“The largest field operation in the history of American politics.”
- Boston Globe, July 19, 2008
As August begins, the Obama campaign is nearing completion of its final round field organizer hires. In our last update, we noted the eye-popping plans for Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Iowa. Since then, a patchwork of reports have trickled in about offices and numbers of paid staff expected in several other key states, including Wisconsin, Alaska, Montana, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania.
Understandably, the campaign has been tight-lipped about its exact strategy, though federal campaign finance disclosure requirements will eventually reveal where salaries are going. Since final hires are only now being completed, we should have a good picture of the whole tableau sometime in September after the August filings.
In Alaska, Obama has four field offices open (Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Palmer) to McCain’s none. In Montana, Obama had six offices to McCain’s none in July, with reports that McCain would open five offices by August 1.
In Virginia, Obama has a 20-6 field office edge, with as many as 60 expected to be open in the near future. Via the widely-linked Boston Globe piece from whence the opening quote comes, each of Florida and Pennsylvania Obama is expected to have a minimum of 200 paid organizers.
In Wisconsin, Obama has 15 offices open now, with 24 expected to be open by mid-August. The staffers are directly paid by Obama’s “Campaign for Change” organization. By contrast, Republicans have five party offices open that handle both McCain field work as well as the state leg. races, which somewhat dilutes the effort.
This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it’s actually a story we’re keeping an eye on. Though our idea about the timetable of campaign ramp-ups has been distorted by this nearly two-year presidential ordeal, most local races and even most congressional races are only barely beginning to coordinate their own field efforts. In this respect, it is unclear on the Obama side how the traditional coordination between presidential race field staff and downballot candidates will be carried off. The traditional vehicle is the coordinated campaign which can be funded by the national committees not subject to the same strict caps on individual contributions. This story will probably ripen post-convention when most of the other local campaigns begin to kick into gear.
As for the Obama-McCain matchup, it’s clear the campaigns are playing a game of chicken. Republicans are confident that no amount of organizing will move states like North Dakota, Alaska and Montana into the Democratic presidential column and that if those states do flip, the issue of winning the national election will be moot anyway. Local articles discussing each campaign’s efforts in the given state tend to be full of quotes from Democrats that the state will be heavily contended and may well flip; Republican counterquotes discuss how "wasteful" (see the Virginia article) the mass field operation reveals the Obama campaign to be and express confidence that nothing will change the inevitable McCain win in the state.
Republicans are banking on the principle that undergirds the Tipping Point states concept – if McCain is losing any of Alaska, North Dakota or Montana, they are losing the overall election (you’ll note that as of today, none of these states are in our top 15 Tipping Point states). Thus, it is rational to not waste resources defending states that will only matter in the event of a McCain loss.
We will keep an eye on the tension between both presidential campaigns and their downballot compatriots. Both dynamics have the potential for tension and discontent, albeit for different reasons. Downballot Democrats may discover that their access to voter files is restricted by an all-Obama controlled organization (as of yet TBD whether this is true) and may have to trustfall that heavy Obama organizing energy is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Downballot Republicans in red states where McCain is playing chicken by not placing field staff may be distressed that they are left exposed to the Democratic energy and heavy registration of new Democratic voters.
Montana will be a very interesting place to watch this downballot contrast play out. As mentioned in the original Brian Schweitzer VP post, the Montana House in 2007 was 51-49 Republican (one Constitution Party member caucuses with Rs) and the state Senate held a 26-24 Democratic edge. Given the term limits kicking in this year, Dems were looking at an uphill battle to retain the split. If Obama’s paid organizers outnumber Republicans in Montana by one of these 10-1 ratios we’re seeing in states like Missouri, even if they don’t directly talk to voters about the local races, the increased number of Democratic voters may overcome the disadvantage it appeared Democrats would face in the state leg. races this cycle.
At the end of the day, this organizing story was why Obama was never, ever going to be vulnerable to superdelegates overturning his pledged delegate win. Red state Democrats have understood that the "focus on a few battleground states and ignore the rest" strategy leaves them in dire straits during national cycle years. Hillary Clinton would have inspired heaviest backlash turnout by the Republican base in precisely these red states, and Clinton's campaign would not have followed the Obama 50-state strategy.
Though folks like Nate and I spent much energy during the primary explaining why proportional allocation locked in an Obama pledged delegate win by February, fewer observers grasped or were open to seeing the obvious truth that the red state superdelegates saw clearly - an Obama candidacy was going to approach organizing on their home turfs in a diametrically opposite and positive way than Hillary Clinton's campaign would have. Even if the technical coordination between the Obama staffs and downballot candidates winds up being awkward, awkward big resource effort beats a resource vacuum. There was a 0.0000000% chance the supers would have overturned the pledged outcome for precisely this nuts-and-bolts reason: the largest field operation in the history of American politics was coming down the pike.
8.02.2008
Yesterday's Polls (8/1 Catchup)
@ 9:25 AM
In the interests of time, we'll keep this brief. While Obama's lead in the national tracking polls has collapsed, the state polling continues to show largely flat trendlines. However, Obama's number has been below the trendline curve in the supertracker in each of the past two days, and if his tracking polls don't begin to recover soon, it is going to begin to exert some significant downward pressure on his numbers.
Otherwise, most of these states are pretty boring, but it's a good result for McCain in Missouri -- note the particularly large sample size in the new SurveyUSA poll -- which seems decreasingly likely to be the state that swings the election.
VP: Short the Faves
@ 2:25 AM
Justin Wolfers isn’t buying the conventional wisdom on the VP shortlists, and he has some advice for traders: short the favorites.
It’s not that any of the candidates are specifically objectionable, says Wolfers. In fact, he agrees that the markets have the candidates in the right order. It’s a combination of history and behavioral economics. History suggests that surprise picks are not infrequent (he cites recent examples Quayle, Cheney, Lieberman), while behavioral economics points to trader overconfidence:
In other words, the markets are giving “the field” outside of each party’s top four CW options less than a 20% chance of coming in for a win.
For Dems, “the field” is anyone not Kaine, Bayh, Sebelius or Biden. For Reps, it’s anyone besides Pawlenty, Romney, Ridge or Palin.
On the Republican side, Wolfers notes that there is much less trade volume but doesn't elaborate on the implications. While I find Jay Cost's thoughtful analysis today on the urgency of picking Romney intriguing and find myself agreeing with most of its elements, I've long believed the advantage in seeing Obama's whole ticket before having to pick his own running mate is a strategic freeroll McCain should not give away. While there is only one legitimate historical example of a VP bringing in a state his party wasn't likely to have won otherwise (Muskie in 1968), VPs do contribute to an overall impression and narrative that applies over the whole electorate. McCain's strategic edge in selecting last, plus the instant ability to snatch the media spotlight 12 hours after Obama gives his nomination speech, is a one-time precious trump card that outweighs an extra week or two of attack dog mode from the VP.
If McCain picks last, the futures markets for his running mate will be affected by whoever Obama picks. For example, Sarah Palin's rise or fall in the markets will vary with whether Obama picks a woman first. If Obama picks Sebelius, that ticket's overall impression is "Big Change" and McCain is not likely to go with Palin. But if Obama gives him the wedge demographic opening by picking a safe, bland white guy like Bayh, McCain may go for the longshot Palin to bite into the Democratic base - its customary edge with women voters.
For my own gut sense, I have never been comfortable with the conventional wisdom surrounding Obama’s VP pick. There’s something nagging about it, and no hard numbers to support my feeling. Perhaps it’s the “think different” approach to many aspects of the campaign – the next-level social networking, the unprecedented 50-state massive organizer approach, the generalized no-leak culture among decision-makers, etc. It strikes me that in multiple important key ways, the Obama campaign has made conscious departures from the conventional wisdom norm.
For example, I don’t know if Nate’s right about the Sebelius shell game with Tim Kaine, but one key takeaway from that post is that Obama’s is a campaign capable of playing chess and deftly hiding its hand. So the market judgment that there's less than a 20% chance of Obama pulling a VP surprise feels wrong, and I agree with Wolfers.
I don’t want to ride this point too hard, because Obama has certainly engaged in many standard strategies and made plenty of conventional decisions along the way.
I guess it depends on where the starting place for the VP decision is. Imagine the circumstances when a VP would actually have to fulfill his or her most important job description – serving out Obama’s term if he cannot finish it. What character traits would that individual need to possess to rise to the occasion in such a moment? I think a rational person like Obama would have started here. In fact, maybe this is one reason Caroline Kennedy is a key part of the search team.
But we don’t talk about that; we create incredibly strange theories such as picking Evan Bayh would send a coded signal to Clinton supporters that because Bayh supported Clinton, it’s a symbolic proxy for extending Clinton voters an olive branch and uniting the party, even if Obama doesn’t pick Clinton herself. Since my internal compass tells me we’re not starting what I sense is the right starting point, it’s been difficult for me to embrace the conventional discussions about A thus B thus C thus Obama will select X.
I freely admit I could be wrong. But when Wolfers refers to history’s frequent surprises and points to the market’s likely overestimation of frontrunner chances, I confess I’m already primed to be receptive to that argument.
It’s not that any of the candidates are specifically objectionable, says Wolfers. In fact, he agrees that the markets have the candidates in the right order. It’s a combination of history and behavioral economics. History suggests that surprise picks are not infrequent (he cites recent examples Quayle, Cheney, Lieberman), while behavioral economics points to trader overconfidence:
Compare this history of surprises with the fact that markets believe that they have narrowed the Democratic and Republican shortlists to four candidates – and, in each case, there is a greater than 80 percent chance that this shortlist contains the eventual nominee. Given the psychological evidence that traders are often overconfident, I think there is good reason to take these quantitative assessments with a grain of salt.
In other words, the markets are giving “the field” outside of each party’s top four CW options less than a 20% chance of coming in for a win.
For Dems, “the field” is anyone not Kaine, Bayh, Sebelius or Biden. For Reps, it’s anyone besides Pawlenty, Romney, Ridge or Palin.
On the Republican side, Wolfers notes that there is much less trade volume but doesn't elaborate on the implications. While I find Jay Cost's thoughtful analysis today on the urgency of picking Romney intriguing and find myself agreeing with most of its elements, I've long believed the advantage in seeing Obama's whole ticket before having to pick his own running mate is a strategic freeroll McCain should not give away. While there is only one legitimate historical example of a VP bringing in a state his party wasn't likely to have won otherwise (Muskie in 1968), VPs do contribute to an overall impression and narrative that applies over the whole electorate. McCain's strategic edge in selecting last, plus the instant ability to snatch the media spotlight 12 hours after Obama gives his nomination speech, is a one-time precious trump card that outweighs an extra week or two of attack dog mode from the VP.
