Monthly Archive for May, 2008Page 2 of 7

Bob Barr gets Libertarian nomination

Published
by
Taniel
on May 26, 2008
in Libertarian
. 2 Comments

Nearly two months after announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination, Bob Barr got the nod at the party’s convention in Denver this week-end. It took him six rounds of balloting to defeat his rivals, the last of which was research scientist Mary Ruwart.

Now, Barr moves on the to the general election where he will make his way on the ballot in many states without much effort. The Libertarian Party automatically qualifies for the ballot in many places due to past electoral results, so Barr will not be in the situation Ralph Nader was in four years ago. Nader, who was running as an independent (not as the Green candidate) spent most of his spring and summer collecting signatures and then fighting the Democrats’ efforts to kick him off the ballot.

With Barr’s likely presence on many ballots, the question becomes what effect he will have on the two-party contest. Will he reach beyond voters who shun the Democrats and Republicans, and can he play spoiler for one of the two candidates? As I explained in April, Barr broke with the GOP in 2006 by emphasizing issues that should endear him to Democrats — opposition to the war in Iraq and to torture, support for the ACLU. The Ron Paul phenomenon showed that there is a way in which a libertarian can attract young and disaffected voters, the very same group that Barack Obama believes he can bring in the process.

Yet, there is little doubt that Barr’s credentials lie at the Right. He was one of the main proponents of the Clinton impeachment, and the language he uses — as does Ron Paul — is one of a disaffected Republican, rather than of an anti-war liberal. There are many traditionally GOP voters who are not willing to vote for the Republican nominee this year because of their disapproval of Bush (it is their lack of enthusiasm that accounts for the 3 special election losses this spring and for some of the Republicans’ losses in 06), and while these voters might not go as far as vote for a Democrat, they could take refuge in a third-party candidacy. Barr has a high enough profile that he could attract such disaffected Republican voters.

In particular, Barr could potentially open the door to a tighter than expected contest in Georgia. One of the states with the largest black population, Georgia has been one of the only sates that has been trending Republican even in the past few cycles. In other words, it is not the first Southern state on Obama’s list. But Barr was a former Georgia congressman, and he could potentially make a good showing here if he concentrates his fire power in the state. That might not be enough to allow Obama to carry it, but it could force McCain to defend his grounds. Also, the states that are typically the most receptive to libertarian messages are the Western states that will likely feature some of the toughest battles this fall.

None of this means that Barr’s getting the nomination is cause for panic for the McCain campaign. The libertarian movement is still obsessed with Ron Paul, who drew 15% in the Oregon GOP primary last week, months after McCain wrapped up the nomination. There are talks to start a gated community — Paulville — inspired by Paul’s principles. The Texas congressman seems to be looking to force the Republican Party to give him a platform at the convention, and he has certainly earned enough delegates to have a base there. Paul continuing to attract attention will make it difficult for Barr to attract any attention and appeal to voters beyond those who have voted for the Libertarian candidate in the past 2 general elections.

There is however one way in which this week-end’s news was clearly a relief for Democrats. Also vying for the Libertarian nomination was Mike Gravel, the former Alaska Senator who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries before quitting the party a few months ago. Given how little credibility the media portrayed Gravel as having, it would have been unlikely that Gravel’s presence on the ballot would have affected Obama or that it would have been as much of a threat as Barr could be for McCain, but he would certainly have proved a distraction for Democrats and having two candidates on the Left (Nader and Gravel) could have been tough. Now, Barr will serve as somewhat of a balance to Nader’s candidacy.

Week-end polls: In case anyone had illusions about Clinton’s June 3rd chances

Published
by
Taniel
on May 26, 2008
in CA-Pres, MT-Dem, MT-Pres, NC-Pres, NE-Pres and NE-Sen
. 10 Comments

The first poll of the Montana primary — not a contest that was expected to ever be surveyed — suggests that June 3rd should not allow Hillary Clinton to close the primary season on a high note. Mason-Dixon shows Barack Obama leading 52% to 35%, and there is every reason to believe that Clinton’s road is as tough in South Dakota.

Naturally, these two primaries award very few delegates (31 combined, versus 55 in Puerto Rico two days earlier). But since Clinton’s goal seems to be to find an argument to stay in the race as long as possible, there is no doubt that two harsh defeats on the last Election Night will not bode well for her campaign’s rationale in the days following June 3rd, days in which the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are expected to pick their side at an increasing speed. DemCon Watch details this week’s updates, and finds that Obama picked up 3 supers to Clinton’s one (all were add-on, and Clinton’s surprisingly came from Georgia).

Meanwhile, a list of general election polls were released today:

  • First, Gallup’s national tracking poll is noteworthy for it shows one of the largest differentials between Clinton and Obama’s performance that it has recorded since the tracking started a while ago. Today, Obama trails 49% to 44% while Clinton leads 47% to 45%.
  • Meanwhile, Mason-Dixon’s Montana poll shows possibly tight races, though McCain is predictably starting ahead. He leads Clinton 50% to 39% and Obama 47% to 39%. Bush won 59% to 39% four years ago.
  • In neighboring Nebraska, however, Research 2000 crushes Democratic hopes of picking up a few electoral votes with Obama’s candidacy. McCain trounces Obama 57% to 29% (leading by wide margins in all congressional districts) and leads Clinton 58% to 28%. A Rasmussen poll and a SUSA poll released in the past few months showed much tighter results.
  • Meanwhile, in California, an LA Times poll should send shills down Democrats’ spine, as McCain is very close to both Democrats: 47% to 40% against Obama, 43% to 40% against Clinton. Two polls released Friday showed both Dems up double-digits.
  • Finally, a North Carolina poll by Civitas has a tight race between McCain and Obama, with the Republican leading 44% to 39%.

