Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

Fine, if you want to go with the 41% of precincts reporting total from the first step (Obviously, I don't want to given the title.), then it should read "Texas Caucus Final Tally: 56% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates." But don't say I didn't warn you.

Even though FHQ doesn't have access to the true nature of those initial numbers, all is not lost in pursuit of an answer to the caucus question in Texas. Texas Democrats may have stopped publicly counting the March 4 caucus numbers at the 41% mark, but we do know from reports of the senate district convention results that Obama gained support over Clinton compared to the March 4 results. What we know is that Obama improved upon his initial level of support in the senate district conventions to 58%. That total would have netted the Illinois senator 39 delegates in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection plan. The state convention seems to have knocked that number down a tad though. In the presidential preference vote held among the 7300 delegates at the Texas Democratic state convention, this weekend, Obama received 57% of the vote which equated to 38 delegates in the caucus process.

Well, la-di-da. What does that matter now anyway? Obama's already the nominee, right? A valid point, to be sure. But this also happens to help test the caucus question hypothesis (that throughout the caucus process momentum will build behind the front-runner/winner/presumptive nominee). Texas held the first state convention to close a caucus process after Obama clinched the nomination. As such, Texas offered the first opportunity to see any wholesale defections toward Obama. We didn't see any. Next weekend offers three further opportunities to discover evidence in support of the caucus question. Idaho, Iowa and Washington all close down their delegate selection shops for the 2008 season with state conventions next weekend. The following weekend, Nebraska will officially bring an end to the delegate selection phase of the 2008 campaign (source: The Greenpapers).

Of those, Iowa will be the most interesting because, well, it's Iowa. Also, Iowa was an early, three way, competitive caucus. The result is that there is a lot of room for a shake up from the original results to the final results. Many of the Edwards delegates from Iowa have already committed to Obama and that certainly factors into this. The big question is whether Clinton delegates, now that the New York senator has dropped her bid for the nomination and endorsed Obama, will move over to support the Illinois senator in Iowa or any of the remaining three caucus states. In Texas the answer was a resounding no.

Elsewhere, it may be a different story. Idaho, Nebraska and Washington all handed Obama decisive victories over Clinton in official caucuses, but also held later beauty contest primaries that served advisory roles. In all three cases the primaries were closer contests.

Idaho caucus: Obama - 79.5, Clinton - 17.2
Idaho primary (scroll down): Obama - 56, Clinton - 38

Nebraska caucus: Obama - 67.6, Clinton - 32.2
Nebraska primary: Obama - 49, Clinton - 47

Washington caucus: Obama - 67.5, Clinton - 31.2
Washington primary (scroll down): Obama - 51.2, Clinton - 45.7

Those differences are noteworthy heading into the next two weekends in terms of the caucus question.

Recent Posts:
VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Ah, the question of the hour. Well, I suppose Hillary Clinton's speech today may hold the more pressing questions of the day (Will she talk about the popular vote totals? To what degree will she endorse Obama? etc.), but the VP talk has certainly ramped up since Obama's clinching victories on Tuesday night (I say victories because he won the Montana primary and the superdelegate primary that day.). Anyway, in open season in the running mate selection game, there are no shortages on guesses, lists or any other speculation over who it will be. Paul Gurian sent around a link to CQ's VP Madness yesterday on one of his emailing lists and that includes a robust pool of 32 possibilities (...in a bracket layout, no less. It looks like Hillary Clinton is the number one seed, at least in her placement at the top of the bracket. That may not match will the actually likelihood of her being chosen. Though, just like in March Madness, top seeds are always ripe for an upset at some point--excluding 2008 of course.).

Chris Cillizza over at The Fix also had a Friday Line up yesterday devoted to the VP selection. Here are those rankings (as they appear in reverse order):
Obama:
5. Hillary Clinton
4. John Edwards
3. Kathleen Sebelius
2. Jim Webb
1. Ted Strickland

McCain:
5. Joe Lieberman
4. Charlie Crist
3. John Thune
2. Mitt Romney
1. Tim Pawlenty

Well, I'll indirectly weigh in, but I'd like to turn the tables a bit. Only Obama, McCain and their inner circles really know who they are targeting, so anyone else is simply guessing. Some of those guesses are more educated than others, but they are still just guesses. Correctly divining who the running mate picks might be is slightly more difficult, so I'll take the far easier route and have a glance at who McCain and Obama won't pick. I'm setting this up similar to the NBA player trade value list that ESPN writer, Bill Simmons, puts together every year (I know, two basketball references in one post. It's a terrible habit that I'm trying unsuccessfully to cut back on.). In this situation we'll move from the least likely VP choice to the most likely. In other words, this will progress from certainty to abject guess work. I'll look at the highlights of the top 500 on both sides.

