?

Well, that's news to FHQ. Have they done this before?

Actually, this is a post (at least in part) that FHQ put together last January when the General Court in New Hampshire was tweaking the election law regarding the timing of its presidential primary. It has been sitting in the queue for a year for some reason; probably because it perfectly proves the point that the "warning" that the Granite state will protect its position really is not all that newsworthy.

Well, it is (...around these parts). And The Union Leader's John DiStaso is absolutely right in saying that New Hampshirites on the Democratic Change Commission and on the Rules and Bylaws Committee were awfully quiet when it came time to vote on the delegate selection rules for 2012. They knew the proposed four day window between New Hampshire and Nevada would be in violation of the state law. In my own personal experience at the Change Commission's May meeting, Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and committeeman, uttered nary a word about this conflict.

FHQ remains neutral in these things (the pros and cons of New Hampshire's privileged position -- Hey, I just research this stuff.), but one would have to see right off that the powers-that-be in the Granite state would stand up to defend their turf as they see it. If they allow the law's enforcement to be fudged in any way, the state becomes vulnerable to challenges in future presidential nomination cycles.

That said, New Hampshire did let the law enforcement slide somewhat in 2008. That seven day window applies on either side of the primary in New Hampshire -- before and after. Given how Iowa and New Hampshire decided to adhere to the unwritten rule that no contest should take place outside of the election year, both contests ended up compressed in a six day period between January 3 and January 8, 2008. [Notice that no one is mentioning the Wyoming Republican caucuses on January 5, still.] This was likely the motivation for the law change last January (described below in the text from the unpublished post); to codify an exemption for Iowa. In other words, there is some room for ex post facto maneuvering.

...but it is dangerous (from the perspective of the Granite state) and New Hampshire will never do anything to jeopardize its position. The key in all of this is that New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner holds all the power. The state is able to avoid any partisan squabbles in the General Court because the decision on the timing of the primary bypasses the legislature altogether and is in the secretary of state's hands. New Hampshire is much better equipped to move at the last minute than any other state.

--

Unpublished Post from January 8, 2010:

From the AP:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire lawmakers hope to end any doubt about the state's intent to continue holding the first presidential primary.

The state House is voting Wednesday on whether to give the secretary of state wider latitude in setting the primary date. That would help protect the state's tradition of being first.

State Rep. Jim Splaine is sponsoring the bill. The measure will go to the Senate if the House approves it and is widely expected to become law.

Maddeningly limited in the scope of its information, isn't it?

The details of the changes in Rep. Jim Splaine's bill (HB 341) before the New Hampshire House of Representatives are below. As it is under current law, the New Hampshire secretary of state has the ability to set the date of the Granite state's presidential primary, and that law requires that the primary be at least a week before any other similar contest.

The change?

Actually, this is the same bill that Splaine introduced during the 2009 legislative session and it just carried over to 2010. Here's what we had to say about the General Court's efforts during the early spring of 2009:

The bottom line is that when the legislature makes a change to the law concerning the presidential primary, it is typically couched in terms of 1) a change in the duties of the secretary of state on the matter and 2) to protect the state's position in the nomination process. And that's what they've done with the law below.

Here's is the New Hampshire law as it stands now:

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose."

The real meat and potatoes here is the seven day cushion that New Hampshire requires between its primary and any other "similar election." Similar election has usually meant another primary, but the Democratic Party's rules for delegate selection initially placed the Nevada caucuses in between Iowa and New Hampshire and raised the issue of other states' caucuses challenging New Hampshire's primacy. The changes called for in HB 341 take care of that, though (Changes in Bold):

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, or holds a caucus or in the interpretation of the secretary of state holds any contest at which delegates are chosen for the national conventions, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. Any caucus of a state first held before 1975 shall not be affected by this provision."

Seven day cushion? Check.

Protection from interloping caucuses? Check.

Exception for Iowa? Check.

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

Thoughts following the 2nd Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting

Over the weekend the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee reconvened in Washington (yes, sans FHQ) to further cement the rules governing the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination. The set of rules coming out of this meeting will go before the full DNC in St. Louis next month for approval. In its initial meeting in May, the committee made quick work of the most of the rules -- only tweaking some of the particulars from the 2008 rules -- but following discussion, tabled most of the more contentious issues that concerned some of the recommendations made by the Democratic Change Commission. Namely, what to do with the superdelegates' influence, how to make more uniform the caucus process across states, and how to curb frontloading. For our part, FHQ will focus on the last of those in this initial post, but will return to the other issues later. [Side note: And yes, I do need to put this all together with the changes the Republicans have proposed as well. FHQ has neglected the much more interesting and consequential Republican rules-making process. Amends will be made, I assure you, dear readers.]