The California numbers are significant, for if a series of polls in the next few weeks show the potential of a single-digit race, the Democratic nominee will be forced to spend resources to defend this large state with expensive media markets even if the GOP campaign does not attempt anything. Democrats can take no risk in California, as the loss of its 55 electoral votes would leave no road to the White House.

The Western states are also interesting, for it is a central part of Obama’s argument of a different electoral map that states that have traditionally not been receptive to Democrats — places like North Dakota, some congressional districts in Nebraska, Montana — could warm up to him. Polls are telling a conflicting picture about this, as Obama has polled very strongly in some polls (in Alaska, Nebraska) but more poorly in some. All these states have very few electoral votes, so the loss/gain of one would not necessarily determine the election (though it could, as Al Gore learned in 2000).

In one last polling note, Research 2000 also conducted a survey of the Nebraska Senate race and found Mike Johanns leading Scott Kleeb by a wide 58% to 31%. A Rasmussen poll released last week found Johanns ahead 55% to 40%, a more promising picture for the Democrats. But this merely confirms what we already know: What was a very promising race at some point in the fall is now among the most difficult for Democrats, as Johanns is a very popular and well-known politician of a very Republican state. This is a rare congressional open seat in which the GOP looks to have saved itself through recruiting.

VP talk picks up: Warner and Bloomberg are latest target of speculation

Published
by
Taniel
on May 24, 2008
in Bloomberg, VA-Sen, VP-Dem and VP-GOP
. 4 Comments

Vice-presidential rumors have been in the air for months, but they have been picking up this past week, as both candidates step up their vice-presidential committees, conduct interviews or just start assembling files on potential running mates.

Obama is at a much earlier stage of the process than McCain is, though it is certainly possible to draw a comprehensive list of names are are being considered, though the Hillary question still looms large. Today, Robert Novak’s column mentioning the possibility of Mark Warner being selected launched a round of speculation about the chances of the former Virginia Governor who once seemed like a sure presidential candidate. Novak wrote that, “Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate.”

Warner is now running for Virginia’s open Senate seat, and he is the overwhelming favorite to win that race (this seat has been ranked the most vulnerable Senate seat for months now). Warner’s involvement in the senatorial race was supposed to take him out of vice-presidential chatter. After all, when Warner accepted the candidacy, his name was already circulating as a possible VP pick so he was aware of that possibility, making his choice somewhat of a renunciation of the vice-presidency. After all, if Warner were to drop out of the Senate race right now, it would transform the Democrats’ best pick-up opportunity into an at best uncertain endeavor.

This would suggest that the Obama campaign would not dare to consider Warner’s candidacy, but if they decide that Warner is what they need on the ticket to carry Virginia, they probably will not have much scruples in undermining the DSCC. Nor will Warner automatically reject an offer that would put him on the path to the presidency in 2012 or 2016. And as if to confirm that Warner’s name is truly in consideration, Politico ’s article today on the “Virginia trio” (Kaine, Webb and Warner) argues that Warner would be the strongest of the Virginia candidates, and the one that would help Obama carry the state the most. So 13 electoral votes or a Senate seat?

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues to entertain the most confusion three months after announcing he would not attempt a presidential run. Since then, Bloomberg has been attempting to please all sides, introducing both Obama and McCain at events a few weeks from one another. Despite the fact that there has been more speculation as to the possibility that Obama might tap Bloomberg as his running mate, since the two would reinforce each other’s postpartisan message and as there had been reports of talks between Bloomberg’s entourage and Obama’s, it is the McCain-Bloomberg ticket that currently has the most buzz. The two had breakfast on May 17th, and NYMag is quite certain that they talked about vice-presidential prospects. Marc Ambinder confirms the seriousness of these talks.

McCain selecting Bloomberg has quite obvious drawbacks and advantages. For one, it would seriously undercut Obama’s core message of reform and post-partisanship if the politician with the most post-partisan positioning were to rally his rival; McCain would also strengthen his own independent image. Second, it would give McCain much more credibility on the economy, an issue on which McCain has difficulties. Third, Bloomberg has money, lots of it — and the GOP needs as much as it can get this year. But it could also create problems to have someone as moderate as Bloomberg on the ticket when many conservatives already distrust the Arizona Senator. After all, electing someone to the vice-presidency gives them a heads-up for the next race to the White House. He would also not improve McCain’s numbers in any particular state. Finally, Bloomberg is not the most charismatic politician — to say the least — and he would not certainly not be an effective attack dog, in what is usually a VP’s most urgent role.

Despite denials, Clinton camp increasingly eying VP spot

Published
by
Taniel
on May 24, 2008
in VP-Dem
. 14 Comments

Hillary Clinton still professes to have her eye on the prize — the presidential nomination. But her chances have faded irremediably, leading to the question of why she is staying in the race. One of the reasons that is advanced is that she is waging effort to secure the vice-presidential nomination. If the race between the two Democratic candidates had stayed tighter all the way to the June/July, Obama might have been forced to pick her in a last ditch effort to unify the party. But since the primary’s competitive part ended on May 6th, Clinton could have quickly lost her strength, which would have given Obama no incentive to choose her as his running-mate.

As Clinton’s fortunes have decreased, her surrogates have increasingly touted the possibility of her taking the vice-presidential spot. Ed Rendell for instance, explained back in March that he would be happier with Clinton at the top but that a joint ticket was the way to go. Now, Time and the New York Times are reporting that Bill Clinton is strongly in support of his wife’s inclusion on the ticket and suggested that he and his surrogates are pushing the Obama campaign to engage in talks. It did not take long for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns to deny any such rumor, as both have no interest in such news being disseminated. The Obama campaign wants to keep the vice-presidential search under wraps while Clinton’s would lose all credibility if they were seen as openly campaigning for the VP spot. Howard Wolfson insisted that these reports were “100% false,” and both campaigns explained that there were absolutely no talk between them about a possible joint ticket.