Let's start with the Illinois senator:
500. Barack Obama: The arrogance of Obama has been a topic of discussion among Clinton supporters and even reared its ugly head the other day in Chicago when Obama speculated that when Chicago holds the 2016 Olympics, he'll be finishing up his second term. Is he arrogant enough to flaunt the Constitution and name himself his own running mate (Actually, is there anything in the Constitution that prevents this? I don't know. It seems like the order of succession would just pick up with the Speaker of House if the same person was both president and vice president.)? FHQ thinks not.
...
493. Jeremiah Wright: Who else thought we had seen the last of the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ? Well, here's guessing that we have, at least in the context of the vice presidential selection. The big question: If Wright is #493, who the heck are the VPs from #494-#499? I'll leave that up to you.
...
450. Osama bin Laden: If you're a fan of rhyming tickets, I'd wager you'll be disappointed that Obama-Osama won't happen. Then again, Osama would face the same predicament John McCain has: he wasn't born in the US.
...
401. James Dobson: The Fix mentioned Ted Strickland helping Obama and the Democrats close the "God gap," but why not go for broke by tapping Dobson. Something tells me this won't be the good reverend's calling.
...
362. Chelsea Clinton: The first of the former First Family to appear. She's just not old enough. It's that simple. But hey, making it this far will certainly help jump start her own political career.
...if she's so inclined.
...
327. Mark Penn: Maybe he'll be closer to the Columbian government than the US government should Obama (or McCain for that matter) become president.
...
295. Fidel Castro: I suppose that if you need preconditions to sit down with them, then you'll need a bit more to actually make one of them your running mate.

294. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: See above.
...
215. Joe Lieberman: Nah, probably not.
...
187. Oprah: Hey, there's one way to win back some of those female voters.
...
133. Dean's scream: No, not Howard Dean himself. The scream brings all the passion necessary for the long haul, without actually being Howard Dean. But that's so Two Americas 2004.
...
100. Bill Clinton: C'mon, you knew he'd be on the list. You can't have a VP list and not include the Constitution-steeped, former-president-as-VP scenario.
...
74. Chuck Schumer: Democrat? Check. New York senator? Check. Hillary Clinton? Well, no he's not. But he's a Democratic senator from New York.
...
48. Dick Durbin: Democrat? Check. Illinois senator? Check. Barack Obama? Well, I don't suppose so. But two outta three ain't bad. And at least Illinois as a Democratic governor. They'd be able to replace those Democratic seats.
...
33. Jennifer Granholm: Oh wait, she was born in Canada.

32. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin: The South Dakota representative is an up and comer within the Democratic Party. This may not be her year, but like Bobby Jindal on the GOP side, it may not be a bad idea to put her name out there as a possibility just to grant her a bit of recognition.
...
21. Elliot Spitzer: Oops, that almost made it through.
...
15. Chris Dodd: Well, Connecticut has been trending toward the red lately (in the last couple of polls out of the state), and the other senator from the Constitution state certainly won't be backing Obama (see #215). Of course, if the Democrats seriously desire that fillibuster-proof Senate, they would probably not want to select for a VP nominee a senator from a state with a Republican governor.
...
12. Sam Nunn: Secretary of Defense? Maybe. Vice president? Probably not.
...
10. Hillary Clinton: I'm just not going to touch this one. Do 18 million votes make her a shoo in? Is Obama less an executive decision-maker if he is forced to choose her? There are too many questions to answer in regards to the Dream Ticket, but the New York senator is too much of a presence in this race not to include. But she's this low because I just don't see an Obamary or Hillama ticket.

9. Tim Kaine: Virginia is important and Kaine was an early Obama backer, but the lack of foreign policy credentials will hurt him in this chase.

8. Ed Rendell: Another important state (Pennsylvania). Another Democratic governor. The polls seem to be trending Democratic in the Keystone state to the point that Rendell may not be as vital as a governor from a neighboring state.

7. Bill Richardson: It is interesting to me that the Richardson as VP chatter has quieted down since the New Mexico governor endorsed Obama. Richardson may well be a part of an Obama administration, but as Secretary of State, not vice president.