Now, some have called the rules recommendations that came out of the this meeting and the earlier Republican meeting, the "most significant alteration to the primary calendars since '68..." The McGovern-Fraser reforms fundamentally reshaped the way in which presidential nominees were chosen from that point forward. They turned presidential primaries and caucuses from non-binding contests meant to influence party leaders at the national convention into binding contests that determined to some degree the level of support candidates would receive at the convention. The primary calendars after that point evolved, and though the negative effects of frontloading were being discussed as early as the Hunt Commission (the pre-1984 cycle's equivalent of the Democratic Change Commission), it took until 1988 and into the '90s for the full effects of McGovern-Fraser to be felt in terms of the calendar. And, of course, these were unintended consequences of those reforms.

Perhaps you can tell, I don't particularly like the comparison to the 1968 Chicago convention's reform measures. FHQ also has another problem with this comparison.* As I alluded to above, it overstates matters. Both parties have recognized frontloading as a "problem" for several cycles now. And it is no small feat that both the DNC and RNC determined that the best way to combat the problem was to work together, representing a unified front against would-be rule breakers (Florida and Michigan, I'm looking in your direction.). That fact alone is significant in and of itself, but this process is only in its first phase: rules formation. The national parties will have to ratify those changes in order to end this part of the cycle.

The next phase will play out through much of next year. It is one thing to institute new rules, but it is another to have the states go along with those changes. A good first step is to have both parties on the same page, but Florida and Michigan (and all the pre-February 5, 2008 states but Nevada and Iowa on the Republican side) may have set a precedent in 2008. And with so many states having to move the dates on which their primaries are held to comply with the new rules, there is more incentive than ever to shirk.

That was the real message that came out of all of these meetings on both sides. Both parties are together in terms of their calendar set ups, but the sanctions did not change in the least from 2008. Yes, the Democrats bumped up their incentives for states electing to hold later contests, but that has proven ineffective in the past. The true effect of one of those 2008 sanctions likely won't be felt until 2012 anyway. That the Democrats stripped candidates of half their delegates if they campaigned in a state in violation of the timing rules was very crafty. It kept Obama and Edwards among others out of Florida and (they took themselves off the ballot in) Michigan. That has the effect of making a state meaningless or at least far less influential than otherwise. And that penalty is back for the 2012 cycle. States might have thought twice about flaunting the rules if that sanction was in place on the Republican side. Of course, it is a Democratic sanction and I doubt it will matter much if the Democratic Party strips Obama of half his delegates in a state in violation (they won't). With all the action on the Republican side, a promising sanction won't mean a whole lot.

As I said over the weekend on Twitter, it only takes one state to unravel the best of intentions and trigger a calendar somewhere between what the parties want and where things were in 2008. So, while tweaking the timing of contests is unique in the post-reform era, it isn't that fundamental a change in the grand scheme of things and certainly won't be if states don't comply.

*Another issue is that the parties did voluntarily change their rules to allow January and February contests over the last decade and a half. That was at least an equivalent change to what has been proposed for 2012 (proportionality rules excluded).

South Carolina's Alphabetical Disorder

This is out of FHQ's wheelhouse, but we have, like many others, been intrigued by the events surrounding the Democratic nomination race for Senate in South Carolina this week. To a fault -- or perhaps not -- I have been trained to both resist simple answers and play devil's advocate. At the same time, I'm also hesitant to latch onto conspiracy theories. In other words, FHQ has not subscribed to either the alphabetical order argument nor does it necessarily accept the "Republican plant" argument that Jim Clyburn has been pushing the last couple of days. To me, something else is up with this race and it rests somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

John Sides over at The Monkey Cage has looked into the alphabetical explanation:

"And I’m not sure that the potential ballot order effect is implausibly large. Assume for the moment that voters were essentially choosing at random between the candidates. That would imply a 50-50 outcome. The actual outcome was 58-41, which only implies that 8-9% of voters were influenced by ballot margin."

The only thing that bothers me about that line of reasoning -- and I find it sound -- is that the 2008 Senate nomination race, as folks within the South Carolina Democratic Party have pointed out, was between two equally unknown candidates statewide and the result was a near draw. However, if one is looking for ballot order effects between two unknown candidates, the 2008 race may have been mitigated by the fact that both candidates had very similar last names. Michael Cone and Bob Conley. Conley won 50.36-49.64 and went on to lose to Lindsey Graham in November.

So what else could explain the out-of-nowhere performance Alvin Greene turned in on Tuesday? Some have speculated that race was also a factor; that somehow Greene's name may have tipped off voters in a primary electorate that is overwhelmingly African American. Again, this one is tough to isolate. Sides also examined the relationship between the share of the vote that Greene got across each of South Carolina's 46 counties and the percentage of each county that was African American in the 2000 Census. There was a slight relationship there, but as Sides points out, it wasn't statistically significant.

