The Debate is Back On!
The big question: Did this lower the expectations any for McCain?
Secondary question: Was that the goal?
Talk amongst yourselves while I update the electoral college post for today. I'll be back shortly.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/26/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/25/08)
Now They're Trying to Take Away My Debate!?!
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Now They're Trying to Take Away My Debate!?!
The news of McCain's call to suspend the debate reminds me of a bit comedian, David Cross, did concerning the fallout from 9-11. Cross discussed how there were probably people in the aftermath of the attacks who were upset that football got canceled for a week. They may not have vocalized it, but there was probably some quiet discontent among a segment of the population. Well, political debates are certainly not to be equated with football, but to political junkies they may as well be one in the same.
Having said that, I'm still trying to sort out this McCain campaign suspension and the possibility of a debate delay. This obviously hasn't happened before. And as history (and Thomas Holbrook in Do Campaigns Matter?) would tell us, presidential election years rarely overlap with economic or military crises. But here we have one smack dab in the middle of what has already been an unprecedented presidential campaign. [Remember, if __________ can happen, then ____________ is more likely than ever to occur during this campaign. I joked a couple of weeks ago that we will see an electoral college tie and there will be a disputed state result simultaneously. This will trigger a battle between the legislative and judicial branches to decide the issue. I look forward to it.]
Here, though, are my instant history thoughts on this move by the McCain folks:
1) McCain once again has to do something to shake up the race. The Palin thing has faded with the focus shifted to the economy and the polls the last two days are favoring Obama in some of the critical battleground states.
2) This, to me, is a potential "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of proposition for Obama. If he stays committed to the debate, he can be cast as not caring about dealing with the economic crisis. If he goes along with McCain's wish, Obama will be the second person on the scene. In other words, he wouldn't look like much of a leader. My thinking here is that the McCain folks would once again try to craft a replay of some of the narrative surrounding Obama's trip abroad over the summer. Now, is this the way I expect this to play out? No, but the parallel did enter my mind. Which brings me to...
3) If this is politically motivated (I know, that never happens, especially in politics. Obama's trip, for instance, was just a fact-finding mission.), what does McCain expect get out of it? On the one hand, trying to push back the debate looks moderately defeatist. But on the other, focusing on the bailout issue, shows his willingness to take problems head on. Again, the leadership dimension. And I think that's where the answer lies. McCain = leader. Obama = follower. At least, that's the way they may try to spin it.
Thoughts? This one is a doozy.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/24/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/23/08)
The Links (9/23/08): Debates and Nightmares
Having said that, I'm still trying to sort out this McCain campaign suspension and the possibility of a debate delay. This obviously hasn't happened before. And as history (and Thomas Holbrook in Do Campaigns Matter?) would tell us, presidential election years rarely overlap with economic or military crises. But here we have one smack dab in the middle of what has already been an unprecedented presidential campaign. [Remember, if __________ can happen, then ____________ is more likely than ever to occur during this campaign. I joked a couple of weeks ago that we will see an electoral college tie and there will be a disputed state result simultaneously. This will trigger a battle between the legislative and judicial branches to decide the issue. I look forward to it.]
Here, though, are my instant history thoughts on this move by the McCain folks:
1) McCain once again has to do something to shake up the race. The Palin thing has faded with the focus shifted to the economy and the polls the last two days are favoring Obama in some of the critical battleground states.
2) This, to me, is a potential "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of proposition for Obama. If he stays committed to the debate, he can be cast as not caring about dealing with the economic crisis. If he goes along with McCain's wish, Obama will be the second person on the scene. In other words, he wouldn't look like much of a leader. My thinking here is that the McCain folks would once again try to craft a replay of some of the narrative surrounding Obama's trip abroad over the summer. Now, is this the way I expect this to play out? No, but the parallel did enter my mind. Which brings me to...
3) If this is politically motivated (I know, that never happens, especially in politics. Obama's trip, for instance, was just a fact-finding mission.), what does McCain expect get out of it? On the one hand, trying to push back the debate looks moderately defeatist. But on the other, focusing on the bailout issue, shows his willingness to take problems head on. Again, the leadership dimension. And I think that's where the answer lies. McCain = leader. Obama = follower. At least, that's the way they may try to spin it.
Thoughts? This one is a doozy.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/24/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/23/08)
The Links (9/23/08): Debates and Nightmares
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Links (9/23/08): Debates and Nightmares
Recently, I posted links to Thomas Holbrook's convention bounce predictions and wrap up and now he is out with a look at debate effects. The conclusion? Individual debate effects are minimal, but the cumulative effect of the entire series of debates is where a difference can be made.
And the nightmare? Larry Sabato has an item up on the BBC discussing the possibility of an electoral college tie. [Yeah, Nancy Pelosi was surprised too. I couldn't not include that picture.] As far-fetched as the chance of a tie may seem, it as been increasing in likelihood as McCain has become more competitive in some state polls. Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are all narrowing currently and all are leaning toward Obama. As we've seen in the recent maps it won't take much to bring this about. If Obama wins all the current blue states but loses Colorado New Hampshire, then a 269-269 tie is the outcome. This was also made clear in the map that resulted from Scott's analysis of the Pollster averages. If Obama wins the blue states and New Mexico while McCain takes the red states and the remaining five toss ups, again a 269-269 tie is the result.
Fine, we can move states around to get the outcome we want -- a tie -- but what happens in case of a tie? Well, the tie doesn't go to the incumbent party. [And since, according to Sabato, 90% of Americans don't know about this contingency plan, Democrats not in the know just breathed a huge sigh of relief.] The decision on the presidency goes to the House for a vote by each state delegation (not individual members) and the VP choice goes to the Senate.
For more on how that may play out, check out FiveThirtyEight's look at the possibilites from back in May. The circumstances may have changed since then, but it is an excellent exercise in how this situation would work.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College from a Different Angle
About Those Zogby Interactive Polls...(The McCain Bounce Revisited)
The Electoral College Map (9/22/08)
And the nightmare? Larry Sabato has an item up on the BBC discussing the possibility of an electoral college tie. [Yeah, Nancy Pelosi was surprised too. I couldn't not include that picture.] As far-fetched as the chance of a tie may seem, it as been increasing in likelihood as McCain has become more competitive in some state polls. Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are all narrowing currently and all are leaning toward Obama. As we've seen in the recent maps it won't take much to bring this about. If Obama wins all the current blue states but loses Fine, we can move states around to get the outcome we want -- a tie -- but what happens in case of a tie? Well, the tie doesn't go to the incumbent party. [And since, according to Sabato, 90% of Americans don't know about this contingency plan, Democrats not in the know just breathed a huge sigh of relief.] The decision on the presidency goes to the House for a vote by each state delegation (not individual members) and the VP choice goes to the Senate.
For more on how that may play out, check out FiveThirtyEight's look at the possibilites from back in May. The circumstances may have changed since then, but it is an excellent exercise in how this situation would work.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College from a Different Angle
About Those Zogby Interactive Polls...(The McCain Bounce Revisited)
The Electoral College Map (9/22/08)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Links (9/17/08): Debate Edition
If you're like me, you've been waiting on the next big thing in this presidential campaign: the debates. Well, we're a little over a week away from the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama on Friday, September 26.
If you want a look back at debates past, PBS has an updated version of their documentary, Debating Our Destiny, up on their site. This is a condensed version of the original that packs the televised debates between1960 1976 and 1996 into the first twenty or so minutes before giving a more in-depth treatment to the debates from the last two cycles. These include not only clips of the debates but interviews with the candidates themselves. Good stuff.
