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.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
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...
Kansas Tries to Get Back on the Horse for 2012
After an on again, off again flirtation with re-establishing and frontloading a presidential primary for the 2008 nomination cycle, the Kansas legislature is at it again. This time though, they have the 2012 elections in mind. The House passed a bill on Friday to permanently set establish a presidential primary on the first Saturday in February every presidential election year. That bill [H 2683] subsequently passed the Senate in the form of an amendment to a committee report (I'm not a fan of the Kansas legislature's web page, but if you want to track the progress of the bill just enter "2683" in "Track a Bill" search area on the right side of the main page.). During yesterday's session, that report was referred to the House where a conference committee between the chambers was requested and then agreed to by the Senate.
So Kansas joins Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota as states that are already casting an eye toward the next presidential election cycle (...while the current one is still in progress). The Kansas legislature has been a bit more clever (or not so clever) in its approach to 2012 though. First, the proposal places the primary on a weekend as opposed to the usual Tuesday position that most states use. And with the calendar set up as it is in 2012, that means this primary would precede the first Tuesday in February (the time when most of the states that moved for 2008 will be going in 2012). If the national parties stick with their 2008 rules--the same rules that make the first Tuesday in February the earliest point at which a non-Iowa or New Hampshire contest can be held--then the 2012 Kansas primary would be in violation and subject to sanctions. Kansas, I'd like to introduce you to Florida and Michigan.
Of course, there are a couple of other considerations here as well. Will the parties keep the same sanctions for 2012 or will they alter them in some way? Both parties decided to penalize states in violation in 2008 half their delegates. The Democratic party also sought to sanction candidates campaigning in violator states and then tried to make an example of Florida and then Michigan. Given the situation that has arisen out of the Florida and Michigan moves, the DNC may revisit that sanction regimen at this summer's convention.
The Kansas legislature doesn't seem to be bothered by the threats anyway--no matter which form they take. The proposal on the table for 2008 called for a February 2 primary which would have broken the current rules (costing them half their delegates on the Republican side and more than likely all of them in the Democratic race). Kansas then, appears to be making the same gamble that Florida and Michigan made, and in the process have signaled that they value the exposure such a contest brings over representation at the conventions.
The question has already been asked of me but I'll pose it here in this forum: Will states change their strategy for 2012 given the way 2008 has gone? In other words, will some states consider moving to later dates in anticipation of another 2008-like contest? So far, all the evidence points toward no being the answer. Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota lawmakers all seem to think that the system will return to the "earlier is better" model typical of the Super Tuesday era.
So Kansas joins Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota as states that are already casting an eye toward the next presidential election cycle (...while the current one is still in progress). The Kansas legislature has been a bit more clever (or not so clever) in its approach to 2012 though. First, the proposal places the primary on a weekend as opposed to the usual Tuesday position that most states use. And with the calendar set up as it is in 2012, that means this primary would precede the first Tuesday in February (the time when most of the states that moved for 2008 will be going in 2012). If the national parties stick with their 2008 rules--the same rules that make the first Tuesday in February the earliest point at which a non-Iowa or New Hampshire contest can be held--then the 2012 Kansas primary would be in violation and subject to sanctions. Kansas, I'd like to introduce you to Florida and Michigan.
Of course, there are a couple of other considerations here as well. Will the parties keep the same sanctions for 2012 or will they alter them in some way? Both parties decided to penalize states in violation in 2008 half their delegates. The Democratic party also sought to sanction candidates campaigning in violator states and then tried to make an example of Florida and then Michigan. Given the situation that has arisen out of the Florida and Michigan moves, the DNC may revisit that sanction regimen at this summer's convention.
The Kansas legislature doesn't seem to be bothered by the threats anyway--no matter which form they take. The proposal on the table for 2008 called for a February 2 primary which would have broken the current rules (costing them half their delegates on the Republican side and more than likely all of them in the Democratic race). Kansas then, appears to be making the same gamble that Florida and Michigan made, and in the process have signaled that they value the exposure such a contest brings over representation at the conventions.
The question has already been asked of me but I'll pose it here in this forum: Will states change their strategy for 2012 given the way 2008 has gone? In other words, will some states consider moving to later dates in anticipation of another 2008-like contest? So far, all the evidence points toward no being the answer. Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Minnesota lawmakers all seem to think that the system will return to the "earlier is better" model typical of the Super Tuesday era.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The New Michigan Delegate Plan
The longer this drags out the more complicated the resolutions get. As Michigan and Florida have grappled with the DNC over seating delegates at this summer's convention, several plans have surfaced to deal with the stand-off. Despite rejections of do-over primaries (mail-in or in-person) and even distributions of the delegates between the candidates, some momentum remains behind the idea of solving this issue before it is arbitrated by the Credentials Committee at the convention.