There is no question, however, that Clinton’s surrogates are pushing for her selection even while their candidate is professing to have no such desire whatsoever. Today, her top fundraising official, Hassan Nemazee, declared that “Time is not your friend. A dream ticket would be the best way to ensure both unity and full and active support, financially and politically, for the ticket to be in the strongest position to win in the fall.” Senator Diane Feinstein, who does not directly speaks for the campaign but who is one of Hillary’s most prominent supporters, added that “I am one that believes that if it works out that Senator Obama is the nominee, the strongest ticket would be Senator Clinton as vice president.”

In justifying her stance, Feinstein voiced an argument that comes back often among proponents of a dream ticket: She referred to “the weight of the states he carried versus the states she carried. It’s different. And, therefore, if you combine them both, you’ve got the best electoral path.” In other words, a joint ticket would combine Clinton’s strength in states she looks solid in (Florida, Arkansas, securing a lot of blue states) with Obama’s in the states he typically fares better in (the Northwest, Virginia, Colorado). Merge the two candidates’ electoral map and you get an electoral rout in the Democrats’ favor.

The only problem, of course, is that vice-presidential boosts don’t function quite like that. Clinton’s inclusion on the ticket would not necessarily deliver to Obama the states in which she appears stronger than him, for vice-presidential candidates typically only marginally boost their ticket. While Clinton appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Obama and Obama appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Clinton, it is unlikely that Clinton is the best candidate Obama can choose who will make him more able to conquer blue-collar voters and Hispanics, just as Obama would not necessarily be Clinton’s best choice to address her own vulnerabilities if she were to capture the nomination.

There is also the problem of the clashing nature of Obama’s message of change with Clinton’s persona, and whether contradictions that would emerge would put the Democratic campaign on the defensive, forced to continually explain itself. Finally, I am not sure that Clinton’s selection would send a positive message to female voters, as it would show Hillary yet again stuck in a powerless position, subordinated to a male figure, just as she was in the 1990s. A lot of women who are supporting Clinton in the hope of having the first female president could regard her inclusion on the ticket as more problematic than if she was not included.

In other words, it is one thing to prefer Clinton over Obama; it is quite another to believe Clinton is the strongest nominee Obama could choose. And then there is the animosity between the two candidates, one that took quite a dramatic turn today as a controversy exploded on the New York Post, then on Drudge, then throughout the web, about Clinton’s comments regarding RFK’s assassination. Asked why she was not dropping out, Clinton explained that it was still too early: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Clinton had made similar comments in the past, and this time a controversy erupted as the Obama campaign responded that this had no place in the political discussion. All sorts of interpretations quickly surfaced — Clinton’s subconsceous is talking, she is being insensitive, especially given US history and the much-reported fears of black people that something might happen to Obama. Given the fact that Clinton was quite clearly addressing the timeline of previous nomination fights in which the nominee was not chosen in May (in 1980, for instance, the fight went to the convention floor but Jimmy Carter had a majority of delegates secured against Ted Kennedy; and Clinton could have named 1984 but the prolonged fight hurt Democrats then so that’s not a parallel Clinton wants to make), this controversy does seem overblown to me but it is revealing of how tense both sides have become and how hard it could be to mend fences in the coming months.

Friday polls: Obama polls better in Ohio, dogged by low numbers with registered Dems

Published
by
Taniel
on May 23, 2008
in AZ-Pres, CA-Pres, MS-Pres, NH-Pres, NV-Pres, OH-Pres and PA-Pres
. 6 Comments

As the Democratic primaries are heading towards their conclusion, more polling outlets are releasing general election surveys, leading to a daily drumbeat of interesting results. Today, we ought to start with the two surveys from Ohio and Pennsylvania, among the most important states in the general election:

  • SUSA released one of the first surveys from Ohio that is favorable to Obama for a long time. The Illinois Senator leads John McCain 48% to 39%. Note that the sample contains a very high number of registered Democrats (52%), though it’s also important to notice that Obama reaches his highest level of support among registered Democrats in any SUSA poll from Ohio: 76%.

  • This is a poll meant to test VP support, so there is no match-up with Clinton. I will not detail the VP tests, but the range goes from +2 McCain for Huckabee/Rendell tickets to +18 Obama for Pawlently/Edwards tickets.

  • Meanwhile, a Rasmussen poll from Pennsylvania shows Clinton crushing McCain 50% to 39% while Obama is only ahead 45% to 43%. Last month, Obama trailed by 1 and Clinton led by 6.

  • Obama’s support among registered Democrats is very low: 63%. McCain and him have comparable favorability levels.

A long series of polls — cumulating in yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll that showed Obama trailing McCain while Clinton crushed him — suggested that Obama had a big problem in Ohio. This SUSA poll does not fully dispell that notion considering the strange partisan breakdown and the fact that the majority of respondents are registered Democrats. But it also should serve as a reminder that, even if Obama might have electoral maps that are more appropriate for him than the emphasis on OH and FL that could work better for Clinton, Ohio at least still remains competitive and the Obama campaign has enough money to compete there forcefully even while focusing on Virginia and Colorado.

As for Pennsylvania, it merely confirms the series of PA/OH/FL polls I mentioned above that show Clinton polling more strongly than Obama in those states. Yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll showed similar results. PA is not a state that the Obama campaign can ignore, to say the least. Not only does it lean more Democratic than OH and FL, but losing all three swing states would make it extremely difficult for Obama to climb back to 270 electoral votes. Meanwhile, two other polls from important swing states were released:

  • In Nevada, Rasmussen finds Clinton polling surprisingly better than Obama given that Western states are supposed to be more welcoming to him: Clinton is ahead 46% to 41% and McCain leads Obama 46% to 40%. Obama only gets 65% of registered Democrats.