But let's try and find some middle ground between the simple explanations and the conspiracy theories. This one is just too fishy to me, and here's why. If one wants to find some irregularities, one has to go looking for them. My thought was to look at the turnout numbers from Tuesday. First of all, Greene lost four of 46 counties statewide and cleared 60% in 29 of those 42. That seems more systematic than random. But let's assume that it was random for a moment and keep poking around. The other oddity is that turnout among Democrats was actually up compared to the Democratic primaries of 2006 and 2008. Those two elections were -- at least nationally -- cycles that favored Democrats while 2010 does not. The numbers in 2010 were actually comparable to the Senate race in 2004 which saw Inez Tenenbaum, the state's Education Superintendant, emerge with the nomination. But she was a known quantity while neither Vic Rawl nor Alvin Greene were in 2010.

Total Turnout (Democratic primaries):
2004--167790
2006--138343*
2008--147287
2010--170215

Fine. Turnout was up in an otherwise down year for Democrats (nationally). So what? That doesn't mean anything is going on in South Carolina. No, it doesn't, but let's have a look at the county by county numbers (click on View All Data) in 2010 versus 2008 and see if there is any pattern to the vote increases. The problem here is that the raw vote totals in each county cannot be used. What I did then was look at each county's share of the statewide Democratic vote total in the Senate primaries in each election cycle. This percentage is a means of pseudo-standardizing the measure. The 2008 percentage was then subtracted from the 2010 percentage. In turn, that gives us an idea of which counties increased their total vote shares the most. My thought when I started this exercise was that if any ballot boxes were going to be stuffed (or machines tampered with), the best place to hide it would be in high vote areas. I quickly glanced through the data for all 46 counties and saw that a disproportionate number of the gainers -- those states that gained the greatest share of the vote from 2008 to 2010 -- were the most populous states. In fact, of the top ten gainers, seven were among the top ten most populous counties. Additionally, the gains across all of the top 10 most populous counties (distinct from the top ten gainers) accounted for over 24,000 votes or about 80% of the more than 30,000 margin by which Greene won.

While this seems to indicate that something might be amiss in the most population dense areas of the state, there are two big problems with this experiment.

1) Now it is true that there seems to be a pattern here; that more populous counties were more likely to see above average gains in their share of the statewide total. But that just accounts for the difference between 2008 and 2010. What if that is a typical trend from cycle to cycle? As a simple check I did the same exercise but compared the difference between the Democratic Senate primaries of 2004 and 2008 (see footnote below for explanation on 2006). The population-based pattern exhibited in the changes from 2008 to 2010 was non-existent in the change over from 2004 to 2008. The latter had no real detectable pattern and indeed looked quite randomly distributed. In the 2004-2008 example, only three of the top ten most populous were among the states that gained in terms of their share of the statewide vote from one Senate cycle to the next. There may be something here.

2) There may be something here, but we've left out one important part. It's fine for those counties to have gained a larger share of the total statewide vote from 2008 to 2010, but how did Greene actually perform in those counties? This is where the wheels come off this explanation somewhat. Greene actually underperformed his statewide average of 59% in the ten most populous counties. The mystery candidate garnered only 57.5% in those ten counties. The raw votes increased, in other words, but that didn't translate into Greene or someone acting behind the scenes stuffing the ballot box on his behalf.

Is this the end of the road for this idea? No, I think there still may be something here, but that there needs to be a greater focus on some sort of an interaction between the percentage urban and percentage black for each county. If there is a large degree of overlap between the two, that likely punches some holes in the racialized argument. But South Carolina is still part of the South and urban doesn't necessarily mean black in the way it does in other states with major metropolitan areas.

If there is some conspiracy here, whoever is behind it left some clues behind but didn't make anything easy on the slew of political scientists who are acting like CSI forensics experts with this thing. In the meantime, FHQ will keep digging and let you know if we turn up anything more.

*There was no Senate race in South Carolina in 2006. These numbers are from the top of the ticket race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Update: Tom Schaller over at FiveThirtyEight has much more.

New 2012 Rules, New 2012 Primary Calendar

The following is a look at the calendar with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina placed where the national parties have specified and when contests in the remaining primary states are scheduled according to state law. For a glimpse at what the 2012 presidential primary calendar looks like currently, click here.

No, nothing is official and nothing will be regarding the 2012 presidential nomination rules until August. However, let's assume for a moment that the rules as currently proposed in both parties will be adopted. That means that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can hold contests in February while the remaining states and territories have to carve out a space between the first Tuesday in March and the first Tuesday in June. The scuttlebutt from New Hampshire -- at least following the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee recommendations -- has been that, under that scenario, Iowa would hold its caucuses on the first Monday in February followed by the New Hampshire primary eight days later. Nevada and South Carolina would hold their events at least a week later. Then, once March 7 hits, all the remaining states would be free to schedule their delegate selection events.

Yes FHQ, but how would the calendar look? I'm glad you asked.

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (under proposed new rules--pre-sanction)

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Monday, February 6: Iowa caucuses

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

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina Republican primary, Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin

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

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

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****, Illinois

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

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

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

No, I doubt Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina volunteer to take those spots, too. None of those states will jump first and wait on the remaining early states to move back to comply with the national parties' proposed rules. Iowa won't volunteer to go after Florida and New Hampshire won't willingly hold its primary after Super Tuesday. Iowa and New Hampshire are never the first to move anyway. They reserve the right to move last -- after every other state has locked into position.

