Yesterday Obama cleaned up in the Potomac Primary. His tightest margin was his 24 point win in Maryland. But that's not the whole story... in addition he won almost all of the demographics that Hillary has traditionally been strong in (Latinos, older voters, < $50K voters) and came closer among white females and white Dems, her bulwark. The best news for him is that this is news, namely that the news orgs have picked it up and said that it shows he can win among her base.
It also gives him wins in two largish primaries, another common talking point. So, in short, he's sitting pretty.
One note... same-day voters were still strong for Hillary, she won them in VA and they were her strongest loss in MA. So, by my earlier thesis, it seems she is still strong on name recognition and perceived strength.
So, the question of the day is... Can she still win?
The answer? Yes, but it'd take a miracle. Or something close to it.
Obama is going to come out of February with a significant lead among pledged delegates. Currently he's ahead by 128 and Wisconsin and Hawaii, both expected wins for him, have yet to vote. By Obama's estimates he should add another 11 delegates (including dems abroad) to the spread. Thus far his estimates have proved very conservative, he's beat them by 21% relative to the states size. If he continues to do that he will come away with an additional 32 delegates, for a total split of 160 pledged delegates.
Besides this Obama's riding a wave of momentum that will threaten to swamp any built in leads that Hillary has in TX and OH. If he continues to win Latinos and/or over 65 folk she's toast.
So what chance is there? Basically she has to change the dynamic. Hence her calls for debates, which favor her strengths and pull Obama off the trail where he's strongest. It's also likely that she'll go negative in the upcoming weeks, basically throw a whole lot of mud and hope something sticks.
One big thing that could go her way is an Edwards endorsement. It would be big news as it would seem to be a reversal and it could help her shore up support among white men, where she's been slipping. Not to mention the 26 or so delegates that he could strongly encourage to get behind her.
So we'll see... WI is the next big test. It has some demographics that seem to favor Clinton, but it's in an area that's generally been Obama country. If Obama wins blue-collar dems there it's probably the beginning of the end for Clinton.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Tough times for Hillary
Obama swept the weekend with big margins and is looking likely to clean-up on Tuesday in the Potomac Primary.
Probably the biggest setback for HRC was Maine, which some had suggested might go her way. It didn't, and didn't in a rather spectacular fashion, with Obama taking 59% of the vote to Hillary's 41%. Obama's wins in LA, WA, NB & the Virgin Islands were of similarly enormous margins: 21, 37, 36 & 80 points, respectively. On the whole Hillary pulled in 54 delegates to Obama's 111 on the weekend, allowing Obama to take a clear lead in pledged delegates and tie things up in overall delegates (depending on whose count of super-dels you use).
One thing of interest... some of these expectations came from an excel sheet that the Obama campaign inadvertently (or not, depending on who you ask) leaked out with their expected results for the rest of the primaries. Thus far they are out-performing their own predictions, a fact that may mean the release wasn't an accident but was just expectations setting. However, most of their predictions looked consistent with what would be expected... If you take them at face value right now it seems Obama can reasonably be expected to take a majority of the remaining states and pleged delegates. If he continues to beat his expectations at this rate (+11 LA, +17 WA, +16 NB, +40VI, +20 NH) then he'll likely tie up the nomination in the next month or so.
Clinton replaced her campaign manager today and has started to include more inspirational and poetic language into her stump speech.... including stealing one of Obama's lines. From an outside point of view it seems she thinks she has the Experience voters locked up and is trying to move in on Obama's strength in Change/Inspiration voters. My guess is she plays this through until Wisconsin to see if it works, then keeps riding it if it does.
At that point, if Obama's still getting landslide victories, it's fair to assume that her leads in Ohio and Texas will have slimmed. If she doesn't win on the 4th, she's toast. So she'll probably have to pull out all the stops post-WI and go at Obama as hard as she can, trying to change the dynamic... it could be an ugly couple weeks before TX & OH.
One final thing to think about. If Hillary does hold together and win with decent margins on the 4th, then there's a fair chance this will get decided by super delegates... just based on the math. The big Q right now is where do they go? The Clintons will be calling in all their favors, but if a majority of the states, delegates and votes go to Obama I have trouble seeing the DNC risking the wrath of it's constituents by overturning them.
Probably the biggest setback for HRC was Maine, which some had suggested might go her way. It didn't, and didn't in a rather spectacular fashion, with Obama taking 59% of the vote to Hillary's 41%. Obama's wins in LA, WA, NB & the Virgin Islands were of similarly enormous margins: 21, 37, 36 & 80 points, respectively. On the whole Hillary pulled in 54 delegates to Obama's 111 on the weekend, allowing Obama to take a clear lead in pledged delegates and tie things up in overall delegates (depending on whose count of super-dels you use).
One thing of interest... some of these expectations came from an excel sheet that the Obama campaign inadvertently (or not, depending on who you ask) leaked out with their expected results for the rest of the primaries. Thus far they are out-performing their own predictions, a fact that may mean the release wasn't an accident but was just expectations setting. However, most of their predictions looked consistent with what would be expected... If you take them at face value right now it seems Obama can reasonably be expected to take a majority of the remaining states and pleged delegates. If he continues to beat his expectations at this rate (+11 LA, +17 WA, +16 NB, +40VI, +20 NH) then he'll likely tie up the nomination in the next month or so.
Clinton replaced her campaign manager today and has started to include more inspirational and poetic language into her stump speech.... including stealing one of Obama's lines. From an outside point of view it seems she thinks she has the Experience voters locked up and is trying to move in on Obama's strength in Change/Inspiration voters. My guess is she plays this through until Wisconsin to see if it works, then keeps riding it if it does.
At that point, if Obama's still getting landslide victories, it's fair to assume that her leads in Ohio and Texas will have slimmed. If she doesn't win on the 4th, she's toast. So she'll probably have to pull out all the stops post-WI and go at Obama as hard as she can, trying to change the dynamic... it could be an ugly couple weeks before TX & OH.
One final thing to think about. If Hillary does hold together and win with decent margins on the 4th, then there's a fair chance this will get decided by super delegates... just based on the math. The big Q right now is where do they go? The Clintons will be calling in all their favors, but if a majority of the states, delegates and votes go to Obama I have trouble seeing the DNC risking the wrath of it's constituents by overturning them.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
What comes...
Well Super Tuesday came and went... and it looks to be a draw. Obama won more states and, it appears, slightly more delgates. Clinton won the big prizes (CA, MA, NJ) and, just barely, the popular vote.
So, what's the rest of the race look like?
Well, Obama appears to have a good month ahead of him. The upcoming races:
2/9
Washington and Nebraska lean heavily Obama. Louisiana is a little less certain as it's demographics were drastically changed by Katrina, Clinton's best shot at a pickup on the day. Also the Virgin Islands weigh in, with 3 delegates, your guess is as good as mine.
2/10
Maine is probably Hillary's best shot to take a state in Feb. The demographics and location favor her, however it's a caucus state, which she has only won one of so far (NV). Also 7 delegates from Dems Abroad, probably leaning Obama.
2/12
DC and Maryland have large black populations, which should help Obama. Virginia has a slimmer black population and is sandwiched between the South and the Northeast, where Obama and Clinton are relatively stronger. It will be a hard fought race and another possible Clinton win.
2/19
Wisconsin and Hawaii. WI is upper midwest and sandwiched between IL and MN which both went heavily for Obama, a win for him. Hawaii is a caucus state, a former home state for Obama and strongly liberal... count that one for him.
3/4
This is were things could turn back to Hillary. Texas and Ohio are big delegate states that both lean her direction.
---
So, what's this mean for the candidates?
Well Hillary's goal has to be to win a couple states in there and keep the margins slim in the others. If Obama gets a string of blowout wins he could start pulling the finger-in-the-wind folk his direction and rack up a hard to beat lead. Get as much free media as she can, encourage debates (which favor her strengths) and keep expectations low to minimize Obama's wins.
Obama should be going for a knockout blow here. If he can win solidly in the first few states he has a good shot a winning all of the contests in February, by gradually increasing margins. Not only does this help delegate wise, it gives him the chance to emerge as a clear front-runner and pull some super delegates to his side. Just as importantly it gives him a tailwind into Ohio and Texas, which can keep Hillary from racking up big wins there. If he continues to out-raise Hillary it's possible for him to compete strongly on March 4th. The more Hillary has to loan her campaign money, the worse it looks for her.