  • In New Hampshire, Rasmussen finds both Democrats reversing the April trend and leading McCain. Clinton is leading 51% to 41% and Obama is ahead 48% to 43%. In the all-important (and symbolic, given what happened on January 8th) battle for independents, Obama is ahead of McCain by 11%.

The two Southwestern states (New Mexico and Nevada) and New Hampshire will feautre some of this year’s tightest battles, though none of them offer a lot of electoral votes. The Southwstern showdown, however, will be key to future presidential elections, as Democrats need to make gains in the region as their Northeastern strongholds will continue to lose electoral votes.

Note, however, that in both Nevada and Pennsylvania Obama’s principal weakness comes from registered Democrats, a phenomenon that we have documented at great length by now but that is nonetheless always surprising to notice. The Illinois Senator will surely rise above numbers like 63-66% support as the party is reunited, but there is no doubt that he will face major difficulties in his efforts to solidify the base. How well he addresses the concerns of registered Democrats reluctant to support him appears to be the key to November.

Finally, three polls were released from states that should safe for one party or the other:

  • In Mississippi, a Research 2000 poll found McCain beating both Dems,54% to 39% against Obama and 55% to 36% against Clinton.

  • In California, Rasmussen finds both Democrats leading, 52% to 38% for Obama and 55% to 36% for Clinton. McCain’s favorability rating is at 46%, Obama’s at 57%.

  • PPIC also polled California and found Obama with a bigger lead, 54% to 37%, while Clinton’s lead was 51% to 39%.

  • Finally, Behavior Research Center finds McCain leading in his home-state of Arizona: 50% to 39% against Obama, 51% to 36% against Clinton.

Democrats should be heartened that all four of their leads in California are double-digits. If California polls show any sign of tightening, Democrats would be forced to spend precious time and resources defending these must-win 55 electoral votes. Meanwhile, McCain’s numbers in Mississippi and Arizona are underwhelming. Some around the Obama campaign insist that states like Mississippi could be in play as Obama will boost black turnout, but the internals of the Research 2000 polls show that will come at a price: white voters will turn to the GOP more than they usually do. Obama only got 18% of the white vote in this Mississippi poll.

Down-the-ballot: Yet another GOP recruitment failure, tight races in MS and OR (Update: and NC)

Published
by
Taniel
on May 23, 2008
in CO-04, MN-Sen, MO-06, MS-Sen, NC-Sen, NY-13 and OR-Sen
. 1 Comment

A significant number of down-the-ballot news this morning, but to start with don’t forget to check my newly updated Senate rankings. House ratings should follow as quickly as possible. The day’s first development concerns NY-13, where Republicans are hitting yet another recruitment wall. Rep. Vito Fossella’s decision to retire in November created yet another open seat headache for the GOP in a Democratic-leaning seat in a Democratic-leaning state. It is hardly surprising, then, that potential Republican candidates would be reluctant to attempt a run here.

Yesterday, Staten Island DA Dan Donovan, who was recently re-elected with 68% of the vote in a borough-wide vote that covers a large portion of the NY-13 district, took himself out of the running. Donovan had been heavily courted by the national party and he was the clear favorite to take the Republican spot on the November ballot. Donovan did not cite any specific reasons but his desire to continue working as a DA to complete the tasks he has started.

The road thus just got that much tougher for Republicans to hold on to this seat. They will now turn to state Senator Andrew Lanza but recruiting state senators is not what New York’s Republican Party wants to be doing considering that their majority in that chamber — their last seat of power in the Empire State — hangs by a thread.

Meanwhile, Republicans are continuing their offensive against Al Franken in Minnesota’s Senate race. After Franken’s self-induced debacle over taxes, which has already considerably weakened the challenger, the GOP is now doing what we knew they would do sooner or later: Use Franken’s comedian past as opposition research material. I am doubtful this kind of attack can work, as shown by Sen. Allen’s attempt to use Jim Webb’s strangely graphic novels against him in the 2006 campaign. That effort probably backfired, and as long as Franken can portray himself as a credible candidate that ought to be taken seriously, the press will continue marveling at the comedian-to-politician transition. In further news from this race, former Governor Jesse Ventura is now considering jumping in as an independent, in what would obviously make the contest wild and unpredictable.

Furthermore, we got a series of polls from Senate and House races:

  • First, Research 2000 polled the Mississippi Senate race and found Senator Wicker leading Ronnie Musgrove 46% to 42%. A DSCC poll a few days ago found Musgrove up 8% and with a better favorability rating.

  • Second, the DSCC released yet another internal poll, this one from the Oregon Senate race. It shows Gordon Smith leading Jeff Merkley 45% to 42%, and the poll was taken before the May 20th primary, so any post-primary bounce for Merkley would not be recorded here.

  • Update: Third, a conservative institute, the Civitas Group, just released a poll showing Elizabeth Dole ahead by only 2% against Kay Hagan, 45% to 43%. One more proof that the NC-Sen race is much more competitive than was thought just 3 weeks ago.

  • Update #2: A Rasmussen poll of the New Hampshire race confirms that Sununu is the most endangered incumbent this cycle, as he continues to trail his challenger Jeanne Shaheen, 50% to 43%.

Both results are satisfactory for Democrats as they confirm that these two races are toss-ups heading into November. The OR numbers are an internal poll but they correspond to the latest Rasmussen poll of the race. Also, MS polls are likely to show very differing results over the next 6 months because the margin would vary widely if you adjust the proportion of white and black voters by just a point or two. If Obama heads the ticket pollsters will have to decide how much to weigh black turnout, and those decisions will impact the numbers that are released.