FHQ doesn't want to risk beating a dead horse here, but this is just another way of showing how difficult it is going to be for the parties to get those February states in line. The "yes, but look what happens if we stay put" argument comes out in full force if there isn't an adequate enforcement mechanism in place. I think Florida would quite like this set up, don't you? Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire would shift the dates of their contests to something like this* if that happened.

Thoughts on the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting

As FHQ alluded to on Friday, we sat in on the festivities at the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on both Friday and Saturday. The intent of the meeting was to begin reconciling the recommendations of the Democratic Change Commission with the political and structural realities on the ground with regard to the rules governing the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination.

[For a blow-by-blow account of the two day rule-a-thon, you can follow our real-time Twittering at @FHQ.]

As some have already said, this was a jump off the deep end into the minutiae of delegate selection rules. However, the committee members revved up for the discussions surrounding the three areas the Change Commission was tasked with re-examining: primary and caucus timing, superdelegate reduction/elimination and caucus rule uniformity. The most animated portions of the proceedings came at the tail end of Friday's session and at the beginning of Saturday's. Of the 21 rules -- based on the 2008 delegate selection rules -- Rules 9 (superdelegates) and 11 (timing) seemed to elicit the most concern; the departure from the '08 rules the Change Commission's recommendations represented did, at least. The decisions on both rules were tabled at this meeting pending further discussion at the July 9 and 10 meeting in Washington that will finalize a set of rules for the full DNC to vote on in August.

But let's look at some of the discussion around these two issues from Friday and Saturday:

Superdelegates

Well, if the Change Commission's recommendation is approved, they won't be superdelegates anymore. They'll be NPLEOs (National Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official). That's right. The recommendation calls for the elimination of add-on delegates and a change to the superdelegates as we knew them in 2008. Under these rules, the party and elected officials would lose their independence in 2012. They would be proportionally pledged to candidates based on the results in the primaries or caucuses in their states.

As you might imagine, this didn't sit particularly well with a group of folks (the RBC) who happen to be superdelegates. No one seemed to like the loss of independence (read: influence). That loss prompted RBC member, Mame Reiley, to ask if leaders shouldn't be able to lead instead of follow. She cited Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama ahead of the Massachusetts primary (and Hillary Clinton's win there) as an example. In other words, how could you tell an elite within the party to support someone they don't want to support (with the only alternative being to become a non-voting delegate)? To FHQ's mind this isn't any different from the average delegate moving over to the actual nominee at the convention despite that earlier pledge. It happens routinely. Still, the members of the RBC took issue with the proportionality calculus and how that would play out in reality. Some made the argument that it was the job of the RBC to plan for the worst case scenario, a floor fight over the nomination. But while that may be true, it isn't likely to be the reality in 2012. As RBC member, Ray Buckley said, "I'm ambivalent about this...because I don't think the president will be challenged in 2012."

There were some alternate proposals bandied about. The one that seemed to resonate was one that had alternate delegates becoming actual delegates as a means of diluting the influence of the superdelegates. This seemed like a clever enough idea, but obviously needs to be fleshed out some. That represents quite an expansion of the number of delegates which has implications for floor seating because there would still have to be alternates who also get a spot on the floor even if they are not voting.

I don't see that proposal making it nor do I necessarily see the Change Commission's proposal getting through the full DNC. One thing we can likely count on is the elimination of the add-on delegates. Beyond that, there may not be a whole lot of movement on the superdelegates issue. With Obama running unchallenged in 2012 (more than likely), that group will return to its spot in the background of the process.

[Before I shift gears to the timing issue, there's one other point I'd like to raise about superdelegates and conventions. It was interesting to me from my basement position in the ivory tower to see how these matters were viewed by some of the elites within the party. Academics tend to take a macro view of conventions. They matter in that they move the needle in the polls in their immediate aftermath. But as Seth Masket pointed out last week when the GOP tapped Tampa to be its 2012 convention site, the link between conventions location and electoral results is tenuous at best. The same holds for conventions overall. But members of the parties involved in the process don't necessarily share the same view. Instead of a macro view, they adopt a micro view. To the elites, winning in November matters, but things like convention seating and hotel arrangements matter. One of the DNC staffers was joking with me before the Saturday session about the Michigan delegates having to stay in Boulder during the 2008 convention in Denver. Rick Stafford, and RBC member from Minnesota, said the Democrats from the Land of 10,000 Lakes suffered a similar fate for holding a pre-window caucus in 1988; staying "somewhere in Georgia." These folks will protect that turf unless compelled to do otherwise. The bottom line is that these sorts of things matter to folks within the RBC and that obviously has the potential to impact the rules that emerge from this process.]

Timing

This issue was why FHQ went to Washington for this meeting in the first place. Presidential primary and caucus scheduling (or movement from cycle to cycle) is our bread and butter. And while Tom Schaller is right that not much substance came out of this meeting, the group will have a large discussion in July that will have found its roots in the groundwork laid on Friday and Saturday.