Also, as I alluded to in my comment in a previous post, there is a difference in the formats from four years ago to now. Here is the break down from the Commission on Presidential Debates:
(domestic) (foreign policy*) and final (foreign policy) (domestic) debates will be divided into 8 ten minute issue segments is a different approach. One additional quirk is the effort between the Commission and MySpace (MyDebates.org) to allow for online streaming of the debates as well internet questions to be submitted for use in the town hall debate. Sadly, this will not include video questions from snowmen describing the downside of global warming. Democracy has its limits, I suppose.
As a wrap up to convention season, Tom Holbrook has a comparison of the his predictions for this year's conventions and the actual bumps they produced. FHQ will be back later in the day with its own examination of the changes on the state level.
One last and unrelated thing: If you are in search of something to do with a few spare seconds, check out the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. And if you have a few more spare seconds post your new names here. Tell 'em Stag Tonnage Palin sent you. (H/t to Enik Rising for the link.)
*It is sad that the Commission actually in charge of putting these debates on doesn't have this information readily available. However the University of Mississippi, where the first debate is being held, confirms that the focus that night will be on foreign policy issues. Thanks to reader, Erik Redin, for the scoop. Now I want some answers. How long after Obama clinched the nomination was this decision made? How long did it take for it to be realized that the location of one of the most visible demonstrations of college admissions segregation would not, perhaps, be the best venue for a debate on domestic issues? And why did this news not see the light of day. As recently as August 6, when the Commission announced its selections for debate moderators, Ole Miss was under the impression that the debate was still on domestic issues. This is strange. I have a couple of potential contacts at Ole Miss. I'll see what I can find out.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/17/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/16/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/15/08)
If you want a look back at debates past, PBS has an updated version of their documentary, Debating Our Destiny, up on their site. This is a condensed version of the original that packs the televised debates between
Also, as I alluded to in my comment in a previous post, there is a difference in the formats from four years ago to now. Here is the break down from the Commission on Presidential Debates:
But those are only the locations. The first, third and vice presidential debates will be sit-down discussions at a table with the moderator. The second debate will be a town hall event. None of those formats break terribly far from the previous model of presidential debates, but the fact that the firstFirst presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MSVice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO
Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TNThird presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
As a wrap up to convention season, Tom Holbrook has a comparison of the his predictions for this year's conventions and the actual bumps they produced. FHQ will be back later in the day with its own examination of the changes on the state level.
One last and unrelated thing: If you are in search of something to do with a few spare seconds, check out the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. And if you have a few more spare seconds post your new names here. Tell 'em Stag Tonnage Palin sent you. (H/t to Enik Rising for the link.)
*It is sad that the Commission actually in charge of putting these debates on doesn't have this information readily available. However the University of Mississippi, where the first debate is being held, confirms that the focus that night will be on foreign policy issues. Thanks to reader, Erik Redin, for the scoop. Now I want some answers. How long after Obama clinched the nomination was this decision made? How long did it take for it to be realized that the location of one of the most visible demonstrations of college admissions segregation would not, perhaps, be the best venue for a debate on domestic issues? And why did this news not see the light of day. As recently as August 6, when the Commission announced its selections for debate moderators, Ole Miss was under the impression that the debate was still on domestic issues. This is strange. I have a couple of potential contacts at Ole Miss. I'll see what I can find out.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/17/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/16/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/15/08)
Friday, September 5, 2008
On to the Debates! -- And a Note on Compression
Let's not put the cart before the horse here, but this next two months is going to fly by. [And I thought after Labor Day, it was going to take forever to get to UGA's fall break the weekend before the election.] Think about it. Next week will be silly season in the polls as they readjust to the post-convention state of play. And then you have just two weeks until the first debate on September 26. A week ago that seemed far off, but all of a sudden, it's just three weeks away.
This really has been an unusual presidential election cycle from a timing standpoint. Primary season kicked off just three days into the new year and all the talk then was about how 2008 would be the longest general election campaign in history. It just didn't work out that way with the Democratic contest stretching into June. But now that we have been into general election mode since June, things don't look like they did in January. People are just now starting to really tune into the race and now it's not about how long the general election campaign will be, but how compressed it will be. From Tuesday at the Democratic convention to November 4 is just ten weeks.
How is that 10 weeks divided?
Democratic convention = 1 week
Republican convention/VP announcement = 1 week
Debates = 2.5 weeks (September 26-October 15)
That leaves just 5.5 weeks of actual campaigning. Now, I understand that the debates don't cause the campaign to shut down completely, but preparation time will factor in and the media's focus will shift just as quickly. [Hey, isn't this post titled, "On to the Debates!"? Who is shifting the focus here?] There are these next three weeks, the debates and then that leaves just under three weeks until election day. The span is not that different from four years ago, but with the VP announcements and conventions happening so close together it has only fed the perception of compression.*
So what will we be hearing these next three weeks? I'd imagine refined versions of what we have heard over the last two weeks. The Democrats will attempt to keep things focused on the economy and the GOP will make the case for their version of change with reminders of the importance of having the right person in charge in regard to the wars in Iraq and against terrorism. These next three weeks will be crucial to both campaigns as they hone their campaign themes heading into the conventions.
A few other things:
What was the general impression of McCain's speech last night? Sure the consensus seems to have formed around the idea that it was solid if unspectacular. Anyone differ with that assessment?
Did anyone catch Obama with Bill O'Reilly last night? I'm without FOX News Channel and haven't read too much about it today.
Also -- and this I'm sure is a shocker if not a teaser -- the Ivan Moore poll out of Alaska has shifted the Last Frontier into McCain lean territory. I think we'll continue to see it inch closer and closer to McCain/Palin as we approach election day. I'll have more Sunday when the updated Electoral College Map is up.
*Yes, this is very similar to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and Elaine turn five more days in Florida with Jerry's parents into half a day once sleeping, trips to the airport, etc. are taken into account. Perhaps not as extreme, but similar.
Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?
Why Attack the Community Organizer?
The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)
This really has been an unusual presidential election cycle from a timing standpoint. Primary season kicked off just three days into the new year and all the talk then was about how 2008 would be the longest general election campaign in history. It just didn't work out that way with the Democratic contest stretching into June. But now that we have been into general election mode since June, things don't look like they did in January. People are just now starting to really tune into the race and now it's not about how long the general election campaign will be, but how compressed it will be. From Tuesday at the Democratic convention to November 4 is just ten weeks.
How is that 10 weeks divided?
Democratic convention = 1 week
Republican convention/VP announcement = 1 week
Debates = 2.5 weeks (September 26-October 15)
That leaves just 5.5 weeks of actual campaigning. Now, I understand that the debates don't cause the campaign to shut down completely, but preparation time will factor in and the media's focus will shift just as quickly. [Hey, isn't this post titled, "On to the Debates!"? Who is shifting the focus here?] There are these next three weeks, the debates and then that leaves just under three weeks until election day. The span is not that different from four years ago, but with the VP announcements and conventions happening so close together it has only fed the perception of compression.*
So what will we be hearing these next three weeks? I'd imagine refined versions of what we have heard over the last two weeks. The Democrats will attempt to keep things focused on the economy and the GOP will make the case for their version of change with reminders of the importance of having the right person in charge in regard to the wars in Iraq and against terrorism. These next three weeks will be crucial to both campaigns as they hone their campaign themes heading into the conventions.
