Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009

As was witnessed recently here in Georgia, a bill to shift the Peach state's presidential primary back to March for 2012 was introduced on the last day of the General Assembly's session. The intent in that instance was to introduce the bill in order for it to carry over to the 2010 session, but it got FHQ thinking about the time left in other states where frontloading (or backloading) bills have been introduced. And in reality, there isn't much time left.

Frontloading Bills (2009 Legislative Session)
State	Bill	Status	Session Adjourns	Description
Arkansas	HB 1021	passed	May 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to the Tuesday after the third Monday in May
Florida	HB 759/SB 2304	died in committee	May 8	moves presidential primary from last Tuesday in January to the second Tuesday in March
Georgia	HB 848	carried over to 2010 session	April 4	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in March
Illinois	HB 2308/SB 46	in committee	year-round	moves state and local primaries from first Tuesday in February to third Tuesday in March/first Tuesday in June
Indiana	SCR 28	passed Senate, no action in House	April 29	forms commission to investigate moving presidential primary
Minnesota	HF 31/SF 157	in committee -- House/out with "Do Pass" -- Senate	May 18	creates presidential primary and moves to first Tuesday in February
New Hampshire	HB 341	in committee	July 1	allows only Iowa caucus to precede presidential primary
New Jersey	A 2413	in committee	year-round	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in June
North Carolina	S 150	in committee	early July	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday after first Monday in May to first Tuesday in February
North Dakota	SB 2288	passed	May 2	eliminates state involvement in presidential preference caucus
Oklahoma	HB 1340	in committee	May 29	shifts financial burden of presidential primary from state to state parties
Oregon	SB 412	in committee	late June	moves presidential primary from third Tuesday in May to first Tuesday in February
Texas	HB 246	in committee	June 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in March to first Tuesday in February
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Arkansas and North Dakota were able to move on their respective bills prior to the close of their legislative sessions and Indiana's Senate was able to sign off on a resolution forming a committee to examine the possibility of frontloading. In the remaining states, however, things are either dead or stuck in committee.

Florida's adjournment last week killed the two bills proposed to move the state's controversially scheduled primary back to spot in line with both parties (2008) nomination rules. Frontloading bills in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas have all been left twisting in the wind in committee while the bill to eliminate the separate February presidential primary in New Jersey has met the same fate. The difference -- and it is a slight one considering the New Jersey bill was one introduced in 2008 and will die prior to elections there this fall -- is that the clock is running out in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. By the middle of July, all three states' legislatures will have adjourned and without action, will kill these bills in the process.

Meanwhile, the creation of a presidential primary in Minnesota is down to its last week with the legislature closing up shop next week on May 18. The Senate bill has emerged from the committee concerned with elections with a "Do Pass" designation and has been re-referred to the Finance Committee, but the House bill has gone nowhere since being introduced in January.

In Oklahoma, the bill to have parties pay for their own presidential primaries -- something that has elicited more and more talk recently -- like the Minnesota House bill mentioned above, hasn't seen any action since being introduced. That isn't really the type of momentum you'd like to see if you're a proponent of this measure before the session goes sine die at the end of the month.

Similarly, the two bills to separate state and local primaries from the presidential primary and shift them to later dates in Illinois have been stuck in committee as well. Like New Jersey, though, the legislature in the Land of Lincoln is a professional legislature (For those outside of political science, that professional refers to a legislator's duties being his or her main profession, not that a part-time legislaure is any more or less professional than a full-time one.). The clock then, won't run out until the next election changes the membership of the chambers.

Finally, the bill in New Hampshire stipulating that only Iowa's caucuses could precede the Granite state's presidential primary is likewise stalled in committee.

None of this is particularly surprising given that 1) it is still really early for 2012 primary movement and 2) most states are playing the wait-and-see game with how the parties will set their nomination rules for the 2012 cycle. And that largely fits with the cyclical logic espouced here. Of course, if that trend holds, we should expect to see even fewer bills regarding presidential primaries introduced next year.

Woe is FHQ, woe is FHQ! Eh, we'll find something to talk about.


Recent Posts:
Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

Back in Business

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

All that talk about a public hearing and all the Texas House Elections Committee did was punt the decision on the bill (HB 246) to a later date.

Here is the reading from the April 27 meeting's minutes:

HB 246

The chair laid out HB 246.

The chair recognized Representative Alonzo to explain the measure.

Testimony taken/registration recorded. (See attached witness list.)

The chair recognized Representative Alonzo to close on the measure.

The bill was left pending without objection.

Now, I still need to go back and look at the video of this on the Texas legislature's web site, but I can say this: The witness list is pretty telling. Texas Secretary of State Elizabeth Winn weighed in on the bill, and then a host of folks came forward (vocally or not) as against the measure.

How many were for it? Zero, nada, zilch. That says something. It may be that Republicans in the state ultimately come to the table and help push this frontloading bill (moving the presidential primary from the first week in March to the first week in February 2012) through, but there won't be any happy campers on the local level.

