Arizona senator John McCain may lay claim to being the Republican party's presumptive nominee, but efforts to shape the party behind the scenes during this presidential election year continue. While the much of the talk has centered around McCain uniting the various segments of the party behind him as the Democrats continue to wage a battle for their nomination, stories of dissension among the ranks continue to surface (and get lost in the headlines about bowling and sniper fire and "bitter" comments). Much of the dissension has been driven by Ron Paul (or at least by his supporters). And even though the Texas congressman scaled back his presidential efforts in the lead up to his early March congressional seat primary, those supporters have carried on, influencing the nomination system by alternate means.
What's on the table? Though Paul has admitted that winning the nomination isn't going to happen (see above link and a more recent reminder following the Texas primary), message boards devoted to the candidate's presidential run and the libertarian ideas he backs are littered with how to guides on how Paul can still become the nominee. Whether that is the unifying cry from these members of the Ron Paul Revolution though, is beside the point. That goal may never be realized but the byproduct of those efforts may influence to some extent who the delegates to September's convention are and the direction of state and national party platforms. And both may cause headaches for John McCain at a convention that is supposed to be all about him and his run for the White House.
It was easy early on to dismiss these stories as rabble rousing, but more and more evidence of these sorts of efforts has emerged to indicate that it is more than simply coincidence. The big questions then are, where are Paul supporters making inroads and in what ways? Much of this can be viewed through the lens of which type of delegate selection event a state uses, primary or caucus. As has been demonstrated in this space over the last few weeks (see posts on The Caucus Question here, here and here), caucuses offer an opportunity for a bit more delegate tweaking. This has been discussed in the context of the race for the Democratic nomination, but Ron Paul (or at least his supporters) has taken advantage of the caucuses as well. In Minnesota, Nevada and Washington (all caucus states) Paul has parlayed his initial showings into various levels of success.
In Minnesota, Paul supporters overran the congressional district caucuses during the first weekend in April and managed to win six of the twelve national convention delegates at stake during that phase of the process.
After placing a distant second in the Nevada caucuses in January, Paul stands a good chance of sending some delegates to the national convention from the Silver state after the next step, the state convention on April 26. He will be speaking at that convention as well. There's no better way to drum up some extra support than by making an appearance. It will be interesting to see if John McCain, who finished third behind Paul in the state, will show up to speak as well. There are an awful lot of Romney delegates available since the former Massachusetts governor secured a victory with over 51% of the vote.
Following a solid showing during the Washington caucuses in early February (Paul was third in a four candidate cluster with each winning between 15 and 26%), Paul supporters have pushed some Paul delegates through to the state convention. There is evidence of this out of Jefferson County and plenty of other anecdotal, yet unconfirmed, incidents of this in other parts of Washington as well.*
In primary states, the rules are much more clear cut and there obviously aren't as many steps in the process. People vote and the the outcome directly affects the number of delegates allocated to the winning candidate or candidates. The route Paul supporters have gone in several primary states has been to operate through the state party apparatus to influence delegate selection rules and state party platforms. The process then, to elect delegates to the state conventions in some primary states have seen increased participation from Ron Paul supporters. Again, this has no direct bearing on the national convention delegates allocated in the primary, but a Paul presence could affect those allocation rules and the platform planks decided upon in the state party platform.
In Florida, this has meant that some Paul backers have been blocked in their efforts to become precinct captains and to make it on to the Republican Executive Committee in the Sunshine state. The objective of Paul supporters is clear: to influence the Republican party's agenda in the state.
Paul supporters in Missouri found more success, hijacking several county caucuses in the Show-Me state. In Jackson County (in the Kansas City area) there was enough Paul support to send over 175 delegates to the next level of the caucus process. Those 175 will have some influence over the 55 delegates the state will send to the GOP convention and over the platform that emerges from the state convention.
The situation was similar in Oklahoma, where only one of the state's five congressional district conventions failed to send at least one Paul supporter on to the state convention next month. And while the rules require delegates to vote for the primary's victorious candidate, there is some indication that the Paul backers at the convention will attempt to change those rules in order to send some of their own to the national convention.
Paul's home state of Texas also saw action to push the Paul agenda onto the national party's radar. In both Travis and Tarrant Counties, Paul's supporters were able win or draw in senate districts in both counties.
In isolation these events don't seem to make that much of a difference in the race for the Republican nomination. Together however, they add up to a potential problem for McCain and the national party at their September convention in St. Paul, MN. The more Paul delegates that make it through to state and national conventions, the more Paul's agenda will be discussed. And what that translates into is a battle over the platform and potential ideological fissure within the GOP. So while all the talk has been about division within the Democratic party, something appears to be brewing on the Republican side as well. And the division here isn't over who is best able to answer and deal with a 3am phone call, it is division that gets to the heart of some basic Republican principles. The heights this grows to though depends in large measure on how many Paul delegates can make it through the process. Thus far, it has been more than one might expect given recent coverage of the race for the White House.
*There is an awful lot of material online to support such events happening across Washington as well as in other parts of the country. My rule on this is to only proceed with information that has been verified by, at least, a local news outlet. If it has been mentioned on any of the various Ron Paul Forums, and only there, such events were excluded. There is talk that similar sorts of activities have taken place in Alaska, Colorado and Louisiana as well. Most of the sources there are Ron Paul-related sources though.
[Thanks to campaign discussion group participant and UGA grad student, Patrick Rhamey, for planting this idea in my head.]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Clark County (NV) Re-Vote & The Caucus Question Revisited
[Well, it is more a do-over than a re-vote, but I'll stick with the descriptor I used on Friday.] After an inundation of alternate delegates postponed the initial attempt to hold a second step caucus on February 23, Clark County (Las Vegas) Democrats were finally able to gather to vote on and send delegates to the state convention next month. And while there were Obama gains from the precinct level to the county level, they were not as strong as the gains he enjoyed in a similar situation in Texas late last month. Unlike in Texas however, he finished second to Clinton (at least in Clark County), but made up ground in the race for national convention delegates coming out of the state.
Following Saturday's caucus in Las Vegas, Clinton dropped slightly from 55% of precinct delegates in the area to 54% of the county's delegates to the state convention. Oppositely, Obama managed to increase his support from 44% in Clark County in the initial caucuses to 46% in this latest round. Keep in mind though, that these delegates are not pledged (per se) to either candidate, which means that the battle by both campaigns for every delegate will continue in Nevada until those numbers are solidified by the state convention in mid-May.
During this cycle caucuses have come under more scrutiny because of the closeness of the race, and it has been the variations in the rules of all these caucuses that has driven most of the conversation. One distinction to be made is the number of steps in the process. There have been 14 caucuses (counting Texas but not those in the territories) and nine have multiple steps while the other five go from the initial caucus step to the state convention (only two steps). It could be hypothesized then that the greater the number of steps in the caucus process, the greater the chance would be for a candidate's support (in the aggregate) across a state to shift in some way.