All in all I think Obama is in the stronger spot. The biggest danger is that he gets caught in the same expectations trap of NH and Feb 5... the polls point to enough momentum that any win that isn't a drubbing is considered good for Hillary. If Hillary is able to pull off a few states in Feb, maintaining the even race dialog, then she'll be in a very strong spot come March 4th as she returns to her strongest spots.
Regardless it's going to be crazy for the next month or so.
So, what's the rest of the race look like?
Well, Obama appears to have a good month ahead of him. The upcoming races:
2/9
Washington and Nebraska lean heavily Obama. Louisiana is a little less certain as it's demographics were drastically changed by Katrina, Clinton's best shot at a pickup on the day. Also the Virgin Islands weigh in, with 3 delegates, your guess is as good as mine.
2/10
Maine is probably Hillary's best shot to take a state in Feb. The demographics and location favor her, however it's a caucus state, which she has only won one of so far (NV). Also 7 delegates from Dems Abroad, probably leaning Obama.
2/12
DC and Maryland have large black populations, which should help Obama. Virginia has a slimmer black population and is sandwiched between the South and the Northeast, where Obama and Clinton are relatively stronger. It will be a hard fought race and another possible Clinton win.
2/19
Wisconsin and Hawaii. WI is upper midwest and sandwiched between IL and MN which both went heavily for Obama, a win for him. Hawaii is a caucus state, a former home state for Obama and strongly liberal... count that one for him.
3/4
This is were things could turn back to Hillary. Texas and Ohio are big delegate states that both lean her direction.
---
So, what's this mean for the candidates?
Well Hillary's goal has to be to win a couple states in there and keep the margins slim in the others. If Obama gets a string of blowout wins he could start pulling the finger-in-the-wind folk his direction and rack up a hard to beat lead. Get as much free media as she can, encourage debates (which favor her strengths) and keep expectations low to minimize Obama's wins.
Obama should be going for a knockout blow here. If he can win solidly in the first few states he has a good shot a winning all of the contests in February, by gradually increasing margins. Not only does this help delegate wise, it gives him the chance to emerge as a clear front-runner and pull some super delegates to his side. Just as importantly it gives him a tailwind into Ohio and Texas, which can keep Hillary from racking up big wins there. If he continues to out-raise Hillary it's possible for him to compete strongly on March 4th. The more Hillary has to loan her campaign money, the worse it looks for her.
All in all I think Obama is in the stronger spot. The biggest danger is that he gets caught in the same expectations trap of NH and Feb 5... the polls point to enough momentum that any win that isn't a drubbing is considered good for Hillary. If Hillary is able to pull off a few states in Feb, maintaining the even race dialog, then she'll be in a very strong spot come March 4th as she returns to her strongest spots.
Regardless it's going to be crazy for the next month or so.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Latest/Earliest deciders for Clinton
Sifting through exit polls from Super Tuesday I've noticed an interesting pattern. In poll after poll it seems that Clinton won the same day deciders while Obama was strong in the week before the primary. Here's a state by state breakdown:
Decided?
SD = Same Day
L3 = In the Last 3 days
LW = In the Last Week
LM = In the Last Month
BF = Before
W/L = Split in final vote
All #'s from CNN.
If Clinton won a group it's listed as a positive number, if Obama won it's listed as a negative.
(PS: missing some data here, if anyone can fill it in or spots a mistake let me know)
Take a look at the averages... they're slightly skewed by the strong preferences in certain states (SC, UT, IL, GA, etc). I'll look into weighting them to account for this.
But the big story is Clinton is very consistently winning the same-day deciders and the the people that decided early on.
So who are these two groups of people? My theories:
Early Deciders (>1 month ago)
First and foremost her die-hard supporters... people that have loved her since the 90's and women committed to seeing a female president.
Second, her soft early support that has hardened some. People that got behind her when she was the clear front runner and have held their ground in the face of the Obama surge.
Same-Day Deciders
My guess is these are the less-engaged, finger in the wind folk mixed with the name-recognition folk. Her strength here has been consistent, with three exceptions: IA, UT & SC.
UT doesn't have data for LW or LM, so for now I'll ignore it.
Iowa is a microcosm to itself... but some things to note. IA and NH are the two states where name recognition holds almost no weight, because damn near everyone gets to meet the candidates. IA also has a very politically engaged populace and polling was neck and neck coming into the race, so that eliminates the under informed populace.
SC on the other hand is one case that points in my favor. The SC voters knew in advance that Obama was expected to win heavily and he ended up winning a larger % of same-day deciders than he did L3 deciders.
Hillary has generally had strong leads in national and Feb 5 polls. So I think on Feb 5 she got a heavy portion of the finger-in-the-wind same-day deciders along with almost all of the name recognition voters.
The Future
So what to expect in the future?
Well, *if I'm right*, this could be bad news for Hillary.
As the race extends she'll lose some (though not all) of her name recognition advantage. The upcoming states are much more spread out, giving more time for national and local coverage of all the candidates, along with allowing ads to play for a while in those states.
The bigger (and scarier) bell-weather will be if the finger-in-the-wind voters swing away from her. Obama is lined up for a string of strong showings in the next month. If this causes him to be perceived as the likely winner at the state and/or national level I would expect this section of the voters to swing towards him.
Finally, the early deciders. The big question is how hard their support is. Up until now "within the last month" has included just after IA & NH. If this group continues to fall heavily for Hillary she'll keep a strong enough base that she won't suffer any huge losses.
What to look for
-Watch the exits on Feb 12th. A strong showing by Obama this Saturday (the 9th) might be enough to tilt the late deciders to his side. If so he'll do very well on the 12th and could rack up some pretty big margins. (Edit: Also watch Maine on the 10th, though it may not be as indicative of a sea change in opinion b/c it will also coincide with a positive Obama news cycle after 2/9 wins)
-Keep an eye on the early deciders (>1 month). If they remain strong for Hillary, both in % support and in the % of the vote, over the next few weeks then I think it's fair to assume that they are hard Clinton and unlikely to be changed anytime in the race. If the % support swings Obama then it means that his early, post IA/NH campaigning is helping. If the % of the total vote slips (and Obama continues to lead L3, LW, LM) then it indicates his more recent campaigning is having an effect. Either way if this bastion of votes slips from Hillary's fingers she's in for a long bumpy ride to March 4th.
Decided?
SD = Same Day
L3 = In the Last 3 days
LW = In the Last Week
LM = In the Last Month
BF = Before
W/L = Split in final vote
All #'s from CNN.
If Clinton won a group it's listed as a positive number, if Obama won it's listed as a negative.
| State | SD | L3 | LW | LM | BF | W/L |
| AL | 19 | -6 | -38 | -32 | -14 | -14 |
| AK | -50 | |||||
| AR | 36 | 27 | 25 | 20 | 58 | 43 |
| AZ | 5 | 1 | -12 | -22 | 27 | 9 |
| CA | 10 | -5 | 9 | -29 | 38 | 10 |
| CO | -35 | |||||
| CT | 8 | -19 | -28 | -27 | 12 | -4 |
| DE | 10 | -24 | -29 | -37 | 6 | -10 |
| FL | 4 | -8 | -8 | -7 | 36 | 27 |
| GA | 4 | -17 | -54 | -52 | -28 | -36 |
| ID | -62 | |||||
| IL | 8 | -24 | -14 | -33 | -46 | -22 |
| IA | -11 | -11 | 4 | -10 | -6 | -8 |
| KS | -44 | |||||
| MA | 20 | -1 | -7 | -5 | 34 | 15 |
| MI | 17 | 2 | 16 | 9 | 25 | 15 |
| MN | -35 | |||||
| MO | -2 | -8 | -19 | -8 | 8 | -1 |
| NV | 12 | -4 | -8 | -17 | 29 | 6 |
| NH | 3 | -3 | -15 | -10 | 17 | 2 |
| NJ | 13 | 7 | -2 | -10 | 23 | 10 |
| NM | 4 | -4 | -16 | -35 | 11 | 1 |
| NY | 9 | -11 | -1 | -10 | 30 | 17 |
| ND | -24 | |||||
| OK | 25 | 1 | 35 | 24 | ||
| SC | -32 | -29 | -35 | -42 | -15 | -28 |
| TN | 0 | 11 | 0 | -7 | 27 | 13 |
| UT | -36 | -31 | 6 | -18 | ||
| AVG | 5.727 | -6.3 | -11.6 | -17.9 | 14.23 | -7.11 |
(PS: missing some data here, if anyone can fill it in or spots a mistake let me know)
Take a look at the averages... they're slightly skewed by the strong preferences in certain states (SC, UT, IL, GA, etc). I'll look into weighting them to account for this.