A few other things:
What was the general impression of McCain's speech last night? Sure the consensus seems to have formed around the idea that it was solid if unspectacular. Anyone differ with that assessment?
Did anyone catch Obama with Bill O'Reilly last night? I'm without FOX News Channel and haven't read too much about it today.
Also -- and this I'm sure is a shocker if not a teaser -- the Ivan Moore poll out of Alaska has shifted the Last Frontier into McCain lean territory. I think we'll continue to see it inch closer and closer to McCain/Palin as we approach election day. I'll have more Sunday when the updated Electoral College Map is up.
*Yes, this is very similar to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and Elaine turn five more days in Florida with Jerry's parents into half a day once sleeping, trips to the airport, etc. are taken into account. Perhaps not as extreme, but similar.
Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform: Still Alive with the GOP?
Why Attack the Community Organizer?
The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Did the Debate Change Anything?
Rob Shewfelt and I have started an exchange on the debate in the comments to yesterday's electoral college post, and while I included some debate commentary there, the events of last night deserve their own post. The question of the day remains to what extent, if any, did the debate change things in the Democratic battle in Pennsylvania and/or the broader race for the nomination?
In a footnote to yesterday's post I wrote:
"Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments and
the Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see."
After the debate Rob had this to say:
"She got the question you predicted (on trust) and one of the ones I mentioned (on guns), but she can't complain that he is being pampered by the media. It seems to me that Stephanopolous had a conflict of interest. For years we have heard about the revolving door between government (particularly civil servants) and industry leading to favorable treatment of big business. I think it is time to look at the revolving door between Congress and the Executive branch and network news. It is one thing to be a pundit on election night or a talk show, but it is entirely different being a questioner in a debate. I understand that the frontrunner gets more scrutiny than the runerup, but I think this was the most slanted questioning of a candidate in a debate I can recall.
"Clinton clearly won the debate. Obama looked bad. Clinton looked good when she answered the questions asked, but she may have overplayed her hand when she piled on after Obama stumbled. It will be interesting to see if the debate makes any difference in PA. The trend this year has been the person that gets beat up is the person who does best in the next primary. We'll know more next Wednesday morning."
One thing is for sure in both these comments: We're both taking a "wait and see approach" to this. And given the way this race has gone thus far that's pretty wise. If the 2000 general election hadn't proven most experts' predictions wrong, I'd dub this the "election in which predictions were made to be broken." Maybe I'll settle for the "primary season in which predictions were made to be broken". Nah, too long.
Anyway, here are my first reactions to Rob and the debate:
"I don't know, Rob. Yes, Clinton "won" the debate*, but Obama survived without digging a deeper hole for himself. He is in a position now with his argument of changing the "politics of distraction" that Clinton has been in playing the gender card and crying. He can't overuse it (whether he thinks its the right angle to take or not).
"And while Clinton won, she has to do more than that; she has to change the outlook of the race. And it remains to be seen whether she went beyond just winning last night. My take is that she didn't. Her solid performance was in the policy arena and voters expect her to be good there. Chris Cillizza over at The Fix brought this up in his post-debate reaction. He cites the LA Time/Bloomberg poll of PA, NC and IN voters who perceive Clinton to be the better candidate on policy, but opt for Obama anyway.
"*These proceedings are really wins for McCain. The more time the Democrats spend answering questions about guns, lapel pins and members of the Weather Underground, the more ammunition they willingly hand over to McCain and the "Republican attack machine". Both Obama and Clinton seem to be aware of this, but the fight continues."
Other thoughts? The comments section is open, so have at it FHQ readers and UGA Campaign Discussion Group regulars.
In a footnote to yesterday's post I wrote:
"Two things are certain to come up at some point in the ABC debate: Obama's comments and
the Clinton trust poll numbers (since they were from ABC News). I don't know that those two equate, but they will both have something negative to address during this evening's proceedings. Strategically, Obama, in Clinton-esque fashion, has attempted to turn a weakness into a strength by welcoming a debate with John McCain over who is most out of touch. He will more than likely continue with that line of argument tonight. Clinton, on the other hand, may not be able to make the same reversal. Is she on firm enough ground arguing that either Obama or McCain can be trusted less? We will have to wait until tonight to see."
After the debate Rob had this to say:
"She got the question you predicted (on trust) and one of the ones I mentioned (on guns), but she can't complain that he is being pampered by the media. It seems to me that Stephanopolous had a conflict of interest. For years we have heard about the revolving door between government (particularly civil servants) and industry leading to favorable treatment of big business. I think it is time to look at the revolving door between Congress and the Executive branch and network news. It is one thing to be a pundit on election night or a talk show, but it is entirely different being a questioner in a debate. I understand that the frontrunner gets more scrutiny than the runerup, but I think this was the most slanted questioning of a candidate in a debate I can recall.
"Clinton clearly won the debate. Obama looked bad. Clinton looked good when she answered the questions asked, but she may have overplayed her hand when she piled on after Obama stumbled. It will be interesting to see if the debate makes any difference in PA. The trend this year has been the person that gets beat up is the person who does best in the next primary. We'll know more next Wednesday morning."
One thing is for sure in both these comments: We're both taking a "wait and see approach" to this. And given the way this race has gone thus far that's pretty wise. If the 2000 general election hadn't proven most experts' predictions wrong, I'd dub this the "election in which predictions were made to be broken." Maybe I'll settle for the "primary season in which predictions were made to be broken". Nah, too long.
Anyway, here are my first reactions to Rob and the debate:
"I don't know, Rob. Yes, Clinton "won" the debate*, but Obama survived without digging a deeper hole for himself. He is in a position now with his argument of changing the "politics of distraction" that Clinton has been in playing the gender card and crying. He can't overuse it (whether he thinks its the right angle to take or not).
"And while Clinton won, she has to do more than that; she has to change the outlook of the race. And it remains to be seen whether she went beyond just winning last night. My take is that she didn't. Her solid performance was in the policy arena and voters expect her to be good there. Chris Cillizza over at The Fix brought this up in his post-debate reaction. He cites the LA Time/Bloomberg poll of PA, NC and IN voters who perceive Clinton to be the better candidate on policy, but opt for Obama anyway.
"*These proceedings are really wins for McCain. The more time the Democrats spend answering questions about guns, lapel pins and members of the Weather Underground, the more ammunition they willingly hand over to McCain and the "Republican attack machine". Both Obama and Clinton seem to be aware of this, but the fight continues."
Other thoughts? The comments section is open, so have at it FHQ readers and UGA Campaign Discussion Group regulars.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
It's Official: Debates are No Substitute for Actual Contests
The consensus emerging today (and even last night as I came to the realization when MSNBC's online feed of the debate forced me to call it a night earlier than I had expected) is that last night's debate did little to change the course of the race for the Democratic nomination. Clinton did what folks who are not the frontrunner do: she attacked. Obama, on the other hand, filled the frontrunner role and played it safe, hovering above the attacks being levied against him. The movement toward Obama in the polls (via Real Clear Politics) in both Ohio and Texas back up that role assignment. In Texas the polls show a tie, if not a small Obama lead. Ohio's numbers show that what was once a double digit lead is now down to about six points. If that continues, then Tuesday night could provide some drama, especially after last night proved that a debate can only somewhat fill the void left by the absence of real contests. If only New Jersey has not switched primary dates a second time.