6. John Edwards: I suspect that the Edwards as VP talk will die down similar to the way it has done for Richardson. Also like Richardson, Edwards may be a part of an Obama administration but as Attorney General and not Vice President.

5. Wes Clark: Obama would cover some foreign policy and Clinton supporter issues by tapping Clark as his running mate. Clark isn't mentioned as often as other possibilities, but he seems a logical choice and in a tight election, may help pull Arkansas' six electoral votes back into play.

4. Jim Webb: Wes Clark without the Clinton connection. He is an elected official from Virginia though, and has the foreign policy experience that Kaine lacks. The article on female servicepersons may not sit well with a majority of those Clinton supporters though.

3. Joe Biden: He may be too big for the office, but I can't imagine why Biden's name isn't mentioned any more than it has in the VP talk. He' experienced, has the foreign policy chops and has assumed the McCain in 2000 straight talker mantle.

2. Ted Strickland: Ohio governor. Former representative of a relatively conservative Buckeye state district. Methodist minister. Clinton supporter. Sounds good. The question? How well does/would he get along with Obama?

1. Kathleen Sebelius: I think Obama will go the Clinton '92 route and choose someone similar to himself but who is stronger in other areas. She won't necessarily help with the foreign policy question, but I think he is comfortable with her and she has the potential to help bring in those female Clinton voters. The Fix mentioned that that may be seen as an indignity to those voters, but they haven't been introduced to Sebelius yet. I think the Kansas governor gets the nod.

And what about McCain?
500. Barack Obama: Why not end this thing now and form a unity ticket? Eh, probably not.
...
490. John Hagee: The Jeremiah Wright of the Right? That has a nice ring to it, but won't prove any more likely as Wright as Obama's running mate.
...
402. Chuck Hagel: There ain't room enough in this town for two Vietnam veterans with differing views on the Iraq war. It could be a coup in a tight election where the districted distribution of electoral votes in Hagel's home of Nebraska could help shore up a couple of those districts that are tight now.
...
385. Fred Thompson: I joked early on that this could be the "old white guys" ticket. Not really the face you want to present to the nation in the fall though. But there were all those questions about Thompson's desire to be in the Republican race in the first place. Would not he be perfect then in a job that doesn't require too much and "isn't worth a bucket of warm spit?"
...
342. Hillary Clinton: Well, if you're trying to lure her supporters over to your side, why not go straight to the source. And it would be a civilized ticket according to Bill Clinton.
...
291. John Cornyn: "F--- you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room." Temper, temper. Something tells me statements like these to Senate colleagues (Cornyn in this case.) may stand in the way of ticket of two Republican senators.

290. Thad Cochran: Or do statements like those and McCain's temper send "chills down [your] spine" Senator Cochran?

289. Chuck Grassley: How about you, Senator Grassley? "'I'm calling you a f------ jerk!' he once retorted" to the Iowa senator. None of these three guys may be the bridge to the legislative branch that a President McCain would want.
...
213. Jack Abramoff: Here's a unity ticket we may not see. Campaign finance reform vs. the king of the campaign finance loophole/violation.
...
184. Adam Putnam: The Florida representative has a good last name and is a red head like someone FHQ knows. How bad could he be?
...
129. Mark Foley: Geez, and you thought Jack Abramoff was too 2006. I'm willing to bet Foley would want to skip this vetting process.
...
100. Dick Cheney: He never said he wouldn't run for vice president again. Plus, what will the left do without him?
...
75. Bob Barr: Forget wooing those Hillary voters. Why not go after the Ron Paul, libertarians by wooing Bob Barr back into the Republican fold? McCain didn't move quickly enough on this one. Barr's already installed as the Libertarian Party nominee.
...
50. Jeb Bush: If ever there was a time and a means of testing the Bush fatigue theory, this marriage would be the way.
...
25. Sonny Perdue: The Georgia governor is the first Republican governor (not to mention two terms) of the Peach state since Reconstruction. And while he has had his moments and remains relatively popular, he just isn't a "wow you" sort of pick.
...
17. Rick Santorum: He hails from Pennsylvania and sure, he just lost out to Bob Casey in his 2006 reelection bid, but it was just earlier this year that Grover Norquist was singing the former senator's praises as a future player in the GOP.
...
13. Kay Bailey Hutchinson: You have to have a Texan on the ticket if you're a Republican (unless you're Bob Dole--See, he lost.), and John Cornyn isn't going to be McCain's pick. Hutchinson may be effective at pulling in some of those disaffected Clinton voters too.
...
10. Mike Huckabee: The readers at CQ handing him VP Madness honors on the GOP side may be the only thing that Huckabee wins before 2012 or so. The former Arkansas governor acquitted himself well during primary season, but just doesn't seem like a good VP to pair with McCain on a ticket.