Finally, two — rare and very exciting — new House polls were released:

  • In CO-04, an internal poll for the Markey campaign shows Rep. Musgrove leading Democratic challenger Betsy Markey 46% to 42%.
  • In MO-06, another race that is on everyone’s toss-up list shows reassuring news for GOP incumbent Sam Graves, who leads Kay Barnes, the former Mayor of Kansas City, 49% to 39%. Barnes’ support among registered Democrat is (still?) weak.

The Graves campaign attracted a lot of attention last week by hitting Barnes for a fundraising trip she took to San Fransisco with Nancy Pelosi and aired a truly remarkably over-the-top ad that seems to come right out of SNL’s ad-parody efforts. The ad is too recent to be said to have have influenced the SUSA poll and it will be interesting to see how it impacts the race. Barnes is already out with a brutal response ad, but here’s the original spot:

Senate rankings: The map expands for Democrats

Published
by
Taniel
on May 23, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 4 Comments

The presidential primaries are heading towards a not so climactic conclusion and so the time has come to focus some attention on the congressional races. I haven’t updated the rankings since January and a lot has changed in the past 5 months, starting with the resolution of contested primaries in Oregon, Nebraska, North Carolina and probably Minnesota. Both parties have gone through final recruitment pushes, with the GOP playing a tragicomedic farce in New Jersey and suffering through one more round of failures in South Dakota and Iowa.

Meanwhile, a number of seats that had remained relatively quiet up to now have been seeing more action in the past few months. In Colorado, Bob Schaffer had been holding unexpectedly strong for most of 2007 but he was hit by a scandal over his ties with Jack Abramoff. In Oregon, the DSCC decided it had to soften Gordon Smith early to have a chance in November and started airing an attack ad against the incumbent. In Minnesota, it was Democrats who took a hit when it was revealed that Al Franken had trouble with taxes. And in Alaska, Mark Begich officially jumped in the Senate race — though it had been many months that his candidacy had become clear.

But it is the lower ranked seats that created the most wave in the first half of 2008. It has become increasingly apparent that Democrats are successfully expanding the map, putting the dream of a filibuster-proof (however unlikely it still is) back on the table. As poll after poll show that seats like North Carolina, Texas and even Kansas — not to mention Mississippi and Alaska, which were barely on the table back in the fall but which are not first-tier races on their own right — are within Democrats’ reach, the Senate picture is becoming increasingly nightmarish for the GOP. The NRSC is not in quite as big a financial hole as their House counterpart, but the Republicans have to be prepared to have their resources stretched thin. The DSCC is sending staffers to organize in Oklahoma, a clear sign that they are determined to put as many states in play as possible. For now, they are succeeding beyond even their expectations.

The full and newly-written rankings, with race-by-race descriptions, are available here.

VP search: McCain and Obama step up the process

Published
by
Taniel
on May 22, 2008
in VP-Dem and VP-GOP
. 5 Comments

In yet another sign that both parties are getting ready to engage in the general election campaign, news emerged over the past two days that John McCain and Barack Obama were both stepping up the process of selecting a vice-president. Their decisions will be important as to how they impact the general election; but they will also determine who the front-runners are for the next nomination contests. Whoever becomes vice-president in 2009 will be favored to become his party’s nominee in 2016, and the vice-president of the losing ticket will have increased his name recognition tremendously in preparation for 2012.

Such considerations of future elections are especially important for McCain’s choice, as his list of potential vice-presidents includes more young sharks with presidential ambitions (starting, of course, with Mitt Romney), whereas Obama’s includes more experienced figures who might not be looking to run on their own in 4 years or 8 years.

First, the Obama campaign is in the initial stages of the VP search — but for a candidate that has still not proclaimed himself the victor of his party’s primaries, that is still an advanced stage to be in. Indeed, Obama and his staff typically refuse to discuss VP plans, in fear of seeming too arrogant and alienating the Clinton camp. Obama himself said, “I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination.” Yet, news emerged today that his campaign had tapped Jim Johnson to lead the vice-presidential search and organize the vetting of the potential candidates. Johnson fulfilled the same role for the campaigns of John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Johnson describes 1984 as having made him realize the importance of vetting, as Geraldine Ferraro was dogged by questions surrounding the business dealings of her husband.

It is still too early for the Obama campaign to have asked potential VP candidates to submit vetting documents or for any sort of formal or informal meetings and interviews to have been held, but Obama’s staff has started compiling files for each possible pick, assembling biographical info and articles that are in the open record. One reason that it is still too early is that the Hillary Clinton question has not been resolved: How late will she drop out, and will she remain enough of a force to

Other potential Democratic picks range from those who will bolster the ticket’s experience (for instance Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Tom Dashle, Sam Nunn), those who will strengthen his appeal with registered Democrats and blue-collar voters (John Edwards, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Ted Strickland) and his national security credentials (Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Nunn again), those who will allow him to appeal to conservatives/Republicans/red states (Chuck Hagel [!], Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Nunn again), those who would help mend fences with the Clinton camp (Ed Rendell, Strickland again, Bayh again, Clark again) and those who could help Obama win key swing states (Virginia’s Kaine, Ohio’s Strickland, New Mexico’s Richardson). Some of these names would obviously make some in the Democratic base very uncomfortable, particularly Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has been working on its vice-presidential search for much longer, and they are predictably at a more advantaged stage of the process. Despite the campaign’s determination to keep developments fully under wraps, the New York Times reported yesterday that McCain had invited at least three potential picks to his ranch in Sedona this week-end: Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and our old friend Mitt Romney.