If McCain picks last, the futures markets for his running mate will be affected by whoever Obama picks. For example, Sarah Palin's rise or fall in the markets will vary with whether Obama picks a woman first. If Obama picks Sebelius, that ticket's overall impression is "Big Change" and McCain is not likely to go with Palin. But if Obama gives him the wedge demographic opening by picking a safe, bland white guy like Bayh, McCain may go for the longshot Palin to bite into the Democratic base - its customary edge with women voters.
For my own gut sense, I have never been comfortable with the conventional wisdom surrounding Obama’s VP pick. There’s something nagging about it, and no hard numbers to support my feeling. Perhaps it’s the “think different” approach to many aspects of the campaign – the next-level social networking, the unprecedented 50-state massive organizer approach, the generalized no-leak culture among decision-makers, etc. It strikes me that in multiple important key ways, the Obama campaign has made conscious departures from the conventional wisdom norm.
For example, I don’t know if Nate’s right about the Sebelius shell game with Tim Kaine, but one key takeaway from that post is that Obama’s is a campaign capable of playing chess and deftly hiding its hand. So the market judgment that there's less than a 20% chance of Obama pulling a VP surprise feels wrong, and I agree with Wolfers.
I don’t want to ride this point too hard, because Obama has certainly engaged in many standard strategies and made plenty of conventional decisions along the way.
I guess it depends on where the starting place for the VP decision is. Imagine the circumstances when a VP would actually have to fulfill his or her most important job description – serving out Obama’s term if he cannot finish it. What character traits would that individual need to possess to rise to the occasion in such a moment? I think a rational person like Obama would have started here. In fact, maybe this is one reason Caroline Kennedy is a key part of the search team.
But we don’t talk about that; we create incredibly strange theories such as picking Evan Bayh would send a coded signal to Clinton supporters that because Bayh supported Clinton, it’s a symbolic proxy for extending Clinton voters an olive branch and uniting the party, even if Obama doesn’t pick Clinton herself. Since my internal compass tells me we’re not starting what I sense is the right starting point, it’s been difficult for me to embrace the conventional discussions about A thus B thus C thus Obama will select X.
I freely admit I could be wrong. But when Wolfers refers to history’s frequent surprises and points to the market’s likely overestimation of frontrunner chances, I confess I’m already primed to be receptive to that argument.
8.01.2008
How You Look, How You Sound, What You Say
@ 6:56 PM
The headline in yesterday’s released Pew survey says it all: “Obama’s Trip: Seen but not Heard.” In an election season where the simplest macros reign (it’s a change election, it’s the demographics, stupid, etc.), another longstanding advertising maxim rules the day: it’s the images and not the content of what you say that people remember.
Lesley's Parable from 1984 is not one to forget. Lesley Stahl’s nearly six-minute, hard-hitting CBS piece contained image after image of a smiling Reagan and enthusiastic, flag-waving crowds. Delighted, Michael Deaver called Stahl to thank her. "Nobody heard what you said" was the famous comment. In subsequent focus groups, Stahl discovered fewer than 25% of the group could recall what was said in the piece they had just watched.
This is why, while 90% of Americans had heard about the trip and 62% of Americans had heard a lot about it according to Pew’s findings, slightly less than half report having learned anything about Obama’s foreign policy views. Only 15% reported learning a great deal about those views. But they sure did see the images of a smiling and confident Obama in front of massive, American-flag waving crowds. Likewise, I’m sure the McCain ads showing Obama playing basketball with the troops with voiceover about how Obama didn’t visit the troops sent one clear message – hey, Obama visited the troops!
The further Pew finding, consistent with past polls, is that the press has shown pro-Obama bias. Though it inspires derision from Democratic corners (for example, I think a “marvelous ape” rape joke or calling his wife the C-word in public would instantly and justifiably end Obama’s campaign), the idea that the press is giving Obama the free ride is inarguably settled into the public consciousness. By a wide margin, among Democratic (by 18 points), independent (by 36 points) and Republican (by 70 points) voters alike, this is a settled issue.
Among an avalanche of other examples, here you have CBS unethically hiding an importantly dishonest McCain answer on the surge timing vis-Ã -vis the Anbar Awakening, you have AP Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier writing love notes to Karl Rove and having been in negotiations to join McCain’s campaign press staff, and it’s not even close among Democratic voters that the press favors Obama. That’s called utter failure of the Democratic blogosphere to influence the debate on press favoritism. Democratic bloggers and television analysts need to accept that if they want to fight this battle they need to scrap the entire ineffective strategy they’re using and start from scratch.
That’s if they want to have that fight. Conisder Stahl’s focus group lesson and the one from Obama’s Europe trip. They may just want to sit back and let the images trump all the yapping that isn’t registering anyway.
Update - Tom in comments makes a good point about McCain's "The One" ad. Go here and watch with the sound off. Consider the imagery, body language, smiling shots of Obama in front of happy crowds and put yourself in the shoes of one of Stahl's focus group people not listening to what she said. Would you be sure this was an anti-Obama ad?
Lesley's Parable from 1984 is not one to forget. Lesley Stahl’s nearly six-minute, hard-hitting CBS piece contained image after image of a smiling Reagan and enthusiastic, flag-waving crowds. Delighted, Michael Deaver called Stahl to thank her. "Nobody heard what you said" was the famous comment. In subsequent focus groups, Stahl discovered fewer than 25% of the group could recall what was said in the piece they had just watched.
This is why, while 90% of Americans had heard about the trip and 62% of Americans had heard a lot about it according to Pew’s findings, slightly less than half report having learned anything about Obama’s foreign policy views. Only 15% reported learning a great deal about those views. But they sure did see the images of a smiling and confident Obama in front of massive, American-flag waving crowds. Likewise, I’m sure the McCain ads showing Obama playing basketball with the troops with voiceover about how Obama didn’t visit the troops sent one clear message – hey, Obama visited the troops!
The further Pew finding, consistent with past polls, is that the press has shown pro-Obama bias. Though it inspires derision from Democratic corners (for example, I think a “marvelous ape” rape joke or calling his wife the C-word in public would instantly and justifiably end Obama’s campaign), the idea that the press is giving Obama the free ride is inarguably settled into the public consciousness. By a wide margin, among Democratic (by 18 points), independent (by 36 points) and Republican (by 70 points) voters alike, this is a settled issue.
Among an avalanche of other examples, here you have CBS unethically hiding an importantly dishonest McCain answer on the surge timing vis-Ã -vis the Anbar Awakening, you have AP Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier writing love notes to Karl Rove and having been in negotiations to join McCain’s campaign press staff, and it’s not even close among Democratic voters that the press favors Obama. That’s called utter failure of the Democratic blogosphere to influence the debate on press favoritism. Democratic bloggers and television analysts need to accept that if they want to fight this battle they need to scrap the entire ineffective strategy they’re using and start from scratch.
That’s if they want to have that fight. Conisder Stahl’s focus group lesson and the one from Obama’s Europe trip. They may just want to sit back and let the images trump all the yapping that isn’t registering anyway.
Update - Tom in comments makes a good point about McCain's "The One" ad. Go here and watch with the sound off. Consider the imagery, body language, smiling shots of Obama in front of happy crowds and put yourself in the shoes of one of Stahl's focus group people not listening to what she said. Would you be sure this was an anti-Obama ad?
Obama Outperforming Kerry Among Nearly All Demographics
@ 10:10 AM
Mark Blumenthal alerted his readers yesterday to what he calls the 'Gallup Crosstab Trove' -- the large amount of demographic data that Gallup collects and publishes on a weekly basis.
I took the average of Barack Obama's performance in the last three weeks of the Gallup survey and compared it against John Kerry's from 2004 as according to the national exit poll*. Obama is bettering Kerry's performance in all groups but one:
Obama's particular strengths are in the Midwest -- that's how a state like Indiana can be competitive this year -- among young voters, and among Hispanics**. The latter two groups are particularly interesting is they have far and away the most untapped potential in terms of improving turnout.
In the Democratic primaries, that potential was realized: the youth vote increased by 52 percent as a share of the Democratic electorate, and the Latino vote increased by 41 percent. But these are not groups that vote in heavy numbers traditionally, and so they may be among the first ones filtered out by likely voter models. They are also probably among the hardest voters to reach in surveys -- the youth vote because of the cellphone problem, and Latinos because of language barriers. All yet more reasons why polling is a dodgy and difficult business this year.
Oh, and what is the one group where Obama fails to outperform Kerry? Democrats -- although part of that may simply be that the undecideds aren't allocated in a pre-election poll whereas they have (necessarily) made up their minds by the time they take an exit poll. Kerry won Democrats 89-11; Obama presently leads by an average of 80-11 over the last three weeks of the Gallup poll.
-----
* In a couple of cases, the demographic groups don't match exactly -- Gallup uses slightly different age classifications than the exit polls did -- but we pair things up the best we can.
** Although, note that Kerry's exit poll figure among Latino voters is the subject of some dispute. Looking at state-by-state rather than national exit polls suggests he did a little better than this among Latinos.
TWO MORE NOTES: I am in meetings all day today, and so the daily polling thread is likely to be very tardy. And I deleted the other post that went up this morning, since you all clearly think I'm insane.
I took the average of Barack Obama's performance in the last three weeks of the Gallup survey and compared it against John Kerry's from 2004 as according to the national exit poll*. Obama is bettering Kerry's performance in all groups but one:
Obama's particular strengths are in the Midwest -- that's how a state like Indiana can be competitive this year -- among young voters, and among Hispanics**. The latter two groups are particularly interesting is they have far and away the most untapped potential in terms of improving turnout.
In the Democratic primaries, that potential was realized: the youth vote increased by 52 percent as a share of the Democratic electorate, and the Latino vote increased by 41 percent. But these are not groups that vote in heavy numbers traditionally, and so they may be among the first ones filtered out by likely voter models. They are also probably among the hardest voters to reach in surveys -- the youth vote because of the cellphone problem, and Latinos because of language barriers. All yet more reasons why polling is a dodgy and difficult business this year.
Oh, and what is the one group where Obama fails to outperform Kerry? Democrats -- although part of that may simply be that the undecideds aren't allocated in a pre-election poll whereas they have (necessarily) made up their minds by the time they take an exit poll. Kerry won Democrats 89-11; Obama presently leads by an average of 80-11 over the last three weeks of the Gallup poll.
-----
* In a couple of cases, the demographic groups don't match exactly -- Gallup uses slightly different age classifications than the exit polls did -- but we pair things up the best we can.
** Although, note that Kerry's exit poll figure among Latino voters is the subject of some dispute. Looking at state-by-state rather than national exit polls suggests he did a little better than this among Latinos.