9. Bobby Jindal: I mentioned Jindal in my thoughts on South Dakota Rep. Herseth-Sandlin. They are both on the rise within their parties. Jindal was tasked with introducing McCain for his speech on the night Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and got an invitation to McCain's Sedona ranch for a meeting with other prospective vice presidential nominees. It's just too early for Jindal, but this is certainly a "working out the farm team" move.

8. Robert Portman: The only Ohio Republican, it seems who isn't in trouble electorally or with the law or named Ken Blackwell. Ohio will be valuable. Florida seems to be leaning toward the Republicans while Pennsylvania is trending Democratic at the moment. That leaves Ohio as the sole member of the triumvirate of big swing states still swinging. And a native son wouldn't hurt the Republicans. Portman would bolster McCain's economic credentials because of his stint as director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush.

7. Mark Sanford: It is difficult to make a case for someone from a state that is highly likely to go Republican at the presidential level in November. It would take an astronomically high turnout from African Americans to even keep the race close for Obama in the Palmetto state. The utility of selecting South Carolina's governor then seems fairly low. Then again picking a VP simply to make a state competitive or swing it in another direction hasn't worked out that well lately. Edwards didn't do much for Kerry in North or South Carolina. Kemp didn't help Dole in New York. Choosing someone from a safe state might be the way to go then. Sanford fits that bill.

6. Rick Perry: The governor of Texas hasn't been mentioned in the VP chatter I've heard, but hey, Republicans like their Texans (see #13 Kay Bailey Hutchinson). It could be that Perry's endorsement of Giuliani is hampering his chances. But McCain wouldn't hold a grudge, would he Senators Cochran, Cornyn and Grassley?

5. Joe Lieberman: Lieberman is certainly exerting his independence by backing McCain. If he were serving in the Dick Cheney "vetting the VPs" role, I'd call him a sure thing. The one question I haven't heard answered is how his constituents back home in Connecticut are responding to this foray into GOP politics. Well, polls there have taken a turn toward the red lately, so their may be something to this Lieberman as VP talk. Eh, but it's just seven electoral votes. 7 electoral votes is 7 electoral votes when it's close.

4. Charlie Crist: His endorsement of McCain helped in the Florida primary that partly launched McCain to the nomination. Loyalty means something and McCain can't choose the Governator, so he can opt for the next best early endorsement.

3. Tim Pawlenty: The two term Minnesota governor has gotten a lot of mentions in the VP talk, but I'm not convinced that he swings the tide there for McCain. Obama has a solid lead there (almost ten points in my calculations) and it would be tough to change that. Everyone is saying Pawlenty, but when everyone is telling McCain to do something, he strikes me as the type that is apt to go in a different direction. But like the Jindal scenario, this builds the farm team for the future.

2. John Thune: The South Dakota senator took out Tom Daschle when he was majority leader during Bush's first term. Need we say more. Conservatives like the guy. On top of that, he's young, but not too young. And people know him more than the guy who beat sitting Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, in 1994 (It was George Nethercutt.).

1. Mitt Romney: The man who had more paths to the GOP nomination than anyone has a good shot at the Republican VP slot. There was tension between the two men (something I've used against other possibilities), but Romney's willingness to raise funds (and we mean raise funds) and campaign for McCain is a big asset. Plus he has already gotten some scrutiny during his own bid for the nomination. Dare I give Romney the most paths to the VP nod as well. Sounds like a kiss of death to me. Sorry Mitt.

McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Sebelius? Agree or disagree, the comments section awaits. There are no right answers, just a lot of wrong ones (see the above). No one will know until the candidates reveal the best kept secrets in politics in the next month or so. Also, feel free to plug in any holes in the above lists.


