Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Impact of Edwards and Guiliani Dropping out
Time to rev up the boat Kenny! BRRMM BRRRM BRRRM
Edwards:
Here's a pretty good analysis of Edwards voters based on exit polling.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/30/are-edwards-voters-obama-voters.aspx
So conventional wisdom is that this is a slight advantage for Hillary Clinton
My guess: Favors Barak Obama slightly. Thus far, Obama has proven to be better at tactically winning extra delegates by reaching winner-take-all thresholds in voting districts. Hence the reason why Obama was able to earn more delegates in Nevada while still losing by 5% in the popular vote.
My gut sense is that the Clinton organization is better in the the urban areas where she can get out her vote easier. But in the more rural areas ... where it's less cost effective to get people to the polls because their houses are farther apart ... Obama is better at targeting his demographic and hitting the threshold. Some extra votes can only help him there.
Guiliani:
First of all, I have to comment that Guiliani's campaign was a complete disaster. He was considered the front runner as recently as last November. His strategy only garnered one delegate.
So who does he help? Pretty clearly this helps McCain who seems to be well on his way to a nearly insurmountable lead after Super Tuesday.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--giuliani-nj0130jan30,0,7917408.story
Here's a pretty good analysis of Edwards voters based on exit polling.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/30/are-edwards-voters-obama-voters.aspx
So conventional wisdom is that this is a slight advantage for Hillary Clinton
My guess: Favors Barak Obama slightly. Thus far, Obama has proven to be better at tactically winning extra delegates by reaching winner-take-all thresholds in voting districts. Hence the reason why Obama was able to earn more delegates in Nevada while still losing by 5% in the popular vote.
My gut sense is that the Clinton organization is better in the the urban areas where she can get out her vote easier. But in the more rural areas ... where it's less cost effective to get people to the polls because their houses are farther apart ... Obama is better at targeting his demographic and hitting the threshold. Some extra votes can only help him there.
Guiliani:
First of all, I have to comment that Guiliani's campaign was a complete disaster. He was considered the front runner as recently as last November. His strategy only garnered one delegate.
So who does he help? Pretty clearly this helps McCain who seems to be well on his way to a nearly insurmountable lead after Super Tuesday.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--giuliani-nj0130jan30,0,7917408.story
Monday, January 28, 2008
Are you ready for some football? No, not the Superbowl …
We’re talking political football here. Let’s take it back to our studios for some analysis.
Dem side:
Obama ran up the score on Hillary last week in South Carolina (Obama 55.4%, Clinton 26.5%, Edwards 17.6%). However, the lopsided victory wasn’t all that it seemed. South Carolina has a much higher percentage of African American’s than most other states. In this primary African Americans not only voted for Obama over Hillary 80% to 20%, they also showed up in force … up 75% from 2004. In SC, African Americans were 55% of the vote. While nationwide in the Democratic primaries, the number will be more like 20%. Among South Carolina’s white voters, Obama came in third (Edwards 40%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%).
But let’s look at this a little deeper … what if African American voters only represented 20% of the vote in South Carolina? Obama still would have won, but with a much smaller margin. The results would have looked like this: Obama 34.6%, Clinton 32.6%, Edwards 32.4. Reading a little more into this, Edwards would have been about 22 points over his national average (national polls: Clinton 42%, Obama 32%, Edwards 10%). Reading the tea leaves, a sizeable chunk (~8%) of Hillary voters went to Edwards (who probably benefited from a regional advantage) and a smaller chunk (~2%) went to Obama.
So the bottom line here is that it looks like there was a pretty major negative movement among Hillary voters. It’s hard to say whether this will play out in the Super Tuesday votes. However there’s reason to believe that we will see at least some of this shift on Feb 5. The Clintons were seen as running a divisive campaign in SC. Some high profile democrats voiced concerns about possible long term damage to the party.
For the moment, let's assume that the current polling (nationally a 10% lead for Clinton over Obama) holds. My back of the envelope calculations show that Clinton picks up about 640 delegates to 590 for Obama on Super Tuesday (not counting non-pledged)). Edwards will get about 150 and the remaining 20% or so will be uncommitted. Getting back to my football theme, Hillary is up by 2 touchdowns at halftime. Obama's best chance is to get to a brokered convention and have the general election look iffy if Hillary is the candidate. In that case, Obama want's to keep Edwards in the race to keep Hillary from reaching the 2025 delegates necessary to get a first ballot win at the Democratic Convention.