FHQ will continue to track the progress and I should be able to augment this picture a bit soon with a bit of an addition to this and other legislative movement on the frontloading, er... front.


Recent Posts:
Back in Business

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Forget You Saw That...

Back in Business

FHQ is now back. I apologize for the absence, but with the new job, it was unavoidable. I'll have something new up shortly.

Ooh, May is off to a slooooooow start.


Recent Posts:
Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

Forget You Saw That...

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

You've likely noticed that it has been quiet around here the last few days. Not only is it the end of the semester, but we're in the midst of a whirlwind renovation to get the house ready to go on the market. Hopefully things will be somewhat back to normal tomorrow or Thursday.

Having said that, I thought I'd open up the comments for talk on Souter's replacement, Rubio running for Senate in Florida, and if you want to, you can continue talking about the New Hampshire situation.


Recent Posts:
Forget You Saw That...

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Democracy for the People

Forget You Saw That...

If you saw the post on the situation in New Hampshire, disregard the information. According to the New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, Ray Buckley, the news was not true about the gay marriage vote and the Granite state's primary.

EDIT: I should probably add -- in the interest of not totally confusing everyone who didn't catch the original post -- that the issue in question was the DNC strong-arming hesitant Democratic state legislators into voting to pass the gay marriage bill wending its way through the General Court by threatening New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status.


Recent Posts:
Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Are big changes coming to the Democratic presidential nomination structure in the state that defines big?

Well, it depends on who you ask. On the one hand:

"There won't be anything dramatic," Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas (head of the Texas Democratic Party's committee looking into the issue), predicted.

On the other:

"I'm a taxpayer; I am paying for that primary," (committee member and Clinton-supporter, Linda) Burgess said. "I don't care if it's the Republican Party, Democratic Party or Polka-Dotted Party. I don't want any party to change the outcome of any election I'm paying for."

The argument here is over the controversial Texas Democratic primary-caucus system, or at least the caucus end of the structure. Advocates (and they seem to be Obama supporters) contend that the party building exercise that is the caucus is a worthwhile endeavor, but those with a negative view of the system (and they appear to be Clinton supporters) point toward the (un)representativeness of the caucus and the disproportionate impact in the delegate allocation.

Now, as I pointed out after last November's elections, the Texas Democratic Party was holding public hearings on the issue and the committee dealing with those is due to issue a report to the party's Executive Committee this summer. At that point a change may be made.

If I'm guessing, though, I'm going to have to side with Sen. West on this one. I just don't expect any fundamental changes. The longer caucus proponents -- and according to the Austin American-Statesman article there are plenty within the state party's power structure -- drag this thing out, the less salient an issue it becomes. Does anyone remember the tumult after Jesse Jackson beat 1988 Texas primary winner, Michael Dukakis, in the caucuses? The answer is no. Sure, that's because Jackson's win in the caucuses didn't overturn Dukakis' primary victory, but that actually strengthens the caucus proponents' argument here. That means that a close, almost tied nomination race is a requirement for this discrepancy to even be consequential. And we just don't see that happen that often.

The Texas Democratic Party is listening, but I don't think they'll do anything about the caucus. Let's be honest: Despite the talk about grassroots party building, the caucus was put in place -- much like the superdelegates at the national level -- to give the party a larger say in who got how many of the state's delegates. In the event, then, that there is a division between who the party wants as nominee and who the rank and file primary voters want, the party has a bit of an insurance policy. The party won't always win out, but if it is close enough the party will get its way.

All this draws on and expands upon a study I've cited in this space before. Scott Meinke, Jeffrey Staton and Steven Wuhs (gated) examined the effect the ideological convergence between state parties and potential primary/caucus voters has on how open a state's delegate selection event is. The idea, then is that the less those two groups converge ideologically, the less open the process will be (read: caucuses) and the more ideological overlap there is between citizens and state parties, the more open the process will be. Now, they were talking ideological convergence and what I'm discussing here is more candidate preference convergence. Yeah, those are pretty much the same thing, but in the case of Obama-Clinton, the underlying issue wasn't necessarily ideologically-based. That was a candidate-based division -- two candidates very similar ideologically.

So, will Texas Democrats make a change? I don't think so. If the party wants a caucus, the party will have a caucus. And it won't be a big deal in 2012 because Obama is likely going to be the only candidate on the ballot. In (uh, 1988, 2008), oh say, 2028 it might be a problem, but this Obama-Clinton thing will be ancient history by then.


Recent Posts:
Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Democracy for the People

...or FHQ readers at least.

Recently I changed up the "Links" section here by replacing the default setting (Well, default when I started this endeavor a couple of years ago.) with a widget that cues up the most recent entry at the sites I read the most. I also moved that section from the right sidebar to the left one under the frontloading trend maps. Here's a screenshot:

[Click to Enlarge]

Anyway, it strikes me as somewhat unfair that I get to pick what's in that section. So I thought I'd open the comments section up to suggestions for additions to that area. I mean, we do have a community of readers here and it is my preference that everyone have a stake in FHQ -- a minority stake, but a stake nonetheless. I put it to you, then, FHQ readers both vocal and silent: Are there sites you'd like to see included in that space and, if so, what are they?

