Monday, November 30, 2009

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

From The Washington Post:

Q: If the 2012 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote?

[Click to Enlarge]

Yes, Sarah Palin is leading here, but the real news -- to FHQ anyway -- is that half of the survey respondents in this case either chose no one/other, wouldn't vote or had no opinion one way or the other about the 2012 Republican nomination. That is an awfully high number compared to other similar polls conducted during 2009. Granted, the question was slightly different than some of the other surveys we have seen on this subject as well. In other instances, names were provided, but respondents in the Washington Post were asked not to recognize names but to recall them. In that regard, it isn't terribly surprising that Palin -- someone with the most name recognition currently -- led the list. That neither Huckabee nor Romney fared any better than they did -- 10% and 9% respectively -- was also surprising. [And no, FHQ does not attribute Huckabee's pardon trouble for any of this since the story broke after the poll.]

And no one candidate cleared the 20% barrier either.

Poll: Washington Post
Margin of Error: +/- 4%, +/-5%
Sample: 485 Republicans and 319 Republican-leaning independents (nationwide)
Conducted: November 19-23, 2009


Recent Posts:
Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Friday, November 27, 2009

Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

There's nothing like Black Friday for a 2012 polling dump. Earlier this week, Rasmussen provided us with its first glance at the 2012 presidential trial heats since July and back in the summer, the firm only included Romney and Palin against Obama. This time they have added Mike Huckabee to the mix, and more interestingly, Lou Dobbs as a third party candidate. But we'll get to that moment. I'll give you the numbers and figures to start and return later to add in the analysis.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 45%
Huckabee: 41%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 8%
[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 46%
Palin: 43%
Other: 9%
Not Sure: 3%
[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 44%
Romney: 44%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 5%
Pollster: Rasmussen
Margin of Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample: 800 likely voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 24, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]



[Click to Enlarge]



[Click to Enlarge]

Not surprisingly, Lou Dobbs hurts the Republican candidates more so than the president when he is included in the line of questioning in the survey. Romney is hit the hardest; losing 10% off his total from the two candidate question. But the former Massachusetts governor had the most to lose since he did the best of the Republicans against Obama in the two candidate polling.

And here's one more from Democracy Corps [pdf] with Dobbs and Nader included as third party candidates.

[Click to Enlarge]

Pollster: Democracy Corps
Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1000 (2008 election) voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 12-16, 2009


Recent Posts:
Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

I just wanted to take some time out from the day to wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving. I've said this before and I'll say it again, we are nothing without of readers/commenters. Thank you all for making FHQ what it is.


Recent Posts:
Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

There has been a lot of talk about true conservatives (think NY-23) and purity tests within the Republican Party lately. But what's been lost in all of this is a rare -- at least in terms of getting news attention -- instance of pragmatism. Late last week, the North Carolina Republican Party considered a proposal to discontinue allowing independents to vote in the party's primaries.
"Unfortunately there are times when independents are swaying elections to a candidate that is not as conservative as we would like," said Onslow County GOP Chairman Patrick Lamb, identifying moderates as people like John McCain last year and George H.W. Bush in 1988.

"We are not attempting to eliminate independents from the process. We absolutely need them," said Bob Pruett of Beaufort, chairman of the 3rd Congressional District committee, who supports the closed primary idea. "But we want to make sure that we have conservative candidates elected in our primaries."
Compare that sentiment to the line of argument that ultimately prevailed:
"History shows us that the passage of this resolution would not bode well for the goal of a Republican victory in 2010," state party Chairman Tom Fetzer wrote in an e-mail to executive committee members.

"All of us know at least one Conservative Republican – and probably many more – that have switched to Unaffiliated out of frustration with the national or state Republican Party," the three lawmakers [Phil Berger, Paul Stam and Eddie Goodall] wrote. "Are we sending these Conservatives the right message and encouraging them to return to the Republican Party by telling them they cannot participate in a Republican Primary and can only participate in the Democratic Primary?"
Obviously, there was a purist element within the NC GOP pushing this resolution, but they were voted down in the party's executive committee meeting this past weekend. Why? FHQ suspects that state party Chairman Tom Fenty is absolutely correct: with the state legislative elections coming up in 2010, North Carolina Republicans have an opportunity to win both chambers. Limiting the potential base, though, could have affected the calculus for attaining that goal (especially with unaffiliateds in the state growing by leaps and bounds).

Now, why, you may ask, is this any different than what FHQ discussed recently in terms of the Idaho Republican Party's efforts to end the Gem state's open primary -- for much the same reason? Why, indeed? Again, it is up to the state to decide the extent to which its primaries are opened or closed to independent and unaffiliated voters. The state of Idaho, as we highlighted, has allowed not only independents but partisans of the opposite party to participate in primary elections for both major parties over the last nearly four decades. But in North Carolina, the system is slightly different. Technically, the Tarheel state's primaries are closed to independents, but a change to the law in allowed the state parties to decide whether they would invite independents to participate in their primary elections. The North Carolina Republican Party began allowing independents in in 1988 with the Democrats in the state following suit in 1996.

And this not really an issue for the Republican Party in North Carolina to take lightly. The conventional wisdom after the 2008 presidential election was that Obama's organizational efforts during the primaries in North Carolina helped push the president over the top in the Tarheel state in November; turning the state blue for the first time since 1976. Getting independents to vote for you in the primary has the potential to go a long way for a candidate when the general election rolls around. The dynamic, though, has the potential to be different in a midterm election than in a presidential election.

Still, in the battle of pragmatism versus purism with in the Republican Party, pragmatism won out for once.


Recent Posts:
Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

Monday, November 23, 2009

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

FHQ has been closely watching the meetings of the groups within both national parties reexamining the rules by which delegates will be allocated and presidential candidates nominated in the 2012 election. And we have done our part to bring the developments to our readers (click on the Democratic Change Commission and/or Temporary Delegate Selection Committee tags at the conclusion of the post for the full discussion). And while there has been a fair amount of individual analysis here, we have been lacking in attempts to reconcile what each party is doing with its counterparts across the aisle.

For all the talk about working together, there actually hasn't been any overt contact between the two parties other than a post at The Hill over the summer bringing the idea up. Of course, I've also tried to do my part here. Absolutely nothing revolutionary is going to get done on the presidential primary reform front unless the parties work together. And even then, FHQ is not necessarily of a mind that reform is acutely necessary. Democrats ended up with a winner in 2008 and Republicans, purity tests aside, got the candidate best positioned to actually beat any Democrat in a year that favored the party of Jefferson and Jackson. The weak links from the 2008 cycle are the ones being addressed now by both parties: what to do about caucuses (or the larger caucuses vs. primaries question), how can we stop frontloading, and for the Democrats, what should we do about those superdelegates? And though the Republican Party has items such as rotating regional primaries and instant runoffs on the table, FHQ is hesitant to take them seriously.

Why?

Well, those ideas are grand in scope and are going to take cooperation from Democrats to implement. And as of yet, there has been, again, no action taken on that front. In fact, those ideas aren't anywhere near the Democratic Change Commission's agenda. This isn't all the Democrats' fault either. For their part, the Change Commission is firmly committed to altering the timing of delegate selection events. No, the group isn't seemingly going to advance any radical recommendation, but they are intent on closing the window in which primaries and caucuses can be held; effectively starting the process in mid- to late February instead of at the beginning of the year as in 2008. [Non-exempt states -- everyone but Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada would be allowed to hold their delegate selection events on the first week in March or there after until the process comes to a close in June.]