If however we get a 5% closure of the gap between Clinton and Obama, it's a one TD lead at halftime ... still a ballgame. Obama should be less worried about Clinton reaching 2025 and if he believes he’ll get most of the Edwards voters, he should cut a deal with Edwards and get him out of the race.
It’s theoretically possible that a combination of a shift away from Hillary and great turnout among young people and African Americans can close the gap entirely. However, the chances of that happening are unlikely. Young people are notoriously unreliable voters.
GOP side:
On the Republican side we also have a 2 horse race between McCain and Romney. Huckabee is flaming out and Guiliani never got out of the gate. The winner-take-all states … FL, NJ, and NY could quickly turn this into a McCain runaway. McCain has a small lead in FL (75 delegates) and NJ (39 delegates) and a big lead in NY (87 delegates). If McCain runs the table in these three states he could be up 3 TDs going into the halftime. Romney needs to win FL to stay within a TD. If he can somehow win both FL AND NJ, he can go in to halftime with the field goal lead.
Predictions:
I’m predicting that Obama cuts the gap in half and thus Hillary gains a 75 (pledged) delegate advantage exiting Super Tuesday.
On the Republican side, I’m predicting a McCain sweep of the WTA states and thus a 200 delegate lead exiting Super Tuesday.
We’ll see you back at halftime for highlights!
By the way, here's a pretty good site for poll data:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Data/Polls.html
Dem side:
Obama ran up the score on Hillary last week in South Carolina (Obama 55.4%, Clinton 26.5%, Edwards 17.6%). However, the lopsided victory wasn’t all that it seemed. South Carolina has a much higher percentage of African American’s than most other states. In this primary African Americans not only voted for Obama over Hillary 80% to 20%, they also showed up in force … up 75% from 2004. In SC, African Americans were 55% of the vote. While nationwide in the Democratic primaries, the number will be more like 20%. Among South Carolina’s white voters, Obama came in third (Edwards 40%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%).
But let’s look at this a little deeper … what if African American voters only represented 20% of the vote in South Carolina? Obama still would have won, but with a much smaller margin. The results would have looked like this: Obama 34.6%, Clinton 32.6%, Edwards 32.4. Reading a little more into this, Edwards would have been about 22 points over his national average (national polls: Clinton 42%, Obama 32%, Edwards 10%). Reading the tea leaves, a sizeable chunk (~8%) of Hillary voters went to Edwards (who probably benefited from a regional advantage) and a smaller chunk (~2%) went to Obama.
So the bottom line here is that it looks like there was a pretty major negative movement among Hillary voters. It’s hard to say whether this will play out in the Super Tuesday votes. However there’s reason to believe that we will see at least some of this shift on Feb 5. The Clintons were seen as running a divisive campaign in SC. Some high profile democrats voiced concerns about possible long term damage to the party.
For the moment, let's assume that the current polling (nationally a 10% lead for Clinton over Obama) holds. My back of the envelope calculations show that Clinton picks up about 640 delegates to 590 for Obama on Super Tuesday (not counting non-pledged)). Edwards will get about 150 and the remaining 20% or so will be uncommitted. Getting back to my football theme, Hillary is up by 2 touchdowns at halftime. Obama's best chance is to get to a brokered convention and have the general election look iffy if Hillary is the candidate. In that case, Obama want's to keep Edwards in the race to keep Hillary from reaching the 2025 delegates necessary to get a first ballot win at the Democratic Convention.
If however we get a 5% closure of the gap between Clinton and Obama, it's a one TD lead at halftime ... still a ballgame. Obama should be less worried about Clinton reaching 2025 and if he believes he’ll get most of the Edwards voters, he should cut a deal with Edwards and get him out of the race.
It’s theoretically possible that a combination of a shift away from Hillary and great turnout among young people and African Americans can close the gap entirely. However, the chances of that happening are unlikely. Young people are notoriously unreliable voters.