TWO MORE NOTES: I am in meetings all day today, and so the daily polling thread is likely to be very tardy. And I deleted the other post that went up this morning, since you all clearly think I'm insane.
7.31.2008
Opportunity Cost
@ 8:25 PM
I think we have to give the Republicans a certain amount of credit for the creativity inherent in their "celebrity" attack on Barack Obama. As Carri Budoff Brown notes at The Politico, this is just about the first time a criticism of Barack Obama's personality has penetrated from the Beltway and onto the late night talk shows.
The problem is, isn't this a bit like that classic job interview situation where you ask what a candidate what his greatest weakness is and he gives you a completely facetious answer? You know what I'm talking about: "My greatest weakness? Sometimes I work too hard! Sometimes I care too much!"
Obama's popular? (Over)confident? Voters may get the message -- but is McCain really going to get their votes because of it?
I realize that the McCain campaign is going for something a little deeper here** -- trying to portray Obama as an empty suit. But that was one of the singular least successful lines of argument for Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- she employed it most aggressively in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary, trying to key off the Deval Patrick / plagiarism controversy, and wound up getting blown out.
Because McCain has higher favorables than Hillary Clinton, he probably has more leeway for attack politics. But is this really the best use of his attack chips?
** I emphatically do not buy that the ad has racial undertones.
The problem is, isn't this a bit like that classic job interview situation where you ask what a candidate what his greatest weakness is and he gives you a completely facetious answer? You know what I'm talking about: "My greatest weakness? Sometimes I work too hard! Sometimes I care too much!"
Obama's popular? (Over)confident? Voters may get the message -- but is McCain really going to get their votes because of it?
I realize that the McCain campaign is going for something a little deeper here** -- trying to portray Obama as an empty suit. But that was one of the singular least successful lines of argument for Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- she employed it most aggressively in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary, trying to key off the Deval Patrick / plagiarism controversy, and wound up getting blown out.
Because McCain has higher favorables than Hillary Clinton, he probably has more leeway for attack politics. But is this really the best use of his attack chips?
** I emphatically do not buy that the ad has racial undertones.
Today's Polls (PM Edition), 7/31
@ 7:12 PM
This is everything from today, including the Quinnipiac numbers that we discussed earlier:
This is generally a pretty good set of polling for Barack Obama. Abstract these numbers for a moment. If you had told a Democrat a year ago that, on the last day of July, their candidate would be ahead in Ohio and Florida, well ahead in Pennsylvania , way ahead in California, tied in Montana, within single digits in a couple of states that went really red in 2000 and 2004, they'd be pretty thrilled with that set of polling.
Generally speaking, the national polls in this cycle have been somewhat more favorable to Barack Obama than the state polling. Our projected popular vote margin, which is based on principally on state rather than national polling, has usually run a point or two behind the national polling averages at RCP or Pollster.com.
That pattern has somewhat reversed itself now. Our model likes these state polls for Obama, even as the national trackers have shown his lead shrinking to 2 points and 1, respectively.
The most interesting result today might be from Kentucky, where Rasmussen has Obama within 9 points once leaners are counted. Obama had trailed by 16 points in Rasmussen's June poll of Kentucky, and 25 points in May. There is no longer a big education/income gap in this election -- Obama has gained ground with lower-income, lower-education voters. That doesn't mean that he's going to win Kentucky. But something like West Virginia, where the candidates are already advertising since its markets overlap with Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, deserves monitoring.
The other interesting result may is Montana, where Rasmussen now shows the race tied after having shown Obama with a 5-point lead four weeks ago. The underlying demographics of the state still probably point to a McCain victory by a few points, but so long as Obama is engaging the state and McCain is not, it has to continue to rate as a toss-up.
This is generally a pretty good set of polling for Barack Obama. Abstract these numbers for a moment. If you had told a Democrat a year ago that, on the last day of July, their candidate would be ahead in Ohio and Florida, well ahead in Pennsylvania , way ahead in California, tied in Montana, within single digits in a couple of states that went really red in 2000 and 2004, they'd be pretty thrilled with that set of polling.
Generally speaking, the national polls in this cycle have been somewhat more favorable to Barack Obama than the state polling. Our projected popular vote margin, which is based on principally on state rather than national polling, has usually run a point or two behind the national polling averages at RCP or Pollster.com.
That pattern has somewhat reversed itself now. Our model likes these state polls for Obama, even as the national trackers have shown his lead shrinking to 2 points and 1, respectively.
The most interesting result today might be from Kentucky, where Rasmussen has Obama within 9 points once leaners are counted. Obama had trailed by 16 points in Rasmussen's June poll of Kentucky, and 25 points in May. There is no longer a big education/income gap in this election -- Obama has gained ground with lower-income, lower-education voters. That doesn't mean that he's going to win Kentucky. But something like West Virginia, where the candidates are already advertising since its markets overlap with Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, deserves monitoring.
The other interesting result may is Montana, where Rasmussen now shows the race tied after having shown Obama with a 5-point lead four weeks ago. The underlying demographics of the state still probably point to a McCain victory by a few points, but so long as Obama is engaging the state and McCain is not, it has to continue to rate as a toss-up.
Today's Polls (AM Edition), 7/31
@ 7:24 AM
Quinnipiac is out with polling this morning in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Barack Obama holds a lead in all three: he's ahead by 7 points in Pennsylvania, and 2 in each of Florida and Ohio. But also in all three states, his lead is diminished from last month, when Quinnipiac had shown him 4 points ahead in Florida, 6 in Ohio, and 12 in Pennsylvania.
The media is likely to focus on the near-term trendline -- one that shows movement toward John McCain within the last month. The last set of Quinnipiac polls were conducted near the peak of Obama's post-primary bounce, and there is no doubt that he has lost a little bit of ground since then.
We like looking at trendlines too. But focusing on only the last month risks failing to see the forest for the trees. Fundamentally, the news is that Obama is ahead in all three states -- two of which are states that Democrats have made a habit of losing. Moreover, if you compare his performance not just to the most recent number, but to all other instances of the Quinnipiac polls -- this is how our model looks at things -- the results are pretty decent for him:
There's nothing really dramatic here, in other words. And to the extent there's any news at all, it's that Florida and Ohio continue to move toward one another in the polling, which has a lot of implications for resource allocation going forward.
EDIT: Here's the other type of spin to watch out for. Quinnipiac's Peter Brown implies that the movement in the polls reflects a negative reaction to Barack Obama's overseas trip:
The media is likely to focus on the near-term trendline -- one that shows movement toward John McCain within the last month. The last set of Quinnipiac polls were conducted near the peak of Obama's post-primary bounce, and there is no doubt that he has lost a little bit of ground since then.
We like looking at trendlines too. But focusing on only the last month risks failing to see the forest for the trees. Fundamentally, the news is that Obama is ahead in all three states -- two of which are states that Democrats have made a habit of losing. Moreover, if you compare his performance not just to the most recent number, but to all other instances of the Quinnipiac polls -- this is how our model looks at things -- the results are pretty decent for him:
Month FL OH PA
Feb M+2 M+2 O+1
March M+9 O+1 O+4
April M+1 M+1 O+9
May M+4 M+4 O+6
June O+4 O+6 O+12
July O+2 O+2 O+7This is a weaker performance for Obama than in June, but a better performance for him than in any month but June. Our model weights those two factors, and concludes that the status quo has more or less been preserved. As of last night, our model gave Barack Obama a 68.0 percent chance of winning the election in November. With these polls rolled in, he has a 67.7 percent chance.There's nothing really dramatic here, in other words. And to the extent there's any news at all, it's that Florida and Ohio continue to move toward one another in the polling, which has a lot of implications for resource allocation going forward.
EDIT: Here's the other type of spin to watch out for. Quinnipiac's Peter Brown implies that the movement in the polls reflects a negative reaction to Barack Obama's overseas trip:
"The $64,000 question is whether Sen. John McCain's surge is a result of Sen. Obama's much-publicized Middle Eastern and European trip, or just a coincidence that it occurred while Sen. Obama was abroad," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.This might be a perfectly valid point of view -- if Quinnipiac had conducted polling 10-14 days ago, immediately before Barack Obama embarked on his trip to Europe and the Middle East. But it didn't; the last time the Quinnipiac polls were in the field was six weeks ago. In the period intervening mid-June and Obama's Iraq trip, a number of different things happened: Obama took a lot of criticism for flip-flopping, the McCain campaign began to champion offshore drilling as a wedge issue ... the campaigns really picked up their advertising spending. Our model sees some decline in Obama's numbers over this period. But it also thinks that the decline has halted -- and has possibly begun to reverse itself -- since that time.
"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to fill their gas tanks," Brown added.
My Least Favorite Argument
@ 1:29 AM
Obviously, I have a lot of nits to pick when it comes to campaign coverage, but my single least favorite brand of analysis is what I term "Match Game Arguments": No candidate has ever [blank]. Given various intersections of geography, demography and history, there are literally thousands of plausible-sounding permutations that can be conceived to rule out any prospective candidate.
Let me pick on Steven Stark (whose stuff I usually enjoy), who engages in a few of these arguments today at the Boston Phoenix, and uses it to conclude that John McCain is a slight favorite over Barack Obama. Stark's four factoids are as follows:
Time elapsed: 14 minutes, 02 seconds.
Let me pick on Steven Stark (whose stuff I usually enjoy), who engages in a few of these arguments today at the Boston Phoenix, and uses it to conclude that John McCain is a slight favorite over Barack Obama. Stark's four factoids are as follows:
• No Democrat who hails from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected since 1960.Let's see how easy it is to come up with counterexamples that would rule out John McCain's candidacy. I'm going to start a stopwatch and see how long this takes me.
• No candidate in the modern primary era has ever been elected in November after failing to win more than one of the nation’s seven largest states in either its pre-convention primary or, if the state didn’t hold a primary, its caucuses.
• No candidate in modern times has ever been elected president with a voting record that could be identified as his party’s most liberal or conservative, yet in 2007 Obama was designated as the former (by the National Journal).
• No candidate arguably since Abraham Lincoln has been elected president with as little political experience as Obama.
• No Democrat who hails from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected since 1960.No President has ever been elected from the Mountain Time Zone.
• No candidate in the modern primary era has ever been elected in November after failing to win more than one of the nation's seven largest states in either its pre-convention primary or, if the state didn't hold a primary, its caucuses.No Republican has ever been elected after failing to carry Colorado in the primaries (McCain lost it to Mitt Romney). No Republican has ever been elected after failing to carry Georgia in the priamries (McCain lost it to Mike Huckabee). No candidate from either party has ever been elected while receiving less than 19 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucus (McCain received 13 percent), except when a native son was running (Tom Harkin in 1992).