Among the group of multiple step caucuses (CO, IA, KS, MN, NE, NV, ND, TX and WA), Iowa was the most likely to see some movement in the support levels of the candidates from one step to the next. More candidates were involved in that initial step who subsequently withdrew from the race. Both Clinton and Obama should have gained at the county convention levels. And both did...depending on who you ask (MSNBC or Politico's Ben Smith). Obama jumped from 37% support in the first step to either 51% or 56% on the county level. Clinton gained also, but only modestly; going from 29% support in the January 3 caucuses to either 31% or 36% support in the 99 Democratic county conventions. And there's still some wiggle room for both to tweak their numbers in the state convention because John Edwards maintains a small amount of support even after the county convention phase.
There has also been some delegate shift in Texas and Colorado. Including Nevada, that makes four of the eight multiple step states that have seen some changes from one phase to the next. Two others, Kansas and North Dakota, did not have any changes since the first step predetermined the outcome of the second step. That leaves Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington. Minnesota's Democratic Farm-Labor party allotted the month after the state's February 5 caucuses for "county unit" contests to elect delegates to the congressional district conventions to be held any time starting this coming Saturday (April 19) but before the beginning part of June (source: TheGreenPapers.com). Results then come in at a staggered pace. The results out of Washington will be similarly staggered. The Democratic party there runs a convoluted system of events that is dependent upon whether a county is completely within a legislative district, split between districts or is split into several legislative districts (Seattle area). Nebraska will not hold its second step until next month.
Of the two step states, none have held their state conventions. Only North Dakota among the caucus states has held its state convention.
Moving forward then, Iowa, with its contingent of Edwards delegates is the most likely to see any significant shift in national convention delegate numbers between now and the end of the delegate selection process in June. Nevada though is a close second because the delegates to the state convention are not pledged to any one candidate.
The movement continues to be toward Obama, which isn't helping Clinton close the gap in the number of delegates (or make a case to superdelegates to align behind her).
Following Saturday's caucus in Las Vegas, Clinton dropped slightly from 55% of precinct delegates in the area to 54% of the county's delegates to the state convention. Oppositely, Obama managed to increase his support from 44% in Clark County in the initial caucuses to 46% in this latest round. Keep in mind though, that these delegates are not pledged (per se) to either candidate, which means that the battle by both campaigns for every delegate will continue in Nevada until those numbers are solidified by the state convention in mid-May.
During this cycle caucuses have come under more scrutiny because of the closeness of the race, and it has been the variations in the rules of all these caucuses that has driven most of the conversation. One distinction to be made is the number of steps in the process. There have been 14 caucuses (counting Texas but not those in the territories) and nine have multiple steps while the other five go from the initial caucus step to the state convention (only two steps). It could be hypothesized then that the greater the number of steps in the caucus process, the greater the chance would be for a candidate's support (in the aggregate) across a state to shift in some way.
Among the group of multiple step caucuses (CO, IA, KS, MN, NE, NV, ND, TX and WA), Iowa was the most likely to see some movement in the support levels of the candidates from one step to the next. More candidates were involved in that initial step who subsequently withdrew from the race. Both Clinton and Obama should have gained at the county convention levels. And both did...depending on who you ask (MSNBC or Politico's Ben Smith). Obama jumped from 37% support in the first step to either 51% or 56% on the county level. Clinton gained also, but only modestly; going from 29% support in the January 3 caucuses to either 31% or 36% support in the 99 Democratic county conventions. And there's still some wiggle room for both to tweak their numbers in the state convention because John Edwards maintains a small amount of support even after the county convention phase.
There has also been some delegate shift in Texas and Colorado. Including Nevada, that makes four of the eight multiple step states that have seen some changes from one phase to the next. Two others, Kansas and North Dakota, did not have any changes since the first step predetermined the outcome of the second step. That leaves Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington. Minnesota's Democratic Farm-Labor party allotted the month after the state's February 5 caucuses for "county unit" contests to elect delegates to the congressional district conventions to be held any time starting this coming Saturday (April 19) but before the beginning part of June (source: TheGreenPapers.com). Results then come in at a staggered pace. The results out of Washington will be similarly staggered. The Democratic party there runs a convoluted system of events that is dependent upon whether a county is completely within a legislative district, split between districts or is split into several legislative districts (Seattle area). Nebraska will not hold its second step until next month.
Of the two step states, none have held their state conventions. Only North Dakota among the caucus states has held its state convention.
Moving forward then, Iowa, with its contingent of Edwards delegates is the most likely to see any significant shift in national convention delegate numbers between now and the end of the delegate selection process in June. Nevada though is a close second because the delegates to the state convention are not pledged to any one candidate.
The movement continues to be toward Obama, which isn't helping Clinton close the gap in the number of delegates (or make a case to superdelegates to align behind her).
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Re-Vote Idea is Still Alive
No, not in Florida or Michigan. [But I got your attention, didn't I?] Nevada, however, has had a hold-up in the second step in its three-tiered caucus process. The county convention phase (February 23) on the Democratic side following the Silver state's January 19 caucuses went off without a hitch in 15 of the state's 16 counties. That one county though, is Clark County, home to Las Vegas and a majority of Nevada's Democratic delegates to the state convention. So while Obama has taken 512 of the 900 delegates at stake in those 15 counties, the results from Clark County hold the key to which candidate will gain the most delegates to next month's Democratic state convention.
What went wrong on February 23 in Las Vegas? Yes, there were crowds of delegates, but the extra 13,000 to 18,000 people beyond the seven thousand delegates that were to attend the county convention were primarily folks who were prospective alternate delegates. Those alternates are out for Saturday's do over, so the rush of people heading into the Thomas and Mack Center (home to UNLV Runnin' Rebel basketball) should decrease. Should being the operative word there.
The issue that arises out of this though (ah, unintended consequences), is that Clark County is voting seven weeks after the other 15 counties. Well, what does that matter? These delegates from the precinct caucuses are pledged, right? No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. Delegates from Clark County have the benefit of having more (negative) information on both Clinton and Obama than their counterparts in the other counties had. Both the Wright and Bosnia revelations appeared after February 23. Does that cause a shift? Who knows? But what we do know is that those delegates not being pledged adds another layer to the caucus question that has been a topic here since mid-March (or here for a discussion of the caucus question as it applied to the second step in Texas). Will one candidate gain delegate support on the other in these subsequent steps? Obama has gained in proportion to his statewide numbers in the non-Clark counties, but he won nine of those 15 counties anyway. Clinton took Clark by ten points (with Edwards only winning two percent) and that is the line to keep our eye on coming out of Saturday's contest. Can Obama emerge from the do over Saturday with a smaller gap (less than ten) in the percentage of Clark delegates than after the precinct caucuses?