The newest plan put forth by US Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) applies to the situation in Michigan. Under his plan all 156 of Michigan's Democratic delegates would be restored (I'm sure the DNC is already madly in love with the idea of their sanctions being thrown by the wayside here.), with basically half being allocated based on the January 15 primary and the other half based on the popular primary vote nationwide. The former appeals to Clinton because she won the Michigan primary and the latter to Obama since he will more than likely maintain his popular vote lead nationwide as the contest phase of the campaign wanes.
So how this thing ultimately breaks down will determine whether that conclusion holds. Let's do the math. Under the Stupak plan, Clinton would get 47 of the 83 primary delegates and Obama the remaining 36. Votes on these delegates would take place at the congressional district conventions April 19. But what about the other 73 (national popular vote) delegates? For the time being, let's assume that the margin Obama holds now in the category will be the margin once all the contests have been completed. That means (according to Real Clear Politics) that Obama leads either 49.5 to 46.9 without Florida and Michigan or 47.6 to 47.2 with them included (but excluding estimates of some of the caucus states). Those are the two extremes here; one where Obama is advantaged and one that is to Clinton's detriment. When we convert these to two candidate totals (reallocating the support of other candidates who have dropped out), the margins remain the same while the overall percentages now sum to 100 (See, I told you this had gotten confusing.). The two sets of possible popular vote numbers I'm working with here though are 51.3 to 48.7 favoring Obama or 50.2 to 49.8 also favoring Obama. Either way you cut it, Obama ends up with 37 delegates while Clinton gains 36. Adding the popular vote totals to the primary delegates gives Clinton a ten delegate advantage in Michigan.
That's fine, but what about the other problem child? What happens if we extend this same plan to the Sunshine state? Florida has 210 Democratic delegates that were stripped by the DNC. Using essentially the same breakdown, 110 delegates would be awarded based on the January 29 primary and the remaining 100 would be allocated based on the national popular vote from all nominating contests. The numbers aren't as tricky in the Florida case because both candidates were on the ballot. If the 17% of the Florida primary vote is reallocated evenly to each of the candidates, Clinton would have won 58% of the vote to Obama's 42%. From that Clinton would take 64 delegates to Obama's 46.
For the remaining 100 delegates (based on the popular vote), the same ranges that were used in the Michigan case will be used here as well (50.2 to 49.8 or 51.3 to 48.7). Again, one scenario helps Obama and the other helps Clinton. The difference though is only one delegate. Either the delegates would be split 50/50 or 51/49 in favor of Obama. The result is an 18 or 19 delegate advantage for Clinton coming out of Florida.
Overall then, between both Florida and Michigan, this plan nets Clinton 28 or 29 delegates at Obama's expense. And even that won't help erase the deficit unless she begins winning big in some of the remaining contests she's projected to do well in. So while the DNC may not go for this plan because it discards their sanctions, Obama's camp may actually be willing to listen since it won't change the current state of play (especially in view of the superdelegates who are siding with him--see here, here and here).
The newest plan put forth by US Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) applies to the situation in Michigan. Under his plan all 156 of Michigan's Democratic delegates would be restored (I'm sure the DNC is already madly in love with the idea of their sanctions being thrown by the wayside here.), with basically half being allocated based on the January 15 primary and the other half based on the popular primary vote nationwide. The former appeals to Clinton because she won the Michigan primary and the latter to Obama since he will more than likely maintain his popular vote lead nationwide as the contest phase of the campaign wanes.
So how this thing ultimately breaks down will determine whether that conclusion holds. Let's do the math. Under the Stupak plan, Clinton would get 47 of the 83 primary delegates and Obama the remaining 36. Votes on these delegates would take place at the congressional district conventions April 19. But what about the other 73 (national popular vote) delegates? For the time being, let's assume that the margin Obama holds now in the category will be the margin once all the contests have been completed. That means (according to Real Clear Politics) that Obama leads either 49.5 to 46.9 without Florida and Michigan or 47.6 to 47.2 with them included (but excluding estimates of some of the caucus states). Those are the two extremes here; one where Obama is advantaged and one that is to Clinton's detriment. When we convert these to two candidate totals (reallocating the support of other candidates who have dropped out), the margins remain the same while the overall percentages now sum to 100 (See, I told you this had gotten confusing.). The two sets of possible popular vote numbers I'm working with here though are 51.3 to 48.7 favoring Obama or 50.2 to 49.8 also favoring Obama. Either way you cut it, Obama ends up with 37 delegates while Clinton gains 36. Adding the popular vote totals to the primary delegates gives Clinton a ten delegate advantage in Michigan.