A couple of notes:
1) The sites have to be blog-like in that the widget requires an RSS feed. Some standard sites won't work. For example, CQ is frustratingly out of the loop for whatever reason. UPDATE: Well, maybe that wasn't a good example. Maybe, just maybe I wasn't trying hard enough to add CQ. Ha! [Hat tip to Matt from DemConWatch for the proper link.] CQ's now up.
2) There are only so many sites we can include before it gets overwhelmingly cluttered. That doesn't prevent you from suggesting something, but I feel the need to offer that disclaimer.

Anyway, have at it. The suggestion box is now open.


Recent Posts:
More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

More Party Switchers?

Jack asks:

"How does this (Specter) impact the chances of more switches? I've seen speculation about Snowe. Your take?

"I don't really think the idea of Snowe switching parties makes much sense. Specter switched because of electoral pressure to do so. Jeffords switched at a time when control of the Senate was in the balance. Neither of these incentives are available to Snowe, Collins, Inhofe or whoever would consider switching."

There are two lines of thought on either of the Maine senators switching:

1) You're right that there is definitely an electoral connection (sorry David Mayhew) here. Michael Steele can talk about targeting Collins or Snowe because of their votes, but how is he going to strengthen the bench in Maine and cultivate candidates to the right of either one of them that could win? That pressure existed with Specter, but not with Collins and Snowe. But...

2) It could be that one or both of them just simply gets sick being a part of a party that is philosophically different from themselves. Specter spoke along those lines, but I don't know that anyone took him too terribly seriously there. His was a move of electoral survival. As I said above, that doesn't really exist in Snowe's or Collins' case.

However, the Democrats are pushing the agenda now and the matters that they bring up for a vote could continually put Snowe and Collins in the uncomfortable position of having to decide between their convictions and their party. The more that happens, the more likely, I'd say, they are to reconsider their positions within the Republican Caucus.

The flip side is the extent to which they are on board with what the Obama administration is pushing. If either was totally in line with Obama, one or both of them would likely already have switched. But again, we're talking about the extent to which they are with Obama. It isn't one hundred percent and it isn't zero either. [I may have to look at some of their votes for a better idea, but that's a job for another day -- or another blogger. Ha!]

Ultimately, I think they'll stick it out (famous last words), but there's no doubt in my mind that they are being asked. The Democrats in the Senate would be foolish not to.

It never hurts to ask. The worst they can say is, "no," or maybe, "NO!" after the one hundredth time or so.


Recent Posts:
Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Well, Pennsylvania got slightly bluer today with Arlen Specter's surprising, yet not-so-surprising shift into the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. The way things were going, this was likely the only choice Specter had.

...if he was/is still interested in working in the Senate. Twenty-one points down is twenty-one points down. That's a tough row to hoe when you are talking about an incumbent and a primary polling deficit. Not that Chris Dodd is in an ideal position, but at least his polling deficit is against a potential general election opponent in 2010; not quite as threatening. Specter, I'm sure, saw the writing on the wall.


Thoughts?
Here's one: Seth Masket over at Enik Rising sums the move up nicely.

Here's another from Josh Marshall (via Seth): I completely forgot that Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. That certainly would have made Specter's prospects of re-election that much dimmer if he would have continued on that route.

Yet another: Michael Steele on Specter's departure. (h/t GOP12 for the link)

While we're on Specter, let me add a funny anecdote to this discussion:
A couple of summers ago I took a grading gig within the department to help out one of our faculty members. It was an intro to American government class made up completely of incoming freshmen. So this was their first college experience. Following a week of lectures on the branches of government and their attendant checks and balances we had an exam. One of the questions asked was about the checks between Congress and the Supreme Court. We had that week discussed Senate confirmation of judicial appointments and nestled in that discussion was a side note about Specter's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings -- specifically his questioning of Anita Hill and the backlash that created. Now, you have the proper context, but it took me a while in the midst of reading all these exams to figure out who one the students was referring to when mentioning Karl Inspector.

Karl Inspector?

Then the light bulb came on: Oh, Arl-en Spector.


Recent Posts:
Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

Recently, Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita, sat down with Howey Politics Indiana to discuss a wide range of things. Given that the secretary of state's office handles election administration in the Hoosier state, the talk ultimately turned to the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

Here are the relevant points from the discussion (commentary appended):

HPI: Have you had conversations with party chairs Dan Parker (D) and Murray Clark (R) about when Indiana will have its 2012 presidential primary?

