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

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.

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.

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...

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:

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.

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:
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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
----

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.

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.

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...