That's fine, but what about the other problem child? What happens if we extend this same plan to the Sunshine state? Florida has 210 Democratic delegates that were stripped by the DNC. Using essentially the same breakdown, 110 delegates would be awarded based on the January 29 primary and the remaining 100 would be allocated based on the national popular vote from all nominating contests. The numbers aren't as tricky in the Florida case because both candidates were on the ballot. If the 17% of the Florida primary vote is reallocated evenly to each of the candidates, Clinton would have won 58% of the vote to Obama's 42%. From that Clinton would take 64 delegates to Obama's 46.
For the remaining 100 delegates (based on the popular vote), the same ranges that were used in the Michigan case will be used here as well (50.2 to 49.8 or 51.3 to 48.7). Again, one scenario helps Obama and the other helps Clinton. The difference though is only one delegate. Either the delegates would be split 50/50 or 51/49 in favor of Obama. The result is an 18 or 19 delegate advantage for Clinton coming out of Florida.
Overall then, between both Florida and Michigan, this plan nets Clinton 28 or 29 delegates at Obama's expense. And even that won't help erase the deficit unless she begins winning big in some of the remaining contests she's projected to do well in. So while the DNC may not go for this plan because it discards their sanctions, Obama's camp may actually be willing to listen since it won't change the current state of play (especially in view of the superdelegates who are siding with him--see here, here and here).
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Caucus Question: Texas 2008
Last week I posed the caucus question; the idea that as the steps in the caucus process progress, the percentage of support for the winning candidate from the first step increases. Anecdotally at least, that has been the conventional wisdom on the subject for the post-McGovern-Fraser reform period. Of course, when the field of candidates is winnowed, the possibility of the winning candidate (in one of the early caucuses) gaining support increases substantially. When the environment remains competitive, as it has among the top two candidates on the Democratic side during the 2008 cycle, the likelihood of such a substantial increase is far smaller. In fact, the Colorado caucuses from this year offer some potential evidence of the opposite happening: a second place finisher gaining delegates as the process continues.
Yesterday, Texas Democrats held their second round contests; the state senate district conventions. In the Dallas area, Obama managed to maintain the same level of support in the second round in the area's five senate districts that he brought in from the first step on March 4. In El Paso County, where Hillary Clinton won, both in the caucuses and the primary, Clinton's support increased to around 94%. What that is up from is a bit of an unknown. The New York Times' Election Guide shows Clinton with a 3:1 lead in El Paso County with 58% of the precincts reporting. So, we know it is an increase, but just don't know by exactly how much. [UPDATE: Across Texas, we now have a better idea about how the most recent step in the Texas caucus system went. Obama seems to have bumped up his statewide total to 58% heading into June's state convention (Thanks to Paul Gurian for the link.).] If that number holds steady when the delegates are allocated at that convention, Obama would net37 39 of the 67 delegates at stake in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection process. That margin would yield a three delegate lead over Clinton across both contests (despite Obama losing the primary). As it stands Clinton holds a 65-61 advantage in primary delegates, but that seven delegate margin in caucus delegates would put Obama over the top in Texas.
What both of these examples illustrate is that there is another layer to be added to the explanation of the caucus question. To assume then, that the overall winner or loser of the contest's first step gains or loses support statewide becomes an issue of aggregation. Precinct-level winner continue to maintain support or gain in those areas as the process continues. It isn't enough to say that Obama won 37% of caucus support in the precinct caucuses in Iowa and then upped that to 52% in the county caucuses. The question becomes one of whether he maintained and increased the lead in the areas he did well on during the original caucus.
While we wait for Pennsylvania on April 22, the second step caucuses occurring in the interim are worth watching. With the delegate margin where it is (between 100 and 150 delegates), fluctuations in these pre-convention steps could alter the ultimate count of delegates that heads to the convention in August. Which states are we looking at then?