I'll keep it light for the rest of the post. There are some interesting links that have popped up recently that may be of some interest to the group.
1) If you have Google Earth installed on your PC, Mac or Linux box (Hey, the 1% of the population that uses Linux counts too!), be sure to check out the superdelegates layer that has been developed. Yes, the same thing is available on Google Maps, but you can't beat the animation that comes with Google Earth. Most of this can be linked to through Superdelegates.org (The .kml file that is necessary to run the script in GEarth there if you click on, "view the info on Google Maps and Google Earth" here or on that page.). The Monkey Cage (moderated by several of the faculty at George Washington University) has a link to the GMaps version.
2) It is a good day for The Monkey Cage here at FHQ. They also have a post linking to Thomas Holbrook's (of Do Campaigns Matter? fame) new Election08Data blog. There's some good stuff there already.
3) And while we're at it, and since they linked to my post on the Texas primary/caucus last week, here's the link to Election Updates, which lists Michael Alvarez, Paul Gronke, Thad Hall, Robert Krimmer and Melissa Slemin as contributors.
I'll keep it light for the rest of the post. There are some interesting links that have popped up recently that may be of some interest to the group.
1) If you have Google Earth installed on your PC, Mac or Linux box (Hey, the 1% of the population that uses Linux counts too!), be sure to check out the superdelegates layer that has been developed. Yes, the same thing is available on Google Maps, but you can't beat the animation that comes with Google Earth. Most of this can be linked to through Superdelegates.org (The .kml file that is necessary to run the script in GEarth there if you click on, "view the info on Google Maps and Google Earth" here or on that page.). The Monkey Cage (moderated by several of the faculty at George Washington University) has a link to the GMaps version.
2) It is a good day for The Monkey Cage here at FHQ. They also have a post linking to Thomas Holbrook's (of Do Campaigns Matter? fame) new Election08Data blog. There's some good stuff there already.
3) And while we're at it, and since they linked to my post on the Texas primary/caucus last week, here's the link to Election Updates, which lists Michael Alvarez, Paul Gronke, Thad Hall, Robert Krimmer and Melissa Slemin as contributors.
Monday, February 25, 2008
And on the Seventh Day, the Blogger Rested
Fine, a slowdown in the campaign, at least in terms of contests, equals a slowdown in blog output. Well, it's either that or fatigue. To quote Grandpa Simpson (see below), "a little from column A, a little from column B." Regardless, there has been some action worth noting on the trail and beyond over the last couple of days.
McCain continues to battle the FEC over the issue of the loan he took out last fall to keep his campaign afloat. The kicker is that now the DNC is involved; writing letters to the FEC calling for action. Good luck to the DNC on that one. Aren't Senate Democrats holding up those FEC commissioners' confirmations in a standoff with the White House? The "all bark and no bite" FEC is even more toothless now that it is stuck in limbo, biding its time until a full slate of commissioners can actually do the work of upholding the very law John McCain helped to create. Funny business, this politics.
In other McCain news, he's old, but not any older than Bob Dole would have been had the former Senate majority leader won in 1996. [Of course McCain is trying to avoid bottoming out financially during the summer months like Dole did. Repeating the summer of 2007 would be bad enough for the presumptive Republican nominee.] The age issue is working its way into the VP discussions surrounding McCain though. Regional balance has been a longstanding consideration in the running mate calculus, but age balance is an altogether different factor. Dole's choice of Kemp in 1996 is an obvious example and Bush's decision to go with Quayle in 1988 is similar in some ways. One could potentially argue that Eisenhower choosing a younger Richard Nixon fits this category as well.
The reverse scenario, where a relatively young candidate choses someone with more experience, has also popped up historically. Kennedy tapping Johnson in 1960 comes to mind. Age though wasn't the main consideration there. The Austin to Boston axis, usually a balance among the Democratic leadership in Congress during the period, was at play with this tandem as well. The two also finished one-two in the primaries (non-binding) and in the convention brokering that year. So age may not have been the top concern in 1960. George W. Bush selecting Dick Cheney could also fit into this category. A failed run for Congress and a long period outside of the public sector followed by six years as Texas governor, left the younger Bush vulnerable to the inexperience label. Cheney's time in Congress as well as his stints in the Ford and (first)Bush administrations helped Bush shed that label. And of course, if Obama is to become the Democratic nominee then age may again be a factor.
Speaking of VP speculation, here's the latest from The Fix. And here's the view from a political science perspective.
On the Democratic side, the race is still on and getting somewhat petty/nasty in the lead up to the Ohio-Rhode Island-Texas-Vermont round of contests on March 4. The Clinton folks are fighting Obama's momentum and the perception that it's over (Of course, that's the media killing Clinton and lauding Obama or so goes the charge.). Tightening poll numbers in the largest of those states (Texas and Ohio) are not helping that effort. The head-to-head match ups against McCain aren't either (Clinton and Obama). The Clinton anger has turned to sarcasm has turned to negative photos of Obama in a whirling dervish of ploys for votes in the two March 4 prizes (Sorry Rhode Island and Vermont. Bigger is better. Just ask North Dakota how Super Tuesday went with California hogging the late night spotlight.). All this before tomorrow night's debate in Cleveland. That should make for an interesting last tussle before the contests next week.
Meanwhile, Ralph Nader has thrown his hat in the presidential ring once more. His appearance on the Meet the Press was an interesting one. He shrugged off worries that he would siphon off votes from the Democrats in November countering the 2000 election argument by citing research by Solon Simmons (see citation below). [The main finding there is that Nader forced Gore to take more progressive stands, actually gaining votes in Florida as a result.] Nader also mentioned that if the Democrats can't landslide this cycle, then they should pack it up as party. That sentiment has made the rounds and there is a grain of truth to it. One thing I'd like to add is that with enthusiasm so high on the Democratic side, is Nader's potential impact not muted anyway. [Here's the transcript of that MTP interview.]
McCain continues to battle the FEC over the issue of the loan he took out last fall to keep his campaign afloat. The kicker is that now the DNC is involved; writing letters to the FEC calling for action. Good luck to the DNC on that one. Aren't Senate Democrats holding up those FEC commissioners' confirmations in a standoff with the White House? The "all bark and no bite" FEC is even more toothless now that it is stuck in limbo, biding its time until a full slate of commissioners can actually do the work of upholding the very law John McCain helped to create. Funny business, this politics.
In other McCain news, he's old, but not any older than Bob Dole would have been had the former Senate majority leader won in 1996. [Of course McCain is trying to avoid bottoming out financially during the summer months like Dole did. Repeating the summer of 2007 would be bad enough for the presumptive Republican nominee.] The age issue is working its way into the VP discussions surrounding McCain though. Regional balance has been a longstanding consideration in the running mate calculus, but age balance is an altogether different factor. Dole's choice of Kemp in 1996 is an obvious example and Bush's decision to go with Quayle in 1988 is similar in some ways. One could potentially argue that Eisenhower choosing a younger Richard Nixon fits this category as well.
The reverse scenario, where a relatively young candidate choses someone with more experience, has also popped up historically. Kennedy tapping Johnson in 1960 comes to mind. Age though wasn't the main consideration there. The Austin to Boston axis, usually a balance among the Democratic leadership in Congress during the period, was at play with this tandem as well. The two also finished one-two in the primaries (non-binding) and in the convention brokering that year. So age may not have been the top concern in 1960. George W. Bush selecting Dick Cheney could also fit into this category. A failed run for Congress and a long period outside of the public sector followed by six years as Texas governor, left the younger Bush vulnerable to the inexperience label. Cheney's time in Congress as well as his stints in the Ford and (first)Bush administrations helped Bush shed that label. And of course, if Obama is to become the Democratic nominee then age may again be a factor.