Crist has been near the top of McCain’s VP list ever since he endorsed the Arizona Senator in the last week of the Florida primary; that endorsement is widely credited with having pushed McCain over the top. Crist could secure Florida in the GOP column, particularly if the Democratic candidate is Obama. He is also a strong campaigner and a charismatic politician, though he has two important problems: Conservative Republicans do not trust him at all (I wrote about Crist’s profile in the National Review last month), and they would not be happy at having two people they mistrust on the ballot. And second, there is the quite insistent gay rumor.

Mitt Romney now appears like one of the favorites to get McCain’s nod, but that was unthinkable a few months ago when Romney and McCain detested each other and made no effort to hide it. Since then, Romney has done more than almost any other Republican to help McCain’s campaign, and it is no secret that Romney is eying future presidential elections. Of course, Romney has his own problems with the base.

As for Jindal, his name is coming up with increasing frequency in the past few weeks, which is somewhat surprising given his young age. Of course, youth is be an asset for Republican VP contenders this cycle given McCain’s age and his desire to balance that out. First elected this November, he is the first Indian-American governor. He is also very socially conservative, which could help McCain reach out to parts of his base that might still be reluctant to support him. But a question that has to be asked is what impact Jindal’s inclusion on the GOP ballot would have on those voters who would refuse to vote for Obama because he is African-American?

Electoral maps: Quinnipiac’s "big state" polls find trouble for Obama in FL and OH, SUSA shows him strong in VA

Published
by
Taniel
on May 22, 2008
in FL-Pres, OH-Pres, PA-Pres and VA-Pres
. 5 Comments

It is hard to deny that general election polls are consistently showing Barack Obama to be weak in Ohio and Florida. The latest Rasmussen polls from those states, which both showed Clinton running significantly better than Obama, led me to consider the implications for Obama’s electoral map, and the choice his campaign will likely make to privilege states that they believe will be more receptive to Obama’s message.

Today, the latest wave of “big state” polls from Quinnipiac confirms that Clinton’s electoral map would have centered on Ohio and Florida in a way that Obama’s map will not:

  • In Ohio, Quinnipiac finds that Clinton beats McCain 48% to 41%; Obama trails 44% to 40%. McCain has improved his margin by 3% against both Democrats.
  • Clinton gets 85% of the vote of registered Democrats, Obama only gets 69%. He also trails by a wider margin among independents and does 17% worse among working-class whites.
  • In Florida, Clinton leads 48% to 41% also while Obama trails 45% to 41%.
  • Clinton wins 86% of the registered Democrats vote, while Obama only gets 71%. Obama also trails by a wider margin among independents. In a key measure, Clinton loses the working-class white vote by 2%, Obama by 20%.
  • 43% of Floridians say Obama’s association with Wright makes them less likely to vote for him… the same number that says McCain’s association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for the Republican nominee!
  • In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain 50% to 37% while Obama is ahead 46% to 40%. McCain has improved his numbers by 1% and 3% respectively.
  • Clinton gets 86% of the registered Democratic vote, while Obama gets 73%. This is one state in which Clinton looks much weaker among African-Americans, as she gets only 78% of the black vote as opposed to 94% for Obama.

These polls might be used by the Clinton campaign to bolster their electability case to superdelegates. But there is no reason to believe that superdelegates will be affected: We have known for a long time that Obama and Clinton’s electoral maps would take different forms, and that Ohio and Florida would be more important for the Clinton campaign. Furthermore, with the competitive part of the Democratic primary over, these polls are certainly more important for what they tell us about the coming general election.

In short, I would like to frame the conversation in terms of electoral maps rather than electability.

A problematic area for Democrats is that both candidates lose the independent vote in Ohio and in Florida. Independents massively turned to the Democratic Party in 2006 and it is that choice that allowed the party to make gains in the midterms. When asked to rate Bush’s performance or in down-the-ballot polls, independents are still behaving as Democrats. But McCain is able to stop his party’s bleeding and hold on to a lead in two of the major swing states against either Clinton or Obama.

For Obama, these numbers are one more reminder that he cannot take the vote of registered Democrats for granted. Some argue that these are just disaffected Clinton supporters who will easily return home once the nominee is chosen. There is no doubt that some of them will, and that Obama certainly has the capability of capturing the support of most Democrats who are reluctant to support him. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that registered Democrats will back the party’s nominee no matter what. They have left the party in the past, and the appeal to (1) conservative Democrats and (2) Hispanics lies at the heart of McCain’s electability.

The Obama campaign will have to spend a significant amount of time and resources solidifying the Democrats’ blue-collar base and Hispanic supporters, especially if he wants to keep Ohio and Florida competitive. The good news is that a secure and unified base might be enough to win this election: More voters are identifying themselves as Democrats than they have in a long time, and if Obama is trailing by only 4% with weak showings among registered Democrats it does suggest that the answer lies with Democrats rather than at the center or in attracting Republicans.

And just in time to confirm that Obama’s campaign is looking to emphasize other states and construct a different electoral map, SUSA released a poll from Virginia:

  • In this red state, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41%, including a 66% to 27% lead in Northern Virginia.
  • This is a poll testing VP choices, so Clinton is not included and you can check all the VP choices here. As always, the best Democrat by far is John Edwards as he bolsters Obama’s numbers among registered Democrats, but that is also a name recognition factor.

Some Democrats worry that replacing OH and FL by states like VA and CO might be risky considering that these states have not been kind to Democrats in presidential elections in the past. But polls like SUSA’s confirm that Obama does have an opening in those states (a poll yesterday showed Obama trailing by 8% in VA, but the numbers looked weird considering how weak the Democrat was in NoVa). You can be sure that this is a debate that will be waged for the coming weeks, as the Obama campaign tries to settle on a general election strategy. But whatever map they choose to go with they will have to move to secure the Democratic base — perhaps not with John Edwards’s inclusion on the ticket, but some strategy will have to be devised.