Rokita: I have and we hope to be able to study it this summer. Again, I am disappointed that the Senate resolution that crossed over to the House to do just that did not get heard, as far as I’ve seen yet. That’s OK, the Senate can do its own. I hope the Democrats come to the table. It was their party that benefited so much from having a contested primary this last year. Indiana mattered. That’s a great thing. I want it to be that way every presidential election.

Let me clarify a few things about this exchange and augment them to some degree. First, SCR 28, the Senate resolution setting up a committee to study the wisdom behind moving Indiana's presidential primary in future cycles, passed the Senate and moved over to the House where it has stalled. Rokita says as much, but adds that it is the Democratic Party that is holding the measure up. And that is certainly in line with FHQ's thinking concerning 2012. Republicans are going to be more active in presidential primary frontloading than are Democrats simply because theirs is the party with the competitive nomination race. It is completely understandable, then, that the Republican-controlled Senate was able to move the resolution while the Democratic-controlled House basically refused to bring it out of commitee. Also, the clock is running out in the Indiana General Assembly. The legislature is slated to adjourn tomorrow (April 29), which means that it is all but assured that the Senate will be the only body in Indiana's state government studying a frontloading move for the Hoosier state's presidential primary.

[I've already weighed in on Indiana potentially moving. See here, here and here. And I still need to model that 2000 primary season. That sounds like a summer project.]

HPI: Do you think this is going to be a state-by-state thing or is there a chance of regional presidential primaries?

Rokita: Since I am president of the national association (of Secretary of States) we’ve studied the regional primary and that’s the one you’ll see me continue to advocate as we rotate around the country. I think that has some very good implications to it. However, what I realized after going through a presidential election cycle with it, the parties really are the backstop. If the parties make some reform, like rotating regional primaries, they will make it happen. The Republicans are moving in that direction. They used to have very strict rules at a party convention. Well, the Democratic Party was able to have a Rules Committee on the fly so they can adjust in between their national conventions. You saw the Republicans move in that direction after Minnesota this past year. I’m hopeful, but it’s quite clear the parties will have to both agree on a plan if we’re going to have any reform in the nation.

Ah, reform. Given his position as secretary of state, it is no surprise that Sec. Rokita is pushing the NASS Rotating Regional Primary Plan. That certainly isn't as interesting as his last statement. Let's look at that again: "I’m hopeful, but it’s quite clear the parties will have to both agree on a plan if we’re going to have any reform in the nation." As I've tried to make quite clear in this space, if reform is going to happen, it will have to be something that both parties coordinate. If only one party moves, the door will be fully opened to an exponential increase in the incidence of Florida and Michigan-type moves of defiance in the future. So, it is good to see that at least one person in a position of power has come to this realization. The extent to which that thinking spreads will dicatate whether we actually see primary reform or not.


Recent Posts:
There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

Not Deciders.

[Decider]

[Not Decider]

Is it me or is the inevitability of Charlie Crist's "I'm running for Senate" announcement not similar to the drawn out process that was Fred Thompson's presidential announcement in 2008? For the record, I think Crist will fare much better than the former Tennessee senator turned actor turned presidential aspirant turned actor.

NOTE: It is also about time we put to rest the idea that the pictured hand gesture above is a prerequisite of being a decider.


Recent Posts:
"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

More Texas-less Fun

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

Yesterday Politico's Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin penned a piece on the growing divide between the Inside-the-Beltway Republicans and all the other Main Street Republicans out there. I don't want to read too much into that. After all, there was a similar divide in the Democratic Party in terms of a winning position on the Iraq War after losing the 2004 presidential election.* And 2008 isn't yet a distant memory. Though the divide wasn't necessarily issue-based, the intra-party division over the question of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was very real. My point here is that these apparent divisions can quickly take a backseat to the greater goal of winning elections. A schism in 2009 isn't the same as a divided Republican base in 2012.

But this isn't really about a divided base. This is about party elites versus its rank and file membership. Again, electoral goals can make strange bedfellows, but they can also get all or most of a party on the same page with a startling quickness. I'm not, then, as concerned with the notion of an irreconcilable division within the Republican Party in the context of the 2012 presidential nomination race so much as I'm enthralled as a political scientist who studies these nominations by the rarity the political occurrence. There has not been this kind of battle for the party since the Ford-Reagan nomination race in 1976.

That race, though, occurred while the post-reform nomination process was solidifying; it wasn't forty years after the fact as will be the case in 2012. And that's largely why I shot down the idea of a "Sarah Palin against the party" run to the GOP nomination. Reagan didn't succeed in 1976 and no Republican nominee has risen to the nomination in any way other than going through the elite level of the party first in the time since. But...

As I've said, and as Nate Silver said just yesterday, Palin possesses the type of grassroots-level enthusiasm to make it interesting in the same way that Reagan did. And that just isn't something we get to witness all that often within the Republican Party: an elite versus rank and file battle.

Will that happen? I don't know, but it will be fun to see whether it materializes. We don't often get the chance.