The stakes are high in Nevada on Saturday, and as such, it is interesting that this story has not received any more attention than it has on the national level. Sure, Pennsylvania is coming up and that is perceived to be a big swing state in the general election (That has been echoed in the state head-to-head polls.), but Nevada is shaping up to be similarly competitive in the fall as well. And in a close contest, every delega...uh, electoral vote counts.
[Big thanks to Paul Gurian for the heads up on the information and the CQ article.]
What went wrong on February 23 in Las Vegas? Yes, there were crowds of delegates, but the extra 13,000 to 18,000 people beyond the seven thousand delegates that were to attend the county convention were primarily folks who were prospective alternate delegates. Those alternates are out for Saturday's do over, so the rush of people heading into the Thomas and Mack Center (home to UNLV Runnin' Rebel basketball) should decrease. Should being the operative word there.
The issue that arises out of this though (ah, unintended consequences), is that Clark County is voting seven weeks after the other 15 counties. Well, what does that matter? These delegates from the precinct caucuses are pledged, right? No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. Delegates from Clark County have the benefit of having more (negative) information on both Clinton and Obama than their counterparts in the other counties had. Both the Wright and Bosnia revelations appeared after February 23. Does that cause a shift? Who knows? But what we do know is that those delegates not being pledged adds another layer to the caucus question that has been a topic here since mid-March (or here for a discussion of the caucus question as it applied to the second step in Texas). Will one candidate gain delegate support on the other in these subsequent steps? Obama has gained in proportion to his statewide numbers in the non-Clark counties, but he won nine of those 15 counties anyway. Clinton took Clark by ten points (with Edwards only winning two percent) and that is the line to keep our eye on coming out of Saturday's contest. Can Obama emerge from the do over Saturday with a smaller gap (less than ten) in the percentage of Clark delegates than after the precinct caucuses?
The stakes are high in Nevada on Saturday, and as such, it is interesting that this story has not received any more attention than it has on the national level. Sure, Pennsylvania is coming up and that is perceived to be a big swing state in the general election (That has been echoed in the state head-to-head polls.), but Nevada is shaping up to be similarly competitive in the fall as well. And in a close contest, every delega...uh, electoral vote counts.
[Big thanks to Paul Gurian for the heads up on the information and the CQ article.]
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Electoral College Maps (4/9/08)
The past week has seen only moderate changes to the way both the electoral college maps and the companion "McCain margin*" maps for Clinton and Obama look (Links to all past maps are at the bottom of the post.). New polls in Alabama, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Tennessee did little to move the dial in either candidate's head-to-head match up with John McCain. In fact, for the third week running the electoral college numbers have come out exactly the same in the hypothetical McCain-Clinton race. The Arizona senator still leads the former first lady by a margin of 314-224 with 140 possible toss up electoral votes.
The McCain-Obama pairing has a similar result with one exception. The new polling in Pennsylvania had the effect of breaking the tie in the state between the presumptive Republican nominee and the junior senator from Illinois. With only three electoral votes separating the two last week, Pennsylvania proved decisive. The new polls and the resulting average have swung to McCain, giving him a 278-260 victory in the electoral college with 165 toss up electoral votes. While the McCain-Clinton margin has held steady over these three weeks, the Obama victory in the first map series shifted to a virtual tie and now, in the third week, to a McCain win. It will be interesting as new polling data emerges to see if the downward Obama trend continues and if Clinton lags that much further behind. The electoral vote McCain margin between the two candidates has obviously closed some as well; moving from a 98 electoral vote advantage for Obama in week one to a 72 electoral vote advantage this week.
How have the new polls changed the difference each candidate makes in each state (their McCain margin)? Very little change in the above data directly translates into small changes here as well. Clinton stretched her margin in Tennessee relative to Obama, but both candidates continue to lag behind McCain in the Volunteer state.
Iowa continues to produce an interesting McCain margin in favor of Obama. The Hawkeye state is an Obama lean (nearly pushing into the Strong Obama category) while Clinton lost ground to McCain in the state in this week's new polls (moving from McCain lean to Strong McCain). In a state that was one of the few to switch parties from 2000 to 2004, this is a unique example in these analyses and continues to be a state where Obama's appearance on the ballot as the Democratic nominee is consequential.
*McCain margin refers to the difference between Obama's state-to-state margins against McCain and Clinton's margins against McCain.
Past maps:
Electoral College Map (3/27/08)
Electoral College Maps (4/2/08)
McCain margin maps--How much difference does Obama or Clinton make (4/3/08)
And an Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 5/7/08
Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)
Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)
New Maps? (5/25/08)
Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)
Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)
The McCain-Obama pairing has a similar result with one exception. The new polling in Pennsylvania had the effect of breaking the tie in the state between the presumptive Republican nominee and the junior senator from Illinois. With only three electoral votes separating the two last week, Pennsylvania proved decisive. The new polls and the resulting average have swung to McCain, giving him a 278-260 victory in the electoral college with 165 toss up electoral votes. While the McCain-Clinton margin has held steady over these three weeks, the Obama victory in the first map series shifted to a virtual tie and now, in the third week, to a McCain win. It will be interesting as new polling data emerges to see if the downward Obama trend continues and if Clinton lags that much further behind. The electoral vote McCain margin between the two candidates has obviously closed some as well; moving from a 98 electoral vote advantage for Obama in week one to a 72 electoral vote advantage this week.
How have the new polls changed the difference each candidate makes in each state (their McCain margin)? Very little change in the above data directly translates into small changes here as well. Clinton stretched her margin in Tennessee relative to Obama, but both candidates continue to lag behind McCain in the Volunteer state.
Iowa continues to produce an interesting McCain margin in favor of Obama. The Hawkeye state is an Obama lean (nearly pushing into the Strong Obama category) while Clinton lost ground to McCain in the state in this week's new polls (moving from McCain lean to Strong McCain). In a state that was one of the few to switch parties from 2000 to 2004, this is a unique example in these analyses and continues to be a state where Obama's appearance on the ballot as the Democratic nominee is consequential.
*McCain margin refers to the difference between Obama's state-to-state margins against McCain and Clinton's margins against McCain.Past maps:
Electoral College Map (3/27/08)
Electoral College Maps (4/2/08)
McCain margin maps--How much difference does Obama or Clinton make (4/3/08)
And an Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 5/7/08
Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)
Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)
New Maps? (5/25/08)
Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)
Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
What if the General Election was Run like the Primary System?
Yesterday's post on the GOP's presidential nomination reform plan and the possibility of a national primary triggered an interesting discussion (between readers Rob and Bill) and question. Rob decried the pitfalls of a national primary and so doing indirectly pointed out how the primary system in the post-reform era has conditioned the American electorate. The first two experiences following the McGovern-Fraser reforms (1972 and 1976)) witnessed two "long shots" win the Democratic nomination. The result has been that some within the electorate think of this system in terms of its ability to nurture competition and allow for seemingly unknown (yet potentially well-qualified) candidates emerge to vie for the nation's highest office. As the primary system has become more frontloaded, that conception has been threatened. The compression of the calendar, the conventional wisdom holds, creates an easier road to the nomination (Unless you consider 2008. But that's something completely different.).