April 4-6: North Dakota state convention
April 5: Delaware state convention
Washington legislative district conventions
April 5-May 3: Mississippi congressional district conventions
April 12: Kansas district conventions
April 19: Washington county and legislative district conventions
[source: The Green Papers]
No matter which candidate we're talking about, every little bit helps.
Yesterday, Texas Democrats held their second round contests; the state senate district conventions. In the Dallas area, Obama managed to maintain the same level of support in the second round in the area's five senate districts that he brought in from the first step on March 4. In El Paso County, where Hillary Clinton won, both in the caucuses and the primary, Clinton's support increased to around 94%. What that is up from is a bit of an unknown. The New York Times' Election Guide shows Clinton with a 3:1 lead in El Paso County with 58% of the precincts reporting. So, we know it is an increase, but just don't know by exactly how much. [UPDATE: Across Texas, we now have a better idea about how the most recent step in the Texas caucus system went. Obama seems to have bumped up his statewide total to 58% heading into June's state convention (Thanks to Paul Gurian for the link.).] If that number holds steady when the delegates are allocated at that convention, Obama would net
What both of these examples illustrate is that there is another layer to be added to the explanation of the caucus question. To assume then, that the overall winner or loser of the contest's first step gains or loses support statewide becomes an issue of aggregation. Precinct-level winner continue to maintain support or gain in those areas as the process continues. It isn't enough to say that Obama won 37% of caucus support in the precinct caucuses in Iowa and then upped that to 52% in the county caucuses. The question becomes one of whether he maintained and increased the lead in the areas he did well on during the original caucus.
While we wait for Pennsylvania on April 22, the second step caucuses occurring in the interim are worth watching. With the delegate margin where it is (between 100 and 150 delegates), fluctuations in these pre-convention steps could alter the ultimate count of delegates that heads to the convention in August. Which states are we looking at then?
April 4-6: North Dakota state convention
April 5: Delaware state convention
Washington legislative district conventions
April 5-May 3: Mississippi congressional district conventions
April 12: Kansas district conventions
April 19: Washington county and legislative district conventions
[source: The Green Papers]
No matter which candidate we're talking about, every little bit helps.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Is the Electoral College really an Argument Clinton wants to make?
***Please see links to updates of these maps at the conclusion of the post or in the side bar to the right.***
Something that has bothered me throughout the coverage of the race for the Democratic nomination is the idea that one candidate winning a state translates into general election success in that state. Both sides have used that argument in one way or another as a means of persuading superdelegates: Obama in claiming that he can be competitive in more states and Clinton in claiming she can win the big swing states necessary for Democratic success. On Sunday, Evan Bayh (Democratic senator of Indiana and Clinton supporter) brought the electoral college directly into this conversation:
The results are interesting and don't really support Bayh (or Clinton). In the McCain-Clinton contest, the solid and leaning categories give McCain a 235-179 electoral college vote advantage with 124 electoral votes falling in "toss up" territory. If you allocate those states' votes to the candidate with the leading average, McCain wins by a 90 electoral college vote margin, 314-224. To a large degree, the map looks similar to the map from 2004. The GOP gains Oregon, Washington, Michigan and Wisconsin while the Democrats take Ohio and Arkansas. These polls indicate that McCain would maintain Florida and Clinton would hold on to Pennsylvania. But even with Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Democratic column, Clinton loses the election.
Contrast that with the McCain-Obama map. The first impression is that there are far fewer solidly red or blue states and a lot more toss up states. Among those toss ups though are several typically ruby red states; both in the South and in the plains (South Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska). Factoring in the toss ups, Obama has a 199-174 lead over McCain with 165 electoral votes to close to call. Again, if those electoral votes are allocated to the candidate leading in the average of post-Super Tuesday state polls, Obama claims victory by a 273-265 margin. That's pretty close to the 2000 outcome. Of the red toss up states listed above, Obama manages a win in North Dakota.
Overall, there are 36 states that remain either red or blue no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Among the remaining 15 (DC is counted as a state since it has three electoral votes.), Clinton makes a difference in four (AR, OH, PA and WV) and Obama creates a shift from red to blue in 11 (CO, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, ND, OR, VA and WI). Republicans then, may be right to hope for Clinton to emerge as the Democratic nominee, keeping the battlegrounds similar to 2000 and 2004. The battle shifts to new territory if Obama is the nominee. Also, as we discussed in our discussion group meeting yesterday, either outcome has real implications for the direction of the Democratic party (with Dean's 50 state strategy clearly on the line). If Clinton were able to win the Democratic nomination, it likely damns that strategy after an assured change in leadership of the DNC. An Obama win (and subsequent performance in the general election) seems to validate that strategy though, ensuring that Dean or someone like him will continue to lead the party. What then, does that say about Howard Dean's current rooting interests in this race?