This, however, does not necessarily jibe well with the goals of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee. Indeed, this March starting point has not seemingly been on the Republican group's radar for their meetings to date. That isn't to say the GOP won't go along with the idea eventually, but their motivation is counter to the plan the Democrats are advancing. The Republican Party will be more interested in a quick nomination decision, a la 2004 for the Democrats, simply because they are going to be facing an incumbent president. [Plus opening up the Tea Party rift in 2012 will likely be suicidal for Republicans. The GOP just hasn't as of yet seemed willing to take a more pragmatic route in order to win. Democrats were at that point in 2008 -- and that isn't to suggest that they "settled" for Obama. The RNC is mindful of that and would likely opt for the status quo to maintain the quick selection mechanisms that are in place within the party's nominating apparatus.]

What that means is that the Republican Party's goals are not necessarily congruent with those of the Democratic Party. On top of that, time is running out. [For 2012? Yes, for 2012.] The Democratic Change Commission's recommendations are due to the party by the first of the year in 2010. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will then decide upon the rules for 2012 some time over the summer; roughly the same time period the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is slated to finish up its work. That essentially leaves about nine months for the parties to put their heads together on the matter of primary reform. Sure, that's an eternity in politics, but when distractions like health care and midterm elections pop up, the task becomes even more difficult. Besides, a year has already passed since the 2008 election and the parties have not actively opened a dialog on this front.

They're going to fix that in nine months? Color FHQ bearish.


Recent Posts:
Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

FHQ likes how the Des Moines Register raised the alert a few weeks ago about the potential 2012 Republican candidates not coming to the state and now has a poll out concerning the prospects chances in the Hawkeye state's 2012 caucus. It is strange to juxtapose the overall numbers among all Iowans and then leave the "only Republicans" numbers for the footnote at the bottom of the graphic. Huckabee's well-liked overall and among Republicans. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, has cornered the market on opinion. Everyone has one about her; well, except for just 8% of all Iowans. Still, that's the lowest among all the candidates in the question. On the other end of the spectrum from Palin, though, are Pawlenty, Jindal and Pataki. All three have a lot of room to grow in Iowa since nearly three quarters of Iowans are unsure of who they are or how favorable they are of them.

[Click to Enlarge]

Of course, the main thrust of the write up in the Register was about Sarah Palin. While she doesn't do as well among Republicans (in terms of favorability) as Mike Huckabee, the former Alaska governor does top Arkansas' former chief executive among conservatives. And last but not least, the Register tells us that Palin's favorability numbers are not unlike those of Hillary Clinton when she was setting out to run ahead of 2008 (opinion had solidified on both). But is that really the analogy they want to draw? Clinton did end up finishing third in Iowa behind Obama and Edwards.

The bottom line? Palin has a steep climb even in a state that some have thought she'd seriously battle Huckabee for in 2012?

UPDATE (as per AKReport's request -- FHQ should have included it. Thanks.):
Margin of Error: +/- 4.2%
Sample: 800 Iowans
Conducted: November 8-11, 2009 (pre-Palin book release)


Recent Posts:
Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

NOTE: Please note that you can now track past updates of these trial heat polls by clicking here or on the "2012 trial heat polls" tag at the bottom of the post.

For the ninth straight month Public Policy Polling released a series of 2012 presidential trial heat polls matching President Obama up against four prospective Republican candidates. And despite the fact that Obama slipped below 50% for the first time in a few polls this past week (see Gallup, Quinnipiac, PPP), the president wasn't in any significantly different position relative to the Republicans than he was a month ago; just under 50% against all but Sarah Palin and still ahead across the board. Yet, this month while Mike Huckabee remained the closest to the president, he was not alone in that distinction. Mitt Romney climbed to within five points of the president as well, climbing above the 40% mark for the first time in any PPP poll this year.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 44%
Undecided: 7%
That said, Huckabee does better consolidating the conservative and Republican bases. Romney, however, nearly evenly divides the independent support with the president. And that really demonstrates the current tension within the GOP; the battle we've been talking about here at FHQ since Obama claimed victory a year ago. Will Republicans nominate someone in 2012 from a far more conservative background than, say, John McCain, or will efforts be made to make the party's nominee more inviting to independent voters? That continues to be the question as 2009 draws to a close.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Undecided: 5%
What's more, this poll from PPP is not without its quirks. [No poll ever is, really.] First, the same bizarre regional disparity that popped up in the polling firm's July poll again reared its head this month. Obama inexplicably swept the South (except for a tie with Ron Paul) again while losing out completely in the midwest. I can foresee the midwest potentially being a problem for Obama in 2012, but there's absolutely no way that the South is vulnerable to Obama inroads; not even if Steve Schmidt's catastrophe occurs. Palin, indeed, proves to be trailing by the largest margin (a distinction shared with Ron Paul), but still loses the South while winning the midwest against the president.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 46%
Paul: 38%
Undecided: 16%
If that wasn't enough, Paul actually pulls Obama's support to its lowest level in any of PPP's surveys this year. But is that Ron Paul's impact or is the Texas congressman merely serving, as I asked earlier today, as a proxy for a generic Republican in a hypothetical race against Obama? There are enough undecideds in that match up to raise that question. Independents are not necessarily on board with Paul, but Democrats are least with Obama against Paul than against any other Republican in the survey. As Christian Heinze at GOP12 asked, "Is an Anybody But Obama theme starting to take hold?" Intriguing as that question is, FHQ is almost more interested in a slightly different question: Is an Anybody but Huckabee/Palin/Romney theme starting. Certainly, neither question is being answered very adequately at this point, not in the direct context of the 2012 race anyway. Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush and especially Tim Pawlenty did not see anywhere near the numbers Paul has in this particular poll. And I say "especially" in Pawlenty's case because he doesn't carry the baggage that Gingrich and Bush carry and is unknown enough to potentially fill the void of generic Republican in a ballot question. But Pawlenty from last month lags well behind Paul's numbers here.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Undecided: 9%
All in all, it was another interesting round of numbers from the good folks over in Raleigh. Ron Paul may have earned a spot in next month's poll simply due to his showing here. We'll see.
__________________________
NOTE: And just as a bonus, here's the updated Obama/Gingrich trendline. And no, it isn't so much an update as a reminder that Gingrich has not been polled against Obama since August.

[Click to Enlarge]


Recent Posts:
PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

Friday, November 20, 2009

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Public Policy Polling [pdf] today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential playing field. Here's a quick look a the toplines (I'll be back later with a full analysis and updated figures.):

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 44%
Undecided: 7%

Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Undecided: 5%

Obama: 46%
Paul: 38%
Undecided: 16%

Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Undecided: 9%

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1066 registered voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 13-15, 2009

FHQ's biggest question? Is Ron Paul a proxy for a generic Republican candidate? Obama fares worst against the Texas congressman. And remember, this is among registered voters and not likely voters.


Recent Posts:
Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

[UPDATE: Here's a rundown from CNN of the day that was at the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting. There are some interesting tidbits there. FHQ will have a broader comment on the piece later on.]

As has been the case with other Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings, news from within the event (yesterday's meeting in Washington) took a bit of time to surface. Just as a refresher, the TDSC is the 15 member group that is charged with examining the rules under which the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will be governed. The group has met before, but very little has come out in terms of what they have been considering. Sure, there's been talk of regional primaries and perhaps even an instant runoff system, but the information that has come out of these handful of meetings has paled in comparison to the cornucopial plethora of news that has emerged from the two Democratic Change Commission meetings. Now granted, it always helps when there are people on the inside who are willing to share (Suzi LeVine and Frank Leone to a name a couple.) publicly.