• No candidate in modern times has ever been elected president with a voting record that could be identified as his party's most liberal or conservative, yet in 2007 Obama was designated as the former (by the National Journal).No candidate has ever been elected from the incumbent party when the sitting president had a Gallup approval rating below 40 percent.
• No candidate arguably since Abraham Lincoln has been elected president with as little political experience as Obama.No candidate as old as John McCain has ever been elected to a first term.
Time elapsed: 14 minutes, 02 seconds.
7.30.2008
Sebelius Shell Game?
@ 8:22 PM
From an e-mail a friend sent me late last night:
Ever since biographical videos of Kaine began appearing on websites like this one last week, there seems to have been a concerted effort to build up Kaine's brand name and introduce him to a national audience. But is this effort coming from the Kaine folks, or from the Obama folks?
One can understand why Kaine might want to take advantage of his opportunity in the national spotlight. He can't run for re-election in Virgnia, and the General Assembly seems disinclined to do him any favors, so he's unlikely to have anything he can hang his hat on to spruce up his approval ratings by the time he leaves office. This is the best opportunity he'll have, then, to build up his name recognition in preparation for life as a cabinet official, figurehead in the Democratic party, leader of some kind of foundation, television pundit, etc. -- whatever he plans to do with himself once leaving office.
But what's the angle for the Obama folks in attempting to float Kaine's name? Are they being just as obvious and transparent as they were with things like the John Edwards endorsement? Are they honestly unsure about how he'll fare on a national stage and trying to gain information? Or are they deliberately using him -- probably with Kaine's consent -- as some kind of decoy?
The latter seems a little Goldbergian, and the off-the-wall theory I'll present below will seem even more so, but let's give it a try. The theory is that floating Kaine's name in this way might have some utility if Obama intends to pick Kathleen Sebelius -- the notion being that, by using Kaine as her foil, it appears that Obama is making a considered choice rather than some kind of affirmative action hire. From among Obama's short list, Kaine and Sebelius might make for the easiest applies-to-apples comparison. Like Kaine, she got on the Obama bandwagon very early, she's a red-state governor, and she has the same sort of easygoing, folksy, every(wo)man manner. But where there are differences, they tend to work in Sebelius' favor. She has a longer and more accomplished record in elected office, she is considerably more popular in a tougher partisan environment, and she is somewhat more liberal on issues like abortion and the environment, which will please elements of the base.
In other words, the effort may be to define Kathleen Sebelius as "NOT Tim Kaine" -- to hedge against the alternative of her being defined by the media as "NOT Hillary Clinton". As anybody who has read Predictably Irrational can tell you, we human beings make judgments about things almost entirely on the basis of comparison. When compared to Kaine, Sebelius suddenly seems a lot more experienced, and almost the 'safer' choice in a way.
Well, I've almost managed to convince myself. The truth is that I just don't have any kind of gut feeling about this. The one semi-credible rumor I heard was pointed in Kaine's direction. But the whole point may be that people like me are supposed to be hearing rumors like that.
As for Sebelius, she spent her day with T. Boone Pickens, the man who helped underwrite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who is now engaged in a high-profile effort (with arguably dubious incentives) to champion wind power. Pickens called her a "fabulous governor". You can't pick any old Democrat off the shelf and expect to hear that sort of bipartisan praise.
From among Obama's four reported short-listers, Sebelius is undoubtedly the riskiest choice. Yes, a small part of that is because of how Hillary Clinton's voters might react to her. But the larger and more banal point is simply that running a black man and a woman on the same ticket says "NEW!! CHANGE!! DIFFERENT!!" in a way that will simply be impossible to put back into the bottle later on.
For just this reason, she may also have the largest upside. But it also means that her rollout would require the most careful handling. I probably guilty of trying to read a signal through the noise when there isn't one, but if Kaine is being used to prop her up, it would make a certain amount of sense.
Something about all the Kaine buzz just doesn’t feel right, unless Obama is planning on making the announcement tomorrow.Well, it's tomorrow, and in spite of Kaine having cancelled a scheduled appearance at a Baltimore fundraiser, there is no indication that Obama is about to announce that Kaine or anybody else will be his VP. On the contrary, the New York Times reports that "a decision is believed to be weeks away".
Ever since biographical videos of Kaine began appearing on websites like this one last week, there seems to have been a concerted effort to build up Kaine's brand name and introduce him to a national audience. But is this effort coming from the Kaine folks, or from the Obama folks?
One can understand why Kaine might want to take advantage of his opportunity in the national spotlight. He can't run for re-election in Virgnia, and the General Assembly seems disinclined to do him any favors, so he's unlikely to have anything he can hang his hat on to spruce up his approval ratings by the time he leaves office. This is the best opportunity he'll have, then, to build up his name recognition in preparation for life as a cabinet official, figurehead in the Democratic party, leader of some kind of foundation, television pundit, etc. -- whatever he plans to do with himself once leaving office.
But what's the angle for the Obama folks in attempting to float Kaine's name? Are they being just as obvious and transparent as they were with things like the John Edwards endorsement? Are they honestly unsure about how he'll fare on a national stage and trying to gain information? Or are they deliberately using him -- probably with Kaine's consent -- as some kind of decoy?
The latter seems a little Goldbergian, and the off-the-wall theory I'll present below will seem even more so, but let's give it a try. The theory is that floating Kaine's name in this way might have some utility if Obama intends to pick Kathleen Sebelius -- the notion being that, by using Kaine as her foil, it appears that Obama is making a considered choice rather than some kind of affirmative action hire. From among Obama's short list, Kaine and Sebelius might make for the easiest applies-to-apples comparison. Like Kaine, she got on the Obama bandwagon very early, she's a red-state governor, and she has the same sort of easygoing, folksy, every(wo)man manner. But where there are differences, they tend to work in Sebelius' favor. She has a longer and more accomplished record in elected office, she is considerably more popular in a tougher partisan environment, and she is somewhat more liberal on issues like abortion and the environment, which will please elements of the base.
In other words, the effort may be to define Kathleen Sebelius as "NOT Tim Kaine" -- to hedge against the alternative of her being defined by the media as "NOT Hillary Clinton". As anybody who has read Predictably Irrational can tell you, we human beings make judgments about things almost entirely on the basis of comparison. When compared to Kaine, Sebelius suddenly seems a lot more experienced, and almost the 'safer' choice in a way.
Well, I've almost managed to convince myself. The truth is that I just don't have any kind of gut feeling about this. The one semi-credible rumor I heard was pointed in Kaine's direction. But the whole point may be that people like me are supposed to be hearing rumors like that.
As for Sebelius, she spent her day with T. Boone Pickens, the man who helped underwrite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who is now engaged in a high-profile effort (with arguably dubious incentives) to champion wind power. Pickens called her a "fabulous governor". You can't pick any old Democrat off the shelf and expect to hear that sort of bipartisan praise.
From among Obama's four reported short-listers, Sebelius is undoubtedly the riskiest choice. Yes, a small part of that is because of how Hillary Clinton's voters might react to her. But the larger and more banal point is simply that running a black man and a woman on the same ticket says "NEW!! CHANGE!! DIFFERENT!!" in a way that will simply be impossible to put back into the bottle later on.
For just this reason, she may also have the largest upside. But it also means that her rollout would require the most careful handling. I probably guilty of trying to read a signal through the noise when there isn't one, but if Kaine is being used to prop her up, it would make a certain amount of sense.
Today's Polls, 7/30
@ 6:42 PM
It's another confusing day at the polls. McCain's position improved in three states today, but Obama gets good news in a couple of national numbers.
In Michigan, Public Policy Polling shows Barack Obama with a 3 point lead; he had led by 9 in PPP's only prior poll of the state in June. This mirrors the recent Quinnipiac result which had also shown Obama's lead contracting, although Rasmussen and EPIC-MRA had shown the race moving toward Obama. Thanks to investments by the RNC, the McCain team has been winning the air war in Michigan, and that may be having some effect. At the same time, however, while Obama's lead is not large, he does hold the lead, and this latest number may only increase the incentive for McCain to ask Mitt Romney to join him on the ticket.
McCain has also gained ground in a couple of red states. In Mississippi, McCain now holds a 12-point lead according to Rasmussen. This is up from 6 points last month. However, our regression model had not been convinced that Mississippi was really a single-digit race to begin with. In Nebraska, meanwhile, McCain leads by 19 -- up slightly from 16 points last month. As most readers of this blog probably know, Nebraska awards some of its electoral votes by congressional district, and Obama has sometimes been competitive in NE-2 in Omaha, and NE-1 in Lincoln and the eastern part of the state. Rasmussen does not break its results out by congressional district, but generally speaking, Obama is going to need to be within 8, 10, maybe 12 points statewide to have a shot at picking up an electoral vote or two. That is now looking somewhat out of reach for him.
A pair of national polls, however, offer a different perspective about the momentum in the race. CNN shows Obama ahead by 7 points -- that is up from 5 points last month and the largest lead Obama has held in a CNN poll since February. And the weekly Economist/YouGov poll also shows Obama up by 7, up from 3 points last week, and representing the largest lead he has held in this poll since February 12.
In Michigan, Public Policy Polling shows Barack Obama with a 3 point lead; he had led by 9 in PPP's only prior poll of the state in June. This mirrors the recent Quinnipiac result which had also shown Obama's lead contracting, although Rasmussen and EPIC-MRA had shown the race moving toward Obama. Thanks to investments by the RNC, the McCain team has been winning the air war in Michigan, and that may be having some effect. At the same time, however, while Obama's lead is not large, he does hold the lead, and this latest number may only increase the incentive for McCain to ask Mitt Romney to join him on the ticket.
McCain has also gained ground in a couple of red states. In Mississippi, McCain now holds a 12-point lead according to Rasmussen. This is up from 6 points last month. However, our regression model had not been convinced that Mississippi was really a single-digit race to begin with. In Nebraska, meanwhile, McCain leads by 19 -- up slightly from 16 points last month. As most readers of this blog probably know, Nebraska awards some of its electoral votes by congressional district, and Obama has sometimes been competitive in NE-2 in Omaha, and NE-1 in Lincoln and the eastern part of the state. Rasmussen does not break its results out by congressional district, but generally speaking, Obama is going to need to be within 8, 10, maybe 12 points statewide to have a shot at picking up an electoral vote or two. That is now looking somewhat out of reach for him.
A pair of national polls, however, offer a different perspective about the momentum in the race. CNN shows Obama ahead by 7 points -- that is up from 5 points last month and the largest lead Obama has held in a CNN poll since February. And the weekly Economist/YouGov poll also shows Obama up by 7, up from 3 points last week, and representing the largest lead he has held in this poll since February 12.