See an update of the maps to account for poll changes over the last week (4/2/08).
...and a new set of companion maps (4/3/08).
Update for 4/9/08
Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
What happens when the polls are weighted to give more emphasis to the more recent ones?
Update for 5/7/08 (weighted)
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)
[Many thanks to Paul Gurian, Del Dunn and Rob Shewfelt for their contributions to this post.]
Something that has bothered me throughout the coverage of the race for the Democratic nomination is the idea that one candidate winning a state translates into general election success in that state. Both sides have used that argument in one way or another as a means of persuading superdelegates: Obama in claiming that he can be competitive in more states and Clinton in claiming she can win the big swing states necessary for Democratic success. On Sunday, Evan Bayh (Democratic senator of Indiana and Clinton supporter) brought the electoral college directly into this conversation:
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”But is that really an argument that the Clinton campaign wants to roll out? Is it beneficial? Well, I wanted to find out, so I began looking at the state-level, head-to-head, general election polls (McCain v. Clinton and McCain v. Obama) to see how many electoral votes the candidates would have if those polls accurately depicted how the general election vote outcome would differ based on who was in the race. The data come from Real Clear Politics and their "Latest Polls" section. I averaged all the polls since Super Tuesday in each of the states to see which candidate had the lead. The number of polls ranged from one twenty-four of the states to nine in Pennsylvania. Obviously there are issues with using just one poll, but with few exceptions these are solidly red or blue states. In other words, the polls there are decent indicators of how the general election vote would turn out. However, since most of these one shot polls were conducted at the end of February, they don't account for either the 3am ad or the Jeremiah Wright flap.
The results are interesting and don't really support Bayh (or Clinton). In the McCain-Clinton contest, the solid and leaning categories give McCain a 235-179 electoral college vote advantage with 124 electoral votes falling in "toss up" territory. If you allocate those states' votes to the candidate with the leading average, McCain wins by a 90 electoral college vote margin, 314-224. To a large degree, the map looks similar to the map from 2004. The GOP gains Oregon, Washington, Michigan and Wisconsin while the Democrats take Ohio and Arkansas. These polls indicate that McCain would maintain Florida and Clinton would hold on to Pennsylvania. But even with Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Democratic column, Clinton loses the election.
Contrast that with the McCain-Obama map. The first impression is that there are far fewer solidly red or blue states and a lot more toss up states. Among those toss ups though are several typically ruby red states; both in the South and in the plains (South Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska). Factoring in the toss ups, Obama has a 199-174 lead over McCain with 165 electoral votes to close to call. Again, if those electoral votes are allocated to the candidate leading in the average of post-Super Tuesday state polls, Obama claims victory by a 273-265 margin. That's pretty close to the 2000 outcome. Of the red toss up states listed above, Obama manages a win in North Dakota.
Overall, there are 36 states that remain either red or blue no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Among the remaining 15 (DC is counted as a state since it has three electoral votes.), Clinton makes a difference in four (AR, OH, PA and WV) and Obama creates a shift from red to blue in 11 (CO, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, ND, OR, VA and WI). Republicans then, may be right to hope for Clinton to emerge as the Democratic nominee, keeping the battlegrounds similar to 2000 and 2004. The battle shifts to new territory if Obama is the nominee. Also, as we discussed in our discussion group meeting yesterday, either outcome has real implications for the direction of the Democratic party (with Dean's 50 state strategy clearly on the line). If Clinton were able to win the Democratic nomination, it likely damns that strategy after an assured change in leadership of the DNC. An Obama win (and subsequent performance in the general election) seems to validate that strategy though, ensuring that Dean or someone like him will continue to lead the party. What then, does that say about Howard Dean's current rooting interests in this race?See an update of the maps to account for poll changes over the last week (4/2/08).
...and a new set of companion maps (4/3/08).
Update for 4/9/08
Update for 4/16/08
Update for 4/23/08
Update for 4/30/08
What happens when the polls are weighted to give more emphasis to the more recent ones?
Update for 5/7/08 (weighted)
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)
[Many thanks to Paul Gurian, Del Dunn and Rob Shewfelt for their contributions to this post.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)