Something about Rob's rejection of the national primary elicited a dig of sorts from Bill who questioned (in so many words) that if the a national primary is so bad, how come it works in November every four years? And that raises a tangential and counterfactual question: What if the general election was conducted in the same way that primaries have been conducted in the post-reform era? How would that potentially affected the outcome of those general elections? Let's assume then, that states can hold their presidential elections anywhere from the Tuesday after Labor Day to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And let's go just one step beyond that to assume that states have yet to frontload their contests to the earliest possible point (Tuesday after Labor Day)--the motivation to do so would be the same in that context as it has been in primary elections from 1972 onward. While we're assuming, we have to also assume that the Constitution provided no guidelines on how this process was to be conducted (though we'll leave the electoral college in place). Just for the fun of it, let's use the primary calendar of 1980 as a guide. There was a fairly even dispersion of contests through the March to June window that year.
What is the result? Well, which state goes first is huge. Does that state lean one way or the other along the partisan spectrum? Is their an incumbent involved? Interestingly, Iowa and New Hampshire have been competitive in the last two general elections, so they are ideal (in some ways) first states in this scenario. A state that is solidly red or solidly blue is more likely to be discounted by one candidate, but a state that is evenly divided between the parties becomes an interesting battleground, especially for a candidate challenging an incumbent. Winning or posting a close finish would be a boon to a challenger heading into subsequent states (And simply winning a "state you're suppose to win" would even be beneficial to a challenger as well; more so than it would be to an incumbent.). Winning early then, for a challenger, is important in swing states. Voters in those states who might ordinarily opt for the incumbent (or the status quo) when they are undecided, may be more apt to consider a challenger if that candidate has done well early. Such a system would allow a challenger to potentially cast doubt on an incumbent's ability to win with early victories.
The big question is, how all of this could have affected the outcomes of past races? The closer elections are the ones most likely to see a shift (at least in who the winner was). More comfortable victories or landslides may have seen some states change at the margins but without affecting the outcome (Remember we still have the electoral college here and those electors end up serving essentially the same purpose as delegates to national conventions in this sort of system.). So Mondale or McGovern could potentially have been able to win more than one state each or Gore could have bested Bush (He certainly would have focused more resources on Tennessee.).
How else would having the primary system in place for the general election have affected things? What say you, loyal readers of FHQ? This is a fun one for discussion.
I'll be back late tomorrow with a new set of electoral college maps accounting for the new polls that have come out this week.
Something about Rob's rejection of the national primary elicited a dig of sorts from Bill who questioned (in so many words) that if the a national primary is so bad, how come it works in November every four years? And that raises a tangential and counterfactual question: What if the general election was conducted in the same way that primaries have been conducted in the post-reform era? How would that potentially affected the outcome of those general elections? Let's assume then, that states can hold their presidential elections anywhere from the Tuesday after Labor Day to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And let's go just one step beyond that to assume that states have yet to frontload their contests to the earliest possible point (Tuesday after Labor Day)--the motivation to do so would be the same in that context as it has been in primary elections from 1972 onward. While we're assuming, we have to also assume that the Constitution provided no guidelines on how this process was to be conducted (though we'll leave the electoral college in place). Just for the fun of it, let's use the primary calendar of 1980 as a guide. There was a fairly even dispersion of contests through the March to June window that year.
What is the result? Well, which state goes first is huge. Does that state lean one way or the other along the partisan spectrum? Is their an incumbent involved? Interestingly, Iowa and New Hampshire have been competitive in the last two general elections, so they are ideal (in some ways) first states in this scenario. A state that is solidly red or solidly blue is more likely to be discounted by one candidate, but a state that is evenly divided between the parties becomes an interesting battleground, especially for a candidate challenging an incumbent. Winning or posting a close finish would be a boon to a challenger heading into subsequent states (And simply winning a "state you're suppose to win" would even be beneficial to a challenger as well; more so than it would be to an incumbent.). Winning early then, for a challenger, is important in swing states. Voters in those states who might ordinarily opt for the incumbent (or the status quo) when they are undecided, may be more apt to consider a challenger if that candidate has done well early. Such a system would allow a challenger to potentially cast doubt on an incumbent's ability to win with early victories.
The big question is, how all of this could have affected the outcomes of past races? The closer elections are the ones most likely to see a shift (at least in who the winner was). More comfortable victories or landslides may have seen some states change at the margins but without affecting the outcome (Remember we still have the electoral college here and those electors end up serving essentially the same purpose as delegates to national conventions in this sort of system.). So Mondale or McGovern could potentially have been able to win more than one state each or Gore could have bested Bush (He certainly would have focused more resources on Tennessee.).
How else would having the primary system in place for the general election have affected things? What say you, loyal readers of FHQ? This is a fun one for discussion.
I'll be back late tomorrow with a new set of electoral college maps accounting for the new polls that have come out this week.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Frontloading Under Fire: The Ohio Plan & the GOP in 2012
NOTE: See also FHQ's broader discussion on a wide array of presidential primary reform plans here.
From the "Things that May Destroy Your Blog" file, the GOP has advanced a plan to reform the scheduling aspect of its presidential nominating system. Fortunately Blogger allows me to change the blog name, but unfortunately, Regional Primary HQ doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Frontloading HQ. [Of course, that name has its drawbacks too. A change may solve the problem of having people stop by thinking they are on a blog devoted to the finer points of frontloading washing machines.]
What, though, is this Ohio Plan? How does it change things? And most importantly, what is the likelihood that this plan is put into action? As both the CQ article (linked above) and The Fix describe it, the Ohio Plan is an equal parts lottery and regional primary system for determining the order in which states hold delegate selection events. Under the terms of the plan pas by the Republican party rules committee last Wednesday, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would retain their status as the first states to hold contests. What follows is what is different though. With the goal of eliminating the chaos of frontloading, the Ohio Plan places the next 14 electorally smallest states as the next step in the process. That leaves 32 which are split into three groups (no longer regionally aligned according to the plan agreed to by the GOP rules committee). Those three "pods" would remain the same and rotate which one went first behind the smallest states every four years. Here are those pods (via The Fix):
Why (and where) will the Ohio Plan face resistance? The first hurdle to clear is the Republican party at the St. Paul convention this summer. Traditionally, the GOP has set the rules of delegate selection and allowed the states to decide where (within a window of time) to hold their contests. That jibes well with the party's overarching themes of a smaller national government intervening less in decisions best made by states. From an economic perspective, the markets dictate where the states will go--earlier is better in the frontloaded era. Why then, would the GOP go along with this? It isn't clear that they will. There is some opposition to the Ohio Plan and that dissension is best voiced by South Carolina GOP chairman, Katon Dawson (from The Detroit News):
The GOP rules committee passed this plan by a two to one margin, so let's assume for the sake of argument (and for the sake of fun) that this thing passes muster at the convention in September. Well, we have a new system then, right? Ah, if only things worked that easily. As the CQ piece alludes to, the state parties and state governments become the subsequent hurdles to clear. The state parties are one thing: they are an extension of the national parties in most respects, but they only directly influence the decreasing number of caucuses. And those are contests in the small states that stand to gain from these proposed changes.