But did anything groundbreaking come out of the meeting yesterday? It depends on what you mean by groundbreaking. Nothing was released that in any way fundamentally reshaped the way in which Republican presidential nominees are selected. But that won't come until the group settles in on a decision to do so (...if then). What we do have are a couple of inside accounts. The first comes from TDSC member and former Michigan Republican Party chair, Saul Anuzis. The meeting was a late-day affair, so his tweets of the events didn't start appearing until 5pm. Here are a few of Anuzis' observations (via Twitter):
1. RNC 2012 Rules underway Huckabee, Giuliani managers have testified. SOS from WA now testifying.

2. RNC 2012 hearing options on timing, rotational options, primary vs caucus systems.

3. RNC 2012 has strong contingency from NH, IA and SC:)

4. RNC 2012 update, this will be the last public hearing with lots of ideas coming forward. Detailed proposals coming at December mtg.

5. RT @dcseth: @sanuzis Any talk of closed primaries? // no...that is up to states.
Let's put the pieces together:

The group heard from Chip Saltsman (Huckabee's former campaign manager) and, I'd guess, Michael DuHaime (from the Giuliani campaign in 2008). I can verify the former (Anuzis and Saltsman shared a call and response on Twitter following the meeting.), but the latter is, as I said, a guess. DuHaime is a part of the Christ Christie gubernatorial transition team in New Jersey (not that that has anything to do with this). [Ah, here's confirmation that DuHaime spoke before the TDSC.]

Also speaking before the committee was Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. FHQ has discussed Reed in the past. Earlier in the year, he was urging RNC chair, Michael Steele, to fill out the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee with other secretaries of state. [There are none.] For his part, Reed toed the company line: He pushed for the National Association of Secretaries of State's rotating regional primary plan. But he also added that voters would prefer a later start to the process and that "There is a growing call for a process that is logical, orderly and fair."

Anuzis' second tweet seems to have been borne out of some of Reed's comments or at least a discussion stemming from it. [We've heard about the rotating regional primaries before, so I asked him about the timing aspect in relation to what the Democrats are planning on. I'm still waiting to hear back.]

Are you surprised that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had large contingents in attendance? No, I wasn't either. The last two points were more worthwhile anyway. Firstly, the next TDSC meeting will be in December when they will hear "detailed proposals." Again, the RNC isn't slated to vote on anything coming out of these meetings until next summer. Still, the GOP will have something on the table by the end of the year, the point at which the Democratic Change Commission will make their recommendations to the DNC.

Finally, we also see that the neither the TDSC nor RNC are on the offensive to enact closed primaries (see recent FHQ discussion here). I briefly thought about a mass Republican switch to caucuses when I saw the "primaries vs. caucus systems" comment above, since caucuses are, on the whole, closed to independents and Democrats (from the Republican perspective). But Anuzis shoots that idea and the idea of the RNC forcing states to close their primaries (They can't.) down.

Now, what did we learn from all this? There won't be anymore closed primaries than there already are unless the state governments make a change or state parties opt out in favor of a party-funded caucus. [Yeah, you knew that already.] We also learned that there is another Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting next month.


Recent Posts:
Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

It turns out that in both cases, it was a function of the fact that both had constitutional conventions to draft new guidelines for governing each state. That, in turn, disrupted the timing of gubernatorial elections.

In New Jersey:
Prior to the adoption of the modern New Jersey Constitution, New Jersey governors served three year terms, with the last gubernatorial election under the old constitution occurring in 1946. In 1947, the legislature proposed a constitutional convention which was voted on as a referendum and approved by a majority of voters. The new constitution was ratified in 1947, and among many other changes, extended the governor’s term to four years. This extension, however, did not apply to the current governor’s (Alfred Driscoll) term, who had been elected under the old constitution. So, Driscoll’s first term, which had begun in 1947, ended in 1950. When Driscoll ran for reelection, the term limits of the new constitution applied, so Driscoll’s second term lasted for four years. The election to replace Driscoll occurred in November of 1953, and thanks to the new four year terms, every New Jersey gubernatorial election from then on naturally fell on an off-off year.
And in Virginia:

In March 1851, while the constitutional convention was meeting, the Virginia General Assembly elected a new governor, as it had for the past 75 years for a three-year term. The newly elected governor Joseph Johnson was to take office on January 1, 1852, but in the ensuing months Virginia voters approved the new constitution which among other things expanded suffrage to all white male citizens 21 years or older who had been residents for at least two year and required the governor to be popularly elected to a four-year term. The constitution also prohibited the governor from serving successive terms, a prohibition that is still in place today.

Soon after the new constitution was adopted Democrats met in convention in Staunton and nominated Johnson to run for governor. The first popular election for governor was held on December 8, 1851, but the results of the election were not certified until January 15, 1852. Not wanting to leave the Commonwealth without a chief executive, Johnson assumed the governor’s office on January 1, 1852 by rights of his having been elected by the General Assembly the previous March. On January 15, after the results of the election were certified, he was declared the winner of the first popular election for governor in the Commonwealth’s history and assumed the office on that basis on January 16. A series of unelected military governors during Reconstruction shifted the election cycle from one-year before presidential elections on the odd year to one-year after presidential elections on the odd year, and that pattern has remained ever since.

This is interesting material from a new blog from the Society for Election Law at William & Mary. They just opened up shop on Monday, but this promises to be a site worth checking in the future. Click on the state links above to read the full entries on both New Jersey and Virginia. There's much more to the Virginia post.


Recent Posts:
GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Either the Republican Party is quieter about their efforts at tinkering with their presidential nomination rules for 2012 or FHQ just doesn't have the right connections. We do have one that is consistently good, however. According to former Michigan Republican Party chair and TDSC member, Saul Anuzis, the group is meeting today in Washington. The group last met at the end of September. Very little information has emerged from any of the meetings thus far. Iowa and New Hampshire are safe in their first-in-the-nation status and there has been at least some discussion of regional primaries, and separately, a potential instant runoff system.

FHQ will update as news of the meeting surfaces. In the meantime, both Anuzi's Twitter account and blog are good places to check if you're impatient (...like FHQ).


Recent Posts:
Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

A month and a half ago, FHQ posted a link to and discussed a presidential election forecasting model built on candidate biographical information. The benefit of this model -- and it performs quite well stacked up against other forecasting models -- is that the biographical data exists now. In other words, you don't have to wait until the second quarter economic numbers are released or to wait on polling data from a particular period of time in the election year to put an accurate forecast together. [But hey, if you want to continue to come here and watch FHQ wade through the quadrennial polling data on the presidential race, we won't fault you. We here at FHQ may go so far as to encourage it.] I left off in that post urging folks to start scouring the biographical data on the prospective 2012 Republicans.

But why do that? Well, if you're patient, you'll be pleasantly surprised by an email from the authors of the original research. And lo and behold, one of those co-authors, Andreas Graefe (the other is J. Scott Armstrong), emailed me this morning to inform me that -- yes, that's right -- they've already looked at the Obama v. Palin numbers. How does Palin fare against the President?

[Click to Enlarge and here for the full description of the 2012 update at PollyVote.]

That nine point difference between the two candidates' biographical indicators translates to Obama carrying a 59.6% share of the two-party vote in 2012 if this was the match up (For some context, Obama received 52.9% of the vote in 2008 or 53.4% of the two-party vote). That's Reagan-Mondale territory and would likely make for quite the electoral college sweep for Obama.

But didn't you say that this model wasn't particularly adept at picking elections involving incumbents? (Ah, you followed the link and read the previous post, didn't you? Thanks.) That's right. Three incumbents with biographical score advantages lost re-election bids (to: Truman '48, Carter '76, Clinton '92). It has been done, then, but let's look a little more closely at those three elections. Carter and Truman had deficits of 5 points on the biographical index while Clinton trailed Bush by just three points. Palin's disadvantage against Obama is over twice the average deficit across those three incorrectly predicted elections, though.