But the big story is Clinton is very consistently winning the same-day deciders and the the people that decided early on.
So who are these two groups of people? My theories:
Early Deciders (>1 month ago)
First and foremost her die-hard supporters... people that have loved her since the 90's and women committed to seeing a female president.
Second, her soft early support that has hardened some. People that got behind her when she was the clear front runner and have held their ground in the face of the Obama surge.
Same-Day Deciders
My guess is these are the less-engaged, finger in the wind folk mixed with the name-recognition folk. Her strength here has been consistent, with three exceptions: IA, UT & SC.
UT doesn't have data for LW or LM, so for now I'll ignore it.
Iowa is a microcosm to itself... but some things to note. IA and NH are the two states where name recognition holds almost no weight, because damn near everyone gets to meet the candidates. IA also has a very politically engaged populace and polling was neck and neck coming into the race, so that eliminates the under informed populace.
SC on the other hand is one case that points in my favor. The SC voters knew in advance that Obama was expected to win heavily and he ended up winning a larger % of same-day deciders than he did L3 deciders.
Hillary has generally had strong leads in national and Feb 5 polls. So I think on Feb 5 she got a heavy portion of the finger-in-the-wind same-day deciders along with almost all of the name recognition voters.
The Future
So what to expect in the future?
Well, *if I'm right*, this could be bad news for Hillary.
As the race extends she'll lose some (though not all) of her name recognition advantage. The upcoming states are much more spread out, giving more time for national and local coverage of all the candidates, along with allowing ads to play for a while in those states.
The bigger (and scarier) bell-weather will be if the finger-in-the-wind voters swing away from her. Obama is lined up for a string of strong showings in the next month. If this causes him to be perceived as the likely winner at the state and/or national level I would expect this section of the voters to swing towards him.
Finally, the early deciders. The big question is how hard their support is. Up until now "within the last month" has included just after IA & NH. If this group continues to fall heavily for Hillary she'll keep a strong enough base that she won't suffer any huge losses.
What to look for
-Watch the exits on Feb 12th. A strong showing by Obama this Saturday (the 9th) might be enough to tilt the late deciders to his side. If so he'll do very well on the 12th and could rack up some pretty big margins. (Edit: Also watch Maine on the 10th, though it may not be as indicative of a sea change in opinion b/c it will also coincide with a positive Obama news cycle after 2/9 wins)
-Keep an eye on the early deciders (>1 month). If they remain strong for Hillary, both in % support and in the % of the vote, over the next few weeks then I think it's fair to assume that they are hard Clinton and unlikely to be changed anytime in the race. If the % support swings Obama then it means that his early, post IA/NH campaigning is helping. If the % of the total vote slips (and Obama continues to lead L3, LW, LM) then it indicates his more recent campaigning is having an effect. Either way if this bastion of votes slips from Hillary's fingers she's in for a long bumpy ride to March 4th.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Fat Tuesday
The day of judgement draws nigh.
In two days time just under half of the US will vote in a primary/caucus. So, what's going to happen?
Possible answers:
-----
1) Hillary's long standing leads in polls hold out and she wins a clear majority of states and delegates. Obama picks up Illinois, and a few states that caucus or have large black populations. This was the pre-SC/Teddy scenario and seems pretty unlikely now. If this happens Hillary will probably take the nomination.
2)A draw/lean Hillary... Hillary wins in the southwest, barely pulls out CA and dominates NY. Obama does well in the red states, the deep south, the mid-west and dominates IL. They split the northeast and a couple in-between states. Probably what most people are predicting right now, with Hillary expected to lead slightly from wins in CA and NY while splitting NJ and CT.
3)Draw/lean Obama... same as #2, but Obama wins either CA or 2/3 of NY/NJ/MA. Tough call if this or #2 is more likely, Hillary has name recognition and a strong initial base of support... Obama is riding momentum.
4)Big win for Obama... Obama wins CA, NJ, MA,IL and stays close in NY. Wins most of the south, the mid-west and all of the caucus states. If this happens Obama will probably win the nomination.
----
So which is it? Given current trends I would call it for #2, but just barely over #3.
Data points in Obama's favor:
-Obama is closing in polls nationwide and in Feb 5 states.
-Teddy's endorsement is a PR coupe and also gives him a strong advocate with Latinos and traditional Dems, two of his weakest demographics.
-Today he got the endorsement of Maria Shiver, a Kennedy and the wife of Arnold. Maria is identified as a strong female figure in CA politics and will help shore up his support among women.
-The $$... he raised $32 million in January (mostly from small donors) and has a big nationwide ad-buy going on right now, outspending Clinton
-Oprah's back and campaigning in CA... some would say she helped decide IA
-Thus far Obama has out-performed polls and gained points the more time he gets. Polls right now point to a scenario somewhere between 1 & 2... if his trends hold then he should move towards a pure draw or a lean Obama
Data points in Hillary's favor:
-Hillary has leads in most of these states that are just now starting to tighten. They may not tighten fast enough for Obama and eventually that trend will bottom out when it cuts down to her core supporters.
-Early voting, especially in CA, keeps her a step ahead. The CA mail-in ballots went out the day she won NH.
-Hillary has big name recognition and doesn't have to spend her time introducing herself
-She's one of the strongest and most connected politicians of our age, as we learned in NH it's dangerous to count her out.
Finally, things that could provide a swing:
-Endorsements: The biggest right now would be Edwards, since he can speak directly to a group of undecideds that have respect for him. Al Gore could swing TN, core dems and environment dems. Richardson could swing Latinos and NM. Obama would really benefit from Richardson, Hillary would like Gore to get help amongst the far left and either of them would love, love, love Edwards' endorsement.
- Turnout: The story of IA vs. NH is the story of youth turnout vs. female turnout. If either of these groups turn out heavily then (respectively) Obama or Hillary will benefit.
-Events: Any major news event that brings a major topic forward could swing things a percent or two. Something like a big change in the stock market or major news from Iraq could change the focus. Generally Hillary is strong on the economy while Obama is strong on Iraq.
-Gaffes/Scandals/Coverage: Since there is so little face time with the candidates many opinions will be formed based upon news coverage of events. Hillary has had a rough week on this front. This may be some of the basis for Obama's gains in the polls.
-Dirty tricks: Push polls, false rumors, voter intimidation/misinformation... all of these things are reprehensible and depressingly effective, especially with a relatively uninformed electorate.
So that's that, let's see how it plays out.
In two days time just under half of the US will vote in a primary/caucus. So, what's going to happen?
Possible answers:
-----
1) Hillary's long standing leads in polls hold out and she wins a clear majority of states and delegates. Obama picks up Illinois, and a few states that caucus or have large black populations. This was the pre-SC/Teddy scenario and seems pretty unlikely now. If this happens Hillary will probably take the nomination.
2)A draw/lean Hillary... Hillary wins in the southwest, barely pulls out CA and dominates NY. Obama does well in the red states, the deep south, the mid-west and dominates IL. They split the northeast and a couple in-between states. Probably what most people are predicting right now, with Hillary expected to lead slightly from wins in CA and NY while splitting NJ and CT.
3)Draw/lean Obama... same as #2, but Obama wins either CA or 2/3 of NY/NJ/MA. Tough call if this or #2 is more likely, Hillary has name recognition and a strong initial base of support... Obama is riding momentum.
4)Big win for Obama... Obama wins CA, NJ, MA,IL and stays close in NY. Wins most of the south, the mid-west and all of the caucus states. If this happens Obama will probably win the nomination.
----
So which is it? Given current trends I would call it for #2, but just barely over #3.
Data points in Obama's favor:
-Obama is closing in polls nationwide and in Feb 5 states.