*Of course the difference between what is happening with the GOP right now and what happened with the Democrats during the earlier part of this decade is that the war issue kept moving closer and closer to the anti-war protesters position. For the GOP, the immigration issue is a bit more muddled: respondents would rather the level of immigration stay where it is or drop, but generally like the idea of immigration. The situation is similar for taxes. On gay marriage, though, things are moving away from the (at least vocal rank and file) members of the party.



Recent Posts:
One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

More Texas-less Fun

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

Matt Mackowiak, doing a guest spot over at CQ, has an early look at the GOP's field of candidates for 2012. The former Senate press secretary doesn't affix numbers to the candidates' names, but it is hard for me to read it any other way. Thirty months out from the start of primary season 2012, this reads like a rough ranking. Here's his list:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Newt Gingrich

3. Tim Pawlenty

4. Mark Sanford

5. Bobby Jindal

6. Sarah Palin

7. Eric Cantor

8. Mike Huckabee

9. Jon Huntsman

10. John Thune

11. John Ensign

12. Mike Pence


Thoughts?

• I can buy Palin and Huckabee that low simply from an organizational standpoint. And when I say organization I mean the ability to win over party elites within the Republican Party. Despite both having at least some modicum of support at the grassroots level (Palin being Palin and Huckabee in polling), there's still the thought that neither has much of a link to the elite level of the party. You can get away with that in a Democratic nomination race (see Carter, Jimmy or Dean, Howard P. -- where the P stands for pre-scream), but that really doesn't happen on the Republican side. That's why those top two look so good.

• Bobby Jindal. I still see the Louisiana governor as the Mark Warner of this cycle -- dropping out before the race starts and eying another cycle. In fact, let's pencil those two in for the 2016 general election and be done with it. Nah.

• Eric Cantor. Look, I haven't said much about the Virginia congressman, but boy has his name been dropped a lot lately in the context of a presidential run. I don't know. I could be proven wrong, but I really see him as aspiring to the Speaker's position. The guy wouldn't turn down a chance at the GOP nomination, I'm sure, but I doubt he makes that jump unless he really feels like he can win it. His last name isn't Bush, so I don't see him queue-jumping around the "next guy in line" method of presidential nomination for the GOP.

As always, time will tell.


Recent Posts:
More Texas-less Fun

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

More Texas-less Fun

As long as we're messing with Texas...

Actually, since I put up a Texas-less version of the electoral college map in my post on the Texas frontloading bill last week, S.D. has been after me to do more with the map than just simply remove Texas. So, let's take those reapportionment numbers from FiveThirtyEight and put them into a map. And while we're at it, let's give Utah its fifth electoral vote back and bump the Beehive state up to 6 after the sans Texas reapportionment. [And no, I have absolutely no room to talk. Just take a gander at the comments to the electoral college by congressional districts post.]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

As Nate, said, the GOP is likely to lose ground on the presidential level, but gain at the congressional level without Texas on the map. But, I've got to admit that I can't just swipe those numbers and put them on my own map without making some original contribution of my own.

To wit...

What would happen in two years' time with the post-census reapportionment if Texas had in fact seceded from the United States? I'm glad you asked. It might look a little something like this (dark gray means seat gains, dark red equals losses):

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Based on the Election Data Services data I used to put together these post-2010 census maps, I reallocated each state's congressional seats without the Lone Star state. This reflects the projection based on the population changes witnessed between 2000 and 2008. Arizona, Florida and North Carolina are the beneficiaries of Texas' departure, gaining two seats apiece and the funny thing among the states that lose seats -- the usual Rust Belt suspects -- is that most of them, after gaining from the hypothetical Texas secession, revert to their pre-secession, pre-2010 census numbers. Ohio's back to 20 electoral votes. Pennsylvania's back to 21. New Jersey's back to 15. Michigan's back at 17. New York and Illinois luck out and actually gain a seat over where they are in reality now. The basic trend we are likely to see in 2010 is upheld here with or without Texas. The Sun Belt would gain electoral college clout at the expense of the states in the Rust Belt and stretching into the northeast.

For the sake of comparison...
Instead of the 389-147 win without Texas (pre-census), Obama would have managed a 381-155 victory over John McCain under the electoral college vote distribution of this map.

So no, I didn't resize the states to match their new electoral vote totals, but I think we'll have something to talk about regardless.


Recent Posts:
Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Democrat out, Democrat in.

Ah, if only it were that easy. Of course, that's all most will remember of this until the rematch between Murphy and Tedisco heats up in the fall of 2010, if then. For now though, Scott Murphy is the new congressman from New York's 20th district following Jim Tedisco's concession this afternoon. Murphy currently leads by 399 votes.

I think it is safe to say that this one is marked by both parties as one of the most competitive House races for 2010. And I'll say this: The special election has been welcomed respite from all things unelectiony since November.

[Yeah, I just made that one up.]

Up Next?

June 2: New Jersey Gubernatorial primary

June 9: Virginia Gubernatorial primary

July 14: CA-32 special election

See, we'll have a few things to tide us over until the general election campaigns this fall.