That's a real hole to be in even before you start considering running for president. But back to my question from the last post: Who among the 2012ers does the best?

A special thanks to Andreas Graefe for drawing our attention to the updated 2012 outlook.


Recent Posts:
St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Back in July Public Policy Polling conducted a survey in Minnesota and threw in a 2012 trial heat question pitting President Obama against both Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin. The result? Obama led both, but Pawlenty did the better of the two Republicans in his home state. Obama led the current Minnesota governor 51-40 then.

Well, St. Cloud St. University today released the results of a similar trial heat poll (No, Palin wasn't included. I know, and her book was released today, too!). Did Pawlenty make any headway following his ascension to the Vice Chair position within the Republican Governors Association and the formation of his Freedom First PAC; two events associated with his being on the lips of the punditocracy in relation to the 2012 presidential race? Actually, it doesn't seem to have made all that much difference at all.

Obama: 49.0%
Pawlenty: 39.7%
Undecided: 5.6%

Margin of Error: +/- 5%
Sample: 550 adults (Minnesotans)
Conducted: October 26 - November 4, 2009

Across two different polling firms' polls, then, Obama dropped some while Pawlenty held steady around the 40% mark. Looking at the margin, this poll isn't any different than the 54-44 edge Obama had over McCain last November in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

In the cross-tabs, there are some interesting nuggets. Obama leads among every age group save the 35-44 group, where Pawlenty leads by 21 points (55-34). Obama also leads among women (59-31) while trailing among men (49-40). Both candidates(???) have consolidated their bases; each has over 84% among their own partisans. Obama leads among independents (27-17) -- or "those not close to either party."

This certainly isn't a trend so much as a flatline, but still, as always, it is nicer to have the data than not. But the bottom line out of this one echoes what FHQ discussed over the weekend: Pawlenty isn't there yet, but he needs to be active to catch up with those potential 2012ers that have more name recognition nationally than he does.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.


Recent Posts:
Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

This one stuck in FHQ's craw for some reason.

As I drove home yesterday and listened to the "How Do You Say 2010?" story on All Things Considered, I became aware of the fact that I was planted rather angrily in one of the camps. Why does this matter? Oh, it doesn't in the grand scheme of things, but since FHQ is in the habit of typing (and saying while I type -- Yes, I'm one of those people.) 2012 quiet a lot and will only see ramped up use of 2010 in the coming month, it is relevant.

So which camp do you fall in?



I'm a Twenty Ten kind of guy. All I could think of while I listened was that George Orwell's book was Nineteen Eighty-Four, not One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four. All that's happened is that these "Aught" years have broken us of that Nineteen or Twenty habit.


Recent Posts:
A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

One caveat FHQ intended to include in yesterday's glimpse at the Palin Winner-Take-All hypothesis, but neglected to include was the fact that half of the winner-take-all states are not true winner-take-all states. [I think I may have just set the record for number of times using winner-take-all in one sentence.] Thankfully, I have a loyal group of readers/commenters (in this case MysteryPolitico) who are willing to point out these things. This is the power of the blogging platform.

Anyway, this is a significant factor in the scenario that Walter Shapiro constructed yesterday. If only 10 of the 21 winner-take-all contests are true, statewide winner-take-all primaries, then Sarah Palin's task of winning the 2012 Republican nomination in that fashion becomes all the more difficult. In most of the eleven states that are not true winner-take-all states, the delegate allocation is done at both the congressional district level and statewide level as opposed to simply taking the statewide vote. It would require, in other words, winning some contests within contests to pull off a sweep of a state that allocates delegates in this manner.

It can happen, but it is tough to pull off in a fragmented nomination race like the 2008 GOP contest. McCain, for instance, was able to win 36% of the vote in Florida and 55% of the vote in Maryland and come out with a sweep of both states' delegates.

2008 Republican Presidential Primaries
(Winner-Take-All by District & Statewide)
State
Statewide Winner (2008)
% vote
% delegates
Florida
McCain
36
100
Maryland
McCain
55
100
Ohio
McCain
60
97
California
McCain
42
90
Wisconsin
McCain
55
85
Oklahoma
McCain
37
78
South Carolina
McCain
33
75
Georgia
Huckabee
34
71
Michigan
Romney
39
67
Alabama*
Huckabee
41
54
Indiana**
McCain
78
47
*Alabama is winner-take-all at the district level and proportional with the at-large delegates at the statewide level.
**Indiana allocated approximately half (27 delegates) its delegates under winner-take-all rules by congressional district in its May primary. The remaining delegates were left uncommitted until a June convention where the other half (27 delegates) were allocated in addition to three unpledged, party leaders serving as delegates.
Source: The Green Papers


If the 2012 nomination race winds up being as fragmented as 2008, then Palin faces a steeper climb than was even indicated yesterday. [Editorial note: FHQ is of the opinion that the race will not be as divided in terms of choice. It is incumbent upon the GOP to come to a quick decision on the party's 2012 presidential nominee or so the conventional wisdom holds. The Obama campaign might dispute that, arguing that the prolonged contest helped them in 2008 from an organizational standpoint. Perhaps, but 2012 election will feature an incumbent president with an organizational base already intact. It is much more similar to 2004 than 2008. Would John Kerry have benefited any from an extended primary battle with John Edwards? Would the additional organization have helped the Massachusetts senator against Bush in the fall? FHQ would wager that the answer would have been no.]

Let's look at this in a different way. The eleven states above accounted for 30.9% of the 2008 Republican delegates (777 delegates). Remember, those are the states that are not the true winner-take-all states. The true winner-take-all comprise a paltry 17.8% of the total number of Republican delegates in 2008 (447 delegates). Even if Palin were to sweep those 10 true winner-take-all contests, she would still be faced with likely having to clear 35% in some districts and statewide in those other winner-take-all states. And this doesn't even take into account the proportionally allocated states.

Again, if 65% of the Republican primary electorate is against Palin, her path through the Republican rules to the nomination becomes substantially more difficult, winner-take-all rules or not.


Recent Posts:
How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

Monday, November 16, 2009

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

[Please see a follow up to this post based on some of the comments below here.]

Walter Shapiro picked an opportune time to point out the fact that Sarah Palin could potentially exploit the Republican Party's presidential nomination rules to win the party's nomination in 2012. As I said a few weeks ago in a response to a post at A Plain Blog About Politics (Palin's Future), those approximately 20 states that have winner-take-all delegate allocation rules could prove to be a real boon to Palin's potential chances.

But there are two major caveats that apply:
  1. Are these winner-take-all primaries also closed primaries?
  2. When are these primaries actually scheduled?
On the first point, I think it is fair to say that, given recent polling Palin would do far better in any contest, winner-take-all or otherwise, if it is a contest closed to all but registered Republicans. She just isn't viewed as qualified among independents and Democrats. Now, yes, I'll grant you the fact that some Democrats may choose the "Operation Chaos" route and vote for the Republican with the lowest odds of beating President Obama, but I'm going to set that aside for now.

Secondly, timing plays a role here as well. Are all these winner-take-all primaries at the beginning of the process, at the end or fairly evenly distributed across the primary calendar? The earlier the better for Palin. If the winner-take-all contests bring up the rear, she likely would be winnowed before the race comes to those states. Since the parties are both re-examining how their presidential nominating calendars will look in 2012, there is a fair amount of uncertainty in this. However, based on current state laws across country, the calendar would look something like this if the parties decided to simply maintain the status quo. [The Democrats have already seemingly set into motion a plan to end all February primaries in all but the exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.] If that calendar is the model, fifteen of the twenty states (plus Washington DC) with winner-take-all contests were on or before Super Tuesday. Again, early -- in this hypothesis at least -- is better for Palin than late.