Most states have primaries now; the parameters of which are settled on by state governments. And that ushers in partisanship as a major obstacle. Are states controlled by Democrats going to go along with these changes if either they or the the DNC oppose them? That remains to be seen, but could hamper the possibility of change. State parties have the final say on whether to go along with the date the state legislatures have decided on, but rarely opt against a state funded contest if the alternative is a party funded primary or caucus.
Well, how did the drastic changes the Democrats made for the 1972 cycle ever get passed and why couldn't history repeat itself? One side effect of those reforms was a growing number of primaries (as opposed to caucuses). Those primaries were instituted by the predominantly Democratic state legislatures of the time. In the post-reform era the shift on the state legislative level has been toward the GOP (especially following the party's successes in the 1994 midterm elections). That's good for Republicans, but means that the balance of partisan power in those institutions is more evenly dispersed now. In other words, big changes to this system sanctioned by a national entity (either national party) require harmonious, collective action on the part of state governments with differing levels of partisan balance.
This isn't a recipe for change.
What do we have then? Well, the movement of primaries since the McGovern-Fraser reforms has the system inching closer to a national primary. And as more and more states began to position themselves earlier for 2008, several polls indicated support for the idea of a national primary. And while that doesn't settle the problem of the compression of the frontloaded calendar, it at least removes the chaotic movement of states from cycle to cycle. It also is the path of least resistance (read: cheapest, least conflicting).
Oh, and it allows me to keep the blog name going.
...until all the states move up.
From the "Things that May Destroy Your Blog" file, the GOP has advanced a plan to reform the scheduling aspect of its presidential nominating system. Fortunately Blogger allows me to change the blog name, but unfortunately, Regional Primary HQ doesn't have quite the same ring to it as Frontloading HQ. [Of course, that name has its drawbacks too. A change may solve the problem of having people stop by thinking they are on a blog devoted to the finer points of frontloading washing machines.]
What, though, is this Ohio Plan? How does it change things? And most importantly, what is the likelihood that this plan is put into action? As both the CQ article (linked above) and The Fix describe it, the Ohio Plan is an equal parts lottery and regional primary system for determining the order in which states hold delegate selection events. Under the terms of the plan pas by the Republican party rules committee last Wednesday, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would retain their status as the first states to hold contests. What follows is what is different though. With the goal of eliminating the chaos of frontloading, the Ohio Plan places the next 14 electorally smallest states as the next step in the process. That leaves 32 which are split into three groups (no longer regionally aligned according to the plan agreed to by the GOP rules committee). Those three "pods" would remain the same and rotate which one went first behind the smallest states every four years. Here are those pods (via The Fix):
Pod X: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah, and WashingtonThis plan avoids the regional candidate issue that I raised in last week's post. It also maintains some level of retail politics by preserving the position of the traditional first states and augments that to some degree by positioning the smallest states next. As I stated, the goal is to reverse the frontloading trend the process has witnessed during the post-reform era. In the end the plan offers a scenario where the decision on the placement of nominating contests is nationalized to some degree. And that opens up a Pandora's box of issues. The end is an admirable goal, but the means of implementing such a plan are full of problems.Pod Y: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
Pod Z: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Why (and where) will the Ohio Plan face resistance? The first hurdle to clear is the Republican party at the St. Paul convention this summer. Traditionally, the GOP has set the rules of delegate selection and allowed the states to decide where (within a window of time) to hold their contests. That jibes well with the party's overarching themes of a smaller national government intervening less in decisions best made by states. From an economic perspective, the markets dictate where the states will go--earlier is better in the frontloaded era. Why then, would the GOP go along with this? It isn't clear that they will. There is some opposition to the Ohio Plan and that dissension is best voiced by South Carolina GOP chairman, Katon Dawson (from The Detroit News):
"If you look at the process we have, it worked. The RNC should decide a date, decide the penalties (for violating the date) and move forward."Now there's that skepticism toward change that you expect from the conservative party in a two party system. Change in this process being driven by the Republican party is something of a foreign concept. Typically, it has been the Democratic party that made the changes only to have the GOP follow suit. The roles are being reversed here somewhat. It should be noted though, that it was the Republicans in 1996 who first proposed and instituted the bonus delegate incentive plan to entice states to hold their delegate selection events at later times; something the Democrats have since adopted as well.
The GOP rules committee passed this plan by a two to one margin, so let's assume for the sake of argument (and for the sake of fun) that this thing passes muster at the convention in September. Well, we have a new system then, right? Ah, if only things worked that easily. As the CQ piece alludes to, the state parties and state governments become the subsequent hurdles to clear. The state parties are one thing: they are an extension of the national parties in most respects, but they only directly influence the decreasing number of caucuses. And those are contests in the small states that stand to gain from these proposed changes.
Most states have primaries now; the parameters of which are settled on by state governments. And that ushers in partisanship as a major obstacle. Are states controlled by Democrats going to go along with these changes if either they or the the DNC oppose them? That remains to be seen, but could hamper the possibility of change. State parties have the final say on whether to go along with the date the state legislatures have decided on, but rarely opt against a state funded contest if the alternative is a party funded primary or caucus.
Well, how did the drastic changes the Democrats made for the 1972 cycle ever get passed and why couldn't history repeat itself? One side effect of those reforms was a growing number of primaries (as opposed to caucuses). Those primaries were instituted by the predominantly Democratic state legislatures of the time. In the post-reform era the shift on the state legislative level has been toward the GOP (especially following the party's successes in the 1994 midterm elections). That's good for Republicans, but means that the balance of partisan power in those institutions is more evenly dispersed now. In other words, big changes to this system sanctioned by a national entity (either national party) require harmonious, collective action on the part of state governments with differing levels of partisan balance.
This isn't a recipe for change.
What do we have then? Well, the movement of primaries since the McGovern-Fraser reforms has the system inching closer to a national primary. And as more and more states began to position themselves earlier for 2008, several polls indicated support for the idea of a national primary. And while that doesn't settle the problem of the compression of the frontloaded calendar, it at least removes the chaotic movement of states from cycle to cycle. It also is the path of least resistance (read: cheapest, least conflicting).
Oh, and it allows me to keep the blog name going.
...until all the states move up.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
How Much Difference Does Clinton or Obama Make?