First, the Change Commission has called for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to retain their privileged positions in the pre-window period of the primary calendar from 2008. The Democrats got a major assist on making that recommendation a reality from the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee last week. The TDSC followed the Change Commission's lead in not only keeping those four states early but in knocking back the start date of the process from January to February and preventing all other states from going before a the first Tuesday in March (A return to -- at least for the Democrats -- something akin to the 2000 primary calendar.). That's a big deal and it certainly helps both parties on the enforcement front somewhat. If both parties have the same timing rules, it makes it far less likely that a Republican-controlled state government, for example, will opt to flaunt Democratic Party rules to maintain or move to an earlier, pre-window date on the calendar (This assumes a scenario where the Democrats adopt the Change Commission recommendations on timing, but the Republicans are more open to allowing earlier contests.). Enforcement of the delegate selection rules is more difficult when the parties aren't on the same page. However, just because it appears that the parties will, I won't call it coordinate, but correspond with each other on timing, doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any rogue states like Florida and Michigan in 2012. Enforcement of the timing strictures was one of the sticking points with members of the RBC during this discussion. In the end, it really wasn't dealt with, but pushed to the July meeting instead. There are enticements (bonus delegates) for going later, but will that get the 19 states currently scheduled (according to state law) in February to move their primaries in accordance with the possible rules changes? That is the question at this point. Nothing has worked thus far on that front as a means of curbing frontloading, but both parties will have to hope that all works out for the best when and if both produce similar calendars for 2012.

There was also a varied discussion over the Change Commission's recommendation for encouraging more regionally or subregionally clustered primaries. More questions than answers emerged from this particular topic. What constituted a cluster? Are big states like California and New York large enough on their own to constitute clusters? How do you get states to cluster? What enticements can be used? How do you go about scheduling which cluster goes first? Getting states to cluster is the conundrum. It seems that Democratic-controlled states would be better able to cluster states controlled by the Republicans or with some form or fashion of divided government. [Truth be told, that is one of the major findings of my dissertation on frontloading decisions over time. But who am I to toot my own horn?] Some states are better able to move and the creation of clusters also seems as if it might be fraught with the same sort of Iowa/New Hampshire privileged position issue. [Hello unintended consequences.] I don't know that there is any way of getting to this point other than to allow states to come to clustering conclusions organically. [Think Potomac Primary or the Great Lakes or Yankee Primaries in 1996.]

One final thing that received quite a lot of discussion was the idea of opening the pre-window period to a bidding process for those four slots. A similar proposal system was used by the Levin Commission in 2006 before it added Nevada and South Carolina to the Democratic pre-window period for 2008. But RBC member, Michael Steed, proposed opening all four slots (including Iowa's and New Hampshire's) up for 2012. This received some support in the room, but was shot down by RBC member, Jeff Berman, who said it was too late in the process for that (especially if a set of rules was going to be in place for the full DNC to consider and vote on in August). The proposal process was already well underway at this point in the cycle before 2008. Another talking point concerned just adding an additional slot or two in the pre-window period. This, too, was denied, but an amendment was added to the rule that this be considered for 2016. That was passed while the rest of the timing issue was tabled for the July meeting.

At this point, the calendar will is very likely to be adopted by the full DNC, but the questions of clustering and enforcement still remain in shadowy territory. There are no clear answers for either.

Parting Shots

The theme of this meeting was the balance between crafting a set of delegate selection rules that rectifies some of the issues raised by the Democrats' 2008 primary race and reelecting the president. To some members of the RBC those two were countervailing forces. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument that RBC member Alice Germond made is a tough one to counter. Indeed. Why mess with a formula that worked? Upon further reflection, FHQ is not terribly sympathetic to that line of thought. Now, we don't have a dog in this fight. Reform or not, this site will have an eye to the 2012 rules regardless. However, this argument seems like a veiled attempt to maintain the status quo. After all, how much of the election results in November 2008 were attributable to what happened in the winter and early spring? A Democrat would have won in November regardless, whether it was Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. [Well, Edwards would have been in some hot water in August 2008 with the Rielle Hunter ordeal if he was the presumptive nominee at that point.] At the margins, the competitive races in Indiana and North Carolina may have helped lay the groundwork for Obama and the Democrats successfully turning those long-standing red states blue. But those 26 electoral votes would not have been decisive. They were luxuries that a severely toxic 2008 Republican brand afforded the Obama campaign and the Democrats trying to elect the president.

That said, here are a few things to note. The status quo with some minor changes is probably what both the Democrats and Republicans will produce for this upcoming cycle. There were some problems with the rules in 2008, but that was mostly a function of a close Democratic race. In the post-reform era, that has been more an anomaly rather than commonplace. The best argument for the status quo is not that it worked in 2008 or any other year, but rather that wholesale changes to the system could lead to unintended consequences. For example, no one in the Democratic Party in 1984 could have imagined the potential impact superdelegates -- new in 1984 -- would/could have had in the 2008 process. [This was a point that was raised by someone on the RBC at the meeting this weekend.]