Speaking of VP speculation, here's the latest from The Fix. And here's the view from a political science perspective.
On the Democratic side, the race is still on and getting somewhat petty/nasty in the lead up to the Ohio-Rhode Island-Texas-Vermont round of contests on March 4. The Clinton folks are fighting Obama's momentum and the perception that it's over (Of course, that's the media killing Clinton and lauding Obama or so goes the charge.). Tightening poll numbers in the largest of those states (Texas and Ohio) are not helping that effort. The head-to-head match ups against McCain aren't either (Clinton and Obama). The Clinton anger has turned to sarcasm has turned to negative photos of Obama in a whirling dervish of ploys for votes in the two March 4 prizes (Sorry Rhode Island and Vermont. Bigger is better. Just ask North Dakota how Super Tuesday went with California hogging the late night spotlight.). All this before tomorrow night's debate in Cleveland. That should make for an interesting last tussle before the contests next week.
Meanwhile, Ralph Nader has thrown his hat in the presidential ring once more. His appearance on the Meet the Press was an interesting one. He shrugged off worries that he would siphon off votes from the Democrats in November countering the 2000 election argument by citing research by Solon Simmons (see citation below). [The main finding there is that Nader forced Gore to take more progressive stands, actually gaining votes in Florida as a result.] Nader also mentioned that if the Democrats can't landslide this cycle, then they should pack it up as party. That sentiment has made the rounds and there is a grain of truth to it. One thing I'd like to add is that with enthusiasm so high on the Democratic side, is Nader's potential impact not muted anyway. [Here's the transcript of that MTP interview.]
Simmons, Solon. 2004. “One Man in Ten Thousand: Ralph Nader takes on the Presidency.” Wisconsin Political Scientist, Vol.10, No.2
Saturday, February 23, 2008
On Debates and Lobbyists
During the last two days the Democratic debate from Texas and the McCain-Iseman New York Times story have been the dominant news items within the [American] political world. FHQ made the decision to take the "take a step back and reflect" approach to both before jumping to bloggy, insta-reactions (not that anyone does that). And the question that pops into my head applies to both items: Did either event fundamentally change the outlook of the race for the White House?
The McCain campaign seems to have shifted the scrutiny back to the New York Times (the timing of the story, why it was sent to press with the information they had, etc) instead of inviting further scrutiny upon the relationship between McCain and lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. And the Times has never been a friend to the Right; conservatives actually came to McCain's defense on this one. So McCain seems to have avoided the firestorm on this one. While it may come back to haunt him later, the campaign's attention may be better spend on the financial situation it finds itself in vis-a-vis the FEC. That he may have to take matching funds during the primary period, hamstringing the campaign in the waning months of primary season, may potentially be the more damaging than the "scandal." Bob Dole's 1996 presidential bid comes to mind. His campaign's inability to compete during the summer months (because it had accepted matching funds and was out of money) put the former Kansas senator at a decided disadvantage as the race transitioned into general election mode.
On the Democratic side, Thursday's debate did little to alter the course of the race, despite how the candidates tried to spin it afterwards. Clinton and company still continue to be perplexed by Obama's ability to ward off nearly every attack as "the politics of the past." The message of change (one that focuses on changing the divisive politics of the past) is one that has taken root among a majority of Democratic primary/caucus voters so far and it is one that makes Obama almost impervious to attack. He will always have that Reaganesque, "There you go again," statement to fall back on. "That's just the politics of the past." That message resonates with voters or at least has so far. And given the how the debate went, has that changed? What we are left with is the wait and see game. Wait until March 4 and watch as the poll margins in both Texas and Ohio close between the two remaining Democratic contenders. Here's the latest from Real Clear Politics:
The McCain campaign seems to have shifted the scrutiny back to the New York Times (the timing of the story, why it was sent to press with the information they had, etc) instead of inviting further scrutiny upon the relationship between McCain and lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. And the Times has never been a friend to the Right; conservatives actually came to McCain's defense on this one. So McCain seems to have avoided the firestorm on this one. While it may come back to haunt him later, the campaign's attention may be better spend on the financial situation it finds itself in vis-a-vis the FEC. That he may have to take matching funds during the primary period, hamstringing the campaign in the waning months of primary season, may potentially be the more damaging than the "scandal." Bob Dole's 1996 presidential bid comes to mind. His campaign's inability to compete during the summer months (because it had accepted matching funds and was out of money) put the former Kansas senator at a decided disadvantage as the race transitioned into general election mode.
On the Democratic side, Thursday's debate did little to alter the course of the race, despite how the candidates tried to spin it afterwards. Clinton and company still continue to be perplexed by Obama's ability to ward off nearly every attack as "the politics of the past." The message of change (one that focuses on changing the divisive politics of the past) is one that has taken root among a majority of Democratic primary/caucus voters so far and it is one that makes Obama almost impervious to attack. He will always have that Reaganesque, "There you go again," statement to fall back on. "That's just the politics of the past." That message resonates with voters or at least has so far. And given the how the debate went, has that changed? What we are left with is the wait and see game. Wait until March 4 and watch as the poll margins in both Texas and Ohio close between the two remaining Democratic contenders. Here's the latest from Real Clear Politics:
Texas
Ohio
Friday, February 1, 2008
The One-on-One Debate
The two remaining Democrats reversed roles with the Republican presidential candidates in this week's debates. Whereas last week the stories were the back and forth bickering between Clinton and Obama in South Carolina followed by the GOP compliment-fest in Boca Raton, the debates of this week were marked by the exact opposite effect. The Republican debate from the Reagan Library showcased the personal exchanges between McCain and Romney (and lest we forget the ever popular Huckabee one-liners and Paul condemnations of the current administration's policies), while the Democrats kept it civil despite the concerted efforts of Wolf Blitzer's to bait the Democrats in to a "fight" last night. At one point he used the phrase naive to describe Clinton's support of what turned into the initial Iraq war authorization. That was the most blatant attempt at baiting on the part of the moderators last night, but certainly not the only one.
Here's the link to some videos of CNN's coverage last night.
And here's the blow-by-blow account of the pillow fight from The Caucus.
So what explains the switch? Sequencing may have something (or a lot) to do with this. See the other party bicker, and claim that mantle of civility. It probably isn't that easy, but I find it hard to imagine that last night's Democratic debate will do anything to change what will happen in next Tuesday's slew of delegate selection events. And that's another commentary on American politics. It is the negative ads and debate performances that alter the shape of things to come (or do a more pronounced job of it).
One other thing that I noticed last night (Other than Stevie Wonder being there. Didn't he become a citizen of the African nation of Ghana about a decade ago? Maybe he still enjoys American politics.) was that CNN has a series of debates scheduled for the end of the month in Ohio (ahead of the March 4 primary there). This may give us an answer to the question that came up in the live discussion group on Wednesday: How will the media play the results on Super Tuesday (as a delegate counting contest or a who-won-the-big-states contest)? By looking forward to back-to-back debates on February 27 and 28, CNN may be showing its hand: That they prefer the delegate counting option. It does make for a different story than we've had recently in presidential elections. At the very least CNN seemingly doesn't see the race ending on Tuesday night. That's fine by me.