-Teddy's endorsement is a PR coupe and also gives him a strong advocate with Latinos and traditional Dems, two of his weakest demographics.
-Today he got the endorsement of Maria Shiver, a Kennedy and the wife of Arnold. Maria is identified as a strong female figure in CA politics and will help shore up his support among women.
-The $$... he raised $32 million in January (mostly from small donors) and has a big nationwide ad-buy going on right now, outspending Clinton
-Oprah's back and campaigning in CA... some would say she helped decide IA
-Thus far Obama has out-performed polls and gained points the more time he gets. Polls right now point to a scenario somewhere between 1 & 2... if his trends hold then he should move towards a pure draw or a lean Obama
Data points in Hillary's favor:
-Hillary has leads in most of these states that are just now starting to tighten. They may not tighten fast enough for Obama and eventually that trend will bottom out when it cuts down to her core supporters.
-Early voting, especially in CA, keeps her a step ahead. The CA mail-in ballots went out the day she won NH.
-Hillary has big name recognition and doesn't have to spend her time introducing herself
-She's one of the strongest and most connected politicians of our age, as we learned in NH it's dangerous to count her out.
Finally, things that could provide a swing:
-Endorsements: The biggest right now would be Edwards, since he can speak directly to a group of undecideds that have respect for him. Al Gore could swing TN, core dems and environment dems. Richardson could swing Latinos and NM. Obama would really benefit from Richardson, Hillary would like Gore to get help amongst the far left and either of them would love, love, love Edwards' endorsement.
- Turnout: The story of IA vs. NH is the story of youth turnout vs. female turnout. If either of these groups turn out heavily then (respectively) Obama or Hillary will benefit.
-Events: Any major news event that brings a major topic forward could swing things a percent or two. Something like a big change in the stock market or major news from Iraq could change the focus. Generally Hillary is strong on the economy while Obama is strong on Iraq.
-Gaffes/Scandals/Coverage: Since there is so little face time with the candidates many opinions will be formed based upon news coverage of events. Hillary has had a rough week on this front. This may be some of the basis for Obama's gains in the polls.
-Dirty tricks: Push polls, false rumors, voter intimidation/misinformation... all of these things are reprehensible and depressingly effective, especially with a relatively uninformed electorate.
So that's that, let's see how it plays out.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
And I thought I was obsessed
Over at Daily Kos there is a state by state breakdown of every Feb 5th state... and wow is it in depth. Take a look:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/75516/0667/643/446831
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/75516/0667/643/446831
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Edwards falls off the horse
Today in New Orleans Edwards withdrew his bid to be president, trimming the Dem race to Hillary and Obama.
Thoughts...
First obvious questions: Who will endorse and where will his votes go? If he endorses someone will his supporters follow his lead?
Conventional wisdom seems to be that he'll go for Obama... I tend to agree, but there have been at least a few rumblings from his campaign trying to prove he's undecided. His brief turn on Obama at the SC debate would be a point against conventional wisdom, regardless I think we'll hear soon.
His voters are less clear. As Chris Bowers points out here, the Edwards supporters seem to be pro-change (and maybe anti-Hillary) but are also white, union, poorer and older... all demographics that break for Hillary. Also, newly undecided voters tend to break with whoever has momentum. After SC (and some new polling) that would seem to be Obama.
Lost in a sea of indecision, his voters (and delegates!) may well follow whatever endorsement he makes... so he has the potential to be a game changer. Clinton is pushing hard for the endorsement and might be able to get it if Edwards ambition outstrips his rhetoric.
Second, less obvious question: Why now? His huge loss was apparent on Saturday, things were still looking bleak then, why wait until Wed?
Possible answers:
1) He thought he had a chance in FL. This seems unlikely, he wasn't polling well and wasn't allowed to campaign there. Plus he didn't make any FL specific pitches (like Hillary). However the timing would be standard for a disappointing loss.
2) He wanted to see how Feb 5 polling came out. Seeing himself making gains after the SC debate he wanted to do some national polling and see if those were across the board. If it looked like he wasn't going to hit viability (15%), and thus not be able to play kingmaker, he might have dropped out.
3) He's trying to help Obama. By dropping out immediately after FL he grabs the news cycle for Dem politics and overshadows any news about Hillary's beauty contest win. He dominates the news for a day, then with an Obama endorsement shortly after, puts the ball solidly in Obama's square.
If Edwards comes out for Obama soon I'd put my money on #3, otherwise #2 seems most likely.
------
I'm going out on a limb here and predicting that Edwards quit to help Obama. My guess is he'll endorse in the next couple days and add to the flurry of established Dems (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle) throwing their weight behind Obama.
Thoughts...
First obvious questions: Who will endorse and where will his votes go? If he endorses someone will his supporters follow his lead?
Conventional wisdom seems to be that he'll go for Obama... I tend to agree, but there have been at least a few rumblings from his campaign trying to prove he's undecided. His brief turn on Obama at the SC debate would be a point against conventional wisdom, regardless I think we'll hear soon.
His voters are less clear. As Chris Bowers points out here, the Edwards supporters seem to be pro-change (and maybe anti-Hillary) but are also white, union, poorer and older... all demographics that break for Hillary. Also, newly undecided voters tend to break with whoever has momentum. After SC (and some new polling) that would seem to be Obama.
Lost in a sea of indecision, his voters (and delegates!) may well follow whatever endorsement he makes... so he has the potential to be a game changer. Clinton is pushing hard for the endorsement and might be able to get it if Edwards ambition outstrips his rhetoric.
Second, less obvious question: Why now? His huge loss was apparent on Saturday, things were still looking bleak then, why wait until Wed?
Possible answers:
1) He thought he had a chance in FL. This seems unlikely, he wasn't polling well and wasn't allowed to campaign there. Plus he didn't make any FL specific pitches (like Hillary). However the timing would be standard for a disappointing loss.
2) He wanted to see how Feb 5 polling came out. Seeing himself making gains after the SC debate he wanted to do some national polling and see if those were across the board. If it looked like he wasn't going to hit viability (15%), and thus not be able to play kingmaker, he might have dropped out.
3) He's trying to help Obama. By dropping out immediately after FL he grabs the news cycle for Dem politics and overshadows any news about Hillary's beauty contest win. He dominates the news for a day, then with an Obama endorsement shortly after, puts the ball solidly in Obama's square.
If Edwards comes out for Obama soon I'd put my money on #3, otherwise #2 seems most likely.
------
I'm going out on a limb here and predicting that Edwards quit to help Obama. My guess is he'll endorse in the next couple days and add to the flurry of established Dems (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle) throwing their weight behind Obama.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Florida effects
At first glance... Hillary wins, but stays within expectations, so no headlines there. By and large the media isn't buying the "FL matters" dialog and are giving banner-line coverage to McCain's close win.
McCain's win solidifies his front-runner status and leaves him a step from being crowned. I'll be curious to see if there is more dialog about electability/beating McCain in the next couple weeks. I think this is an issue that Hillary loses on, so I'm guessing she'll try to steer away from it. If Obama engages her in a who-will-beat-McCain-athon the coverage will inevitably rehash her high negatives, weakness with Independents and ability to rile up the Republican base. Meanwhile it will give coverage to Obama's strength with Independents and ability to turn out new voters.
McCain's win solidifies his front-runner status and leaves him a step from being crowned. I'll be curious to see if there is more dialog about electability/beating McCain in the next couple weeks. I think this is an issue that Hillary loses on, so I'm guessing she'll try to steer away from it. If Obama engages her in a who-will-beat-McCain-athon the coverage will inevitably rehash her high negatives, weakness with Independents and ability to rile up the Republican base. Meanwhile it will give coverage to Obama's strength with Independents and ability to turn out new voters.
Why Florida matters
It's unlikely it's delegates will actually matter. Assuming Clinton wins FL, the only way she would have enough votes to seat FL would be if she also already had enough votes to win. So their votes will only count if the contest has already been won.
However, there are two ways that FL can affect the dem race:
Expectations/Coverage
If Hillary beats or misses expectations drastically there will be some noise from the press, positive or neg respectively. Likewise if she succeeds in pushing the line that FL matters and the press follow her lead on it it could affect public opinion.
Republican Results
For tonight you can count Hillary in Romney's camp. Or rather, in the anti-McCain camp. If McCain wins he'll basically have the nomination wrapped up, with all the momentum going into Super Tuesday.