Now, some of the points outlined above regarding the status quo may be moot. It may not matter and here's why: The head of the Democratic Party may want to make the Democratic Change Commission's recommendations a reality. Changes to the rules are not likely to affect the president's chances at renomination. The likelihood of him being challenged for the Democratic Party nod is as close to nil as it gets at the moment. So, why not push these recommendations through? The DNC probably won't balk at the president if this is what he wants. But is that what the president wants? That's the $64 question; the one that is likely to determine the extent to which the Rules and Bylaws Committee goes along with the Change Commission's recommendations.

But we'll have to wait until the July meeting for that answer.

[For more, please go over to DemRulz and read Frank Leone's write up of the events from the weekend as well. He offers a different perspective; both legal and from within the DNC.]

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

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 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 Paths of Presidential Primary Frontloading

[Click to Enlarge]

At various points during the tenure of this site, FHQ has referred to the process that is the frontloading of presidential primaries. [As the site is called Frontloading HQ, we should probably do more of that. But I digress...] To this point, though, the piecing together of that process has been left to reader. I thought it might be helpful to take a step back and discuss this at a time in the presidential election cycle when frontloading is dormant until at least early 2010 (if not 2011) and the talk of the field of Republican candidates is still a low whisper (unless Sarah Palin is the topic of conversation).

The basic theory of frontloading, as I'm laying it out, is based on a twofold approach. Frontloading decision-makers, whether they are state governments, governors, secretaries of state or state parties, are faced with varying levels of obstacles from state to state that affects both a state's willingness and ability to move its delegate selection contest. But while there are obstacles to frontloading, there are also benefits to the moves or else the presidential primary calendars from 1972 to 2008 would have remained static. In this cost/benefit analysis, the costs disproportionately affect a state's ability to move while a state's willingness to shift to an earlier date is influenced by both the costs and the benefits of the frontloading move.

Now, I should note that much of this is predicated on the idea of a rational-acting decision maker. Faced with costs that outweigh benefits, a state's decision maker will opt to stay put. Conversely, states with more benefits relative to costs, are more likely to move, all things held constant. That said, the goal here is to look at the behavior of these various political actors over the course of the last nearly four decades and generalize. Certainly there are instances where, say, Zell Miller and Bill Clinton were good friends from their days in the Democratic Governors Association and that relationship got the ball rolling on Georgia's move -- one advantageous to Clinton after New Hampshire -- to the first week in March in 1992. However, the point is to construct a theory here that can help us to set a certain level of expectation concerning why some states move and others decide not to.

Let's start by taking a walk through the flowchart that led the post. It captures the topmost layer that best evidences the obstacles to frontloading. First off, the national parties, as they are doing now with the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee and the Democratic Change Commission, set the rules of the presidential nomination process from cycle to cycle. That includes rules covering the timing of delegate selection events. Those rules are then filtered through the state party level, where the decisions are made regarding how (and more importantly for our purposes, when) delegates will be chosen in a given state. Those decisions are then submitted to the national party for approval (...at least on the Democratic side. There is a bit more leeway granted states within the Republican process.).

At the outset of the the McGovern-Fraser era, the easiest way for states to check off the guidelines set forth was to hold a primary election concurrently with those primaries for state and local offices. That did two things: First, it brought state governments into the process and then, once presidential primaries proliferated, institutionalized their presence in the process. But that presence in the process is not uniform across all states. State parties have an easier decision to make if the state is footing the bill for the primary election, but at the same time are potentially hamstrung by where the state government holds its primary or moves its primary to on the calendar.

This effectively sets up a barrier between primary states and caucus (and party-run primary) states. Sure, state parties can opt to hold a caucus or primary on its own, but most take advantage of the state's elections infrastructure. That's why that path -- from state party to state legislature to governor to primary move -- is highlighted in gray; that is the road most traveled in terms of presidential delegate selection contest movement. It is the most traveled, yet most obstacle-laden path simultaneously. Obviously, if a state party prefers a caucus or party-run primary to a state-funded affair, it has the ability to move the contest wherever it pleases. The institutional roadblocks are minimized. The same is true for states where either the governor (Arizona and New Mexico) or secretary of state (New Hampshire) has the ability to single-handedly make the frontloading decision. Again, the roadblocks are minimized.

But in the case of the state government making the decision, the road is far bumpier. State governments have to be concerned with divided government (inter-chamber or inter-branch), whether and if the state's presidential primary is separate from its primaries for state and local office, and where the primary was in the previous cycle. All those structural factors separate the states that can move and those that can't or won't move.

If you'd like to read a more in-depth treatment of this, I have a paper [pdf] I presented at the Western Political Science Association's meeting last year. However, the data only goes through the 1996 cycle. Soon, I'll be able to update those numbers for you through 2008.

...if you're interested (and probably even if you're not).