The Maine GOP starts their caucuses today and continue on through Sunday. They won't be earth-shattering, but it'll give political junkies a little something to tide them over until Tuesday rolls around.
And here's another Fix take on VP speculation.
Keep in mind that Year-End Reports were due to the FEC yesterday. That will be the first real indication of where the candidates are (or were) financially. I haven't seen much if any press mention of the reports yet. Here's a little from the Boston Globe.
Here's the link to some videos of CNN's coverage last night.
And here's the blow-by-blow account of the pillow fight from The Caucus.
So what explains the switch? Sequencing may have something (or a lot) to do with this. See the other party bicker, and claim that mantle of civility. It probably isn't that easy, but I find it hard to imagine that last night's Democratic debate will do anything to change what will happen in next Tuesday's slew of delegate selection events. And that's another commentary on American politics. It is the negative ads and debate performances that alter the shape of things to come (or do a more pronounced job of it).
One other thing that I noticed last night (Other than Stevie Wonder being there. Didn't he become a citizen of the African nation of Ghana about a decade ago? Maybe he still enjoys American politics.) was that CNN has a series of debates scheduled for the end of the month in Ohio (ahead of the March 4 primary there). This may give us an answer to the question that came up in the live discussion group on Wednesday: How will the media play the results on Super Tuesday (as a delegate counting contest or a who-won-the-big-states contest)? By looking forward to back-to-back debates on February 27 and 28, CNN may be showing its hand: That they prefer the delegate counting option. It does make for a different story than we've had recently in presidential elections. At the very least CNN seemingly doesn't see the race ending on Tuesday night. That's fine by me.
The Maine GOP starts their caucuses today and continue on through Sunday. They won't be earth-shattering, but it'll give political junkies a little something to tide them over until Tuesday rolls around.
And here's another Fix take on VP speculation.
Keep in mind that Year-End Reports were due to the FEC yesterday. That will be the first real indication of where the candidates are (or were) financially. I haven't seen much if any press mention of the reports yet. Here's a little from the Boston Globe.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Edwards, Giuliani, Debates and Super Tuesday
I hope everyone is looking on today as practice for next Tuesday because there is a lot going on in the race today.
The big news that starting coming out around 9am this morning (At least that's when a student, looking up from his laptop during the beginning moments of class told me.) was that John Edwards was going to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. We are taught to never say never in politics (and John McCain's wild ride on the Republican side is proof of that), but I took Edwards and his campaign at their word when they said that they were in the race for the long haul (even when that message turned to being a kingmaker at the convention). Edwards' reluctance to cede the race to John Kerry in 2004 seemed to back that up. So, color me surprised to see Edwards bow out now. There is no endorsement planned, but if you believe what some of the pundits are writing (that Edwards takes away from Obama's ability to win), then Edwards dropping out now makes a tiny bit more sense.
Drop outs abound! On the GOP side, Giuliani's failed Florida strategy (skipping races rarely works) seems to have him not only on the cusp of getting out of the race but also of endorsing John McCain. Nothing is official yet, but with a debate tonight at the Ronald Reagan Library in California, Giuliani's absence would go a long way toward confirming the speculation. The two (Giuliani and McCain) have essentially switched places in this race. Giuliani has gone from national frontrunner over the summer to being out of the race before it even got to what were perceived as his strongest areas; the delegate-rich states of Super Tuesday. McCain however has gone from bottoming out over the summer to a Lazarus-style return in capturing New Hampshire, South Carolina and now Florida to become the party's frontrunner.
UPDATE:
Now the drop out and endorsement are official.
Also, I caught this on NPR today. You'd expect this kind of "using his words against him" comparison on the Daily Show. Giuliani's book comes back to haunt him. "Giuliani Failed to Heed His Own Leadership Advice"
Incidentally, that debate will be on CNN and cnn.com tonight starting at 8pm (which is interesting considering that that is during rush hour for California voters). The Democrats (sans Edwards) will debate from California the following night as well. That one also starts at 8pm(ET).
What does all this mean heading into next week's extravaganza? McCain looks to be in good shape, but you can't discount the impact of Romney's warchest. As we've moved to a national focus, this thing has moved on to the air war and that is where Romney could have a potential advantage. In the Democratic race, the constant flip flopping of victories between Obama and Clinton means that the race is in a basic dead heat moving into Super Tuesday. So which one has an advantage? Well, the release of the numbers from the FEC reports that are due tomorrow (Jan. 31) may give us an eye into who has more cash on hand and who has the advantage.
The big news that starting coming out around 9am this morning (At least that's when a student, looking up from his laptop during the beginning moments of class told me.) was that John Edwards was going to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. We are taught to never say never in politics (and John McCain's wild ride on the Republican side is proof of that), but I took Edwards and his campaign at their word when they said that they were in the race for the long haul (even when that message turned to being a kingmaker at the convention). Edwards' reluctance to cede the race to John Kerry in 2004 seemed to back that up. So, color me surprised to see Edwards bow out now. There is no endorsement planned, but if you believe what some of the pundits are writing (that Edwards takes away from Obama's ability to win), then Edwards dropping out now makes a tiny bit more sense.
Drop outs abound! On the GOP side, Giuliani's failed Florida strategy (skipping races rarely works) seems to have him not only on the cusp of getting out of the race but also of endorsing John McCain. Nothing is official yet, but with a debate tonight at the Ronald Reagan Library in California, Giuliani's absence would go a long way toward confirming the speculation. The two (Giuliani and McCain) have essentially switched places in this race. Giuliani has gone from national frontrunner over the summer to being out of the race before it even got to what were perceived as his strongest areas; the delegate-rich states of Super Tuesday. McCain however has gone from bottoming out over the summer to a Lazarus-style return in capturing New Hampshire, South Carolina and now Florida to become the party's frontrunner.
UPDATE:
Now the drop out and endorsement are official.
Also, I caught this on NPR today. You'd expect this kind of "using his words against him" comparison on the Daily Show. Giuliani's book comes back to haunt him. "Giuliani Failed to Heed His Own Leadership Advice"
Incidentally, that debate will be on CNN and cnn.com tonight starting at 8pm (which is interesting considering that that is during rush hour for California voters). The Democrats (sans Edwards) will debate from California the following night as well. That one also starts at 8pm(ET).
What does all this mean heading into next week's extravaganza? McCain looks to be in good shape, but you can't discount the impact of Romney's warchest. As we've moved to a national focus, this thing has moved on to the air war and that is where Romney could have a potential advantage. In the Democratic race, the constant flip flopping of victories between Obama and Clinton means that the race is in a basic dead heat moving into Super Tuesday. So which one has an advantage? Well, the release of the numbers from the FEC reports that are due tomorrow (Jan. 31) may give us an eye into who has more cash on hand and who has the advantage.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Kid Gloves come out in Boca Raton
After Monday night's brouhaha among the Democrats in South Carolina, the active candidates for the GOP nomination gathered in Florida last night to demonstrate the civility the party has to offer. With the margin between first and second in state polls tightening between McCain and Romney, you'd expect to see Giuliani come out swinging in an attempt to recapture the lead he once enjoyed in the state. At the very least you would expect to see him draw some contrasts between himself and the two candidates perceived to be ahead of him now. But that wasn't the case. If you were on stage last night you got the kid glove treatment from your opponents and an occasional one-liner from Mike Huckabee. If you weren't on the stage and your name was Hillary Clinton, you were met with some sharp criticism on everything from the war to being the epitome of the broken Washington Mitt Romney continues to talk about.