And a (presumptive) Republican nominee will immediately prompt head-to-head race comparisons. This is a weak point for Hillary, statistically the head-to-heads with McCain have her doing slightly worse than Obama. But, more importantly, in the general electorate Obama has been making huge gains in the electability question.
So don't be too surprised when Bill suggests Hillary and McCain are old friends... In Republican circles being friends with Hillary is considered slightly worse than shaking hands with the devil. As they say, with friends like these...
However, there are two ways that FL can affect the dem race:
Expectations/Coverage
If Hillary beats or misses expectations drastically there will be some noise from the press, positive or neg respectively. Likewise if she succeeds in pushing the line that FL matters and the press follow her lead on it it could affect public opinion.
Republican Results
For tonight you can count Hillary in Romney's camp. Or rather, in the anti-McCain camp. If McCain wins he'll basically have the nomination wrapped up, with all the momentum going into Super Tuesday.
And a (presumptive) Republican nominee will immediately prompt head-to-head race comparisons. This is a weak point for Hillary, statistically the head-to-heads with McCain have her doing slightly worse than Obama. But, more importantly, in the general electorate Obama has been making huge gains in the electability question.
So don't be too surprised when Bill suggests Hillary and McCain are old friends... In Republican circles being friends with Hillary is considered slightly worse than shaking hands with the devil. As they say, with friends like these...
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Race and the race
There's been much ado about the role that race played in SC. Just wanted to share an excellent analysis of entrance/exit polls by Jay Cost over at RCP. He points out that Obama appears to be losing among certain portions of the white vote, but not others. Witness his strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are whiter than Wonder Bread.
His theory:
His theory:
It should be clear from this that it is insufficient to say that Clinton won "the white vote" in Nevada. It is better to say that she won a certain type (or types) of white voter. But what type? Why did white voters in Vegas break for Clinton so heavily while voters outside Vegas did not? Obviously, the ideal explanation is one that accounts for not just Nevada, but also Iowa and New Hampshire. I see three hypotheses that could connect these dots:
(a) It is a matter of GOTV organization. Obama beat her in Iowa. Clinton beat him in New Hampshire and Las Vegas.(b) It is a matter of income. Whites who make more money tend to support Obama. Whites who make less money tend to support Clinton.
(c) White voters in racially uniform areas are more attracted to Obama that white voters in racially diverse areas.
Anyone, it's a good read for those that are into analysis.
News & Strategies
In case you've been hiding under a rock, Obama won big in South Carolina. He did so by carrying a large portion of the the black vote (4/5ths) and about 1/4 of the white vote, with the remainders of the white vote split between Hillary and Edwards. He also appears to have picked up the endorsement of Ted Kennedy, a mini-coup because of the Kennedy family's long standing ties with the Clintons.
Meanwhile Hillary is doing her best to downplay SC and focus attention on Florida, which votes on Tuesday but has been stripped of it's delegates by the DNC. Edwards suffered another loss, cementing his third place status and giving a probable final blow to his efforts to appear viable.
So, strategies from here on out:
Obama
Try to pull back out of the mud and return to message of hope and national reconciliation. Push back if either Clinton fudges his record by hitting back on her trust and honesty issues. Adjust message a bit as the economy eclipses Iraq in the voters minds.
Continue to classify FL as inconsequential since it has no delegates, the candidates pledged not to campaign there and, well, Hillary is leading there.
Hope for a bounce from SC to erode some of Hillary's leads in big name Super Tuesday states (NY, CA). Meanwhile try to get lots of wins in smaller states, particularly in the midwest and states with large black populations. Trot out Ted Kennedy as much as possible, especially in CA, and hope that his following among Hispanics (from his championship of pro-immigrant stands) helps to erase some of Hillary's lead.
Speaking of Hispanics, I'm surprised Obama hasn't pointed out (much) that he's the son of an (African) immigrant. Seems like that could go some way towards bridging the gap he has there, one that's largely attributed to the tensions between blacks and hispanics.
Clinton
Reign in Bill a bit. Even if his attacks hit he diminishes Hillary's image as a strong, self-made woman.
Emphasize FL as much as you can and hope that you meet/beat expectations there, hopefully regaining a little momentum. FL is a little dangerous as any significant loss in the expectations game (winning by a slim margin, losing) works against her, while a win may not carry much weight (unless it's huge.)
She should focus on the economy, currently it looks like she's trying to contrast the current economy with that of the 90's to highlight her strength on economic issues... getting the double whammy by giving voters nostalgia for the 90's economy when, coincidentally, her husband was President.
Try to make the Feb 5 story about who wins NY and CA, since those are both strong points for her and big delegate states.
Edwards
SC was his last stand to appear viable. Barring some very, very drastic change in the dynamic Edwards can't win.
So why stay in? To influence who does and hopefully get a vice presidency out of the deal.
Two options:
Drop out now and endorse someone. Get credit for taking a politically risky stand, but it's all or nothing, if his endorsee loses he'll be sent home with his tail between his legs. This is the best option if one of the candidates runs away with the race from here.
Play kingmaker. Assuming a close race he could try and gather as many delegates as possible, then, late in the game, throw his support behind someone and hopefully crown them the winner. The advantage is this allows him to hedge his bets, if the winner becomes obvious he can get behind him/her and still be in their good graces. If he is the deciding factor between the two then he basically guarantees himself a VP or AG spot. One risk is that his delegates are not obligated to follow his suggestions, so who knows whether they'll follow his line or their own preferences.
It seems he's heading the kingmaker route, it'll be a crazy election if he gets to actually choose it. Consequences of him staying in the race, assuming he still gets votes... he splits the white vote and the female vote with Clinton, but also splits the anti-Hillary and Change vote with Obama. So, if he's still in on Feb 5, he'll probably hurt Clinton in the South and hurt Obama in the Northeast.
I'm curious if Hillary's last minute robo-call slams of Edwards in SC (I think to make sure she didn't finish third) will at all embitter his supporters against her. If so then his losses might become Obama's gains.
Overall
A few general trends to look for.
Hillary gets high marks from voters on the economy, so the more news of the economy tanking, the better off Hillary will be. Obama's fortunes somewhat follow the Iraq war, when the news is good in the Middle East people focus less on his opposition to the war and more on their domestic concerns.
Obama is strong with those that want change, Hillary with those that focus on experience/competence. Hillary is losing ground in the electability question, probably a by product of Bill's heavy involvement. This may become a factor if McCain wins in FL and becomes the clear front-runner as some Dems are worried that she will lose to him.
Meanwhile Hillary is doing her best to downplay SC and focus attention on Florida, which votes on Tuesday but has been stripped of it's delegates by the DNC. Edwards suffered another loss, cementing his third place status and giving a probable final blow to his efforts to appear viable.
So, strategies from here on out:
Obama
Try to pull back out of the mud and return to message of hope and national reconciliation. Push back if either Clinton fudges his record by hitting back on her trust and honesty issues. Adjust message a bit as the economy eclipses Iraq in the voters minds.
Continue to classify FL as inconsequential since it has no delegates, the candidates pledged not to campaign there and, well, Hillary is leading there.
Hope for a bounce from SC to erode some of Hillary's leads in big name Super Tuesday states (NY, CA). Meanwhile try to get lots of wins in smaller states, particularly in the midwest and states with large black populations. Trot out Ted Kennedy as much as possible, especially in CA, and hope that his following among Hispanics (from his championship of pro-immigrant stands) helps to erase some of Hillary's lead.
Speaking of Hispanics, I'm surprised Obama hasn't pointed out (much) that he's the son of an (African) immigrant. Seems like that could go some way towards bridging the gap he has there, one that's largely attributed to the tensions between blacks and hispanics.
Clinton
Reign in Bill a bit. Even if his attacks hit he diminishes Hillary's image as a strong, self-made woman.
Emphasize FL as much as you can and hope that you meet/beat expectations there, hopefully regaining a little momentum. FL is a little dangerous as any significant loss in the expectations game (winning by a slim margin, losing) works against her, while a win may not carry much weight (unless it's huge.)
She should focus on the economy, currently it looks like she's trying to contrast the current economy with that of the 90's to highlight her strength on economic issues... getting the double whammy by giving voters nostalgia for the 90's economy when, coincidentally, her husband was President.