Recent Posts:
Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public

Political Boundaries vs. Virtual Boundaries

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Public Policy Polling has a new poll out pitting President Obama against four potential competitors in a series of 2012 general election trial heats. Among the four Republicans, Mike Huckabee polled the best against Obama and was the only match-up where the president was under the fifty percent support mark. Here are the results from PPP's national survey of 686 voters over the weekend (April 17-19):

Obama - 49%
Huckabee - 42%
Not Sure - 9%

Obama - 52%
Gingrich - 39%
Not Sure - 9%

Obama - 53%
Palin - 41%
Not Sure - 6%

Obama - 50%
Romney - 39%
Not Sure - 11%


Let me add a couple of notes here:

1) This poll, like PPP's 2012 poll in March surveyed less than 700 respondents. Again, for a national survey you'd prefer 1000 responses, but beggars can't be choosers for 2012 polling data this far in advance. I'm sure the good folks at PPP would rationalize the number since it is based on voters and not the population at-large.

2) Palin improved her share while Obama's share dropped when compared to the previous poll. Not to diminish how well the Alaska governor stacks up against Obama, but this poll was done on the heels of Palin's appearance at and subsequent news coverage of the Right to Life Dinner last week in Evansville. Still, knocking eight points off the president's advantage over her in a month's time isn't too shabby.

3) The unsures also aren't all that surprising. I think it is safe to say that Palin is in Hillary Clinton territory now: People either like her or they don't, but they do know (or think they know) about her and have an opinion. That's a situation where the "don't knows" drop. The differences aren't great across all four candidates on the not sures, but I was still surprised that Mitt Romney was bringing up the rear. That's both a good and bad thing for the former Massachusetts governor. Good because his number is likely to increase (as would anyone's) upon entering the race, but bad because some of those unsures are also likely to go to Obama (already at the 50% mark).

4) The unsures on the favorable/unfavorable for each of the Republicans is also worth looking at. Palin is the only one of the four to have a not sure percentage in the single digits. The other three Republicans have not sures on that measure of 20 or more percentage points. That's pretty significant.

Still, Mike Huckabee does the best against Obama. That's certainly news to me. News I'm hard-pressed to figure out. My conception of the GOP field broadly was that Huckabee and Palin occupied a similar, though not identical, area: similar on social issues, but different on economic matters. But now that I've typed that out, I get a sense potentially of why Huckabee did better against Obama than the other three. In the midst of a time when the role of the federal government on a host of issues is increasing, Huckabee is the Republican answer. And if the US is going in that direction, "why not have one of our own in charge of it," might be the Republican thinking. Of course, the argument could be made that George W. Bush was that type of president and some Republicans weren't particularly thrilled with the expansion of government under the Bush administration.

Then again, I could be reading way too much into a poll concerning a race that is still three years away. Interesting results, though.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the poll link.


Recent Posts:
Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public

Political Boundaries vs. Virtual Boundaries

Too Good Not to Mention: Coach K on Obama

Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public

Last week FHQ happened upon a bill in the Texas House that would move the Lone Star state's presidential primary (and all other primaries) from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February in 2012. Given the widespread adoption of that particular date by a host of states prior to 2008, this still doesn't qualify as big news.

What's more is that Texas has done this before, moving from May to March for the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988. However, the state maintained that position for each of the elections between 1988 and 2000. Prior to 2004, the legislature moved to shift the primary up from the second week in March to the first week in March, but later postponed that move until 2008. Texas, then, technically just frontloaded its presidential primary for 2008 and is eying a more substantial move for 2012.

Well, parts of the Texas legislature are eying such a move. As I said last week, the bill -- HB 246 -- is a Democratic sponsored bill in a Republican dominated state government. In this case, though, the in-party (the state GOP) is the party that will have the contested nomination race in 2012. Whether that actually causes state Republicans to act is beside the point. The real issue is that the Republicans in control have at least some motivation to move the largest red state inthe US to a more advantageous position for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race.

And now, some of these Republicans may begin to hear about the virtues of such a move from a group other than their Democratic colleagues in the state capitol. No, HB 246 hasn't been passed -- the bill is still in committee -- but there will be a public hearing held for it and a whole laundry list of other proposed elections legislation on Monday, April 27. HB 246 is first on the agenda though.

Of course, being that this hearing is happening on a Monday, that it is one amongst a bevy of other bills, and that this is not a time (right after an election) when the public is particularly concerned with the next election, we may not see much action on HB 246. I suspect that on one side, someone representing the local elections officials, who would most be put out by the shift (deadlines and elections preparation would be pushed over into the previous year), would be in attendance as would potentially some conservative groups (on the other side of the issue) interested in insuring that Texas Republican voters have a say in who the national party's nominee will be.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what, if any, testimony is offered on Monday concerning moving the Lone Star state's presidential primary for 2012. I'll keep you posted as the hearing's details become available.