Presidential polls: Obama weak in Florida, strong in CO, as Clinton posts surprising NC numbers

Published
by
Taniel
on May 22, 2008
in CA-Pres, CO-Pres, MO-Pres, NC-Pres, PA-Pres, UT-Pres and VA-Pres
. 10 Comments

A lot of presidential polls to digest today, as SUSA, Rasmussen and two other polling groups released new match-ups for a total of 8 states with some surprises and some expected results. The most interesting come from the pair of Southern states that the Obama campaign believes it can put in play:

  • In North Carolina, SUSA finds surprising results: Hillary Clinton is leading McCain 49% to 43%, while Obama is trailing 51% to 43%. As usual, Clinton’s advantage is derived from women (she leads McCain by 19% while Obama trails by 1%) and by registered Democrat, among whom her lead is 20% superior to Obama’s.
  • In Virginia, a VCU Commonwealth poll shows that McCain is leading both Democrats, 44% to 36% against Obama and 47% to 38% against Clinton. One puzzling internal is that Obama only gets a 41% to 36% in Northern Virginia, a region he will have to win by a much bigger margin to make the state competitive.

With all the talk of Obama putting the Carolinas and Virginia (some even add other Southern states to the list) in play, it is easy to forget that until February Clinton polled systematically better than Obama in the South and in non-Western red states. This was true in Kentucky, surely, but also in states like Virginia. It is still surprising to see Clinton poll that much better than her rival in North Carolina, a state in which Obama trounced Hillary and a state which his campaign is prompt to put on the competitive list. There is no question that a race in single-digit is already a victory for Democrats, since they had difficulty reaching that point in 2004 even with that Edwards on the ticket; the same is true in Virginia. But to prevail in one or both of these states Obama will have to improve his showing among registered Democrats: They should be his base, but he often has trouble solidifying it.

Another important poll that was just released is Rasmussen’s latest from Florida:

  • McCain leads Obama handily, 50% to 40% (this is actually a 5% improvement for Obama). But he trails Clinton 47% to 41%.

Rasmussen’s poll from Ohio found a very similar set of results a few days ago, prompting me to write early musings on Obama’s electoral map and the fact that he appears constantly weak in Ohio and Florida polls. Whatever the reason — McCain looks to be stronger than most Republicans among elderly, Hispanics and possibly Jewish voters while Obama has possible weaknesses among these groups — Florida does look like one of the states where Clinton could have fared better, as Rasmussen’s poll suggest and as the latest Quinnipiac poll confirmed (Clinton beat McCain by 8% while Obama trailed by 1%). This means that Obama will rely on an alternative electoral map, one based on states in which he appears stronger than Clinton, for instance Colorado:

  • The latest Rasmussen poll from Colorado finds Obama besting McCain 48% to 42% while McCain beats Clinton 47% to 44%.

Colorado’s 9 electoral votes are even more within reach considering that the Democratic convention will be held in Denver. Kerry got surprisingly close in 2004, and Obama strongly appeals to the Western independents whose support is key to changing the state’s allegiance. If Democrats carry the state this year, Colorado will have gone through a very rapid switch from reliably red to blue state within 3 election cycles. And in other polling news:

  • Missouri is another red state that will be very hotly contested in the coming months, certainly more than Kerry went for it in 2004. SUSA finds Clinton faring a bit better, besting McCain 48% to 46% while Obama narrowly trails 48% to 45%.
  • The differential between the two Democrats is mainly due to the registered Democrats vote, as Clinton gets 82% to Obama’s 72%.
  • In the day’s least interesting poll, Deseret confirms that McCain has no reason to worry about Utah’s electoral votes. He leads 65% to 20% against Clinton and 62% to 27% against Obama.

Finally, SUSA released two polls from blue states testing potential veepstakes. I am not particularly interested in the VP match-ups in that most of the names have very low name recognition and the test is mostly a measure of that. There seems to be little question that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee help their party’s nominees the most, but that is also a reflection on the other tested names not being very well known. So I am here only providing the hard matchup numbers:

  • In Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead of McCain 48% to 40%. View more VP match-ups here, as I will only say that it is interesting that the inclusion of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell does not help the Democratic ticket at all.
  • In California, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41%. View the numbers with VP match-ups here.

The first margin is strong for Obama, though there is no question that he would rather lead by a larger percentage in California to ensure that he will not have to spend a single minute or a single dime defending the country’s largest state, and one without which no Democrat can reach the White House. Finally, Democracy Corps released a national poll that shows both Democrats leading McCain by 2 percent.

Senate: OR and KY pick their nominees, Dem leads in MS

Published
by
Taniel
on May 21, 2008
in CO-Sen, KY-Sen, MO-Gov, MS-Sen, NC-Gov, NC-Sen and OR-Sen
. 1 Comment
The week’s biggest political news continues to be Ted Kennedy’s health condition, as the longtime Massachusetts Senator was released from the hospital today in seemingly excellent condition. It is still difficult to talk about the political consequences of these developments as we know too little about Kennedy’s condition and his plans.

Meanwhile, the Oregon and Kentucky Senate races were set last night as two contested primaries were settled. In Oregon, state House speaker Jeff Merkley narrowly bested Steve Novick who ran a surprisingly strong campaign and ended up 4 percent short of victory. The DSCC thus got its wish, though there were few indications that Merkley would be a particularly stronger candidate against GOP incumbent Gordon Smith. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Smith besting Merkley by only 3 percent, though that by far the best poll Merkley has seen.