Obama on Offense in Florida
@ 10:09 AM
Here's something interesting: a tally of campaign ad spending over the past seven weeks, as tallied by TNS Media Intelligence and reported by the New York Times.
There's lots of interesting stuff to look at there, but what about those Florida numbers? The Obama campaign has bought more advertising time there than anywhere else, whereas McCain has spent absolutely nothing.
Two months ago, Florida looked like a strong McCain state -- not necessarily one that Obama couldn't win, but not the one that would put him over the top to 270 electoral votes. Obama trailed in every individual poll of Florida from the start of the campaign through the middle of June.
Since then, however -- and perhaps because of Obama's investment in the air war -- Florida has tightened, and has now snuck up to fifth place on our Tipping Point Index.
I'm still not sure that the Obama campaign has played its hand optimally. They seem to have a certain stubbornness in insisting they can compete in non-Virginia Southern states, in the same way that the McCain campaign insists in can compete in places like Minnesota.
But having closed the gap in Florida, I think the Obama campaign needs to keep the effort up, and see how the polls behave between now and Labor Day.
There's lots of interesting stuff to look at there, but what about those Florida numbers? The Obama campaign has bought more advertising time there than anywhere else, whereas McCain has spent absolutely nothing.
Two months ago, Florida looked like a strong McCain state -- not necessarily one that Obama couldn't win, but not the one that would put him over the top to 270 electoral votes. Obama trailed in every individual poll of Florida from the start of the campaign through the middle of June.
Since then, however -- and perhaps because of Obama's investment in the air war -- Florida has tightened, and has now snuck up to fifth place on our Tipping Point Index.
I'm still not sure that the Obama campaign has played its hand optimally. They seem to have a certain stubbornness in insisting they can compete in non-Virginia Southern states, in the same way that the McCain campaign insists in can compete in places like Minnesota.
But having closed the gap in Florida, I think the Obama campaign needs to keep the effort up, and see how the polls behave between now and Labor Day.
VP Contenders by the Numbers
@ 1:04 AM
As you've probably recognized, it is very difficult to do objective analysis of the Vice Presidential derby contenders. But let's try one little thing out.
Essentially all of the principal players in the Democratic Veepstakes -- and many of the Republicans -- are sitting Senators or Governors. While national approval ratings for these candidates are utterly useless at this stage of the cycle -- few voters have any opinion of them outside their home states -- local approval ratings might give us some hint about how these candidates are likely to wear over time.
So what I did was as follows. Firstly, I took the average of all approve/disapprove and favorable/unfavorable polls I could find on these candidates in 2008. Only the most recent survey from any given polling firm was used. Where no polls were available in 2008, I used the most recent one I could find.
Then, I compared this approval average to the partisan ID advantage (or disadvantage) of that candidate's party in 2004 exit polling. Subtracting the approval average from the partisan ID index gives us what I call the candidate's power rating. Essentially, this is the extent to which the candidate is able to defy gravity and run ahead of the political demographics of their state.
Firstly, let's look at the Democrats. We'll take all candidates on the media-reported short list -- excluding Sam Nunn, who has been out of office too long -- and throw in Bill Richardson and Brian Schweitzer. And no, we haven't seen those guys on anybody else's short lists, but we have heard rumors that Obama met with Schweitzer earlier this month.
Three of the Democrats have exceptionally impressive numbers: Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, and Brian Schweitzer. All of these candidates are not just surviving in red states, but thriving, with substantially positive approval scores. Sebelius' number is especially impressive as she has the most progressive governance record of the three, but in any event, these candidates have proven track records of appealing to voters across the aisle.
Jack Reed and Joe Biden are holding up just fine. Tim Kaine's and Chris Dodd's performances are a little more marginal. Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton aren't really doing any better than you'd expect from a Democrat in their states, but sometimes running for President can harm a candidate's local numbers in the near term.
Now, let's look at a selection of Republicans -- including Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who are no longer in office, but who retired recently enough that we can still track down their SurveyUSA results.
By this metric, Sarah Palin should be the runaway favorite -- the +70 approval ratings she managed in a couple of polls in May is almost literally unheard of. But her standing has tarnished a bit after her recent mini-scandal; she now polls at "only" a +36. Do I think that Palin would be a good choice for John McCain? I happen not to, because I think the age and experience gap would be exceptionally awkward. But she certainly is a very bright prospect.
The rest of the Republicans are pretty closely bunched together, with the exception of Mitt Romney -- who left office with a -20 approval rating -- and Joe Lieberman, who would be an awfully risky selection by McCain.
Essentially all of the principal players in the Democratic Veepstakes -- and many of the Republicans -- are sitting Senators or Governors. While national approval ratings for these candidates are utterly useless at this stage of the cycle -- few voters have any opinion of them outside their home states -- local approval ratings might give us some hint about how these candidates are likely to wear over time.
So what I did was as follows. Firstly, I took the average of all approve/disapprove and favorable/unfavorable polls I could find on these candidates in 2008. Only the most recent survey from any given polling firm was used. Where no polls were available in 2008, I used the most recent one I could find.
Then, I compared this approval average to the partisan ID advantage (or disadvantage) of that candidate's party in 2004 exit polling. Subtracting the approval average from the partisan ID index gives us what I call the candidate's power rating. Essentially, this is the extent to which the candidate is able to defy gravity and run ahead of the political demographics of their state.
Firstly, let's look at the Democrats. We'll take all candidates on the media-reported short list -- excluding Sam Nunn, who has been out of office too long -- and throw in Bill Richardson and Brian Schweitzer. And no, we haven't seen those guys on anybody else's short lists, but we have heard rumors that Obama met with Schweitzer earlier this month.
Three of the Democrats have exceptionally impressive numbers: Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, and Brian Schweitzer. All of these candidates are not just surviving in red states, but thriving, with substantially positive approval scores. Sebelius' number is especially impressive as she has the most progressive governance record of the three, but in any event, these candidates have proven track records of appealing to voters across the aisle.
Jack Reed and Joe Biden are holding up just fine. Tim Kaine's and Chris Dodd's performances are a little more marginal. Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton aren't really doing any better than you'd expect from a Democrat in their states, but sometimes running for President can harm a candidate's local numbers in the near term.
Now, let's look at a selection of Republicans -- including Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who are no longer in office, but who retired recently enough that we can still track down their SurveyUSA results.
By this metric, Sarah Palin should be the runaway favorite -- the +70 approval ratings she managed in a couple of polls in May is almost literally unheard of. But her standing has tarnished a bit after her recent mini-scandal; she now polls at "only" a +36. Do I think that Palin would be a good choice for John McCain? I happen not to, because I think the age and experience gap would be exceptionally awkward. But she certainly is a very bright prospect.
The rest of the Republicans are pretty closely bunched together, with the exception of Mitt Romney -- who left office with a -20 approval rating -- and Joe Lieberman, who would be an awfully risky selection by McCain.
7.29.2008
Today's Polls, 7/29
@ 3:59 PM
Most of the attention has been focused recently on national polls, but we do have a couple of state-level results to look at as well. The most noteworthy is Strategic Vision's new poll in Pennsylvania, which shows Barack Obama ahead by 9 points. Strategic Vision had polled Pennsylvania several times in March and April in conjunction with the Democratic primary, and had shown John McCain with leads ranging from 3 to 10 points. At the time, it was the only poll to show McCain with that magnitude of advantage, so some of this may be regression to the mean -- but nevertheless this is a result the Obama campaign will take. Pennsylvania has been demoted to the 6th most important state in our Tipping Point rating, behind Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia and Florida. There is a reasonable argument to be had that the McCain campaign should forsake the state, and concentrate its efforts in Michigan and Ohio.
Strategic Vision also polled Washington; that poll showed Obama ahead by 11, consistent with other polling in the Evergreen State.
And Public Policy Polling has their monthly number out in North Carolina: John McCain is ahead by 3 points. North Carolina polling has been bounded within a very narrow range; in fact, all three of the most current polls of the state (PPP, Rasmussen, Civitas) show the same exact 3-point margin for John McCain.
And what of those national polls? There is, obviously, a lot of noise in the data. Simultaneously, over the weekend, polls were conducted showing anything from a 12-point lead for Obama to a 4-point lead for McCain (certain caveats may apply to the latter of these results). The Rasmussen and Gallup national trackers also render a split verdict: Obama's lead in the Rasmussen poll is back down to just one point, while he maintains a relatively strong 6-point advantage in Gallup.
Overall, however, our model thinks the polling situation looks a fair bit better for Obama than it did 7-10 days ago. It is not clear whether or not Obama is on any sort of upswing, but he at least seems to have halted the momentum that McCain had coming out of the July 4 holiday. Whatever the merits of Obama's overseas trip, it may have taken oxygen from the "Obama is a flip-flopper" narrative that had dominated the discussion in late June and early July, and that alone may be worth a point or so in his polling.
EDIT: It's also important to mention: Our trendline adjustment is designed to be sensitive -- but not that sensitive. Do Obama's polls on Monday look worse than his polls on Friday or Saturday? If you look at the national trackers, they do. But the model was never giving credit to Obama for the entirety of that bounce in the first place. And Obama's polling today generally looks better than it looked one week or two weeks ago, which is more along the lines of the time horizons that the model is thinking about.
Strategic Vision also polled Washington; that poll showed Obama ahead by 11, consistent with other polling in the Evergreen State.
And Public Policy Polling has their monthly number out in North Carolina: John McCain is ahead by 3 points. North Carolina polling has been bounded within a very narrow range; in fact, all three of the most current polls of the state (PPP, Rasmussen, Civitas) show the same exact 3-point margin for John McCain.
And what of those national polls? There is, obviously, a lot of noise in the data. Simultaneously, over the weekend, polls were conducted showing anything from a 12-point lead for Obama to a 4-point lead for McCain (certain caveats may apply to the latter of these results). The Rasmussen and Gallup national trackers also render a split verdict: Obama's lead in the Rasmussen poll is back down to just one point, while he maintains a relatively strong 6-point advantage in Gallup.
Overall, however, our model thinks the polling situation looks a fair bit better for Obama than it did 7-10 days ago. It is not clear whether or not Obama is on any sort of upswing, but he at least seems to have halted the momentum that McCain had coming out of the July 4 holiday. Whatever the merits of Obama's overseas trip, it may have taken oxygen from the "Obama is a flip-flopper" narrative that had dominated the discussion in late June and early July, and that alone may be worth a point or so in his polling.