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/14/09)

A 2012 Obama v. Palin Poll in North Carolina?

A Woefully, nay, Dreadfully Tardy Update of the 2012 Presidential Trial Heats

On the Agenda at the Democratic Change Commission Meeting

According to First Read...

*** Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’: Missing those daily superdelegate counts? The speculation about when states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan would hold their primaries/caucuses? Come on, admit it -- you miss it. Well, if you are, you can head over Saturday morning to the first meeting of the DNC’s Democratic Change Commission, which has been tasked with reforming 1) the primary calendar, 2) the number of superdelegates, and 3) the caucus system. Presiding over the meeting will be DNC chair Tim Kaine and commission co-chairs Jim Clyburn and Claire McCaskill, and there isn’t supposed to be any big news. The 37-member commission will listen to a presentation of Democratic Party presidential nominations by Rhodes Cook; a look at the superdelegates by Elaine Kamarck; and an examination of the caucus system by Organizing for America’s Mitch Stewart. This is all in the fact-gathering stage, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that this DNC would dramatically change a system that helped launch the president's campaign? Iowa and South Carolina are VERY safe. As for the superdelegate system, well that’s another story…

As I said earlier in the week, no decisions are going to be made tomorrow, but it is quite another thing to see how much listening the group will be doing tomorrow. That probably isn't the kind of action most people want. My hope? That the DNC posts the presentations as part of their coverage.

UPDATE: Oh, and C-SPAN's TV schedule is full in the morning tomorrow (when the meeting is going on), but C-SPAN2 still has some holes to fill. The former does have some spots in the afternoon to run a rebroadcast if they get some cameras out there.


Recent Posts:
GOP Governors in the White House?

The Answer is Yes

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/25/09)

How Not to Emerge as a GOP Darkhorse, Part II

What is going on with the prospective GOP presidential nominees for 2012? First Jon Huntsman joins a Democratic administration, then John Ensign (was blackmailed?) admitted to an extramarital affair and now Mark Sanford has apparently taken a tour of Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. And this doesn't even take into account all of Sarah Palin's "issues" since the Alaska governor burst on the scene last September.

Who is responsible for this? Other Republicans vying for the 2012 nod? [I knew that Mitt Romney had a suspicious look about him.] The Obama administration trying to "hand-pick" a GOP patsy? [Chicago politics at its finest.] Lee Harvey Oswald? [From the grave. Take that Warren Commission.] I don't know. What I do know is that I spend my life looking for patterns like these and one has definitely surfaced here. Lightning striking the same place three times is not a coincidence.

...not anymore.

One thing's for sure: If you're thinking about a run for the GOP nomination in 2012, keep that thought to yourself until this thing blows over.

Oh, this just in from New York. Residents of the Empire State are blaming David Paterson for this rash of GOP troubles. Poor Paterson.


Recent Posts:
Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

One question: What's worse for a prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate?

• Taking an ambassadorial position with the Obama administration.
• Admitting to having had an extramarital affair.
  

My hunch is that neither plays terribly well with primary voters on the right. We may be able to mark John Ensign off the list of those in consideration for inclusion on FHQ's candidate emergence tracker in the same way Jon Huntsman was recently removed.


Recent Posts:
A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition

The results are coming in for the Democratic gubernatorial primary (and have been for well over an hour now). Just like last week, Jack was at the ready to provide us with a link to the results online.

Thus far, Creigh Deeds is doing his best to outdo even the best of the recent polling forecasts. Did I really say he'd underperform those numbers? Nah, that couldn't have been me. Oh.

June 11, 12:36pm: The final unofficial numbers are in:
Deeds finished up with just under half the total vote cast in Tuesday's primary. The state senator and Democratic gubernatorial candidate was 729 votes shy of that 50% mark.

10:42pm: Deeds' surge extended beyond votes. Google searches of the three candidates over the last thirty days are indicative; not to the level of recent polling or of the vote tonight, but indicative of Deeds supplanting McAuliffe as frontrunner in the race for the nomination.


10:16pm: While we await the results from the final five precincts, Christian Heinze over at GOP12 has some 2012 implications for us to ponder based on who is likely to be a McDonnell supporter:

"From a 2012 perspective, you can expect even more 2012 candidates to fundraise and stump for McDonnell, as they advance their message by advancing McDonnell's."

...and...

"It's been said many times, but only because it's true -- the 2009 race has big 2012 implications."

9:53pm: Parts of Isle of Wight County and Suffolk City in the 4th, parts of Mecklenburg in the 5th, one precinct in Alleghany County in the 6th and another portion of Alleghany County in the 9th are all still out at this point. Looking at the votes in already in those areas, it likely won't be enough to push Deeds over the 50% barrier.


9:38pm: Just eight precincts remain to be incorporated into the final unofficial tally, but we should note that of the 11 Virginia congressional districts, Deeds won 10. Terry McAuliffe won the 3rd (Richmond and Norfolk) by less than 1000 votes out of over 37,000 cast.