2012 Primaries by Delegate Allocation Method and Timing
State
Primary Date
Closed
Open*
South Carolina
????

47**
Florida
1/31/12
114**

Alabama
2/7/12
48
California
2/7/12173

Connecticut
2/7/1230

Delaware
2/7/1218

Georgia
2/7/12
72*
Missouri
2/7/12
58
New Jersey
2/7/12
52*
New York
2/7/12101

Oklahoma
2/7/1241

Utah
2/7/12
36*
District of Columbia
2/14/12
19

Maryland
2/14/1237

Virginia
2/14/12
63
Wisconsin
2/21/12

40
Arizona
2/28/12
53

Michigan
2/28/12

60**
Ohio
3/6/12

88*
Vermont
3/6/12

17
Indiana
5/8/12

57
Total
48.64% of total 2008 delegates586 delegates
638 delegates
*Included with open primaries here are primaries that allow only independents and not, in this case, Democrats to vote.
**Assumes no 50% delegate reduction penalty for having gone earlier than that party-designated period for holding contests.
Source: The Green Papers


Sure, technically, if Palin were to win all of the winner-take-all states, that would almost put her over the top (approximately 49% of the total number of delegates). But if she won all those, it is a safe bet that the former vice presidential nominee would receive an additional 2% of the total delegates in the proportional and loophole primary states to take the nomination. Again though, that is not how the presidential nomination process works. It is very much dependent upon timing and momentum.

...and the rules!

If you look at those closed primary states above, we're really talking about a more moderate, comparatively speaking, group of states. They are all primary states that McCain won in 2008. But in the context of that race, it was the first closed primary state (Florida) that mattered the most, and not that McCain was a more moderate candidate that appealed to moderate Republicans in closed primary states. It set the tone for the following week, Super Tuesday. And with the exception of Utah, the Arizona senator swept the winner-take-all states and stretched his delegate lead out to a nearly insurmountable margin.

Is there a scenario where Palin wins the Republican nomination? Yeah sure. If she can win Iowa and South Carolina -- eliminating Huckabee (assuming he runs) in the process -- she can attempt to turn whoever is left (especially if it is Mitt Romney and/or Tim Pawlenty) into Dede Scozzafava and the race into an ideological battle that she might be able to win. Of course, if Christian groups are attacking her abortion record, it may be difficult to see that scenario become reality.

The bottom line is that Palin would have to catch on in a major way to be able to take advantage of the winner-take-all rules. And honestly that would take quite the populist revolt against the Republican Party and its rules; something that has never happened. [And no, I don't count McCain as an exception to that rule.] As Jonathan Bernstein rightfully points out, if only 35% (as Shapiro indicates) of primary voters support Palin in the Republican primaries, it means that 65% are against her. Again, that would be an epic failure of the Republican rules that are set up to guard against that very thing: an insurgent candidate.


Recent Posts:
Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

From Ballot Access News:
Idaho is an open primary state and has never had registration by party. On primary day, any Idaho voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. Last year, the Idaho Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit, to force the state to give it a closed primary. But on September 4, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that the lawsuit requires a trial to determine whether it is true that voters hostile to the Republican Party have been voting in its primary. The Republican Party then said it would soon reveal its plans on how to proceed.

However, the party has not met the informal deadlines for revealing its plans for the trial. The Judge has set a status conference for November 30 to get an updated version of the party’s plans.

This sets off a series of questions. Usually, the courts yield to the parties on free association grounds, but it really is interesting to see how much this differs from state to state. In Idaho, the state Republican Party is demanding that the state government -- also dominated by Republican elected officials -- close the state's primaries. As the party argues, open primaries, like the ones held in Idaho for nearly four decades, potentially allow voters from outside the party to influence Republican nominations which by extension negatively impacts the party's freedom of association.

Why not, indeed?

What's interesting is that the same argument has been made in courts regarding open primaries. This movement in the courts -- at least on this particular question -- began with the 1986 Tashjian case before the Supreme Court. At issue in that instance was the fact that the Republican Party of Connecticut wanted to open up its primaries -- not close them as in the Idaho case -- but was prevented from doing so because of a Connecticut law, on the books since the 1950s, that kept primaries closed.

What did the Court decide?

Well, the Court sided with the Connecticut GOP: the law violated the party's rights to free association; specifically the party's right to invite -- in this case independents -- to vote in its nominating contests.

But this is a moving target, isn't it? Some states like Idaho or California have gone in quite the opposite direction. Faced with open primaries, parties in both the Gem state and the Golden state claimed that their free association rights were being threatened by partisans (and non-partisans, for that matter) of the other party. That the parties were unable to determine who would participate in its nominations was something Antonin Scalia, in the 7-2 opinion of the Court in the California Democratic Party v. Jones case, found to be "both severe and unnecessary."

That brings up an interesting distinction -- and there are several, actually -- between the California case and the one in Idaho. In California, all the major parties sued to have the blanket primary law invalidated. In Idaho, however, it is just the dominant Republican state party that is attempting to tear down the open primary system. The Democratic Party in Idaho could almost be considered a minor party in the state. And they could care less about the law simply because no or very few Republicans are crossing over to vote in the Democratic primaries. To top it off, the Democrats have often eschewed the primary as a means allocating presidential delegates; instead opting for a closed caucus on the state party's dime.

This, however, raises the biggest problem for the Idaho Republican Party in this case: the burden of proof is one the Republican Party. Their argument is that independents and Democrats could have undue influence (read: a moderating influence) on Republican nominations in the state. Proponents of the current open primaries law have simply said, "Prove it." In other words, how have nominations been negatively impacted by the inclusion of Democrats and independents in the process?

That's where this Idaho case is currently. It's stuck with the Idaho Republican Party trying to determine the extent to which Democrats and independents have made Republican nominees any less Republican/conservative. If Idaho Republicans want a closed primary or a closed nomination process, they are either going to have to do what the Democrats have done at the presidential level (Though, truth be told, Democrats in Idaho use a caucus as a means of keeping out Republicans and limiting, through a caucus, who participates and decides how delegates are allocated. See Meinke, et al. (2006) for more.) or just deal with it.

For now, though, it doesn't look like this particular case is going anywhere.

Read more about the Idaho case here and here.


Recent Posts:
Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

[UPDATE: Ah, here are the Rasmussen numbers on Pawlenty in 2012.]

If the Minnesota governor follows these numbers (or if they stay the same as 2012 approaches), the answer to that will perhaps be no.

PPP's tweeting about them, Pollster is reporting them, but Rasmussen isn't sharing them. Apparently, somewhere behind the pay wall, Rasmussen is showing in its latest survey of Minnesota that Governor Tim Pawlenty would only have the votes of 42% of Minnesotans if he were to run for president and win the Republican nomination in 2012. 46% would not vote for him. No, that's not necessarily a vote for Obama because the president's name was not used in the question, but it does provide a sense of just how blue Minnesota is.

Here's the question:
Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
Yes 42%
No 46%
This isn't a true trial heat, but it would have been interesting to have seen how the answers to the two questions (the one above and a head-to-head with Obama) would have differed. My hunch is that the difference would have been similar to the difference between polling an incumbent (for any office) against both an actual named opponent or a generic, unnamed one. Look, for instance, at Sen. Burr's numbers in the latest Public Policy Polling survey of the 2010 race for Senate in North Carolina. Burr performs better against named opposition than against Generic Democrat X and I would assume that Pawlenty's numbers above would decrease if we were talking about a ballot question pitting the Minnesota governor against President Obama.