EDIT: It's also important to mention: Our trendline adjustment is designed to be sensitive -- but not that sensitive. Do Obama's polls on Monday look worse than his polls on Friday or Saturday? If you look at the national trackers, they do. But the model was never giving credit to Obama for the entirety of that bounce in the first place. And Obama's polling today generally looks better than it looked one week or two weeks ago, which is more along the lines of the time horizons that the model is thinking about.
AK-Sen: Ted Stevens Indicted
@ 1:58 PM
Senior Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was indicted today on charges of making false statements to a federal grand jury.
Does the indictment "virtually guarantee" a Democratic pickup in Alaska, as Talking Points Memo suggest?
No, but it's fairly close. Alaska had already been changed from toss-up to "leans Begich", and one cannot imagine that the indictment will help Stevens' numbers in the polls. More likely, however, Stevens will either step aside or be defeated in the Republican Primary.
Against Vic Vickers, a wealthy jack-of-all-trades entrepreneur who has never held elected office but is prepared to do a significant amount of self-financing, our regression model suggests that Mark Begich would be favored by somewhere between 10-15 points, depending on how much money Vickers is willing to put into the race.
EDIT: This assumes that a more credible Republican wouldn't enter the race. Governor Sarah Palin is a rising star and still might win it, but she is mired in a scandal of her own and, as the mother of five children including a six-month-old with Down syndrome, might prefer to stay in Juneau rather than move her family to Washington. Republican Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is already in the midst of a primary challenge -- attempting to unseat incumbent Dan Young in Alaska's at-large House seat.
EDIT (2): As a commenter notes, Alaska's filing deadline has passed, so the only way that someone like Parnell or Palin gets involved is if the candidate who wins the primary then decides to drop out of the race.
Does the indictment "virtually guarantee" a Democratic pickup in Alaska, as Talking Points Memo suggest?
No, but it's fairly close. Alaska had already been changed from toss-up to "leans Begich", and one cannot imagine that the indictment will help Stevens' numbers in the polls. More likely, however, Stevens will either step aside or be defeated in the Republican Primary.
Against Vic Vickers, a wealthy jack-of-all-trades entrepreneur who has never held elected office but is prepared to do a significant amount of self-financing, our regression model suggests that Mark Begich would be favored by somewhere between 10-15 points, depending on how much money Vickers is willing to put into the race.
EDIT: This assumes that a more credible Republican wouldn't enter the race. Governor Sarah Palin is a rising star and still might win it, but she is mired in a scandal of her own and, as the mother of five children including a six-month-old with Down syndrome, might prefer to stay in Juneau rather than move her family to Washington. Republican Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is already in the midst of a primary challenge -- attempting to unseat incumbent Dan Young in Alaska's at-large House seat.
EDIT (2): As a commenter notes, Alaska's filing deadline has passed, so the only way that someone like Parnell or Palin gets involved is if the candidate who wins the primary then decides to drop out of the race.
Tom and Huckabee
@ 3:26 AM
With the Tim Kaine buzz having reached a fever pitch today, it might be worth sharing a couple of additional thoughts on the Virgina Governor. Chris Cillizza's arguments for and against Kaine are a must-read, and lay out most of the checkmark arguments on his candidacy. Works well with Obama? Check. Speaks fluent Spanish? Check. But inexperienced on the national stage? Also a check. Not a particularly distinguished track record as governor? Check.
I think, however, that both Kaine's greatest asset and his greatest liability may have been missed. The liability, as I have argued before, is that he may not be of much help to Obama in Virginia. After Virginia's General Assembly session ended badly earlier this summer, Kaine's favorability numbers took a hit, and are now no better than 50:50. Alternatively, one can read the comments from some of the Virginians in our earlier thread, most of whom are quite skeptical of Kaine. Kaine does not have any one signature, standout accomplishment as governor, and the standoff in the General Assembly cost him a lot of credibility. The home state VP bounce is small enough to begin with that for a candidate who has trouble hitting 50 percent favorability in his home state, it may be non-existent. And in terms of wooing McCain voters over to the Democratic side, he may be particularly unhelpful, as just 23 percent of McCain voters in Rasmussen's July survey had a favorable opinion of him.
On the other hand, the Obama campaign is smart enough to know that a VP's ability to carry his home state is a relatively minor factor in the grand scheme of things. The more important question is what sort of brand space he would come to occupy once introduced to the nation at large (to whom Kaine is a literal unknown). On that front, the news is a little better for Kaine and Obama.
I spent about 20 minutes watching different videos of Tim Kaine and here was the impression I was left with: Kaine comes across as very warm. Empathetic. Normal guy. Not polician-y. Can be fiery at times, and sometimes a little flatter, but neither a technocrat nor a screaming populist.
He's not a rock star. He's an average-looking guy, which is to say, for a politician, he has below-average looks. An Obama-Kaine ticket would NOT be this:
Instead, it would be more like this:
That's Huckabee -- not Huck Finn. Kaine does not have Huckabee's corny sense of humor, but he does have much of his sense of humility. He will eventually poll well with older voters, and probably with women.
The trade-off is that Kaine, especially when coupled with his relatively undistinguished record in public office, will not come across as especially presidential. Voters looking for an experienced hand to guide Barack Obama will not really be getting it.
But, I would argue, the experience issue is not really one of the greater threats to Barack Obama at the moment -- in fact, the McCain campaign has completely deemphasized it. A greater problem is that Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing. As Jay Cost ably argues, this has the potential to detract significantly from Obama's core narrative. Kaine would bring humility and good humor to the ticket, and would go some way toward hedging that risk. He would not be a VP designed to win over converts, so much as to shore up some of Obama's weak and wavering support.
I think, however, that both Kaine's greatest asset and his greatest liability may have been missed. The liability, as I have argued before, is that he may not be of much help to Obama in Virginia. After Virginia's General Assembly session ended badly earlier this summer, Kaine's favorability numbers took a hit, and are now no better than 50:50. Alternatively, one can read the comments from some of the Virginians in our earlier thread, most of whom are quite skeptical of Kaine. Kaine does not have any one signature, standout accomplishment as governor, and the standoff in the General Assembly cost him a lot of credibility. The home state VP bounce is small enough to begin with that for a candidate who has trouble hitting 50 percent favorability in his home state, it may be non-existent. And in terms of wooing McCain voters over to the Democratic side, he may be particularly unhelpful, as just 23 percent of McCain voters in Rasmussen's July survey had a favorable opinion of him.
On the other hand, the Obama campaign is smart enough to know that a VP's ability to carry his home state is a relatively minor factor in the grand scheme of things. The more important question is what sort of brand space he would come to occupy once introduced to the nation at large (to whom Kaine is a literal unknown). On that front, the news is a little better for Kaine and Obama.
I spent about 20 minutes watching different videos of Tim Kaine and here was the impression I was left with: Kaine comes across as very warm. Empathetic. Normal guy. Not polician-y. Can be fiery at times, and sometimes a little flatter, but neither a technocrat nor a screaming populist.
He's not a rock star. He's an average-looking guy, which is to say, for a politician, he has below-average looks. An Obama-Kaine ticket would NOT be this:
Instead, it would be more like this:
That's Huckabee -- not Huck Finn. Kaine does not have Huckabee's corny sense of humor, but he does have much of his sense of humility. He will eventually poll well with older voters, and probably with women.
The trade-off is that Kaine, especially when coupled with his relatively undistinguished record in public office, will not come across as especially presidential. Voters looking for an experienced hand to guide Barack Obama will not really be getting it.
But, I would argue, the experience issue is not really one of the greater threats to Barack Obama at the moment -- in fact, the McCain campaign has completely deemphasized it. A greater problem is that Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing. As Jay Cost ably argues, this has the potential to detract significantly from Obama's core narrative. Kaine would bring humility and good humor to the ticket, and would go some way toward hedging that risk. He would not be a VP designed to win over converts, so much as to shore up some of Obama's weak and wavering support.
7.28.2008
Comments Now Require Registration
@ 9:50 PM
Registration is easy. If you have a google or OpenID account of any kind, you're already registered. Otherwise, you can sign up for a Google account here.
Our comment policy is four words long: Don't. Be. An. Asshole.
Our comment policy is four words long: Don't. Be. An. Asshole.
About that McCain +4
@ 7:45 PM
Kudos to Gallup for disclosing the process and perils of its likely voter model, but as Alan Abramowitz has noted at Pollster.com, something about the new USA Today/Gallup poll showing John McCain 4 points ahead among likely voters -- but 3 points behind among registered voters -- doesn't quite sit right:
Also, this is a good time to mention Robert Erikson's critique of the extra volatility introduced by Gallup's likely voter model in past election cycles.
How do you get from a 47-44 Obama lead among RVs to a 49-45 McCain lead among LVs?Whatever one thinks about likely voter models in general, the mathematics of this particular implementation defy credulity. Although, we should probably wait for USA Today to release its crosstabs so we can make sure there wasn't a typographical error of some kind in the write-up.
A few quick calculations shows how. You have 900 RVs and 791 LVs, so that means that among your 109 UVs (that's unlikely voters according to Gallup) Obama leads McCain by a whopping 61% to 7%.
Putting it another way, according to Gallup 16% of registered Obama supporters are unlikely to vote compared with only 2% of registered McCain supporters.
Also, this is a good time to mention Robert Erikson's critique of the extra volatility introduced by Gallup's likely voter model in past election cycles.
A Short List of Short Lists [UPDATED]
@ 7:00 PM
It is unclear whether Barack Obama's Vice Presidential search team is actually consolidating its list of choices or not. But the conventional wisdom is certainly consolidating. It being a slow news day -- and an equally slow polling day -- let's combine the names mentioned in four recent "short list" articles to see just what that CW says. The articles are as follows:
1. A Politico article which touts Tim Kaine's prospects and mentions three other candidates, published just moments ago.
2. A Wall Street Journal column from Saturday.
3.A New York Times piece published last week. Adam Nagourney's new piece at the New York Times.
4. And finally, Chris Cillizza's most recent Veepstakes entry.
For good measure, we'll also throw in the most recent odds from Intrade.
So, the media CW pretty clearly seems to be centered around four choices -- Kaine, Bayh, Biden and Sebelius -- probably in that order. The betting markets, which really don't have any other information to traffic on but the media speculation, have largely followed suit.
My sense is that Obama is somewhat more likely than is implied in these articles to throw everyone a curveball. These lists are not truly independent from one another, as everyone is talking to the same sources. But that may just be my wishful thinking as a partisan, as this blog officially still has a crush on Brian Schweitzer.
UPDATE: Added two more sources: a fresh article from the Washington Post -- which unhelpfully lists all nine candidates that we had listed originally -- and this bit of tea-leaf reading from MSNBC.
1. A Politico article which touts Tim Kaine's prospects and mentions three other candidates, published just moments ago.
2. A Wall Street Journal column from Saturday.
3.
