tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post1576394568995852735..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Divisive Primaries: 2008 vs. The PastJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-9209141190061317732008-03-02T13:32:00.000-05:002008-03-02T13:32:00.000-05:00The national Democratic party was divided in 1968,...The national Democratic party was divided in 1968, 1972 and 1980 and lost all three of those elections. The national Republican party was divided in 1964 and 1976 and lost both of those. But it's more complex than that. As Josh pointed out, in 1980 the Republicans were able to heal their divisions at the convention; the Democrats were not. And, of course, there were other powerful forces at work in the above-mentioned elections, as there are today. In particular, the Democrats have substantial advantages because of the economy and the unpopularity of the president and the war. A nasty, divisive fight at the convention would diminish, but probably not eliminate, those advantages. On the other hand, if the losing candidate exits gracefully, and enthusiastically supports the nominee, then the effects of party divisiveness could be minimal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-81049341832660357922008-03-02T13:16:00.000-05:002008-03-02T13:16:00.000-05:00Virtually all studies of divisive primaries, inclu...Virtually all studies of divisive primaries, including Lonna Atkeson's 1998 research, address the impact of divisive state primaries, not national party division. <BR/>Atkeson and I, together with Damon Cann, Nathan Burroughs and Audrey Haynes, have measured the effects of national party division (controlling for 14 other factors). We find that a divided party will lose up to 5% nationally in the general election, as well as losing up to 2% in individal states that had divisive state primaries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-19833238057450541242008-03-01T20:24:00.000-05:002008-03-01T20:24:00.000-05:00Frontrunners having difficulty staying in that pos...Frontrunners having difficulty staying in that position differs across the parties. The Democrats will always have some level of problems there while the GOP just won't. And then I think the worry for that Democratic frontrunner is that they don't peak to early.<BR/><BR/>Peaking to early is a concept I hadn't really thought about. I think it played at least some role in the Clinton camp's strategy. Obama wins Iowa. "He's peaked." Obama splits Super Tuesday. "He's peaked. It is ours now." Obama runs off 11 straight. "I hope he's peaked. We need Texas and Ohio now. And what are the chances of getting Florida and Michigan seated at the convention as is?" The Clinton campaign just never anticipated a candidate like Obama. And that isn't totally their fault. He's evolved into a formidable challenger and now frontrunner. And if the Clinton team thinks they can rewrite the expectations rulebook for Tuesday, they are mistaken. <BR/><BR/>This batch of candidates for the GOP reminds me of the group of Democrats that ran in 1988. The party just wants to move away from a group that was underwhelming from the start. Sure, Gore saw another day and Gephardt ran again. But they had to wait. And I think these guys will have to also. We will have to see who emerges though. If Huckabee and Romney jump in early (in the event that the Democrats win in November) then it may scare off some other candidates (think Mark Warner or Evan Bayh in 2008 for the Dems.).Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-45619504784199098732008-03-01T14:11:00.000-05:002008-03-01T14:11:00.000-05:00Points well taken. Dean was more of the insurgent ...Points well taken. Dean was more of the insurgent than Kerry, although Kerry was somewhat in the same position in 2003 as McCain was in 2007.I think it is going to be increasingly difficult for frontrunners to succeed. They get more vetting, and, with frontloading, there is less time for the press to vet the one who is coming on. Besides the underdog winning makes a better story. I think Hillary has somewhat of a point that Obama has gained a free ride. However, her strategy was to run as an incumbent and to suck out all the air from Obama. She almost succeeded. If she had accompanied that with a caucus strategy OR had not alienated the African-American community, she would have probably won by now. It is interesting how her campaign has changed the expectations from her needing to win big in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday to just winning in both states. I see where most of the counts now have her behind by more than the 100-delegate magic number. In addition to winning three of the four states on Tuesday, I think she needs to chip away at the delegate count.<BR/><BR/>On the Republican side, I think they will have a frontrunner in 2012 if the Democrat wins. Right now, that frontrunner appears to be Romney, but Huckabee and McCain's running mate will also be possibilities.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-67125631747691303562008-03-01T12:30:00.000-05:002008-03-01T12:30:00.000-05:00Yeah, I think I've asked more questions than answe...Yeah, I think I've asked more questions than answered with this one. <BR/><BR/>The Dean example is an interesting one. Before he made his moves in the polls and in fund-raising, one could argue that John Kerry was considered by many to be the frontrunner for the 2004 nomination. If you take that view, Dean was the insurgent. The timing was different with that example though. All of Dean's movement was during the invisible primary and Kerry was able to stem the Dean tide once the contests got underway. In the terms of the post above, the competitive phase was during the invisible primary and it never reached divisiveness when the real contests started. <BR/><BR/>I don't know whether I subscribe to that view, but it is another way to think about the Dean phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>I still lean toward the system returning to the Super Tuesday model in subsequent cycles. But I'll add one caveat: it depends on which party wins the White House this time. If McCain wins, I could see 2008 repeating itself on the Democratic side. If the Dems win this November though, then I find it hard to imagine that the GOP won't have an heir apparent ready for 2012. Now, I don't know who that person is, but my guess is that they rally around someone pretty quickly. <BR/><BR/>And despite all the talk of reform, I just don't see it in the offing; even with the mad dash to the front of the 2008 calendar. The only reform will be all or most states going on whatever date the national parties choose as the earliest date on which those contests can be held.<BR/><BR/>I did read Wolfson's comments and it is a stretch to be sure. Let's say that Clinton and Obama split the contests on Tuesday (each taking a big and small state). <A HREF="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/managing_march_4_expectations.html" REL="nofollow">Do you think the media will report that as an Obama failure when he will have won 13 of the last 15 contests?</A> I doubt that (especially when the resulting delegate spreads from these contests will be close to even). The line in the sand has been drawn. Clinton needs both Ohio and Texas to move on. And both are tightening up.<BR/><BR/><A HTTP://ELECTIONUPDATES.CALTECH.EDU/2008/02/LIVE-FROM-TEXAS-ONE-PERSONS-EARLY.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">Yesterday was the last day of early voting in Texas.</A>Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-67870633818235224512008-03-01T11:52:00.000-05:002008-03-01T11:52:00.000-05:00Another great and thought-provoking post. One othe...Another great and thought-provoking post. One other possible exception to your Super-Tuesday theory is Howard Dean who was the supposed front-runner going into Iowa in 2004, but Kerry can't exactly be considered an insurgent. I suspect that this primary season will be system-changing, but time will tell. When things settle down a little, I'll have to go back and read Paul's article. Did you see that Wolfson is now saying that Obama has to sweep the four primaries on Tuesday to stay in the race. I think he is developing a credibility problem.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com