That said, these numbers aren't all that bad. Sure, Tim Pawlenty has the name recognition in his home state that he lacks elsewhere, but in a state where Obama is still garnering higher approval than disapproval numbers -- though that margin has shrunk -- I wouldn't rank this as an awful showing for the governor.

What we're really missing here is a time trend. Rasmussen keeps asking different questions about Pawlenty in regards to the 2012 presidential race in these Minnesota polls. In March, we got this:
Should Tim Pawlenty run for President in 2012?

22% Yes
61% No
17% Not sure
And in May, Rasmussen asked something slightly different:
How likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will run for President?

17% Very likely
42% Somewhat likely
24% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
11% Not sure
Fine, how likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will win the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?

7% Very likely
30% Somewhat likely
39% Not very likely
16% Not at all likely
8% Not sure
No, those aren't flattering numbers for someone in their own state, but this is exactly the reason Pawlenty is making the moves he is in relation to 2012 (starting a PAC, traveling the nation, raising money, etc.). Put simply, he is at a disadvantage relative to the other prospective Republican candidates (Huckabee, Palin and Romney).


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

Friday, November 13, 2009

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

There are so many double entendres in this interview that college students could start a drinking game.* Stormy Daniels could make this an uncomfortable race for David Vitter. No, she won't win, but she'll make a mark whether she enters or not.

And I'm still laughing uncontrollably at that Kim Jong-Il line for whatever reason.

*Not that FHQ would condone such a thing. For shame. But for a laugh, I recommend reading the rules of the Brent Musberger Drinking Game. FHQ dares college football fans not to laugh heartily.


Recent Posts:
A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

One bit of news that made the rounds today is that Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, will be heading up to the Granite state next month to keynote a fund-raiser for the Republican Senate Majority Committee PAC. So what, you might ask? Well, Pawlenty's visit will be the first of the potential 2012 Republicans to make an appearance in New Hampshire. Does that mean Pawlenty is running for president? No, but he is. Pawlenty is running for 2012, but if he is going to run in 2012 has yet to be determined.

That, though, isn't why we're here. Sure, it's interesting, but something else is interests FHQ about this visit. It is late. Now, we've recently heard quite a bit of chatter online about Republicans skipping out on Iowa in 2012 because the state's Republican caucusgoers are likely to support a more socially conservative candidate. That's hogwash, and I'll shunt it to the side for the purposes of this discussion. However, what was part and parcel of that argument was the fact that Republican candidates not visiting the Hawkeye state was an indicator of this potential problem. What everyone -- FHQ included -- seemingly failed to check on was whether candidates were making stops in the presidential primary process's other first in the nation state, New Hampshire.

Well, as of December 16, Pawlenty will be the first in the 2012 cycle. How does that stack up with the number of visits to the Granite state at this point ahead of the 2008 election? For the GOP, there were already 22 visits from prospective Republican candidates for president. On the Democratic side there had already been 13 visits by that point in 2005. [See below for full list of 2005 candidate visits to New Hampshire.]

However, as I pointed out in the Iowa visits discussion, 2008 may not be the best comparison. Both parties had active nomination and interest in the presidential race was at an unusually fevered pitch earlier than usual. The better comparison, then may be how frequently Democrats were visiting the Granite state in 2001, before the 2004 campaign. Yes, there is a difference in party in that comparison, but the underlying dynamic is the same: incumbent president and one active, out-party nomination race.

And how often were potential 2004 Democratic presidential candidates heading up to the snowy environs of New Hampshire? Allow me to channel my inner Ed Rooney: nine times. Well, that count only includes the visits to this point (November 12) in the 2004 campaign. If you extend that to the time at which Pawlenty's visit is scheduled, that number grows by three visits to 12. [See below for full list of 2001 candidate visits to New Hampshire.]

What does all of this mean? Not that much actually. Well, other than the fact that the prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidates are off to a slower start than the candidates before the 2004 and 2008 elections. Is that a name recognition thing? Romney certainly benefits from having run there before and because of his time spent as governor of neighboring Massachusetts. Huckabee, too, has run in the Granite state before. However, his organizational infrastructure there paled in comparison to his Iowa effort in 2008. The New Hampshire Huckabee campaign was more ad hoc in nature. And Palin? Well, Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. People know who she is. But for someone playing catch-up, visiting New Hampshire and Iowa and any other place you can go is likely a shrewd move. For someone like Pawlenty, it never hurts to say you were the first (or more to the point, that you were there early and often).


______________________________
2001 Democratic Visits to New Hampshire (via P2004)

-In his capacity as recruitment chair for the DGA, Gov. Dean met separately with likely Democratic gubernatorial candidates Bev Hollingsworth, Mark Fernald and Jim Normand in Concord, NH on December 19, 2001.

Rep. Gephardt visited NH on December 15, 2001; his schedule included events with 1st district congressional candidate Martha Fuller Clark: a brunch at the home of Harlow and Barbara Carpenter in Kensington (SE Rockingham County), a walk-around in Portsmouth, a meeting with New Hampshire Young Democrats and a holiday party "to ring in the New Year and a New Congress!," both at the Millyard Museum in Manchester.

On December 6, 2001, Sen. Kerry did a fundraiser for Manchester Democrats in Manchester, NH.

Sen. Lieberman visited NH in the first week of November 2001. On the evening of November 3 he arrived at Berlin-Milan Airport and spoke at the Coos County Democrats' Truman Dinner at the Town & Country Motor Inn in Shelburne. On November 4 he attended a fundraiser brunch for the New Hampshire Democratic Senate Caucus at the home of Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord, a fundraiser for the Committee to Elect House Democrats at the home of Rep. Bette Lasky in Nashua, a roundtable with students at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, and a rally with Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, Mayor Bob Baines, Rep. Martha Fuller Clark and Manchester Democratic candidates at the Sweeney Post on Maple Street in Manchester. (November 3-4, 2001)

On October 26, 2001, Sen. Kerry did a fundraiser for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines in Manchester, NH.

Former Vice President Gore headlined the New Hampshire Democratic Party's "Celebrating Our Democracy" Jefferson Jackson Dinner at the Center of New Hampshire Holiday in in Manchester, NH on October 27, 2001; the next day he did a fundraiser at a restaurant for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines. As he had in Iowa, Gore made an unpublicized drive around the state. On the evening of October 22, he joined Sen. Beverly Hollingworth at Lamies in Hampton (Concord Monitor). Early the next morning found him in Berlin, he then headed south for Concord and ended up on the Seacoast, dining with friends and supporters at the Rusty Hammer in Portsmouth (Concord Monitor). Gore left the state on October 24 for Maine, and returned for the speech. (October 22-23 and 27-28).

Sen. Kerry keynoted the NH AFL-CIO convention in North Conway and was the special guest at the Merrimack County Democrats Harvest Dinner at Pembroke Academy in NH on October 13, 2001.

Rep. Kaptur visited NH on October 13, 2001, speaking at the state's AFL-CIO convention and meeting with campaign finance reform activists.

In August 2001, Rev. Al Sharpton announced a freedom bus tour of NH for early October 2001, however that was put off.

Sen. Kerry did two events in NH on August 5, 2001, a meet-and-greet for state representative candidate Mary Tetreau at Marilyn Hoffman's house in Londonderry (Kerry revealed his poetic skills, reading a poem of his own composition) and a fundraiser for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines at Donna Soucy's house in Manchester. [Tetreau lost the August 14 special election in a Republican stronghold by less than 300 votes].