4. And finally, Chris Cillizza's most recent Veepstakes entry.
For good measure, we'll also throw in the most recent odds from Intrade.
So, the media CW pretty clearly seems to be centered around four choices -- Kaine, Bayh, Biden and Sebelius -- probably in that order. The betting markets, which really don't have any other information to traffic on but the media speculation, have largely followed suit.
My sense is that Obama is somewhat more likely than is implied in these articles to throw everyone a curveball. These lists are not truly independent from one another, as everyone is talking to the same sources. But that may just be my wishful thinking as a partisan, as this blog officially still has a crush on Brian Schweitzer.
UPDATE: Added two more sources: a fresh article from the Washington Post -- which unhelpfully lists all nine candidates that we had listed originally -- and this bit of tea-leaf reading from MSNBC.
Senate Polling Weekly Update, 7/28
@ 5:47 PM
As a rule, races for the Senate break late -- and so we should not expect too much organic movement between now and Labor Day. Indeed, our overall projection remains unchanged from last week. We still project the Democrats to control 55.3 seats after the November elections, not counting Sens. Sanders and Lieberman. However, there has been a bit of movement in individual races.
Colorado has moved from Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat on the basis of somewhat stronger polling for Bob Schaffer. Both Quinnipiac and Rasmussen show the race tightening -- Quinnipiac, in fact, had the race tightening all the way to a dead heat, although it appears that their sample might have undercounted Democrats. Our regression model had expected some tightening in this race. At the end of the day, however, Mark Udall is probably closer to the median of the Colorado electorate than is Bob Schaffer -- Mark Udall is far more of a moderate than his cousin Tom in New Mexico -- and remains the more compelling candidate.
We now characterize Alaska as 'Lean Democrat' rather than 'Toss-Up'/'Tilt Democrat', as new Rasmussen polling shows Mark Begich with an 8-point lead -- his largest-ever advantage in a public poll. Ted Stevens is probably the least popular incumbent up for reelection this year -- although John Sununu in New Hampshire makes it close -- and we will begin to place pressure on Begich through his cash-on-hand advantage, while Begich tries to run out the clock. But it does appear that Begich has the edge for now.
There is also some interesting polling in New Hampshire, but it is contradictory. Rasmussen and UNH show the race tightening toward John Sununu*, while ARG has Jeanne Shaheen expanding her lead. Likewise, in Minnesota, Rasmussen has now released two polls in a row that gave a slight edge to Al Franken, while Quinnipiac shows Norm Coleman ahead by a fairly comfortable margin.
Also keep an eye on Georgia, which holds its Democratic primary run-off next week between Vernon Jones and Jim Martin. We list Jones as our default candidate because he got the largest share of votes in the initial primary, but Martin probably ought to rate as the favorite in the run-off, as he is likely to consolidate support from among white voters who had initially voted for a candidate like Dale Cardwell**. Electorally speaking, it would be a good thing for Democrats if Martin won the seat. Jones would not make the race competitive, Martin has polled close enough that he may be able to put some pressure on Saxby Chambliss and hope for a mistake, or to benefit from Obama turnout coattails.
___
* While we give UNH a pretty good rating, Laura Clawson at Blue Hampshire says there's good reason to be skeptical.
** Frankly, this precise scenario is why a lot of Southern states tend to use the run-off system.
Romney's Effect On the Map
@ 3:09 AM
If Bob Novak is circulating internal polls showing Mitt Romney helping John McCain in Michigan, you can be pretty sure that the Republican establishment is behind the idea of making Romney McCain's VP. It's easy enough to understand why. Romney has been a good team player: an excellent fundraiser and a tireless campaigner. He is unlikely to embarrass either himself or the ticket. And he could potentially be an asset in several states, among them Michigan, New Hampshire and Nevada.
But Romney also comes with several liabilities which, when combined with his strengths, would tend to produce a very interesting electoral map.
One of the more reliable indicators we have identified for electoral strength is a candidate's fundraising numbers. Mitt Romney raised quite a bit of money -- about $60 million from individual contributors, of which $48 million came in large enough chunks to require disclosure to the FEC. Thus, we can look at Romney's fundraising totals in each state.
As a basis for comparison, we will use George W. Bush's fundraising haul in 2004, which included about $190 million in individual contributions that were large enough to be tallied by the FEC. Overall, Romney raised about 25 percent as much as Bush (again, counting only those contributions that the FEC itemized). But the ratio varied significantly from state to state. Romney raised just 2 percent as much as Bush in Arkansas, but 972 percent as much in Utah. A complete accounting of the Romney v. Bush numbers is below; states where we presently project the McCain-Obama matchup to finish within 6 percentage points are highlighted in yellow.
Let's look at this as a map as well. States where Romney underperformed his weighted average of 25 percent of Bush's fundraising total are tinted red; states where he overperformed the total are tinted green.
From these figures, we can make some pretty good inferences about where Romney's strengths might lie:
-- The Mormon Belt. Romney, unsurprisingly, does exceptionally well in states with with large concentrations of Mormons. Unfortunately for him, some of these states -- like Utah and Idaho -- are utterly irrelevant electorally. But he might also be of some assistance in Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Oregon, though the latter may not be close enough for it to matter. He is not of much help in New Mexico, which has distinctly different demographics from the rest of the region and where Romney's lack of popularity among Hispanic voters might be a liability.
-- Michigan. Romney's fundraising numbers in Michigan were strong, and he would probably be an asset there. Although, his impact seems to stop at the Michigan border; Romney did not do especially well in any of the states surrounding the Wolverine State.
-- New England. Romney's fundraising was also relatively strong in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Of these, probably only New Hampshire is competitive, but those are four fairly important electoral votes. I am not sure, by the way, how much of this really has to do with Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where his approval ratings had been marginal. Instead, there are a fair number of fiscal conservatives in New England, among whom Romney's business background might have some appeal.
In contrast, Romney might be a liability in some other regions:
-- The South. Romney's fundraising numbers were quite bad in the South, where he generally matched no more than 10 percent of George W. Bush's fundraising total. He would probably be a modest liability in Virginia, and might put states like North Carolina, West Virginia, and possibly Georgia and even Arkansas further into play. The problem, simply put, is that Romney's Mormonism is anything but an asset to Evangelical Protestants. In 14 states that SurveyUSA polled in January and February, before Romney dropped out of the race, John McCain beat Barack Obama by an average of 33 points among evangelical voters. Romney, by contrast, led Obama by just 18 points. Although it is unclear just how many of these evangelicals would defect to Obama in the end, the Republicans would have significant concerns over those voters not turning out, or voting for Bob Barr.
- The Upper Midwest, Sans Michigan. Romney's fundraising totals were very marginal in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Indiana -- though Iowa, where Romney spent the better part of a year campaigning, was a modest exception. These states tend to place a heavy value on authenticity, and Romney's polish is a poor match for the Midwestern aesthetic. Wisconsin and Minnesota, already difficult states for McCain, might be placed further out of reach if Romney were on the ticket, and Indiana and North Dakota might present more substantial opportunities for Barack Obama.
- New Mexico and other Hispanic-heavy states. Romney performed quite poorly among Latino voters in the Republican primaries. He won just 23 percent of their votes in Arizona (versus 35 percent of the white vote), 14 percent in Florida (versus 34 percent of whites) and 27 percent in California (versus 38 percent of whites). Although Romney's tough stance on illegal immigration is part of the reason he might be helpful to McCain in states Colorado, he might do more harm than good in states where the Hispanic population is a little larger, such as New Mexico and possibly Florida.
*-*
Overall, placing Mitt Romney on the ticket would tend to produce a very broad map. Several "Lean Democratic" states -- Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire -- would tend to be pushed closer toward toss-up status. But likewise, there are areas where Romney might be harmful, and some "Lean Republican" states -- North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota -- could also become toss-ups. We might also have to give more consideration to scenarios in which Barack Obama loses both Michigan and Ohio (although, there is no reason to think Romney will be especially helpful in Ohio) but comes up with a winning electoral combination, most likely through gains in the South. For example, Obama could lose both Michigan and Ohio (and still reach 270 electoral votes) if he won both Virginia and Florida. He could also lose both Michigan and Ohio if he won Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa.
Obama could also try and counterprogram Romney by means of his own Vice Presidential selection. However, it is not clear whether such a strategy would involve playing offense or defense. Obama could conceivably pick a Westerner like Brian Schweitzer in an effort to offset Romney's gains in the West; this would be a defensive strategy. Or, he could pick a Southerner to try and exploit his opportunity in that region; this would be the more aggressive maneuver. There might be some utility in his avoiding a Catholic candidate in an effort to expand his reach to evangelicals, however, a disproportionate number of the Democratic VP contenders are Catholic (including Biden, Kaine, Sebelius, Clark, Schweitzer and Reed). There might also be some utility in picking a candidate who performs strongly among working class voters, as Romney's background and personality make him more appealing to the country club set. Hillary Clinton, frankly, would be a pretty interesting choice on paper (John Edwards would be even better if his alleged scandal does not prove to be a problem) as might a darkhorse choice like Sherrod Brown. Evan Bayh, who has a +29 approval rating among evangelicals in Indiana, might also be a fairly good fit.
As for the McCain team, they have ample reason to select Romney, but they need to understand that his strengths don't necessarily match the conventional wisdom. Romney's base tends neither to be evangelicals nor Reagan Democrats, but instead, middle- and upper-class fiscal conservatives who value lower taxes and stricter immigration policies and who are probably relatively satisfied with the status quo. This describes a significant number of independent voters in states like Colorado. However, if the Republicans throw Romney out there and try to turn him into a populist, they'll be in for a long campaign.
But Romney also comes with several liabilities which, when combined with his strengths, would tend to produce a very interesting electoral map.
One of the more reliable indicators we have identified for electoral strength is a candidate's fundraising numbers. Mitt Romney raised quite a bit of money -- about $60 million from individual contributors, of which $48 million came in large enough chunks to require disclosure to the FEC. Thus, we can look at Romney's fundraising totals in each state.
As a basis for comparison, we will use George W. Bush's fundraising haul in 2004, which included about $190 million in individual contributions that were large enough to be tallied by the FEC. Overall, Romney raised about 25 percent as much as Bush (again, counting only those contributions that the FEC itemized). But the ratio varied significantly from state to state. Romney raised just 2 percent as much as Bush in Arkansas, but 972 percent as much in Utah. A complete accounting of the Romney v. Bush numbers is below; states where we presently project the McCain-Obama matchup to finish within 6 percentage points are highlighted in yellow.
Let's look at this as a map as well. States where Romney underperformed his weighted average of 25 percent of Bush's fundraising total are tinted red; states where he overperformed the total are tinted green.