Recent Posts:Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

"If states had not moved up or “frontloaded” the date of their primaries and caucuses, under the misimpression that doing so would give them a greater voice in the 2008 nomination, Clinton might be the Democratic nominee."
--Michael P. McDonald, The Brookings Institution/Professor of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University

So now it was the calendar that knocked Clinton out in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race? State governments and state parties were deciding where to position their primaries and caucuses for 2008 during the time between March of 2005, when Arkansas became the first state to move and December of 2007, when Michigan's unsanctioned move was given the green light by the courts (over the access to voter information from the contests). Was it really a "misimpression" that 2008 would be like 2004 or 2000 or 1996 (etc.)? If 2008 had been like 2004, those states would have made "wise" decisions. They may have been lost in the shuffle among other, bigger states, but they at least would have held their contests on or before the time at which the nominee emerged. That had been the mark of most of the frontloaded system's races prior to 2008. Sure, in retrospect, those frontloading decisions may have been off the mark, but expecting states to have foreseen that is about as realistic as expecting pundits and experts to have predicted the race that just completed.

For the record, sequence did matter in 2008. But sequence has always played a role in these things. Florida's position in 1976 helped Jimmy Carter eliminate George Wallace. In 1988 the Souther Super Tuesday pushed George H.W. Bush out in front of the pack of Republicans. 1992 saw Georgia's position just after New Hampshire assist Bill Clinton in the comeback that began in the Granite state.

Sequence matters and it did in 2008 as well. That's just part of the nomination process, but it isn't the only factor. Obama's organizational prowess in the caucus states and micro-targeting of districts in state's where he did not win built the delegate advantages that he carried into the final weeks of primary season. The Clinton camp's inability to quickly devise a plan B after their Super Tuesday or bust strategy failed was the real cause of her downfall. The calendar was the same for everyone and was a known quantity (with the exception of Michigan) from early fall 2007 until Iowan kicked things off on January 3. Obama planned ahead; Clinton didn't. That is the story.

Look, I'm a staunch believer in the rules playing a decisive role in politics. Rules and rules changes form the basis of my academic pursuits and this particular set of rules (those applying to the scheduling and sequencing of presidential nominating contests) are the root of the dissertation I'm currently writing. I'm also something of a defender of/realist about the current system. Is it ideal? No. But it will be extremely difficult to get the national and state parties, Democrats and Republicans, and national and state governments on the same page to make a significant change. There are simply too many competing (not to mention, contradictory) interests involved. So now that primary season is over, it apparently is open season for frontloading bashing. The reexamination of the current system is a discussion that needs to be had, but a dose of reality is an important component of that discussion. Reform may be nice, but will be tough to come by. Rotating regional primaries may be nice, but a national primary, or something close to it, will be what we end up with.

Thanks to the good folks at Ballot Box (via The Election Law Blog) for the link.

Related: Michigan: What Would Have Happened? (from Fivethirtyeight.com)


Recent Posts:
Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

After the post-Super Tuesday run Obama made through February, the Illinois senator hit the wall in some respects. March and April ushered in a string a defeats that effectively prevented him from eliminating Hillary Clinton and claiming the Democratic nomination sooner. And though the two Democrats split victories coming down the stretch in May and early June, Obama failed to put Clinton away until the final night of the contest. This isn't meant as a means of tearing Obama down. He did just win the nomination after all. However, Obama's struggles in finishing off the formidable Clinton in the primaries translated to the electoral college as well. As FHQ showed last month in attempting to demonstrate the changes in state poll numbers in the wake of the two Wright dramas and "bitter-gate," Obama's numbers had only slid significantly in a handful of states. [In this case, a fraction of a point could prove significant, shifting several of the swing states from the Democratic column to the Republican column and vice versa.] Still, to that point Clinton had only really just pulled ahead of Obama in the electoral college relative to McCain.
In the weeks since it has been Clinton who has been more consistently ahead of McCain and Obama, who has lagged slightly behind the Arizona senator. Both are directly opposite to the positions both Democrats were in during Obama's February streak. At the end of primary season then, it is Clinton with all the momentum. Well, sort of. Of course, she isn't the nominee, though. While Obama averaged a 1.4 point loss in each state's average of head-to-head polls against McCain throughout primary season, Clinton gained only 0.6 points on average. Much of the New York senator's gains were due to the vitally important shifts of Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington from McCain's column to hers. In the map below you can see those positive shifts toward Clinton (in shades of orange--the darker the color, the greater the change). On the whole, the states that were already in Clinton's favor shifted in her direction (a slight downward shift in California being the exception) while those that were already solidly for McCain (in shades of purple) moved toward him. Clinton gained in the three big battlegrounds of the last couple of presidential elections (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania), but lost ground in states like Texas. She gained on McCain in 24 states while the Arizona senator made up ground in 19 others. [The seven states in white are the states where no additional polls were conducted and exhibit no change as a result.]
The Obama map is slightly different. The progression of his state level, head-to-head polling against McCain had a decidedly negative tint (in shades of green). The Illinois senator was at his height early on and in coming back down to earth, lost ground in the electoral college pairing with McCain. So, while I offered the Clinton line earlier, that she might be the better general election candidate (and only barely so in the maps that appear on this site) part of the changes here can only be viewed through the candidates' relative position to McCain at the outset. Obama was at his peak and Clinton was not. That being said, Obama is the nominee and it is instructive to look at the states where he has gained in the polls against McCain. While he lost ground to McCain in 24 states, the 20 states (in shades of yellow) he gained in could be part of the grouping of states the Obama campaign targets for the fall. He has shored up support in states like Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Pennsylvania, despite the primary loss to Clinton, has since shifted to Obama's side of the ledger. Ohio and Indiana are also trending toward the Illinois senator. Both states are toss ups leaning toward McCain 0n the latest map. So, while Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Virginia have switched to McCain, pulling ahead in the Buckeye and Hoosier states would offset those losses as would the gains in Florida and North Carolina. McCain, meanwhile, can tout gains in other battlegrounds like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (all state bordering his home state of Arizona).
What then, can we take home from these maps? Clinton has been trending upward in the electoral college relative to Obama, but she isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. Despite coming back from the dead of February, the Clinton campaign is headed for suspension this weekend and Obama is pressing forward as the presumptive Democratic nominee. In doing so, the Illinois senator has a swath of swing states in which he is trending in the right direction, but others where McCain is in a good position to overtake him. At the outset of the general election campaign, this appears to be a close race and even including the lost ground since February, Obama is still in good shape. Then again, McCain is in good standing as well, considering all the typical indicators of presidential election success are pointing away from him.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