GOP side:
On the Republican side we also have a 2 horse race between McCain and Romney. Huckabee is flaming out and Guiliani never got out of the gate. The winner-take-all states … FL, NJ, and NY could quickly turn this into a McCain runaway. McCain has a small lead in FL (75 delegates) and NJ (39 delegates) and a big lead in NY (87 delegates). If McCain runs the table in these three states he could be up 3 TDs going into the halftime. Romney needs to win FL to stay within a TD. If he can somehow win both FL AND NJ, he can go in to halftime with the field goal lead.
Predictions:
I’m predicting that Obama cuts the gap in half and thus Hillary gains a 75 (pledged) delegate advantage exiting Super Tuesday.
On the Republican side, I’m predicting a McCain sweep of the WTA states and thus a 200 delegate lead exiting Super Tuesday.
We’ll see you back at halftime for highlights!
By the way, here's a pretty good site for poll data:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Data/Polls.html
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Obama Republicans
Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama believes he can create a coalition which includes crossover Republicans. Is this really possible? Policy-wise there seems to be nothing in Obama’s vision that rank and file Republicans would support. Yet there is mounting evidence which suggests that Obama at least appeals to moderate Republicans. Could he possibly bring them into his coalition as Reagan brought in the “Reagan Democrats”?
Today, as I’m having my morning coffee and watching CNBC’s “Squawk Box”, I see this extraordinary interview with Sen. Obama and subsequent analysis by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=627018998
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=627019480
In the interview Welch more or less recommends a strategy to Sen. Obama to capture “lower level guys in big corporations working hard to compete and making $60-$70k/year”. After Obama signs-off the Squawk Box panel have the following exchange:
Joe Kernan: “… Jack, I don’t know but I assume you are a lifelong Republican …”
Jack Welch: “Democrat turned Republican.”
Joe Kernan: “Could you vote for this guy?”.
Jack Welch: “he has an appeal … if we could only get him to come around on issues like Capitol Gains Tax relief …”
Now, I don’t know Jack Welch’s political views. If he’s a “Democrat turned Republican” he could be a Reagan Democrat – a group that will most likely vote Democrat this November. But I find that highly unlikely. If I make the leap that Welch is a traditional moderate Republican, I find it fairly shocking that he could vote for Obama with just a minor tweak in policy. Is Welch an early indicator of a possible major Republican crossover?
Two years ago, this idea would be unthinkable. Though the Republican’s lost control of Congress, it appeared that the Reagan coalition still stood together. The Democrats had managed to reclaim some of their moderates and add some independents. But the mainstay of the coalition … the Social Conservatives, the traditional Republicans, and some of the moderate Democrats were still in the fold.
But as the 2008 campaign has evolved, it doesn’t appear that any of the Republican candidates has what it takes to hold the Reagan coalition together. Or at least, it doesn’t seem that any of the Republican candidates can bring the Reagan coalition out in force the way that George W. Bush and most of the previous Republican nominees have done. McCain and Huckabee are viewed as weak on immigration and tax cuts. Romney’s policies are acceptable to the Republican base, but he’s had to change positions on abortion, gun control, and tax cuts since he was governor of Massachusetts. Thus his credibility is problematic. Guiliani’s personal ethics are suspect. The bottom line is that traditional Republicans aren’t in love with any of these guys. But is that enough to make them switch? Conventional wisdom says no.
But compare the situation in 2008 to the situation in 1980 and there are many parallels. Moderate Republicans are unhappy with their leadership as moderate Democrats were in 1980. (In 2008 most of the dissatisfaction centers on excessive government spending … a core Republican value that’s been violated). Also, there is a foreign policy entanglement that leadership can’t seem to fix. Combine that with a foundering economy and you have a lot of frustration within the GOP today as there was in the Democratic Party in 1980.
Now along comes a presidential Candidate with an optimistic message promising to build a broad coalition in spite of the fact that his political position is relatively extreme. The candidate is a charismatic speaker … a “Great Communicator”. He seems to be unusually authentic … a guy that can speak to an audience that may be ready to listen to a whole new message …
Now for the icing on the cake … Sen. Obama invoked Reagan while campaigning in Nevada. From my perspective, there was a palpable feeling that Republican eyebrows were being raised all over the country. Can this guy really do what Reagan did? Can we recapture the patriotic magic? Are we open to ideas that are radically different from those that we’ve held for the last 25 years?