The Electoral College maps posted here on FHQ recently (this week and last week) have begun to provide a glimpse into how both Clinton and Obama would do against John McCain in November, but represent only a partial picture of the possible candidate effects at play in a potential general election. Aggregating through the electoral college indicates overall who would win a state or the general election, but does not provide a true sense of how big a given candidate's impact is in any particular state.
To get a better idea, then, of how much an effect Obama or Clinton has in a state we can take the difference between both their margins against McCain. Very generally, the larger the difference, the bigger the impact one of the candidates has. For example, Obama has a 30 point advantage over McCain in Hawaii but Clinton's edge is only four points. Obama's 26 point differential (henceforth, the McCain margin) there means that his impact is the difference between Hawaii being solidly Democratic or it being a toss up.
There are some caveats though. The differential may be huge but not make much of a difference. In Utah for instance, Obama has a decided edge in the McCain margin against Clinton but the difference is between being blown out and really being blown out. The size of the margin then, doesn't matter unless the advantaged candidate is either competitive with McCain or beats the Arizona senator while the other Democrat loses to him. The other issue is that if the state is already a toss up, it requires less of an advantage to make a difference. So Clinton has modest McCain margins against Obama in the traditional swing states from the last few cycles (PA, OH, etc.). As small as that differential is, it could be a deciding factor in which party wins those states.
What can we derive from this measure? First off, it indicates that Obama does better in 34 states. He flips a state to the Democratic column in 10 of those cases (CO, IA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, OR, WA and WI) with his McCain margin in each ranging from 5-25 points. Five other states are competitive when Obama is against McCain and Clinton is not (NE, SC, SD, TX and VA). The remaining states are either solidly Democratic or solidly Republican.
*Note: States in white are states where the Clinton has a greater McCain margin.
***CORRECTION: Wisconsin should be in the 10-14.99 (dark green) category.
In Clinton's case, she has advantages in 15 states (Yes, that's just 49 states total. Alaska and the District of Columbia have been omitted since no data is available. In the electoral college maps, Alaska was rated a Strong McCain state while DC was a Strong Democratic state.). For her part, Clinton is able to turn both Arkansas and West Virginia blue, is more comfortably ahead of McCain in Massachusetts and New Jersey, and holds a slight (and potentially significant) McCain margin over Obama in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. She is also more competitive in Missouri and Florida.
*Note: States in white are states where Obama has a greater McCain margin.
Side by side with the electoral college maps, these maps expand the understanding of who is doing well in which states, and beyond that, how much impact either Obama or Clinton has over the other versus McCain.
Updates for these maps (4/9/08)
[Thanks to Bill Chittick for the suggestion on the map idea.]
To get a better idea, then, of how much an effect Obama or Clinton has in a state we can take the difference between both their margins against McCain. Very generally, the larger the difference, the bigger the impact one of the candidates has. For example, Obama has a 30 point advantage over McCain in Hawaii but Clinton's edge is only four points. Obama's 26 point differential (henceforth, the McCain margin) there means that his impact is the difference between Hawaii being solidly Democratic or it being a toss up.
There are some caveats though. The differential may be huge but not make much of a difference. In Utah for instance, Obama has a decided edge in the McCain margin against Clinton but the difference is between being blown out and really being blown out. The size of the margin then, doesn't matter unless the advantaged candidate is either competitive with McCain or beats the Arizona senator while the other Democrat loses to him. The other issue is that if the state is already a toss up, it requires less of an advantage to make a difference. So Clinton has modest McCain margins against Obama in the traditional swing states from the last few cycles (PA, OH, etc.). As small as that differential is, it could be a deciding factor in which party wins those states.
What can we derive from this measure? First off, it indicates that Obama does better in 34 states. He flips a state to the Democratic column in 10 of those cases (CO, IA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, OR, WA and WI) with his McCain margin in each ranging from 5-25 points. Five other states are competitive when Obama is against McCain and Clinton is not (NE, SC, SD, TX and VA). The remaining states are either solidly Democratic or solidly Republican.
*Note: States in white are states where the Clinton has a greater McCain margin.***CORRECTION: Wisconsin should be in the 10-14.99 (dark green) category.
In Clinton's case, she has advantages in 15 states (Yes, that's just 49 states total. Alaska and the District of Columbia have been omitted since no data is available. In the electoral college maps, Alaska was rated a Strong McCain state while DC was a Strong Democratic state.). For her part, Clinton is able to turn both Arkansas and West Virginia blue, is more comfortably ahead of McCain in Massachusetts and New Jersey, and holds a slight (and potentially significant) McCain margin over Obama in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. She is also more competitive in Missouri and Florida.
*Note: States in white are states where Obama has a greater McCain margin.Side by side with the electoral college maps, these maps expand the understanding of who is doing well in which states, and beyond that, how much impact either Obama or Clinton has over the other versus McCain.
Updates for these maps (4/9/08)
[Thanks to Bill Chittick for the suggestion on the map idea.]
Links for April 3
I have mentioned some of these links before, but they are worth bringing back to the top.
1) Superdelegates: Why do 796 individual Google searches to find out who is supporting Clinton or Obama when the work has already been done for you? 2008 Democratic Convention Watch has been updating the list of committed superdelegates throughout this campaign. If you want a more graphical representation of the data be sure to check out the superdelegate map on Google Maps and/or the superdelegate layer for Google Earth. [Big thanks to superdelegates.org for the links.]
2) Electoral College: In response to the recent rash of electoral college maps that have appeared on FHQ comparing Obama and Clinton's chances against McCain, we received a link to fivethirtyeight.com. Just a solid, solid site doing a lot of the same things the maps here have done, and in some cases better.
3) 2008 Election Data: If you haven't checked out Tom Holbrook's site, be sure and stop by for a look. He provides some nice analysis of the voting behavior trends witnessed during this cycle and what that may mean as the nomination phase continues.
1) Superdelegates: Why do 796 individual Google searches to find out who is supporting Clinton or Obama when the work has already been done for you? 2008 Democratic Convention Watch has been updating the list of committed superdelegates throughout this campaign. If you want a more graphical representation of the data be sure to check out the superdelegate map on Google Maps and/or the superdelegate layer for Google Earth. [Big thanks to superdelegates.org for the links.]
2) Electoral College: In response to the recent rash of electoral college maps that have appeared on FHQ comparing Obama and Clinton's chances against McCain, we received a link to fivethirtyeight.com. Just a solid, solid site doing a lot of the same things the maps here have done, and in some cases better.