Recent Posts:
Political Boundaries vs. Virtual Boundaries

Too Good Not to Mention: Coach K on Obama

Pack Your Bags: FHQ is North Carolina Bound

Political Boundaries vs. Virtual Boundaries

There has been a series of discussions over the last week across a few political science blogs (see here, here and here) over the level at which voting is best analyzed. Obviously, if the goal is to look at the outcome of the electoral college, then examining voting at the state level makes the most sense. But that's not really what this discussion is about. It's more about the perception at the individual level of community -- large and small. As Seth Masket at Enik Rising asked,

"What's the best level to analyze the vote? Should we be looking at individual data? County returns? State returns? There's no obvious right answer here. Yes, individuals, not counties or states, are the ones that cast votes. But people are not islands. They often think as members of communities and evaluate political events in terms of their impact on their geographic area."

[Click to Enlarge]

In other words, voting takes place on the individual level, but one's sense of community and geography influences that.

[Click to Enlarge and Here for Original Source]

Voters are certainly more likely to latch onto fixed boundaries rather than those lines that are apt to change every ten years.

[Click to Enlarge and Here for Original Source]

But it goes beyond the simplicity of congressional districts vs. counties. People aren't necessarily tied together because of lines drawn in the sand or boundaries between county and county or state and state. The map below, for instance, from the CommonCensus Map Project is based on respondents' senses of spheres of influence -- of what major city has the most cultural and economic impact on the area you are in.

[Click to Enlarge and Here for Original Source]

And that opens up an entirely different set of questions or at least an alternate unit of analysis: the virtual boundaries of these spheres of influence. As was mentioned by Jim Gimpel over at the Monkey Cage, but without the visual, this ends up looking an awful lot like the various media markets across the country. And there's some truth to that.

My natural inclination is to look at one of two places first: North Carolina and Georgia. In the case of the Tarheel state, there is a fair amount of overlap between the virtual spheres of influence boundary and the media market boundary. That's just the fragmented nature of the state; between the mountain, piedmont and coastal regions on the one hand and the three major urban areas (within the piedmont) -- Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro-Winston Salem and Charlotte -- on the other. Those boundaries hold up across the spheres map above and the media markets map below.

Georgia, though, is a different story. The state is divided into several media markets, but Atlanta subsumes those in terms of influence across the Peach state.

[Click to Enlarge and Here for Original Source]

Interestingly, Brian Arbor in the comments to Gimpel's post draws a comparison between the idea of political/cultural spheres of influence and the loyal followings of various sports teams.

"When I lived in San Jose and Sacramento, you would see the Sharks and the Kings everywhere. This did not seem to be because people in those cities were massive hockey or basketball fans, per se. They were fans of a professional team that had their city’s name on their chest. In San Jose and Sacremento, this helped create an identity beyond being just a bedroom community to San Francisco. Common Census has a Bay Area map among its regional maps, and shows some of this effect."

Whether politics, major cities or sports, though, this CommonCensus idea is an interesting one that forces us to reconsider the definition of boundaries -- thinking of them less in terms of lines and more so in terms of what ties groups of people or voters together.

[Yeah, you're right. I just wanted an excuse to put another set of maps together.]


Recent Posts:
Too Good Not to Mention: Coach K on Obama

Pack Your Bags: FHQ is North Carolina Bound

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Emergence

Too Good Not to Mention: Coach K on Obama

As I made abundantly clear during March, I like basketball. Growing up in North Carolina (and now returning!) will do that. But it is even better when there is an intersection between politics and basketball. I quite enjoyed, then, Obama filling out NCAA brackets or NPR constructing a bracket for prospective GOP presidential candidates in 2012.

So when Coach K enters the political fray (even if not too deeply), I take notice. The Duke coach commented on Obama generally and the president's short tenure in office on Morning Joe this morning. And that certainly qualifies as such an intersection between basketball and politics. And a good one at that considering my position in the Carolina/Duke rivalry.

Here's the clip:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Recent Posts:
Pack Your Bags: FHQ is North Carolina Bound

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Emergence

Trends in Frontloading: Bills Proposed and Passed Since 2001

Pack Your Bags: FHQ is North Carolina Bound

FHQ has been offered and has accepted a job at Wake Forest University starting this fall. No, not on the janitorial staff; in the actual political science department. [See above for my reaction.]

Oh well, no more red state perspective from a life-long red stater. It is nice to go back home to the Tarheel state, though.


Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Emergence

Trends in Frontloading: Bills Proposed and Passed Since 2001

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/19/09)

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Emergence

Now that FHQ has had a look back through the lens of Google Trends at Democratic (here and here) and Republican (here, here and here) presidential candidate emergence in 2008, I thought we'd cast an eye toward 2012. As was made clear in Sunday's post on frontloading bill trends since 2001, there is a cyclical pattern to this process as well. All is relatively quiet in terms of presidential candidate Google searches in years one and two of any four year presidential election cycle, but once the midterm congressional elections hit, the more candidate-specific searches begin to climb in number (just as in the case of the number of bills to shift a state's presidential primary). That's exactly the pattern that was witnessed between 2005 and 2008.