From where I sit, it seems that Republicans are ready to listen and seriously consider the idea. Is Obama the second coming of the “Great Communicator”? Can he close the deal? Does he need to tweak his policy to meet Republicans in the middle?
The mere possibility that there may be sea change in our government is making this election a lot more interesting. But let’s not put the cart before the horse. Obama has a big problem getting the nomination of his own party. I’ll give my take on that in my next post.
Today, as I’m having my morning coffee and watching CNBC’s “Squawk Box”, I see this extraordinary interview with Sen. Obama and subsequent analysis by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=627018998
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=627019480
In the interview Welch more or less recommends a strategy to Sen. Obama to capture “lower level guys in big corporations working hard to compete and making $60-$70k/year”. After Obama signs-off the Squawk Box panel have the following exchange:
Joe Kernan: “… Jack, I don’t know but I assume you are a lifelong Republican …”
Jack Welch: “Democrat turned Republican.”
Joe Kernan: “Could you vote for this guy?”.
Jack Welch: “he has an appeal … if we could only get him to come around on issues like Capitol Gains Tax relief …”
Now, I don’t know Jack Welch’s political views. If he’s a “Democrat turned Republican” he could be a Reagan Democrat – a group that will most likely vote Democrat this November. But I find that highly unlikely. If I make the leap that Welch is a traditional moderate Republican, I find it fairly shocking that he could vote for Obama with just a minor tweak in policy. Is Welch an early indicator of a possible major Republican crossover?
Two years ago, this idea would be unthinkable. Though the Republican’s lost control of Congress, it appeared that the Reagan coalition still stood together. The Democrats had managed to reclaim some of their moderates and add some independents. But the mainstay of the coalition … the Social Conservatives, the traditional Republicans, and some of the moderate Democrats were still in the fold.
But as the 2008 campaign has evolved, it doesn’t appear that any of the Republican candidates has what it takes to hold the Reagan coalition together. Or at least, it doesn’t seem that any of the Republican candidates can bring the Reagan coalition out in force the way that George W. Bush and most of the previous Republican nominees have done. McCain and Huckabee are viewed as weak on immigration and tax cuts. Romney’s policies are acceptable to the Republican base, but he’s had to change positions on abortion, gun control, and tax cuts since he was governor of Massachusetts. Thus his credibility is problematic. Guiliani’s personal ethics are suspect. The bottom line is that traditional Republicans aren’t in love with any of these guys. But is that enough to make them switch? Conventional wisdom says no.
But compare the situation in 2008 to the situation in 1980 and there are many parallels. Moderate Republicans are unhappy with their leadership as moderate Democrats were in 1980. (In 2008 most of the dissatisfaction centers on excessive government spending … a core Republican value that’s been violated). Also, there is a foreign policy entanglement that leadership can’t seem to fix. Combine that with a foundering economy and you have a lot of frustration within the GOP today as there was in the Democratic Party in 1980.
Now along comes a presidential Candidate with an optimistic message promising to build a broad coalition in spite of the fact that his political position is relatively extreme. The candidate is a charismatic speaker … a “Great Communicator”. He seems to be unusually authentic … a guy that can speak to an audience that may be ready to listen to a whole new message …
Now for the icing on the cake … Sen. Obama invoked Reagan while campaigning in Nevada. From my perspective, there was a palpable feeling that Republican eyebrows were being raised all over the country. Can this guy really do what Reagan did? Can we recapture the patriotic magic? Are we open to ideas that are radically different from those that we’ve held for the last 25 years?
From where I sit, it seems that Republicans are ready to listen and seriously consider the idea. Is Obama the second coming of the “Great Communicator”? Can he close the deal? Does he need to tweak his policy to meet Republicans in the middle?
The mere possibility that there may be sea change in our government is making this election a lot more interesting. But let’s not put the cart before the horse. Obama has a big problem getting the nomination of his own party. I’ll give my take on that in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)