3) 2008 Election Data: If you haven't checked out Tom Holbrook's site, be sure and stop by for a look. He provides some nice analysis of the voting behavior trends witnessed during this cycle and what that may mean as the nomination phase continues.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Electoral College Maps (4/2/08)
While last week's post focused on the Clinton-Obama match up through the lens of the electoral college, one thing was neglected: John McCain. Yes, he even gets a pass here...apparently. Well, he did until now. Obama's competitiveness in some traditional red states based on these early head-to-head polls was interesting (alarming to some), but McCain is also competitive in some states that have been blue in recent elections (see also CQ's look at recent state polls in NJ, MI and WA). In the match up with Clinton, McCain is ahead in Oregon and Washington and against Obama he is running close in Massachusetts. Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington haven't voted with the GOP presidential nominee since 1984, and while Oregon and Washington have had close statewide elections recently, that hasn't translated to the presidential level.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a surprising inclusion on the list. And given that Obama is being backed by both senators and the governor of the state that is something of an anomaly. What is driving this is one poll (of the three conducted in Massachusetts thus far) has McCain and Obama tied. The other two have Obama with comfortable seven point leads.
Well, what about New Jersey (CQ does make a good point.)? The last time the Garden state voted for the GOP nominee was when the first George Bush was elected in 1988. However, coming down the stretch in 2004 the race between Kerry and Bush was fairly tight; tight enough to make the GOP consider expending more resources there (Those of you with access to Lexis Nexis out there can check out this Boston Globe article from mid-October 2004.). New Jersey then, wasn't as eye-catching as Massachusetts (or some of the other red states in which Obama is competitive).
Well, what about the map update?
Twelve states had new polls this week (CA, CT, FL, MI, MO, NJ, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA & WI), and there are some shifts. The overall conclusion though, is still the same (right down to the electoral count in the McCain-Clinton case). Here are the changes:
NJ: Lean Clinton to toss up.
PA: Obama and McCain are now tied (a change from toss up leaning McCain)
VA: McCain Lean to Strong McCain in the match up with Clinton; Toss up to McCain Lean against Obama
WA: Lean McCain to Toss up (still favoring McCain)
WI: Toss up to McCain Lean (v. Clinton) and Obama Lean to Toss up (still favoring Obama)
Clinton then, makes no gains on McCain in the electoral vote count (still 314-224) but the toss up total increased by 16 electoral votes in her direction. Among the big three, she takes Pennsylvania and Ohio, but loses Florida.
***CORRECTION: Wisconsin should be an "Obama lean" state (one poll was mistakenly omitted from the analysis.)
The McCain-Obama map offers a new distinction: a statistical tie in Pennsylvania. And the outcome of this hypothetical election would come down to which way the state broke. Obama holds a 260-257 lead in electoral votes. The 21 in Pennsylvania would put either candidate over the top. In this scenario then, Pennsylvania is the new Ohio is the new Florida.
A note on the methodology:
Some people have taken issue with me using the average of the polls since Super Tuesday; claiming that that gives Obama an advantage. The reason I made Super Tuesday the cut off, was that that was the point at which the race entered the current deadlock phase. Both Clinton and Obama were on "pretty" equal footing from that point forward. The averages help to absorb the shock of any one event on the polls (Bosnia, Wright, etc.). If the most recent polls were used as opposed to these averages the results don't significantly change. Clinton would gain Florida and Nevada but lose Minnesota and New Jersey while tying in New Mexico. Obama would lose Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wisconsin to McCain, but gain both Pennsylvania and Ohio with Colorado as a tie.
The other argument is more damning. "It is too early." I can't argue with that. It is, but this does give us a fun glimpse into each of the states and further, the direction they are leaning seven months out. One thing is certain, as we add polls, the picture will get clearer...provided the Democrats actually make a decision. As such, I'll keep updating this weekly (every Wednesday) so we can all keep tabs on the progression.
How much difference does it make?: a set of companion maps.
And an update for 4/9/08
Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 5/7/08
Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)
Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)
New Maps? (5/25/08)
Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)
Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)
Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a surprising inclusion on the list. And given that Obama is being backed by both senators and the governor of the state that is something of an anomaly. What is driving this is one poll (of the three conducted in Massachusetts thus far) has McCain and Obama tied. The other two have Obama with comfortable seven point leads.
Well, what about New Jersey (CQ does make a good point.)? The last time the Garden state voted for the GOP nominee was when the first George Bush was elected in 1988. However, coming down the stretch in 2004 the race between Kerry and Bush was fairly tight; tight enough to make the GOP consider expending more resources there (Those of you with access to Lexis Nexis out there can check out this Boston Globe article from mid-October 2004.). New Jersey then, wasn't as eye-catching as Massachusetts (or some of the other red states in which Obama is competitive).
Well, what about the map update?
Twelve states had new polls this week (CA, CT, FL, MI, MO, NJ, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA & WI), and there are some shifts. The overall conclusion though, is still the same (right down to the electoral count in the McCain-Clinton case). Here are the changes:
NJ: Lean Clinton to toss up.
PA: Obama and McCain are now tied (a change from toss up leaning McCain)
VA: McCain Lean to Strong McCain in the match up with Clinton; Toss up to McCain Lean against Obama
WA: Lean McCain to Toss up (still favoring McCain)
WI: Toss up to McCain Lean (v. Clinton) and Obama Lean to Toss up (still favoring Obama)
Clinton then, makes no gains on McCain in the electoral vote count (still 314-224) but the toss up total increased by 16 electoral votes in her direction. Among the big three, she takes Pennsylvania and Ohio, but loses Florida.
***CORRECTION: Wisconsin should be an "Obama lean" state (one poll was mistakenly omitted from the analysis.)The McCain-Obama map offers a new distinction: a statistical tie in Pennsylvania. And the outcome of this hypothetical election would come down to which way the state broke. Obama holds a 260-257 lead in electoral votes. The 21 in Pennsylvania would put either candidate over the top. In this scenario then, Pennsylvania is the new Ohio is the new Florida.
A note on the methodology:
Some people have taken issue with me using the average of the polls since Super Tuesday; claiming that that gives Obama an advantage. The reason I made Super Tuesday the cut off, was that that was the point at which the race entered the current deadlock phase. Both Clinton and Obama were on "pretty" equal footing from that point forward. The averages help to absorb the shock of any one event on the polls (Bosnia, Wright, etc.). If the most recent polls were used as opposed to these averages the results don't significantly change. Clinton would gain Florida and Nevada but lose Minnesota and New Jersey while tying in New Mexico. Obama would lose Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wisconsin to McCain, but gain both Pennsylvania and Ohio with Colorado as a tie.
The other argument is more damning. "It is too early." I can't argue with that. It is, but this does give us a fun glimpse into each of the states and further, the direction they are leaning seven months out. One thing is certain, as we add polls, the picture will get clearer...provided the Democrats actually make a decision. As such, I'll keep updating this weekly (every Wednesday) so we can all keep tabs on the progression.
How much difference does it make?: a set of companion maps.