So if you tuned in expecting fireworks similar to those displayed on the Democratic side earlier in the week, you left disappointed and wondering what if any effect those 90 minutes would have on Tuesday's primary. One thing that was interesting was the return to the types of attacks on Clinton that dominated these Republican debates over the summer and into the fall when she was viewed as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Just as we saw McCain's name come up in the Democrats' debate as the heir to the GOP nomination, Clinton's was the name attached to the head of November's Democratic ticket. If anything, these types of discussions force primary voters (or at least the folks actually tuning in) to at least consider general election electability to some extent. The other thing it does is drive some of the inevitability arguments that pop up in the face of any primary/caucus victory.
Having said that, either a Romney or McCain victory in Florida doesn't fundamentally change the outlook of the race as February 5 approaches. If McCain wins, Romney still has his personal wealth to fall back on and Romney wins, McCain is still well-positioned in the states that are the prizes of Super Tuesday. Of course, should Romney win, McCain's poll numbers could change. But Romney's money as a factor won't change in the event that McCain pulls out another victory on Tuesday.
In other news, Dennis Kucinich is set to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination to protect his seat in Congress. And to think, he could have been out much sooner if Ohio had been successful in moving its primaries up to January 29 last fall.
The other issue that has arisen on the Democratic side is the four state pledge made by the candidates to protect the four states (IA, NH, NV and SC) which were exempted by the DNC to hold primaries ahead of February 5. DNC sanctions exist to penalize any state that jumps ahead of that point and any candidate who campaigns in such a state. Florida and Michigan both had their entire delegations stripped and because of the potential sanctions and the pledge to stay out of any violating state, the candidates have ignored Michigan and Florida. Well, until some of Obama's national cable ads were shown in Florida causing some to question whether the Clinton camp would jump into the fray and initiate some efforts in the state. Since Tuesday the Clinton folks have denied that they would break the pledge and campaign in Florida. But they did have the perfect opportunity to break that pledge in a state where Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls.
There is one follow up to the blog's last post. Yesterday came and went with no endorsement from influential South Carolina representative, Jim Clyburn. With Obama looking poised for victory there, there was no need (at least strategically) to endorse someone who isn't necessarily slated for the nomination. That, and the last time Obama looked assured of victory (in relation to the polls), Clinton scored a "huge upset" in New Hampshire. Just ask Al Gore how his endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 worked out.
Polls close at 7pm tomorrow night in South Carolina and if you like to follow along with an interactive map at scvotes.org.
If you missed last night's tame affair from Florida, but are nonetheless a political junkie seeking your next fix, the video is still up over at MSNBC.
So if you tuned in expecting fireworks similar to those displayed on the Democratic side earlier in the week, you left disappointed and wondering what if any effect those 90 minutes would have on Tuesday's primary. One thing that was interesting was the return to the types of attacks on Clinton that dominated these Republican debates over the summer and into the fall when she was viewed as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Just as we saw McCain's name come up in the Democrats' debate as the heir to the GOP nomination, Clinton's was the name attached to the head of November's Democratic ticket. If anything, these types of discussions force primary voters (or at least the folks actually tuning in) to at least consider general election electability to some extent. The other thing it does is drive some of the inevitability arguments that pop up in the face of any primary/caucus victory.
Having said that, either a Romney or McCain victory in Florida doesn't fundamentally change the outlook of the race as February 5 approaches. If McCain wins, Romney still has his personal wealth to fall back on and Romney wins, McCain is still well-positioned in the states that are the prizes of Super Tuesday. Of course, should Romney win, McCain's poll numbers could change. But Romney's money as a factor won't change in the event that McCain pulls out another victory on Tuesday.
In other news, Dennis Kucinich is set to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination to protect his seat in Congress. And to think, he could have been out much sooner if Ohio had been successful in moving its primaries up to January 29 last fall.
The other issue that has arisen on the Democratic side is the four state pledge made by the candidates to protect the four states (IA, NH, NV and SC) which were exempted by the DNC to hold primaries ahead of February 5. DNC sanctions exist to penalize any state that jumps ahead of that point and any candidate who campaigns in such a state. Florida and Michigan both had their entire delegations stripped and because of the potential sanctions and the pledge to stay out of any violating state, the candidates have ignored Michigan and Florida. Well, until some of Obama's national cable ads were shown in Florida causing some to question whether the Clinton camp would jump into the fray and initiate some efforts in the state. Since Tuesday the Clinton folks have denied that they would break the pledge and campaign in Florida. But they did have the perfect opportunity to break that pledge in a state where Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls.
There is one follow up to the blog's last post. Yesterday came and went with no endorsement from influential South Carolina representative, Jim Clyburn. With Obama looking poised for victory there, there was no need (at least strategically) to endorse someone who isn't necessarily slated for the nomination. That, and the last time Obama looked assured of victory (in relation to the polls), Clinton scored a "huge upset" in New Hampshire. Just ask Al Gore how his endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 worked out.
Polls close at 7pm tomorrow night in South Carolina and if you like to follow along with an interactive map at scvotes.org.
If you missed last night's tame affair from Florida, but are nonetheless a political junkie seeking your next fix, the video is still up over at MSNBC.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Thompson's out (Hunter too), the Myrtle Beach Massacre and more!
I don't think it comes as much of a surprise to anyone that Fred Thompson decided to hang it up to potentially return to playing Rudy Giuliani on TV. How does his departure affect the race for the GOP nomination though. I'm sure the folks aligned with Huckabee would have liked for the former Tennessee senator to drop out before South Carolina last weekend. Here's the take on the situation from The Fix over at The Washington Post.
Meanwhile they are still cleaning up the carnage from the debate hall in northeast South Carolina. If you missed the Democrats' debate from Myrtle Beach Monday night, you may want to go check it out (CNN still has the debate up and the transcript is also there.). You may also want to fire up your memory while you're at it because we'll see/hear some of this material again come general election time. The viable Republican candidates sure will once one of them emerges as the party's nominee. You can't complain when intra-party battles help your own potential opposition research for the fall campaign. What do you think? Will this debate bickering hurt both Clinton and Obama in South Carolina? And will that help Edwards? The CNN page linked above has a video with undecideds turned off by what they saw.
There are a few things to note as we approach the Democratic primary on Saturday:
1) Will Jim Clyburn make an endorsement? The influential South Carolina Democrat said he wouldn't (...until after Iowa), but there is some chatter out there indicating that a well-timed Obama endorsement could happen on Thursday. Thanks to The Caucus at the New York Times for that link. Hopefully this isn't a case of a runaway blog story, but there is some other speculation to "back this up."
2) What will turnout be like for the primary this weekend? Turnout for the GOP primary was down as compared to what the state experienced for the Republican primary there in 2000, but let's remember that South Carolina has an open primary system. Independents may have stayed home last weekend so that they could participate in the Democratic contest this weekend. But it could just have been the cold, rainy weather, a crop of unsatisfying candidates or that undecideds just couldn't decide and stayed home.
3) What do Clinton's trips to California yesterday and New York today mean (track daily visits at Slate.com)? Is she ceding South Carolina to Obama or is her campaign focusing on February 5? The big win that Rob spoke about Obama needing in the comments section the other day may not mean so much if Hillary didn't give her all in the state.