Try to make the Feb 5 story about who wins NY and CA, since those are both strong points for her and big delegate states.
Edwards
SC was his last stand to appear viable. Barring some very, very drastic change in the dynamic Edwards can't win.
So why stay in? To influence who does and hopefully get a vice presidency out of the deal.
Two options:
Drop out now and endorse someone. Get credit for taking a politically risky stand, but it's all or nothing, if his endorsee loses he'll be sent home with his tail between his legs. This is the best option if one of the candidates runs away with the race from here.
Play kingmaker. Assuming a close race he could try and gather as many delegates as possible, then, late in the game, throw his support behind someone and hopefully crown them the winner. The advantage is this allows him to hedge his bets, if the winner becomes obvious he can get behind him/her and still be in their good graces. If he is the deciding factor between the two then he basically guarantees himself a VP or AG spot. One risk is that his delegates are not obligated to follow his suggestions, so who knows whether they'll follow his line or their own preferences.
It seems he's heading the kingmaker route, it'll be a crazy election if he gets to actually choose it. Consequences of him staying in the race, assuming he still gets votes... he splits the white vote and the female vote with Clinton, but also splits the anti-Hillary and Change vote with Obama. So, if he's still in on Feb 5, he'll probably hurt Clinton in the South and hurt Obama in the Northeast.
I'm curious if Hillary's last minute robo-call slams of Edwards in SC (I think to make sure she didn't finish third) will at all embitter his supporters against her. If so then his losses might become Obama's gains.
Overall
A few general trends to look for.
Hillary gets high marks from voters on the economy, so the more news of the economy tanking, the better off Hillary will be. Obama's fortunes somewhat follow the Iraq war, when the news is good in the Middle East people focus less on his opposition to the war and more on their domestic concerns.
Obama is strong with those that want change, Hillary with those that focus on experience/competence. Hillary is losing ground in the electability question, probably a by product of Bill's heavy involvement. This may become a factor if McCain wins in FL and becomes the clear front-runner as some Dems are worried that she will lose to him.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Pivots and Frames
For those that have missed it, there's been a dust-up between Obama and Clinton over some comments he made about Reagan. Dick Polman explains it here:
So, in the debates and a radio ad, Obama goes full out against this. He, accurately, argues that they are distorting the record... and then he pivots the whole discussion and frames it in terms of Hillary's main weakness, perceived honesty. If the primary race boils down to who do you feel is more honest, Obama wins solidly.
Now, it seems, the Clintons are trying to pivot the conversation again. From Ben Smith's Politico blog:
If he sits backs and agrees (or ignores) them they can claim that the 90's Dems was the party of ideas and if everything was good under Bill, then why not Hillary? On the other side, he could push back on his original point, that Republican ideas gained more traction in the general public because of Reagan's recognition of the times. But if he does this he'll be treading an awfully thin line trying to avoid being seen as praising those ideas. The more he talks about why tax-cuts and smaller government were sucessfull in grabbing the electorate, the more he gets associated with them. But if he doesn't challenge them he's forced to eat crow on his previous words and accept the frame of the great 90's Dems, which clearly works to Hillary's benefit.
Like I said, very clever.
I'll be curious to see how he responds, for now the Clintons are returning to their all out 90's love fest. They're pushing hard on the economy and trying to contrast that to the economic prosperity of the 90's.
The ad features an Obama sound bite, a partial sentence of something that he said to a Reno newspaper back on Jan. 14: "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years." After his voice fades, a snide narrator says to the listener, "Really? Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today?....Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?" Then the music swells and the narrator says, "Hillary Clinton thinks this election's about replacing disastrous ideas with new ones." (A link to the radio ad is here.)
The ad's message: Obama, by stating that the GOP had been "the party of ideas," was obviously endorsing those ideas.
Factual reality: Obama did not endorse those ideas.
In political war, context is often the first casualty. Here's the context of what Obama said to the Reno paper (the italics are mine): "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into – he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.
"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren’t working, that we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Obama was simply stating that Reagan was in sync with the mood of his era - can any rational human, of whatever ideological persuasion, really argue with that? - just as Kennedy, on the Democratic side, was in sync with the mood of an earlier era. An acknowledgement is hardly an endorsement.
So, in the debates and a radio ad, Obama goes full out against this. He, accurately, argues that they are distorting the record... and then he pivots the whole discussion and frames it in terms of Hillary's main weakness, perceived honesty. If the primary race boils down to who do you feel is more honest, Obama wins solidly.
Now, it seems, the Clintons are trying to pivot the conversation again. From Ben Smith's Politico blog:
This is quite clever of them. By terming their argument in the same words that Obama used, that the "GOP was the party of ideas", and not directly charging that he endorsed those ideas they can avoid the charge of dishonesty. However, they put him in an uncomfortable spot.Clinton advisers Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, and Steve Ricchetti (an old hand who seems to have returned) called an unusual conference call this afternoon to make their side of the "party of ideas" argument — that Democrats were the "party of ideas" in the 1990s.
"That is Sen. Obama and his campaign rendering judgment on the Clinton era," Wolfson said of Obama's view that the GOP has been the party of ideas in recent years,. The advisers then defended a series of 1990s policies — in combination with the new radio ad featuring Bill, a clear sign that they think the argument about the 1990s is one they can win.
If he sits backs and agrees (or ignores) them they can claim that the 90's Dems was the party of ideas and if everything was good under Bill, then why not Hillary? On the other side, he could push back on his original point, that Republican ideas gained more traction in the general public because of Reagan's recognition of the times. But if he does this he'll be treading an awfully thin line trying to avoid being seen as praising those ideas. The more he talks about why tax-cuts and smaller government were sucessfull in grabbing the electorate, the more he gets associated with them. But if he doesn't challenge them he's forced to eat crow on his previous words and accept the frame of the great 90's Dems, which clearly works to Hillary's benefit.
Like I said, very clever.
I'll be curious to see how he responds, for now the Clintons are returning to their all out 90's love fest. They're pushing hard on the economy and trying to contrast that to the economic prosperity of the 90's.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Primer on the Republicans
My opinion of the Republican field, as a Democrat/liberal/progressive:
John McCain: The straight-talking hawk.
The best thing I can say for McCain is that he does what he thinks is best for the country, not best for his polling. His choices to acknowledge global warming, fight for campaign finance reform and find a sensible answer to illegal immigration despite his base are admirable. On the other hand he's the poster boy for hawks and thinks the surge is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He also happens to be, by far, the strongest opponent Republicans could field next fall. So... I'm conflicted. My liberal, we-must-retake-the-White-House side wants to see one of the other, easy to defeat, Republicans. But my (stronger) American, political-reformist side would be happy to see McCain rewarded for speaking the truth and recognizing the hard decisions to be made.
Mitt Romney: The Republican's John Kerry.
A politicians' politician, with a slick smile and a poll-approved, audience-pandering answer to any and all questions. Strategically fairly easy to defeat, he polls 12 points behind Clinton and 21.4 points behind Obama in head-to-head. His recent pandering to the base combined with his history of switching positions on hot-button issues will make it difficult for him to come back to the middle without getting "flip-flopper" stamped on to his forehead. However he could position himself as the business candidate running in an economy that's slipping into recession, giving him some darkhorse potential. In general he strikes me as politically opportunistic and dogmatically conservative (at least for now), which are two big old strikes against him.
Ron Paul: The lovechild of hard-core libertarians and the blogosphere.
You've gotta hand it to Ron Paul, he doesn't quit or shift his positions. Again, a man that is doing what he thinks is best for the country, which I admire. He's against the Iraq war, liberal/libertarian on most social issues (with one BIG exception) and has some ideas on fiscal policy that seem interesting, though I'm unsure of their impact. That said, I don't swoon over him like many liberals seem to. He would drastically cut government, including the Depts of Education, Energy, Commerce and Health & Human Services. Oh and the IRS (this is always his applause line at rallies.) This strikes my as unnecessary and a drastic step back for the progress of our nation. Privatizing these is unrealistic and most likely more expensive than having one, central, manager of these fundamental aspects of our lives. So, the verdict, pluses for honesty and commitment, minuses for draconian cuts to gov't. Regardless it's unlikely he'll be on the slate in the fall, unless he runs as an independent/libertarian.