And an update for 4/9/08
Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 4/30/08
Weighted Averages 5/7/08
Update for 5/14/08 (weighted)
Update for 5/21/08 (weighted)
New Maps? (5/25/08)
Update for 5/28/08 (weighted)
Update for 6/3/08 (weighted)
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Republicans and the 2012 Calendar
It must be April Fool's Day or something because the content around FHQ has been decidedly 2012 today. [See, I'm even using numbers as adjectives now.] Anyway, no sooner did Rob bring up the idea of presidential nomination reform in the comments to the Kansas post below than it came out that the Republican rules committee is meeting in New Mexico to discuss the primary calendar for 2012. And you have to love the sources for the stories on the subject: the Manchester Union-Leader and the Detroit News. On the one hand, you have a paper from the accustomed primary process top dog, New Hampshire, and on the other, a publication originating from occasional malcontent, Michigan.
Why so hard on Michigan?
Oh, they're not so bad. They've just been the face of the discontent with the favored positions Iowa and New Hampshire have enjoyed quadrennially in the post-reform era (and before).
Well, what about Florida? They moved too. Yeah, but they don't have a history of trying to rock the boat like Michigan. Sure both states moved to positions in violation of both parties' rules for 2008, but Michigan has done this before. The state actually voted on delegates to a binding January 1988 Republican state convention in the late summer of 1986 (see here and here for more)! How's that for frontloading? Voting in 2011 doesn't seem so bad now.
Better yet...how's that for going off on a tangent?
So the GOP is meeting to discuss various reform ideas for the 2012 calendar. Most of them appear to be a collection of regional primary plans. And as I stated in the comments of the Kansas post, I'm not a big fan. Some of the fairness issues are solved for the states but remain for all but the best-financed candidates. In the absence of retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire, the playing field is tilted even further in the direction of the front-running candidates. On top of that, you introduce regional advantages for candidates as well. What problems does it solve? What problems does it create? The latter outweighs the former in my opinion.
Fine, what is a better plan then? There are two routes to take:
1) Leave it alone. Most of the states that moved to February 5 for 2008 did so permanently. Are they likely to move again is the question though? I've looked into this in my research and have found mixed results. States that move, are more likely to move again, but only if the rules change to allow it. When the earliest possible point to hold a nominating contest is moved, states that have moved in the past are more likely to move again. We probably won't see the window moved any earlier than the first Tuesday in February in 2012, and that means that all the states that were on that date in 2008 will likely be there again in 2012. The early state legislative action on this front for 2012 so far has indicated that other states looking into a move are not considering anything ahead of that point. Well, Kansas is, but we're talking three days ahead of it and not three weeks before that point like Michigan was this time around. I just don't see any other renegade states willing to queue up to be the next Florida or Michigan--to gamble taxpayer money on a potentially empty contest. The "leave it alone" approach gets the system closer to a national primary which still offers an uneven playing field for the candidates. Oh, but this is the cheapest option too. Sure, that sounds petty and somewhat cynical, but you can't underestimate that fact.
Let us not forget that there will more than likely be an incumbent running in 2012. That means that the "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" attitude that could have been in play in state legislatures and state governments among partisans of all stripes this cycle will potentially be displaced by the "you want me to help your party pick someone to beat our guy" mindset. States then, with a unified state government controlled by the party outside of the White House could have a leg up on other states.
2) The American Plan. Thomas Gangale's plan is the plan I'd endorse if the decision were up to me. It is lottery-based and favors the small states being first; not necessarily Iowa and New Hampshire, but small states that allow for some form of retail politics. The system also allows for the big states--most notably California--to go as early as the fourth interval. Each interval is a two week period and there are ten intervals in all. The result is a twenty week season that starts in mid-February and ends in late June. This plan acts to end the compression that frontloading has brought on and removes the chaotic aspect of the process that has turned people off.
Only one of the plans on the table in New Mexico for the GOP is lottery-based though and I have no idea whether that is the American Plan or a modified version of it. If a vote takes place on the issue it will be tomorrow.
TRACKING...
Why so hard on Michigan?
Oh, they're not so bad. They've just been the face of the discontent with the favored positions Iowa and New Hampshire have enjoyed quadrennially in the post-reform era (and before).
Well, what about Florida? They moved too. Yeah, but they don't have a history of trying to rock the boat like Michigan. Sure both states moved to positions in violation of both parties' rules for 2008, but Michigan has done this before. The state actually voted on delegates to a binding January 1988 Republican state convention in the late summer of 1986 (see here and here for more)! How's that for frontloading? Voting in 2011 doesn't seem so bad now.
Better yet...how's that for going off on a tangent?
So the GOP is meeting to discuss various reform ideas for the 2012 calendar. Most of them appear to be a collection of regional primary plans. And as I stated in the comments of the Kansas post, I'm not a big fan. Some of the fairness issues are solved for the states but remain for all but the best-financed candidates. In the absence of retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire, the playing field is tilted even further in the direction of the front-running candidates. On top of that, you introduce regional advantages for candidates as well. What problems does it solve? What problems does it create? The latter outweighs the former in my opinion.
Fine, what is a better plan then? There are two routes to take:
1) Leave it alone. Most of the states that moved to February 5 for 2008 did so permanently. Are they likely to move again is the question though? I've looked into this in my research and have found mixed results. States that move, are more likely to move again, but only if the rules change to allow it. When the earliest possible point to hold a nominating contest is moved, states that have moved in the past are more likely to move again. We probably won't see the window moved any earlier than the first Tuesday in February in 2012, and that means that all the states that were on that date in 2008 will likely be there again in 2012. The early state legislative action on this front for 2012 so far has indicated that other states looking into a move are not considering anything ahead of that point. Well, Kansas is, but we're talking three days ahead of it and not three weeks before that point like Michigan was this time around. I just don't see any other renegade states willing to queue up to be the next Florida or Michigan--to gamble taxpayer money on a potentially empty contest. The "leave it alone" approach gets the system closer to a national primary which still offers an uneven playing field for the candidates. Oh, but this is the cheapest option too. Sure, that sounds petty and somewhat cynical, but you can't underestimate that fact.
Let us not forget that there will more than likely be an incumbent running in 2012. That means that the "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" attitude that could have been in play in state legislatures and state governments among partisans of all stripes this cycle will potentially be displaced by the "you want me to help your party pick someone to beat our guy" mindset. States then, with a unified state government controlled by the party outside of the White House could have a leg up on other states.
2) The American Plan. Thomas Gangale's plan is the plan I'd endorse if the decision were up to me. It is lottery-based and favors the small states being first; not necessarily Iowa and New Hampshire, but small states that allow for some form of retail politics. The system also allows for the big states--most notably California--to go as early as the fourth interval. Each interval is a two week period and there are ten intervals in all. The result is a twenty week season that starts in mid-February and ends in late June. This plan acts to end the compression that frontloading has brought on and removes the chaotic aspect of the process that has turned people off.
Only one of the plans on the table in New Mexico for the GOP is lottery-based though and I have no idea whether that is the American Plan or a modified version of it. If a vote takes place on the issue it will be tomorrow.
TRACKING...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)