In other words, the expectations for this current period in the presidential election cycle should be quite low. Hey, we just finished an election! Why think about the next one? Well, some of us are much to the chagrin of others. The bottom line is that we have to take these trends with a grain of salt this far out. But just for the heck of it let's take FHQ's Elite Eight for 2012 and add Bobby Jindal and Ron Paul. Now, it could become necessary to add (or subtract) someone in later (FHQ has had an internal debate raging about whether to include John Thune, for instance.), but I'll leave it at these ten for the time being.

How, then, do things look for these ten prospective candidates in terms of Google search volume three years ahead of primary season 2012? FHQ, always a bastion of information, has adopted a more is more (as opposed to the less is more) strategy in this instance at the risk of visual overload in this one post. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I think that it is important to look not only at the complete time series for the year thus far (January - March at least), but to glance at the monthly snapshots to get a clearer picture of the daily fluctuations. Yes, daily. That's where this series of posts (Yes, they'll go on on a monthly basis.) will be superior to the week-by-week structure of the 2008 posts. I'll also augment the complete time series and monthly snapshots with Bobby Jindal omitted due to his Republican Response spike in late February when President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. Jindal's data is supressed simply because it dwarfs (and even that may be understating the effect) the fluctuations for the other nine candidates. [And I'll bet you thought it'd be Sarah Palin hovering so far ahead of her other prospective Republican primary opponents.]

To the trends!

[Click to Enlarge]

There you have it. See, I told you that Jindal spike skews the data. All you can really see from that is the Louisiana governor having a really good day, Sarah Palin with a comfortable advantage over everyone for all but about a week, Ron Paul claiming a steady middling position and then everyone else clustered together. What's that really telling us other than Bobby Jindal was the talk of the town for about a week? Not much.

So let's look at that January to March period without Jindal.

[Click to Enlarge]

Ah, now there's a trend. It's still Sarah Palin, then Ron Paul and everyone else, but the trajectory that the Palin line is following is oddly similar to the cautionary tales the punditocracy was weaving in the days after last November's election. The onus was always on Palin to stay in the news and politically relevant from the far reaches of the Last Frontier. Relative to her other prospective competitors, the Alaska governor has basically come back down to earth. She's still in an advantageous position, but not like she was. If you draw a straight line from point A (1/1/09) to point B (3/31/09), Palin has lost what amounts to ten points in relative Google search volume compared to the other, in this case, eight candidates. Yes, there has been a rebound of sorts in April due to the Levi Johnston controversy and last week's right to life gathering in Indiana, but FHQ will get to that once April is complete. [For the time being, I'll leave it at this: The former had more of an impact on Palin searches than the latter.]

Palin's one thing, but what about some of these other candidates? Let's zoom in on the first three months of 2009 individually.

[Click to Enlarge]

Mike Huckabee had some significant spikes across the month of January.

[Click to Enlarge]

But he comes back to the pack in February (see appendix for a February chart with Jindal included). In the first two months of the year, a subtle (very subtle) advantage can be detected for both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and there are some Mark Sanford (stimulus package-related) jumps as well.

[Click to Enlarge]

Once we zoom in on March and bring Jindal's data back into account, a Jindal/Gingrich/Romney grouping of candidates in the middle emerges with everyone else struggling to occasionally break from the no search barrier. That latter group includes Huckabee, Pawlenty, Crist, Huntsman and Sanford.

Now, this is all something of a fool's errand in 2009. That I'll admit. However, there are two things to take home from this:

First, all that you see above is true to what we would otherwise expect for this period in a presidential election cycle. One election ended and most just have not started thinking about the next one. The argument, then, that most of the (subtle) fluctuations are based on media cues is a valid one. But...

This Palin trend is one worth tracking. Her potential candidacy is one that could spur a huge grassroots effort. It is also true that latent grassroots support turned active could make her decision as to whether to enter the presidential race in 2012 that much easier. Still, her success will be measured by the extent to which the Alaska governor is able to, as I've said already, stay in the news and remain politically relevant. No one excites the Republican base better than Palin at the moment, but that excitement has to be met with the construction of some national level policy bona fides without which she'll be hard-pressed to convince Republicans mindful of her chances in the general election that she can win. That, though, is a story for another day.


Appendix: Bonus Charts
Below are a few more charts I put together but didn't fit in with the discussion above. But who am I to deprive FHQ's loyal readers of the visuals? There are three additional graphs. The first shows the February snapshot with the Jindal spike included and the final two show a January/February, two month snapshot -- one with the Jindal spike, one without.

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Trends in Frontloading: Bills Proposed and Passed Since 2001

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/19/09)

Jones Reelected OK GOP Chair: 2012 Primary Seemingly Safe