Rudy Guiliani: The (9/11) mayor (9/11) of New (9/11) York on 9/11.
Did I mention 9/11? I have the sneaking suspicion "America's Mayor" has developed a case of Tourretts Syndrome, somehow replacing the curses with "nine eleven." As a candidate he has a history of some liberal social views (abortion, gays), though he has since sworn them off. What scares me is his rampant militarism, neocon ties and over-the-top attempts to out-crazy Bush. He's behind in head-to-heads (-8.7 Clinton / -14.3 Obama) but would probably see a bump if he pulls out his win in Florida and wins nationally. Ultimately he wouldn't be too hard to beat, say enough crazy things and they catch up with you. Still, he's the person I'd least like to see on the Republican ticket... I've had enough Bush/Cheney for a lifetime, thank you very much.
Mike Huckabee: Chuck Norris' favorite populist social conservative.
Wow, a candidate with Chuck Norris in his ads. That the Daily Show has been out of biz during the IA caucus is a crime against us all. Huckabee is your standard social conservative, but with a twist from the George Bush model. He eschews W's (false) talk of fiscal conservatism in favor of economic populism, stealing a page from the Dems' play-book and blaming the corporations. He strikes me as fairly representative of most of the real-life social conservatives I've met, compassionate, but only in the cases where it meets their narrow, conservative approved constraints (eg forget the gays, teenage mothers, etc.) Again, he gets some points from me for sticking to his guns and taking some viewpoints not popular with the fiscal conservative wing of his party. Still, tough for me to feel too good about someone who denies evolution or is this reactionary. Strategically these things pull him so far right that his only chance seems to be riling up his base and ceding the middle to his opponent. A slim possibility that his economic populism could allow him to build some coalition if the economy keeps tanking. But that's unlikely, I'd label him as an easy beat, with a number of weaknesses and an inability to engage enough of his party to rely on base turnout.
---
That's all folks, real quick, rankings:
Who I like (or dislike the least):
1) McCain
2) Ron Paul
3) Huckabee
4) Romney
5) Guiliani
Easiest to beat:
1) Ron Paul (sorry Paul-heads, but it's the truth)
2) Huckabee
3) Romney
4) Guiliani (a case could be made that Romney is harder b/c he leaves room for Bloomberg to get in the race)
5) McCain
John McCain: The straight-talking hawk.
The best thing I can say for McCain is that he does what he thinks is best for the country, not best for his polling. His choices to acknowledge global warming, fight for campaign finance reform and find a sensible answer to illegal immigration despite his base are admirable. On the other hand he's the poster boy for hawks and thinks the surge is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He also happens to be, by far, the strongest opponent Republicans could field next fall. So... I'm conflicted. My liberal, we-must-retake-the-White-House side wants to see one of the other, easy to defeat, Republicans. But my (stronger) American, political-reformist side would be happy to see McCain rewarded for speaking the truth and recognizing the hard decisions to be made.
Mitt Romney: The Republican's John Kerry.
A politicians' politician, with a slick smile and a poll-approved, audience-pandering answer to any and all questions. Strategically fairly easy to defeat, he polls 12 points behind Clinton and 21.4 points behind Obama in head-to-head. His recent pandering to the base combined with his history of switching positions on hot-button issues will make it difficult for him to come back to the middle without getting "flip-flopper" stamped on to his forehead. However he could position himself as the business candidate running in an economy that's slipping into recession, giving him some darkhorse potential. In general he strikes me as politically opportunistic and dogmatically conservative (at least for now), which are two big old strikes against him.
Ron Paul: The lovechild of hard-core libertarians and the blogosphere.
You've gotta hand it to Ron Paul, he doesn't quit or shift his positions. Again, a man that is doing what he thinks is best for the country, which I admire. He's against the Iraq war, liberal/libertarian on most social issues (with one BIG exception) and has some ideas on fiscal policy that seem interesting, though I'm unsure of their impact. That said, I don't swoon over him like many liberals seem to. He would drastically cut government, including the Depts of Education, Energy, Commerce and Health & Human Services. Oh and the IRS (this is always his applause line at rallies.) This strikes my as unnecessary and a drastic step back for the progress of our nation. Privatizing these is unrealistic and most likely more expensive than having one, central, manager of these fundamental aspects of our lives. So, the verdict, pluses for honesty and commitment, minuses for draconian cuts to gov't. Regardless it's unlikely he'll be on the slate in the fall, unless he runs as an independent/libertarian.
Rudy Guiliani: The (9/11) mayor (9/11) of New (9/11) York on 9/11.
Did I mention 9/11? I have the sneaking suspicion "America's Mayor" has developed a case of Tourretts Syndrome, somehow replacing the curses with "nine eleven." As a candidate he has a history of some liberal social views (abortion, gays), though he has since sworn them off. What scares me is his rampant militarism, neocon ties and over-the-top attempts to out-crazy Bush. He's behind in head-to-heads (-8.7 Clinton / -14.3 Obama) but would probably see a bump if he pulls out his win in Florida and wins nationally. Ultimately he wouldn't be too hard to beat, say enough crazy things and they catch up with you. Still, he's the person I'd least like to see on the Republican ticket... I've had enough Bush/Cheney for a lifetime, thank you very much.
Mike Huckabee: Chuck Norris' favorite populist social conservative.
Wow, a candidate with Chuck Norris in his ads. That the Daily Show has been out of biz during the IA caucus is a crime against us all. Huckabee is your standard social conservative, but with a twist from the George Bush model. He eschews W's (false) talk of fiscal conservatism in favor of economic populism, stealing a page from the Dems' play-book and blaming the corporations. He strikes me as fairly representative of most of the real-life social conservatives I've met, compassionate, but only in the cases where it meets their narrow, conservative approved constraints (eg forget the gays, teenage mothers, etc.) Again, he gets some points from me for sticking to his guns and taking some viewpoints not popular with the fiscal conservative wing of his party. Still, tough for me to feel too good about someone who denies evolution or is this reactionary. Strategically these things pull him so far right that his only chance seems to be riling up his base and ceding the middle to his opponent. A slim possibility that his economic populism could allow him to build some coalition if the economy keeps tanking. But that's unlikely, I'd label him as an easy beat, with a number of weaknesses and an inability to engage enough of his party to rely on base turnout.
---
That's all folks, real quick, rankings:
Who I like (or dislike the least):
1) McCain
2) Ron Paul
3) Huckabee
4) Romney
5) Guiliani
Easiest to beat:
1) Ron Paul (sorry Paul-heads, but it's the truth)
2) Huckabee
3) Romney
4) Guiliani (a case could be made that Romney is harder b/c he leaves room for Bloomberg to get in the race)
5) McCain
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
If Hillary Wins...
There will be trouble on the horizon for Dems... Possible races that I see:
Hillary vs McCain: Right now the RCP head-to-head average has her 4 points behind, losing in 3 of the last 4 polls. On the positive side having McCain in makes it less likely that Bloomberg will come in and grab votes. Only way to win this is the '04 Bush model, rile up your base and rely on turnout to overcome your losses with independents.
Hillary vs Guiliani: Best case scenario for Hillary. Right now the RCP head-to-head average has her 8.7 points ahead (that would probably slim out as Guiliani gets attention from the press.) Guiliani is more polarizing than McCain, but he probably can keep Bloomberg out just by virtue of his history with New York. Both would fight for the middle but Hillary would probably again have to rely on a big base turnout.
Hillary vs Huckabee/Romnee vs Bloomberg - Hill has a lead over both 6.5%/12.4%, but these races leave enough space in the middle for Bloomberg to squeeze in and siphon off anti-Hillary dems/independents.
Regardless of who she faces she has the built in handicap that 43% of the US is unwilling to vote for her. That leaves a pretty slim margin to try and convert.
Hillary vs McCain: Right now the RCP head-to-head average has her 4 points behind, losing in 3 of the last 4 polls. On the positive side having McCain in makes it less likely that Bloomberg will come in and grab votes. Only way to win this is the '04 Bush model, rile up your base and rely on turnout to overcome your losses with independents.