From these figures, we can make some pretty good inferences about where Romney's strengths might lie:
-- The Mormon Belt. Romney, unsurprisingly, does exceptionally well in states with with large concentrations of Mormons. Unfortunately for him, some of these states -- like Utah and Idaho -- are utterly irrelevant electorally. But he might also be of some assistance in Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Oregon, though the latter may not be close enough for it to matter. He is not of much help in New Mexico, which has distinctly different demographics from the rest of the region and where Romney's lack of popularity among Hispanic voters might be a liability.
-- Michigan. Romney's fundraising numbers in Michigan were strong, and he would probably be an asset there. Although, his impact seems to stop at the Michigan border; Romney did not do especially well in any of the states surrounding the Wolverine State.
-- New England. Romney's fundraising was also relatively strong in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Of these, probably only New Hampshire is competitive, but those are four fairly important electoral votes. I am not sure, by the way, how much of this really has to do with Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where his approval ratings had been marginal. Instead, there are a fair number of fiscal conservatives in New England, among whom Romney's business background might have some appeal.
In contrast, Romney might be a liability in some other regions:
-- The South. Romney's fundraising numbers were quite bad in the South, where he generally matched no more than 10 percent of George W. Bush's fundraising total. He would probably be a modest liability in Virginia, and might put states like North Carolina, West Virginia, and possibly Georgia and even Arkansas further into play. The problem, simply put, is that Romney's Mormonism is anything but an asset to Evangelical Protestants. In 14 states that SurveyUSA polled in January and February, before Romney dropped out of the race, John McCain beat Barack Obama by an average of 33 points among evangelical voters. Romney, by contrast, led Obama by just 18 points. Although it is unclear just how many of these evangelicals would defect to Obama in the end, the Republicans would have significant concerns over those voters not turning out, or voting for Bob Barr.
- The Upper Midwest, Sans Michigan. Romney's fundraising totals were very marginal in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Indiana -- though Iowa, where Romney spent the better part of a year campaigning, was a modest exception. These states tend to place a heavy value on authenticity, and Romney's polish is a poor match for the Midwestern aesthetic. Wisconsin and Minnesota, already difficult states for McCain, might be placed further out of reach if Romney were on the ticket, and Indiana and North Dakota might present more substantial opportunities for Barack Obama.
- New Mexico and other Hispanic-heavy states. Romney performed quite poorly among Latino voters in the Republican primaries. He won just 23 percent of their votes in Arizona (versus 35 percent of the white vote), 14 percent in Florida (versus 34 percent of whites) and 27 percent in California (versus 38 percent of whites). Although Romney's tough stance on illegal immigration is part of the reason he might be helpful to McCain in states Colorado, he might do more harm than good in states where the Hispanic population is a little larger, such as New Mexico and possibly Florida.
*-*
Overall, placing Mitt Romney on the ticket would tend to produce a very broad map. Several "Lean Democratic" states -- Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire -- would tend to be pushed closer toward toss-up status. But likewise, there are areas where Romney might be harmful, and some "Lean Republican" states -- North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota -- could also become toss-ups. We might also have to give more consideration to scenarios in which Barack Obama loses both Michigan and Ohio (although, there is no reason to think Romney will be especially helpful in Ohio) but comes up with a winning electoral combination, most likely through gains in the South. For example, Obama could lose both Michigan and Ohio (and still reach 270 electoral votes) if he won both Virginia and Florida. He could also lose both Michigan and Ohio if he won Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa.
Obama could also try and counterprogram Romney by means of his own Vice Presidential selection. However, it is not clear whether such a strategy would involve playing offense or defense. Obama could conceivably pick a Westerner like Brian Schweitzer in an effort to offset Romney's gains in the West; this would be a defensive strategy. Or, he could pick a Southerner to try and exploit his opportunity in that region; this would be the more aggressive maneuver. There might be some utility in his avoiding a Catholic candidate in an effort to expand his reach to evangelicals, however, a disproportionate number of the Democratic VP contenders are Catholic (including Biden, Kaine, Sebelius, Clark, Schweitzer and Reed). There might also be some utility in picking a candidate who performs strongly among working class voters, as Romney's background and personality make him more appealing to the country club set. Hillary Clinton, frankly, would be a pretty interesting choice on paper (John Edwards would be even better if his alleged scandal does not prove to be a problem) as might a darkhorse choice like Sherrod Brown. Evan Bayh, who has a +29 approval rating among evangelicals in Indiana, might also be a fairly good fit.
As for the McCain team, they have ample reason to select Romney, but they need to understand that his strengths don't necessarily match the conventional wisdom. Romney's base tends neither to be evangelicals nor Reagan Democrats, but instead, middle- and upper-class fiscal conservatives who value lower taxes and stricter immigration policies and who are probably relatively satisfied with the status quo. This describes a significant number of independent voters in states like Colorado. However, if the Republicans throw Romney out there and try to turn him into a populist, they'll be in for a long campaign.
7.27.2008
Today's Polls and Miscellaneous Thoughts, 7/27
@ 5:31 PM
There is no new state polling today, but I have rolled forward the numbers based on the continual good performance for Barack Obama in the national trackers and the latest several editions of the Economist/YouGov poll, which is conducted on a weekly basis but updated on the Economist's website only occasionally. The downtrend in Obama's numbers since the July 4 holiday has now completely flattened out, though we will need a lot more information to determine whether it has reversed itself. I also fixed a small bug in the model that was causing the state-by-state implementation of the trendline adjustment to behave oddly.
A few miscellaneous items:
- Perhaps the most comprehensive study I have seen on the Bradley/Wilder effect so far in this cycle was conducted by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins and is available for your perusal here (PDF). Hopkins' conclusion: the Bradley Effect may have been real in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but does not not appear to exist any more, and in fact there is some (weak) evidence of a reverse Bradley effect. This finding is broadly consistent with the (far less rigorous) studies I have done on the issue.
- I will be on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC Radio tomorrow morning at approximately 10 AM Eastern.
- Karl Rove is an occasional reader.
- Speaking of conservatives, I saw Reihan Salam on David Gregory's show the other day. He is perhaps the right's best answer to Rachel Maddow -- someone who has a strong point of view without being predictable about it -- and is deserving of more airtime.
A few miscellaneous items:
- Perhaps the most comprehensive study I have seen on the Bradley/Wilder effect so far in this cycle was conducted by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins and is available for your perusal here (PDF). Hopkins' conclusion: the Bradley Effect may have been real in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but does not not appear to exist any more, and in fact there is some (weak) evidence of a reverse Bradley effect. This finding is broadly consistent with the (far less rigorous) studies I have done on the issue.
- I will be on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC Radio tomorrow morning at approximately 10 AM Eastern.
- Karl Rove is an occasional reader.
- Speaking of conservatives, I saw Reihan Salam on David Gregory's show the other day. He is perhaps the right's best answer to Rachel Maddow -- someone who has a strong point of view without being predictable about it -- and is deserving of more airtime.
The Subliminal Power of Obama's Berlin Speech
@ 3:38 PM
Frank Rich is on to something with his notion of Barack Obama as "Acting President". But there is something even more powerful at work here. Namely, when Obama does the things that a President might do -- going abroad and meeting with foreign leaders and military commanders, or delivering a speech to an international audience -- it no longer becomes difficult to contemplate the idea of him as President. We might not know exactly what would happen if Obama were elected. But we have some idea what an Obama Presidency would look and feel like. We might not agree with everything that Obama has to say. But we can imagine him standing in front of the country -- as President -- and saying it. The fear of Obama's 'otherness' is reduced. One may be skeptical of an Obama presidency, but he probably isn't scared of it.
Indeed, the longer that the Presidential campaign drags on -- and it has dragged on for a very long time now -- the less resonance there is to the critique of Obama as being too inexperienced to occupy the White House. There is a core truth to this criticism that remains as valid as it ever has -- Obama has spent relatively few years in elected office. But 'inexperience' has also been employed by Obama's opponents as a less literal, politically correct stand-in for other sorts of arguments: Obama is young, black, has a foreign-sounding name -- he's unfamiliar. Obama may still be inexperienced, but familiarity is no longer a problem.
This phenomenon has actually been noticable for some time. I performed a search of the archives for four major newspapers: the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and USA Today. In January, Obama's name was mentioned a combined 1,065 times between those four sources. In 271 of those 1,065 articles (25.4%), the word "experience" or "inexperienced" appeared in conjunction with Obama's name. This month, by contrast, Obama's name has appeared 1,431 times. But the terms "experience" and "inexperienced" have been associated with his name only about half as often -- in 180 of 1,431 instances, or 12.6 percent.
Part of this certainly is that John McCain has not been nearly so aggressive about pushing the experience argument as Hillary Clinton was. Whether this is to his campaign's credit or not, I don't know. On the one hand, the experience theme largely fell flat for Clinton, with the possible exception of the '3 AM' ad that aired around the time of the Texas and Ohio primaries. On the other hand, McCain is on much firmer ground to actually argue that he has an advantage in experience. But if McCain was going to win the election on the experience argument, he probably ought to have begun emphasizing it before Obama's trip abroad.
Indeed, the longer that the Presidential campaign drags on -- and it has dragged on for a very long time now -- the less resonance there is to the critique of Obama as being too inexperienced to occupy the White House. There is a core truth to this criticism that remains as valid as it ever has -- Obama has spent relatively few years in elected office. But 'inexperience' has also been employed by Obama's opponents as a less literal, politically correct stand-in for other sorts of arguments: Obama is young, black, has a foreign-sounding name -- he's unfamiliar. Obama may still be inexperienced, but familiarity is no longer a problem.
This phenomenon has actually been noticable for some time. I performed a search of the archives for four major newspapers: the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and USA Today. In January, Obama's name was mentioned a combined 1,065 times between those four sources. In 271 of those 1,065 articles (25.4%), the word "experience" or "inexperienced" appeared in conjunction with Obama's name. This month, by contrast, Obama's name has appeared 1,431 times. But the terms "experience" and "inexperienced" have been associated with his name only about half as often -- in 180 of 1,431 instances, or 12.6 percent.
Part of this certainly is that John McCain has not been nearly so aggressive about pushing the experience argument as Hillary Clinton was. Whether this is to his campaign's credit or not, I don't know. On the one hand, the experience theme largely fell flat for Clinton, with the possible exception of the '3 AM' ad that aired around the time of the Texas and Ohio primaries. On the other hand, McCain is on much firmer ground to actually argue that he has an advantage in experience. But if McCain was going to win the election on the experience argument, he probably ought to have begun emphasizing it before Obama's trip abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
230 comments
Post a Comment