Rep. Gephardt made a trip to NH on behalf of state Democrats on June 8-9, 2001. On June 8 he was the featured speaker at the annual Cheshire County Democratic dinner in Keene. On June 9 he appeared, with Gov. Shaheen, at a Rockingham/Strafford County continental breakfast in Portsmouth; the Merrimack County Democrats' Annual Pig Roast & Pot Luck Picnic at the home of Beth Walz and Harry Judd in Bow (again w/ Shaheen); and the Manchester City Democrats' Flag Day Celebration at the Manchester Millyard Museum.

Sen. Feingold visited NH on April 23, 2001, in a trip that was primarily focused on appearances in Maine with Sen. Collins. He toured Timberland footwear, met with Gov. Shaheen, and spoke with College Democrats at the University of New Hampshire.

Sen. Biden visited Manchester, NH on March 25, 2001 at the invitation of state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro. He spoke at the Manchester Democratic committee's 4th annual St. Patrick's breakfast ($25/plate fundraiser), marched in the St. Patrick's Day parade, and visited the VA Hospital.

______________________________
2005 Republican Visits to New Hampshire (via P2008)

>Gov. George Pataki visited NH on December 14, 2005; he did some interviews and private meetings and attended the NH Republican Party's Christmas Party at the Upham Walker House in Concord. [speech]

>Gov. Mitt Romney was a special guest at the Manchester Republican Committee's Annual Holiday Celebration at the Wayfarer Inn in Bedford, NH on the evening of December 7, 2005.

>Sen. Bill Frist did several private events in NH on December 6, 2005. Frist met with legislative leaders at the Capitol in Concord; had lunch with the New Hampshire Republican State Committee's executive committee at the law offices of Rath Young and Pignatelli in Concord; visited the Devine Millimet and Branch law firm in Manchester; and attended a reception with several local Republican activists and friends from his days at Harvard Medical School and Mass. General at the 100 Club in Portsmouth.

>Gov. George Pataki campaigned with Manchester mayoral candidate Frank Guinta in Manchester, NH on October 23, 2005, going door to door and doing a fundraiser at the home of Sharyn Kelley.

>Sen. George Allen visited NH on October 15, 2005. He attended a breakfast fundraiser at the invitation of Oracle PAC at Seedling Cafe in Nashua; spoke at a Stratham Republican Committee reception at the home of Phil ? Anne Caparso in Stratham; and helped kick off the NH Republican State Committee's Founders Program (new major donor program) at the home of Wayne Semprini in New Castle.

>Sen. Sam Brownback spoke at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anslem College in Manchester, NH on October 11-12, 2005. On the evening of October 11 he held a town meeting attended by members of the public, faculty and students. On October 12 he gave a guest lecture in an Introduction to Politics class and another class.

>Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited NH on October 7, 2005. Arriving from Vermont he overnighted in Hanover on October 6, then traveled to Concord. Here he met privately with Harry Levine (the co-founder of Victory NH), met with the Republican Alliance (the House conservative caucus), and had lunch in the Speaker's office with the House Speaker, the Governor, the senate President, the deputy Speaker, and Amb. Joseph and Augusta Petrone. Gingrich spoke to legislators and members of the public in Representatives Hall at the State House. While in Concord he stopped by Republican headquarters, the AARP office, and Charlie Bass' congressional office. Proceeding to Manchester, Gingrich spoke to a group of college students at the UNH Manchester campus organized by Prof. Mark Wrighton.

>Rep. Tom Tancredo visited NH on September 25-26, 2005. On September 25 he delivered the keynote speech at the New Hampshire Center for Constitutional Studies, Inc.'s 9th Annual Dinner Celebration in honor of Constitution Day at Grappone Center in Concord; and on the morning of September 26 he appeared at the Bedford Republican Committee Annual Breakfast at CR Sparks in Bedford.

>Gov. Mitt Romney hosted an afternoon fundraising reception for the New Hampshire Republican State Committee at his home on Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, NH on September 17, 2005.

>Gov. Mike Huckabee visited NH on August 27, 2005. At the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester he did a photo op with New Hampshire Young Republicans doing a voter registration drive; attended a NHRSC Issues ? Answers Series breakfast at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire; and did a media roundtable with members of the New Hampshire and Arkansas media. He spoke at the Nashua Republican City Committee's Steak Out at the Alpine Club in Hollis (substituting for Gov. Romney who had bowed out); attended the Strafford County Republican Picnic/Pig Roast at Three River Farm in Dover [speech]; did a book signing at the Barnes ? Noble in Newington; stopped in at the Seacoast Irish Festival at Dover Elks Lodge in Dover; and attended a reception at the home of Turner and Wendy Stanley Jones in Durham.

>Gov. Mitt Romney had been scheduled to attend the Nashua Republican City Committee Steakout in Nashua, NH on August 27, 2005 but cancelled a few days before the event citing a family commitment.

>Gov. Mitt Romney held an "intimate gathering" with about a dozen leading New Hampshire Republicans at his home on Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, NH on August 14, 2005. Source: The Union Leader's John DiStaso (The Granite Status, 8/18)

>Sen. George Allen addressed the NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Luncheon at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NHon June 25, 2005. [speech]

>Rep. Tom Tancredo visited NH on June 11, 2005. He addressed a NHRSC Issues ? Answers Series breakfast at the Holiday Inn in Concord, delivered the commencement speech at Nashua Christian High School, and spoke at a Nashua City Committee reception at Langdon Place in Nashua.

>Gov. Mitt Romney was the featured speaker at the NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NHon June 3, 2005. [speech]

>Sen. George Allen held two fundraisers for his re-election campaign, one at the Bedford Village Inn in Bedford and the other also in the Manchester area, in a quiet trip to NH on May 3, 2005.

>Sen. Chuck Hagel visited NH on May 2-4, 2005. On the evening of May 2 he attended the Manchester Republican Committee's Second Annual Springtime Reception at the home of B.J. Perry. On May 3 he spoke to students at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College; stopped to meet with Republican legislators at the State Capitol in Concord; spoke to students at Plymouth State College; and in the evening received an award for "leadership in public communication" from the Franklin Pierce College Marlin Fitzwater Center at the College's Manchester campus. On May 4 he spoke at the "Politics and Eggs" breakfast in Bedford[speech]; spoke to students at New England College in Henniker; and stopped in at the Union Leader. State Sen. Bob Odell (R-Lempster), a longtime acquaintance, helped organize the trip.

>Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited NH on April 18-19, 2005. On April 18 he did a signing to promote his book "Winning the Future" at the Barnes ? Noble bookstore in Manchester; met with the Concord Monitor ed board; spoke to a Republican grassroots group called Victory New Hampshire > at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Goffstown; met with the Manchester Union Leader ed board; taped an interview for New England Cable News; did a fundraising reception for the state party at C.R. Sparks in Bedford; and appeared live on Fox News Channel's "Hannity ? Colmes." On April 19 in Hanover Gingrich did an ed board meeting with the Upper Valley News; did a signing to promote his book at the Dartmouth Bookstore; lectured in Prof. Jeffrey Smith's government class; did an interview with the Dartmouth Review; spoke in the living room at Sigma Alpha Epsilon as part of the Andrew J. Scarlett Lecture Series; and spoke the Upper Valley Republican Club at a lunch at Jesse's Restaurant. He then proceeded to Harvard in Cambridge, MA.

>Sen. Sam Brownback spoke at the "True Blue Breakfast" sponsored by the Concord-based Cornerstone Policy Research at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH on April 16, 2005. (Note Brownback was in the region to deliver a speech on cloning and stem cell research at the Harvard Law School Society for Law, Life, and Religion spring symposium on April 15).