Deeds has been able to win everywhere in this primary, but can that success be extended statewide in the general? This is not a bad way to start. He may have done well enough to make his victory -- and not McAuliffe's polling collapse -- the story coming out of tonight. That won't hurt as the general election campaign begins.

9:34pm: Deeds is up to 49.79% with almost all precincts in. Whether the new Democratic nominee breaks 50% + 1 vote may be the most exciting counting of the night in this race. And no, that's not a good thing for McAuliffe or Moran.


9:24pm: Deeds' percentage was slowly declining toward 49%, but it has climbed back up to 49.49% with nearly 99% reporting. Will he get that majority? Like the 60 seats in the Senate, it won't matter much since the result is so decisive.


9:19pm: Nate Silver's got McDonnell or Deeds in the thick of 2012 and 2016 VP buzz given Virginia's new status as a swing state (see comment at 8:37pm on 538.). Who does that three or seven years in advance? Oh, I see.

9:11pm: Nevermind. Huckabee's got a new goal for McDonnell now that the Republican gubernatorial candidate cleared 5000 Facebook supporters. "...lets start new goal 10,000 by Friday at midnight."

9:10pm: On a related note, Mike Huckabee tweets: "Please help @bobmcdonnell reach 5,000 fans on FB by midnight..." Another sign of the changing dynamics of political campaigns.

9:06pm: Google Blast? Times, they are a-changin' on the campaign front.

...in case you didn't know.

And remember folks, the 2009 uses of this web ad-buying technique are just test runs for 2010 and 2012. Just think of where things can go in just three more years.

9:02pm: Deeds is not only going to win, but he'll approach a 50% majority in a three candidate race. And with nearly 95% of precincts in, turnout might just hit 6%.



8:55pm: A few thoughts on the upcoming campaign from a comment earlier in the day:

"McDonnell has won statewide and is popular, but that win was by .01% or 323 votes. Let's say McDonnell's popularity gives him, what, a 5?, 10? point boost relative to that 2005 outcome. To what extent is that offset by the growth in registration between 2005 (4.4 million) and 2008 (4.9 million)? My guess is that that growth is more Democratic than it is Republican.

"But that brings us back to the turnout question. Turnout was nearly 45% in 2005 and I'd guess that it would meet or surpass that level this year given the stakes."

8:52pm: Well, perhaps I should have checked the newswire before I started. It may have saved me some typing. Deeds wins. Now we have a rematch of the 2005 attorney general race for November.

8:46pm: This pretty much says it all. Chris Cillizza of The Fix fame cited Fairfax County and Norfolk City as areas to watch as the results rolled in this evening. African American voters in Norfolk were crucial to McAuliffe's chances. Deeds is beating the former DNC chair there. In Fairfax, the populous Northern Virginia hotbed for Democrats, Moran was supposed to minimize Deeds advantage in order for McAuliffe to have chance. The result? Deeds again is prevailing with a portion of the vote closely mirroring his share statewide.

8:41pm: Deeds' home county, Bath County had 830 votes cast (nearly a quarter of all voters in the county). The final tally there? Deeds: 800, McAuliffe: 25, Moran: 5. That isn't a lot of votes, but percentage-wise, that's a home court advantage.

8:32pm: Well, at least turnout broke that 5% barrier.

...but not by much. Hey, there are still 15% of precincts yet to call their results in. We could see 6% turnout. Of course, FHQ should note that without party registration in the commonwealth, Virginia calculates turnout based on the total number of registered voters. Still, that's not a number you'd like to see in any election; democratic or otherwise.



8:20pm: With over 75% of precincts reporting, Deeds is up by a healthy margin. And that may be understating matters.




Recent Posts:
Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

Virginia is for Voters

The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.

Virginia is for Voters

Virginia Democrats today will head to the polls to determine who will represent the party in the commonwealth's gubernatorial election against Republican, Bob McDonnell. Of the two gubernatorial races being held in 2009, Virginia's has been the more interesting one thus far, if only because of who is participating. New Jersey offers a vulnerable incumbent lagging in the polls, but open seat races, like the one in Virginia, bring the potential for dynamic, contested primary elections on both sides. Sure, McDonnell has been the de facto (or actual) GOP candidate for a while now, but the Democrats have former DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe in the race. Not only that, but he appears to have peaked too early, dropping precipitously in the polls during the last couple of weeks. The momentum for the moment rests with state senator, Creigh Deeds, who has matched McAuliffe's fall with a nearly identical rise of late.

The big question heading into today's vote is what turnout will look like and how the variation there could affect the outcome.

Over at FiveThirtyEight, Ed Kilgore has a nice early voting counterfactual for the McAuliffe and Moran campaigns to ponder should they face the reality of calling either Deeds or each other to offer their concession and congratulations.

Update: CQ also has a nice round-up of the race this morning.

Polls close at 7pm tonight.


Recent Posts:
The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.

Past is Prologue? The New Jersey Governor's Race

No Move is Good Move: Texas Won't Change 2012 Primary Dates in 2009