Out of the eight Survey USA state polls released yesterday, none of them polled the Clinton-McCain match up. If that is indicative (and last night's results tell me that it will be), then this may be the last week that FHQ includes a Clinton map in the weekly electoral college breakdown. For this week, though, the Clinton map is still here, as are the Obama-McCain and McCain margin maps. Since last Thursday there have been 23 new polls in 19 different states. The outcome of both electoral college scenarios did not change at all, though, and only a few of those states actually switched categories.
Losing Michigan and North Dakota a week ago and only gaining in Colorado put Obama behind McCain. And while Texas slipped out of the McCain lean category and into the Strong McCain column this week, Obama made up ground in Missouri where he has lagged behind where Clinton has been relative to McCain. The Show-Me state is now a toss up that favors the Arizona senator. Like Ohio, though, it is trending toward Obama, which is something that Obama would need if he were trailing McCain by 24 electoral votes. If those two states were to go to Obama, it would effectively turn the tables on the current electoral college numbers between the two presumptive nominees.
Little changed on the Clinton-McCain map this week. Most of that was due the the decline in actual data on the Clinton-McCain pairing. There were but ten polls in ten states which asked about the hypothetical Clinton-McCain race and only Connecticut switched in any noticeable way. Clinton's support in the Constitution state increased pushing the Connecticut out of the toss up area and into the Clinton lean category. Aside from that one shift, little else was different and the slim electoral college victory the New York senator won a week ago was preserved for another week.
And in what may be the last McCain margin map (Toot my own horn alert: I know, a sad thought considering how much better it looks now.), little changed. The new poll in Wyoming increased Obama's McCain margin (the darker the color, the greater McCain margin, Clinton = green, Obama = blue) there. Beyond that, Clinton's slight McCain margin lead in Missouri became even smaller, while the opposite was true for Obama in Connecticut (his McCain margin slipped). Both are lighter this week, meaning that the difference between each of the Democrats and McCain is low. In other words, it doesn't matter which Democrat is up against McCain. Connecticut is a good lean to the Democrats while Missouri remains a slight toss up favoring McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Later this week I'll be back with a look at how much the maps have changed since we started looking at the electoral college scenarios back in March. I'll also be unveiling the new map template that Paul Gurian and I will be using for the general election electoral college breakdown. Also, I should note that I will continue collecting Clinton-McCain data, when and if it surfaces. However, I'll move those into their own post with the soon-to-be defunct McCain margin maps.