>Sen. Bill Frist spoke at the Merrimack County Lincoln Day Dinner at Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH on March 18, 2005. On March 19, 2005 he spoke at a Grafton County Republican breakfast at Plymouth Senior Center and a Nashua Republican luncheon at the Crowne Plaza in Nashua.

>Sen. Bill Frist delivered the keynote speech at the Manchester Republican Committee Lincoln-Reagan Dinner at The Executive Court Conference Center in Manchester, NH on March 4, 2005. [speech] He spoke at a Cheshire County Breakfast at the Keene Country Club in Keene on March 5, 2005.

>Rep. Tom Tancredo, accompanied by Angela "Bay" Buchanan and New Hampshire activist Paul Nagy, visited NH on February 3-4, 2005; the trip focused on immigration reform (Buchanan is chairperson and Tancredo is founding chairman of Team America, a PAC focused on illegal immigration). On February 3 they presented an American Patriot Award to New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain in New Ipswich; stopped for lunch at the Merrimack Restaurant in Manchester; spent a couple of hours at the Union Leader; did a live in-studio radio interview on Gardner Goldsmith's "Against the Grain" show at WGIR-AM in Manchester; and had dinner with conservative leaders at CR Sparks in Bedford. On February 4 they had breakfast with a group of New Hampshire House members; attended a Team America reception held in conjunction with the Nashua Republican Women's Club at a condominium complex in Nashua; and spoke at Nashua Christian High School. They then proceeded to Boston, MA.

2004
>Sen. John McCainwas first to venture into NH, albeit briefly; he addressed the second annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award dinner in Manchester on November 18, 2004.

______________________________
2005 Democratic Visits to New Hampshire (via P2008)

>Gov. Mark Warner visited NH on November 18, 2005. He arrived in Nashua late on the night of November 17 (earlier that day he spoke on education at Harvard's Institute of Politics). On November 18 he participated in an education roundtable with Gov. Lynch at Nashua High School South, focusing on at-risk youth and dropout prevention; and spoke at a NH Senate Democratic Caucus lunch at Puritan Backroom Restaurant in Manchester. [speech]

>Sen. John Kerry helped kick off GOTV weekend with Mayor Bob Baines at Manchester City Democrats' headquarters on Elm Street in Manchester, NH on the morning of November 5, 2005.

>Sen. Joe Biden spoke at a fundraiser for Mayor Bob Baines hosted by the New Hampshire Building & Construction Trades Council at the Alpine Club in Manchester on November 1, 2005.

>Sen. Evan Bayh visited NH on October 29-30, 2005. On October 29 he keynoted the NHDP's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner fundraiser at the Center of New Hampshire Radisson Hotel in Manchester. [speech] On October 30 he held a town hall meeting with students and local residents at New England College in Henniker; held a town hall meeting organized by State Rep. Jim Ryan at The Golden Crest in Franklin; and campaigned with Mayor Bob Baines at the Puritan Backroom restaurant.

>Former Sen. John Edwards spoke at The Collis Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH on October 21, 2005 as part of a two-week tour (Oct. 17-28) of 10 colleges and universities during which he launched the Center for Promise and Opportunity's "Opportunity Rocks." He and a group of students also did some repairs on a house prior to the speech.

>Sen. Russ Feingold visited NH on September 30-October 1, 2005. On September 30 he called in to "The Exchange" with Laura Knoy at NHPR (he had hoped to appear in studio but there were votes in the Senate); took a short walking tour of downtown Manchester with Mayor Bob Baines and did a press availability in the courtyard next to City Hall; met with New Hampshire political leaders at the SEIU office in Concord; met privately with Gov. Lynch at the Capitol; and keynoted the Rockingham County Democrats' first annual Eleanor Roosevelt Covered Dish Dinner at Epping American Legion Hall. [speech] On October 1 Feingold held a listening session in the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover.

[>Sen. Joe Biden had planned to speak at the Cheshire Democratic Committee's annual spaghetti supper in NH in mid-September 2005, (reported by the The Union Leader's John DiStaso). However he changed his plans to focus on the Supreme Court nomination process following the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Bush's nomination of John Roberts].

[>Gov. Tom Vilsack had planned to attend the Seacoast Democratic Coalition annual Labor Day picnic (sponsored by the Hampton, North Hampton and Hampton Falls Democratic Committees) at Pitlochry Farm in Hampton Falls, NH on September 4, 2005. He canceled the trip to focus on coordinating Iowa's efforts to house evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, and instead delivered his speech to assembled activists by speakerphone].

>Sen. John Kerry attended a thank you barbecue at the home of State Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord, NH on August 23, 2005.

>Former Sen. John Edwards visited NH on July 29-31, 2005.
On July 29 he appeared at a birthday party/fundraiser for State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro at the American Legion Sweeney Post in Manchester.
On July 30 he was the special guest at the 11th annual Merrimack County Democrats Pig Roast and Potluck Picnic at the home of Rep. Mary Beth Walz and Selectman Harry Judd in Bow; attend Plymouth Democrats' Blue BBQ at Riverfront Park in Plymouth; and attended a Coos County Democratic fundraiser at the home of Elaine and Carl Belanger in Gorham.
On July 31 he attended a "Politics and Pie" event sponsored by Cheshire County Democrats at the Keene State College Camp on Wilson Pond in Swanzey.

[>Sen. John Kerry had planned to attend a thank you reunion/cookout with a group of supporters at the home of former state party chair Joe Keefe in Manchester, NH on the afternoon of July 29, 2005but the trip was cancelled due to Senate votes].

>Sen. Evan Bayh visited NH on July 10-11, 2005. On July 10 he did a meet and greet at Manchester City Democratic headquarters in Manchester; did a meet and greet at The Pub Restaurant in Keene; and held a fundraising event for the New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus at the home of Sen. Sylvia Larsen in Concord. On July 11 he appeared on "The Charlie Sherman Show" on WGIR in Manchester; appeared on "The Exchange" with Laura Knoy at NHPR in Concord; held a private meeting with Gov. Lynch in Concord; held a private meeting with the House Democratic leadership in Concord; held a private meeting with environmental leaders in Concord; and toured GT Equipment Technologies, a small manufacturer, in Merrimack.

>Former Sen. John Edwards spoke at a fundraiser for Senate Democrats at the Nashua Country Club in Nashua, NH on June 21, 2005.

>Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) spoke at the Manchester City Democratic Committee's annual Flag Day dinner at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH on June 12, 2005. [speech]

>Gov. Bill Richardson visited NH on June 7-8, 2005. On June 7 he spoke at a "Politics and Eggs" breakfast at the Bedford Village Inn in Bedford [speech]; at the Vision Hispana Latino Summit at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester; at a fundraiser for the NHDP at the Common Man restaurant in Concord; and attended a private party at the Centennial Inn in Concord. On June 8 he started the day with a live radio interview with Charlie Sherman on WGIR; spoke to the Franco-American Club at America's Credit Union Museum in Manchester; did a live radio interview with Laura Knoy at NHPR in Concord; and addressed the Carroll County Democrats at the Grand Summit Hotel in Bartlett. Also during this trip Gov. Richardson held private meetings with officials of the NEA-New Hampshire, the State Employees Association of NH (SEIU Local 1984), the Teamsters, Gov. John Lynch and Manchester Mayor Robert Baines and, in Portsmouth, a group of workers from Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

>Former Sen. John Edwards visited NH on February 4-5, 2005. On the evening of February 4 he attended a high school basketball game at Manchester West High School. On February 5 he met people at Manchester Community Health Center, met privately with Gov. Lynch, and was the "Very Special Guest" at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's 100 Club Dinner at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester. [speech]


Recent Posts:
Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support