Hillary vs Guiliani: Best case scenario for Hillary. Right now the RCP head-to-head average has her 8.7 points ahead (that would probably slim out as Guiliani gets attention from the press.) Guiliani is more polarizing than McCain, but he probably can keep Bloomberg out just by virtue of his history with New York. Both would fight for the middle but Hillary would probably again have to rely on a big base turnout.
Hillary vs Huckabee/Romnee vs Bloomberg - Hill has a lead over both 6.5%/12.4%, but these races leave enough space in the middle for Bloomberg to squeeze in and siphon off anti-Hillary dems/independents.
Regardless of who she faces she has the built in handicap that 43% of the US is unwilling to vote for her. That leaves a pretty slim margin to try and convert.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2
NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2: The casino votes count ten times as much as mine!
This idea comes from the fact that NV allocates delegates at a rate of 5 for every registered Democrat in a given caucus area but allocates them at a rate of 50 for every *voter* in the at-large caucus sites.
----
Edit: just realized that 5/50 delegates for each registered Dem/voter adds up to a lot of delegates. I'm guessing it's 5/50 delegates for each 1000 registered Dem/voters or something
----
All people seem to be missing here is that the rate of 50 delegates is based on the number of voters that actually turn up. Meanwhile the 5 delegate rate is based upon the population of Democrats in a given area, regardless of how many turn up.
So basically they are assuming about a 10% turnout, so to compensate (since the casino workers could come from any of a number of districts) they give ten times the allocation so that the votes should be roughly even.
The only real criticism is if 10% is a realistic turnout. If 100% of the Democrats across the state turned out then the at-large sites would indeed hold 10 times the value. But historically in NV 10% turnout isn't a terribly unlikely turnout, caucusing is new here and voters aren't accustomed to their vote mattering in the primary.
Regardless, it doesn't seem it matters, as the lawsuit was dismissed today.
----
Edit: ...and conventional wisdom takes another knock. There was low turnout at the at-large caucuses and high-turnout statewide, the one scenario where the difference in vote weighting would matter. The result? *Hillary* ends up with a big boost, winning the at-large caucuses despite predictions, while Obama does well around the state, basically the opposite of expectations. Surprisingly the Clinton campaign is suddenly no longer critical of the caucus setup... interesting.
----
This idea comes from the fact that NV allocates delegates at a rate of 5 for every registered Democrat in a given caucus area but allocates them at a rate of 50 for every *voter* in the at-large caucus sites.
----
Edit: just realized that 5/50 delegates for each registered Dem/voter adds up to a lot of delegates. I'm guessing it's 5/50 delegates for each 1000 registered Dem/voters or something
----
All people seem to be missing here is that the rate of 50 delegates is based on the number of voters that actually turn up. Meanwhile the 5 delegate rate is based upon the population of Democrats in a given area, regardless of how many turn up.
So basically they are assuming about a 10% turnout, so to compensate (since the casino workers could come from any of a number of districts) they give ten times the allocation so that the votes should be roughly even.
The only real criticism is if 10% is a realistic turnout. If 100% of the Democrats across the state turned out then the at-large sites would indeed hold 10 times the value. But historically in NV 10% turnout isn't a terribly unlikely turnout, caucusing is new here and voters aren't accustomed to their vote mattering in the primary.
Regardless, it doesn't seem it matters, as the lawsuit was dismissed today.
----
Edit: ...and conventional wisdom takes another knock. There was low turnout at the at-large caucuses and high-turnout statewide, the one scenario where the difference in vote weighting would matter. The result? *Hillary* ends up with a big boost, winning the at-large caucuses despite predictions, while Obama does well around the state, basically the opposite of expectations. Surprisingly the Clinton campaign is suddenly no longer critical of the caucus setup... interesting.
----
NV Lawsuit Fallacy #1
NV Lawsuit Fallacy #1: It's not political.
Of course it's political. At this stage in the game everything is. I challenge even the most strident of Clinton supporters to look me in the eye and say it's not political, knowing that:
- Several of the leaders of the Teachers Union bringing the suit are Clinton supporters
- Those same leaders were privy to and, if I have this right (Edit: source), actually voted in favor of these rules months ago.
- They suddenly "discover" the issue, two days after the Culinary Workers endorse Obama
- Their complaint is that this unfairly disenfranchises their voters, relative to the Culinary Workers. Their solution? Instead of adding more at-large sites they want to remove the at-large sites altogether, disenfranchising even more voters.
NV Lawsuit Truth #1: The caucus system is unfair and not democratic.
Yep, that's the plain truth. It's old, it's antiquated and even when it was first made the goal was to keep power within the party elite. That said, there's lots to fix in the US democracy, much more pressing than the caucus system, like a president being elected but losing the popular vote.
Coming next, NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2: The at-large votes count 10 times more.
Of course it's political. At this stage in the game everything is. I challenge even the most strident of Clinton supporters to look me in the eye and say it's not political, knowing that:
- Several of the leaders of the Teachers Union bringing the suit are Clinton supporters
- Those same leaders were privy to and, if I have this right (Edit: source), actually voted in favor of these rules months ago.
- They suddenly "discover" the issue, two days after the Culinary Workers endorse Obama
- Their complaint is that this unfairly disenfranchises their voters, relative to the Culinary Workers. Their solution? Instead of adding more at-large sites they want to remove the at-large sites altogether, disenfranchising even more voters.
NV Lawsuit Truth #1: The caucus system is unfair and not democratic.
Yep, that's the plain truth. It's old, it's antiquated and even when it was first made the goal was to keep power within the party elite. That said, there's lots to fix in the US democracy, much more pressing than the caucus system, like a president being elected but losing the popular vote.
Coming next, NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2: The at-large votes count 10 times more.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Obama's loss in NH
Much has been made of women coming back to Hillary in NH and how it drove her eventual win there.
But there is one thing that's interesting... take a look at the IA and NH exit polls. In IA Obama took 35% of women, in NH he took 34%. Hillary, on the other hand, received 30% and 46% respectively. Obama didn't actually lose any female voters, but Hillary gained a whopping 16 points.
What changed? Everyone else. Edwards lost 8 points with women. Dodd and Biden dropped out, freeing up 4 points and she siphoned another 4 points off Richardson.
So what caused it?
Part of it was probably Edwards' ill-advised response to her display of emotion. It seems likely that women, seeing their also-ran candidates fall behind, gave up on them and pulled behind Clinton in a show of solidarity as she was piled-on by the media.
In fact, it looks like this might have happened nationally. Look at this graph from Real Clear Politics... almost all of Hillary's rebound in national polls after NH came from Edwards losses.
This brings up another interesting point. What if Edwards wins Nevada? Unlikely, but possible. He's polling surprisingly well considering his losses in NH and IA.
I think an Edwards win (or even resurgence) spells bad news for Hillary... it means the female voters are coming back to him. A SC primary with the female vote split and the black vote now solidly behind Obama could spell a big loss for her.
But there is one thing that's interesting... take a look at the IA and NH exit polls. In IA Obama took 35% of women, in NH he took 34%. Hillary, on the other hand, received 30% and 46% respectively. Obama didn't actually lose any female voters, but Hillary gained a whopping 16 points.
What changed? Everyone else. Edwards lost 8 points with women. Dodd and Biden dropped out, freeing up 4 points and she siphoned another 4 points off Richardson.
So what caused it?
Part of it was probably Edwards' ill-advised response to her display of emotion. It seems likely that women, seeing their also-ran candidates fall behind, gave up on them and pulled behind Clinton in a show of solidarity as she was piled-on by the media.
In fact, it looks like this might have happened nationally. Look at this graph from Real Clear Politics... almost all of Hillary's rebound in national polls after NH came from Edwards losses.
This brings up another interesting point. What if Edwards wins Nevada? Unlikely, but possible. He's polling surprisingly well considering his losses in NH and IA.
I think an Edwards win (or even resurgence) spells bad news for Hillary... it means the female voters are coming back to him. A SC primary with the female vote split and the black vote now solidly behind Obama could spell a big loss for her.
Here we go...
Welcome to the first voyage of the S.S. Reasonable Exchange, I'll be your Captain.
I'm a politics nut and the idea here is to inject my particular theories, ramblings and rants on said topic into the stream of conscience out there.
Here we go...
I'm a politics nut and the idea here is to inject my particular theories, ramblings and rants on said topic into the stream of conscience out there.
Here we go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)