***Please see the side bar for links to past electoral college comparisons.***


Recent Posts:
The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

The Big Montana

It's not just a 1lb. roast beef sandwich at Arby's anymore. The Treasure state (...and the twenty plus superdelegates who announced as soon as the polls closed in Montana) put Obama over the top in the delegate count for the Democratic nomination. I'm probably not the first to say it and I probably won't be the last. However, we just completed exactly five months of primary season (January 3-June 3). And the general election kicks off tomorrow; exactly five month before the election day on November 4. Ah, symmetry. This next five months will certainly be hard pressed to match the previous five months for drama and excitement.

So Obama sheds the VANP (very almost nearly presumptive) nominee title, and assumes the mantle of presumptive nominee. Here we go. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I'll be back tomorrow with our first look at the electoral maps during general election season.


Recent Posts:
The Long and Winding Road

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

The Long and Winding Road

And here we are, five months after we started, at the conclusion of primary season. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I have a tear in my eye at the thought. But hey, talk of states moving their delegate selection events for the 2012 cycle has already begun (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota). And the Republicans have nomination system reform on the agenda for their convention later this summer. So, I'll manage to keep busy (...between that and this general election thing, whatever that is. FHQ has always been of the mind that these presidential elections end once primary season ends anyway. But that's just a personal preference just like my affinity for the early rounds of the NCAA tournament. But I digress.).

Montana and South Dakota bring up the rear today in the final two contests of the nomination phase of the 2008 campaign. [Of course, there are Republican contests in New Mexico and South Dakota today as well. The GOP already held delegate selection in Montana during a February 5 caucus, but hold a beauty contest primary today. My guess is that McCain improves upon his third place showing there, though Romney still has all 25 delegates--until the convention that is.] For the Democrats, both states offer a combined 31 pledged delegates, not to mention some interesting rules quirks. Yeah, you knew I'd take notice of those.

In South Dakota the polls close on the closed primary at 9pm Eastern.

One hour later, the polls close in Montana (10pm Eastern). The primary format is more suitable to Obama in the Treasure state. Open primaries have been more favorable to Obama with independents allowed to participate. That Montana's primary is open and South Dakota's is closed may explain some of the differences between the expectations in the two states. South Dakota is expected to be the closer of the two races (...though, as Rob pointed out in the Maine post below, the latest poll out of South Dakota has Clinton up by 26 points. Fivethirtyeight discounts that finding though, pinning the race as a five point Obama win.). Montana has the added quirk that it treats its delegate allocation as if it were still 1980 and the state still had two congressional districts. The state is split into eastern and western halves with each getting 5 of the 16 pledged delegates.

I'll be back with some brief coverage tonight, but it will be interesting to chart the superdelegate endorsements throughout the day. Demconwatch is the place to track that, if you are so inclined.


Recent Posts:
Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

With the close of the Maine Democrats' state convention on Sunday, there's now a clearer picture of the delegate selection throughout Pine Tree state's caucus process. All 24 of the state's pledged delegates were at stake over this past weekend since Maine goes from precinct voting to county convention voting held in correspondence with the state convention. The initial estimate following the February 10 precinct meetings was that Obama and Clinton would split the Maine delegates 15-9. That distribution favored Obama more, though. The Illinois senator received 59% of the statewide vote and that 15-9 split would have given him nearly 63% of the delegates.

And that was the way the distribution emerged from the convention on Saturday night. [Obama also picked up the convention's add-on delegate, as well.] Obama maintained that edge in the state convention and took a round up to the nearest delegate in both of Maine's congressional districts. It was that statistical artifact that provided the discrepancy in the vote and delegate totals.

That there were only two steps in the process and no shift in the delegate totals from one step to the next both run contrary to the caucus question hypothesis. In breaking down the action in Alaska and Wyoming last weekend, I discussed the states which have held state conventions (and thus completed their delegate selection) into groups: 1) those moving toward Clinton (Colorado and Kansas) throughout the caucus process, 2) those moving toward Obama (Alaska and Nevada) and 3) those showing little or no movement (North Dakota and Wyoming). Of those three categories, Maine fits best into the final category. Like most of the caucus states, Maine provided Obama with a solid win, but unlike some of the caucus cases, the original level of support didn't translate into increased support as the process continued (something of an intra-process bandwagon effect). And again, that speaks toward the power of the Clinton candidacy (and the competitiveness of the race). When in most years there would have been at least some trickle of support toward a front-running candidate/presumptive nominee throughout the caucus process, this year just hasn't seen that. Being the VANP (very almost nearly presumptive) nominee apparently hasn't been enough for Obama.