Meanwhile they are still cleaning up the carnage from the debate hall in northeast South Carolina. If you missed the Democrats' debate from Myrtle Beach Monday night, you may want to go check it out (CNN still has the debate up and the transcript is also there.). You may also want to fire up your memory while you're at it because we'll see/hear some of this material again come general election time. The viable Republican candidates sure will once one of them emerges as the party's nominee. You can't complain when intra-party battles help your own potential opposition research for the fall campaign. What do you think? Will this debate bickering hurt both Clinton and Obama in South Carolina? And will that help Edwards? The CNN page linked above has a video with undecideds turned off by what they saw.
There are a few things to note as we approach the Democratic primary on Saturday:
1) Will Jim Clyburn make an endorsement? The influential South Carolina Democrat said he wouldn't (...until after Iowa), but there is some chatter out there indicating that a well-timed Obama endorsement could happen on Thursday. Thanks to The Caucus at the New York Times for that link. Hopefully this isn't a case of a runaway blog story, but there is some other speculation to "back this up."
2) What will turnout be like for the primary this weekend? Turnout for the GOP primary was down as compared to what the state experienced for the Republican primary there in 2000, but let's remember that South Carolina has an open primary system. Independents may have stayed home last weekend so that they could participate in the Democratic contest this weekend. But it could just have been the cold, rainy weather, a crop of unsatisfying candidates or that undecideds just couldn't decide and stayed home.
3) What do Clinton's trips to California yesterday and New York today mean (track daily visits at Slate.com)? Is she ceding South Carolina to Obama or is her campaign focusing on February 5? The big win that Rob spoke about Obama needing in the comments section the other day may not mean so much if Hillary didn't give her all in the state.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Michiganders Unite! It's Primary Day
Iowa (check).
New Hampshire (check).
Michigan?
Wave good bye again to the novelty of retail politics for another four years as the campaign shifts from the up close and personal politics of Iowa and New Hampshire to practicing new techniques in the lead up to the twenty-two state blitz on February 5.
Today that blitz begins with the voters in Michigan. Well, half of the partisans in the Great Lakes State will be participating in the state's 2008 presidential primary as the GOP candidates battle for another pre-Super Tuesday prize. On the Democratic side, national party sanctions have done well at keeping the candidates away. Most don't even appear on the ballot. During the period that the constitutionality of the distribution of primary voter rolls was being questioned, thus threatening the state's primary, efforts were made to change ballot access rules to prevent candidates from keeping their names off the ballot (Does this sound like democracy?). Stalling Democrats in the Michigan legislature prevented this measure from taking immediate effect meaning that only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich appeared on the ballot. This fight and the broader one between the state and the national party set the groundwork for today's non-contest for no Democratic delegates in Michigan.
The major candidates on the Democratic side (and Dennis Kucinich who by court order won the right to appear, though MSNBC is appealing) are in Nevada gearing up for tonight's debate (live on MSNBC @ 9pm--I'll have a link for the online version when it is made available.) ahead of Saturday's caucus in the state.
Some Nevadans are irritated with the timing and others with location. Who doesn't want to caucus on Saturday morning in a casino?
The GOP seems content to fight it out in Michigan today and skip Nevada on Saturday in favor of the South Carolina caucus on the same day. Those who win South Carolina (since 1980 when the primary system hit the state) win the Republican nomination. Nevada's loss is South Carolina's gain.
First thing's first though: Michigan. Real Clear Politics' average of the six most recent Michigan polls has Romney with a slight edge over McCain (who won in there in 2000) with Huckabee running third about ten points back. So we may be witnessing something of a replay in New Hampshire at least as far as the major players are concerned. Should the results play out similarly, Romney will be on the ropes. However, should he win today's primary that jumbles this race even further making Giuliani's "wait until Florida and Super Tuesday" strategy look like pure genius. You can't discount luck in politics.
You may have heard that Obama and Clinton have been sparring over racial issues. I'm still trying to figure out if not having an event this week gives that story more steam. Neither side has appeared too positive which Edwards must be loving. He got a boost in Nevada early this week with some poll numbers that have him (27%), Obama (32) and Clinton (30) within five points of each other. This is the only poll from the state since December (see RCP). Interesting news heading toward the weekend contest there. Tonight's debate will certainly have some say in how things play out.
Finally, it looks like the presidential race has been fairly newsworthy so far. Last week during the New Hampshire primary, the race accounted for 49% of the news according to the Project of Excellence in Journalism. Sadly this blog wasn't a major part of that (Thank you very much SPSA conference.).
As always I'll be online tonight tracking the results and the debate if anyone is interested in discussing matters ahead of tomorrow's live discussion group meeting.
New Hampshire (check).
Michigan?
Wave good bye again to the novelty of retail politics for another four years as the campaign shifts from the up close and personal politics of Iowa and New Hampshire to practicing new techniques in the lead up to the twenty-two state blitz on February 5.
Today that blitz begins with the voters in Michigan. Well, half of the partisans in the Great Lakes State will be participating in the state's 2008 presidential primary as the GOP candidates battle for another pre-Super Tuesday prize. On the Democratic side, national party sanctions have done well at keeping the candidates away. Most don't even appear on the ballot. During the period that the constitutionality of the distribution of primary voter rolls was being questioned, thus threatening the state's primary, efforts were made to change ballot access rules to prevent candidates from keeping their names off the ballot (Does this sound like democracy?). Stalling Democrats in the Michigan legislature prevented this measure from taking immediate effect meaning that only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich appeared on the ballot. This fight and the broader one between the state and the national party set the groundwork for today's non-contest for no Democratic delegates in Michigan.
The major candidates on the Democratic side (and Dennis Kucinich who by court order won the right to appear, though MSNBC is appealing) are in Nevada gearing up for tonight's debate (live on MSNBC @ 9pm--I'll have a link for the online version when it is made available.) ahead of Saturday's caucus in the state.
Some Nevadans are irritated with the timing and others with location. Who doesn't want to caucus on Saturday morning in a casino?
The GOP seems content to fight it out in Michigan today and skip Nevada on Saturday in favor of the South Carolina caucus on the same day. Those who win South Carolina (since 1980 when the primary system hit the state) win the Republican nomination. Nevada's loss is South Carolina's gain.
First thing's first though: Michigan. Real Clear Politics' average of the six most recent Michigan polls has Romney with a slight edge over McCain (who won in there in 2000) with Huckabee running third about ten points back. So we may be witnessing something of a replay in New Hampshire at least as far as the major players are concerned. Should the results play out similarly, Romney will be on the ropes. However, should he win today's primary that jumbles this race even further making Giuliani's "wait until Florida and Super Tuesday" strategy look like pure genius. You can't discount luck in politics.
You may have heard that Obama and Clinton have been sparring over racial issues. I'm still trying to figure out if not having an event this week gives that story more steam. Neither side has appeared too positive which Edwards must be loving. He got a boost in Nevada early this week with some poll numbers that have him (27%), Obama (32) and Clinton (30) within five points of each other. This is the only poll from the state since December (see RCP). Interesting news heading toward the weekend contest there. Tonight's debate will certainly have some say in how things play out.
Finally, it looks like the presidential race has been fairly newsworthy so far. Last week during the New Hampshire primary, the race accounted for 49% of the news according to the Project of Excellence in Journalism. Sadly this blog wasn't a major part of that (Thank you very much SPSA conference.).
As always I'll be online tonight tracking the results and the debate if anyone is interested in discussing matters ahead of tomorrow's live discussion group meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)