Up next? The remaining big one. Texas completes the caucus half of its delegate selection with its state convention next weekend. Unlike Maine, Texas has already shown some movement toward Obama throughout the steps of the caucus process.


Recent Posts:
Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. If you have one candidate calling for a full seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan and another candidate stressing that neither contest counts, you're going to, more often than not, get something in the middle. See, even I can figure it out (and that's saying something). In this case, something in the middle was seating the full delegations from both Michigan and Florida, but counting each delegate as only half a vote. What a long and strange trip it has been to essentially come full circle and return to the sanction the Rules and Bylaws Committee settled on almost two years ago.

[The scene opens two years ago in the summer of 2006.]
RBC member 1: "Let's take half the delegates from any state that moves its primary ahead of February 5."

RBC member 2: "That sounds good."

[Fast forward to the late summer of 2007]
RBC member 1: "What? Florida moved? Let's make an example of them and take away all their delegates."

RBC member 4: "Yeah, they shouldn't have done that."

RBC member 2: "Don't we already have rule for that?"

RBC member 1: "Well yeah, but this will keep other states from moving."

RBC member 2: "Isn't Michigan's legislature exploring its options and considering a January 15 primary?"

RBC member 4: "Yeah but, see, if we punish Florida, Michigan won't go through with that."

RBC member 2: "If you say so."

[Later that fall...]
RBC member 1: "MICHIGAN MOVED! Now we'll have to take away all their delegates."

RBC member 2 (hesitantly): "I guess."

[Move ahead to the day after Super Tuesday...]
RBC member 1: "You're kidding. The nomination battle is close and those delegates from Florida and Michigan might actually mean something? And it might tear the party in two?"

RBC member 2: "Maybe we shouldn't have stripped them of all their delegates."

RBC member 4: "Nah, that's crazy talk. We had to do that."

[May 2008]
RBC member 4: "Let's just do what the Republicans did and take half the delegates."

RBC member 3: "Wasn't that was our plan, too, before we stripped Florida and Michigan of all their delegates?"

RBC member 2: "Thank you. I've been saying that for months."

RBC member 1: "Hush up, you two! ...well, let's go with half."

RBC member 2: "Now all we've done is dangle this carrot in front of Clinton and her supporters for four months. And we just pulled the rug out from under them. We may have messed this thing up."

RBC member 1: "Eh, we'll be fine. Do you always always mix metaphors when you're worried?"

RBC member 2: "Only when we potentially blow the best shot we've had since 2004 to take back the White House."

RBC member 3: "Next on the agenda: the rules for 2012."

RBC member 4: "Well, the guy at Frontloading HQ says that reform will be difficult."

RBC member 1: "I say we take half of their...Hey, you read that crap!?!"

RBC member 2: "Now we're taking half again? What if some state actually violates this rule?"

RBC member 1: "That would never happen. ...but if it did we'd probably have to strip them of all their delegates to the convention."

RBC member 2: "I'm outta here. Does anyone know if Bloomberg is running in 2012?"
[fade to black]

So the Dems have returned to the original sanction. What now? Moving forward, it will be interesting to see whether the protesters yesterday were just a vocal minority or if they represent a sizable coalition of voters that could hand the general election to McCain. How long that sentiment is sustained will have a lot to do with how Hillary Clinton responds the proceedings from a day ago. If Harold Ickes remarks are indicative ("Hijacking four delegates..."), it could be a rough healing period. Of course, if hijacking four delegates makes it tough to start to party toward unity, I guess accusing the party of hijacking those delegates is just as bad.


Recent Posts:
Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

I'm watching some of the R&B Committee coverage on C-SPAN and Senator Levin is trying his hand at some revisionist history by trying to turn the table on New Hampshire. At issue: New Hampshire jumped from its original date of January 22 to January 8 but was granted a waiver by the Democratic Party to do so. In so doing, they jumped Nevada's caucus. Levin took issue with that decision because Michigan wasn't granted a waiver for their jump. He cited the sequence that the R&B decided on--wedging a caucus in between Iowa and New Hampshire--as being the real topic for discussion. New Hampshire's move was contrary to that sequence. What Levin failed to mention in his plea to the members of the committee was that it was Michigan that triggered the New Hampshire move. New Hampshire has already been given the right to be in the pre-window period. The committee basically ruled that there was no harm, no foul in New Hampshire's January 8 position. The good people of Michigan apparently object though.


Recent Posts:
A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)