The DSCC’s choice also won in Kentucky, as Bruce Lunsford handily beat businessman Greg Fisher. Lunsford, who lost the 2007 gubernatorial primary, will now face a Senate giant, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Senator looked to be very vulnerable in the fall but a series of recruitment failures by Democrats made his a much safer bet. Lunsford should not be able to do much more than take advantage of the toxic environment for the GOP; even if elected, he would be a very conservative Democrat. He endorsed Republican Ernie Fletcher in 2003’s gubernatorial race after he did not get the Democratic primary, and has donated to McConnell’s senatorial campaign.

Meanwhile, two new polls from Senate races that were supposed to be second-tier at best are bringing good news for Democrats:

  • In North Carolina, it is SUSA’s turn to confirm that Elizabeth Dole is in very real danger. She leads state Senator Kay Hagan 50% to 46%, a very narrow margin for an incumbent facing a little-known opponent. This is a contest in which Obama boosting black turnout could have a very real effect down-the-ballot. One area Hagan will have to work on: independents prefer Dole by 16%.
  • In Mississippi, an internal poll released by the DSCC shows former Governor Ronnie Musgrove leading Republican incumbent Roger Wicker 48% to 40%. Like every partisan poll, this has to be taken with a grain of salt but it does paint a worrisome picture for the GOP. Musgrove is well-known and well-liked (his favorability rating is 57% to 30%) while Wicker is still mostly unknown 5 months after his appointment to fill Trent Lott’s seat. That does mean that he has room to grow in the coming months.
  • Update: Rasmussen released a new poll from Colorado, showing Udall slightly expanding his lead against Schaffer. He is now ahead 47% to 41%. Given how tough the past month has been for Schaffer, it is a disappointment for Dems that they are not further ahead and a relief for the GOP that all is not lost.

Both North Carolina and Mississippi have Democrats licking their lips at the extent to which they are expanding the map this cycle. It is numbers like this that make a 60-seat majority not as utopian a dream as was thought just a few weeks ago. The numbers in Mississippi are particularly interesting as they confirm a prior poll taken in late 2007 that showed Musgrove in the lead. Remember that Democrats were trying to force a special election in March, before Wicker had time to develop an incumbency advantage. A lower court judge ruled in their favor but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision. This poll suggests that Musgrove could be Senator now if Democrats had gotten their wish, but the road could get tougher in the months ahead as Wicker improves his name recognition and the GOP advantage of a presidential year kicks in.

In other down-the-ballot but non-Senate news, here are two polls from 2 of the only 4 contested gubernatorial races, both released by SUSA:

  • In what is shaping to be an unexpectedly tight race, Beverly Perdue has a small lead over Republican Pat MacCrory, 52% to 45%. Both won a contested primary on May 6th. A Rasmussen poll released last week showed MacCrory besting Perdue.
  • In Missouri, however, it will be very difficult for the GOP to even keep the race competitive as they are running against Jay Nixon who has been preparing for this race for years. He is trouncing the two Republican candidates running for this open seat, by 25% and 26%.

The primary victory of Charlotte Mayor MacCrory means that the North Carolina gubernatorial race is the GOP’s best pick-up chance among all the Senate and governor’s contests. That the race remains a toss-up speaks to the Republicans’ disadvantage this cycle.

In split decision, two worlds and electoral coalitions collided last night

Published
by
Taniel
on May 21, 2008
in KY-Dem and OR-Dem
. 7 Comments

As expected, two worlds collided last night, and each candidate posted a resounding victory. Clinton’s 35 percent victory in Kentucky allowed her to own the night and get as good a pledged delegate split as she has gotten all year. But as has often been the case, Obama was ready with a retort: Not only did his 16 percent margin in Oregon (with 9/10th of the precincts reporting) exceed expectations but he clinched a clear majority of pledged delegates last night, allowing him to heighten his claim to the nomination.

Kentucky and Oregon were also shockingly opposite worlds when it came to the voting behavior of key constituencies. In Kentucky, Clinton’s victory might have been lopsided but there were few surprises in the exit polls: Clinton trounced Obama among white voters, especially women, the working-class, voters with less education and less income. In Oregon, Obama confirmed that the Northwest is among his strongest territories by accomplishing what he had only truly succeeded in doing in Wisconsin: make inroads in Clinton’s constituencies. He opened a small lead among women, voters with no college degree and in almost all income groups. Those groups were still Clinton’s strongest, preserving the gender/income/education gap that has been dominating the Democratic primaries, but Obama had no problem with white blue-collar voters in Oregon.

Yesterday’s votes were more about Obama than about Clinton. With the New York Senator on the brink of elimination, the main question that had to be answered was how Oregon and Kentucky would impact Obama’s candidacy going forward: Would they force him to go through more talk of his electability weakness and his problems among the working class, or would they put a triumphant coda on his march towards the nomination? The size of Clinton’s victory in Kentucky ensures a round of stories addressing the former question — as they should. No presumptive nominee can be trounced by 35 percent and expect to not have that defeat dissected. But the biggest story last night was Obama’s declaring that the nomination is “within reach” and welcoming the majority of pledged delegates.

The difference in the votes of blue-collar voters in Oregon and Kentucky also points to the crucial question of the electoral coalition Obama wants to cultivate. A few days ago, I considered the choices the campaign faces in terms of the electoral map, as Obama’s consistent weakness in Ohio and Florida is leading the campaign to emphasize the importance of other states like Virginia, Colorado and other Western states. To this alternative electoral map corresponds an alternative electoral coalitions, one that does not put as much weight on the Midwest’s white working-class.

Going forward, Obama’s hold on the nomination was not endangered last night — but neither was Clinton’s resolve to stay in the race until every contest is finished. It is this dual reality that is making the Democratic primary such a surreal situation in recent weeks. Clinton will only feel strengthened in her self-proclaimed struggle to represent lower-income voters and women within the Democratic Party after last night, but the math has become impossible for Clinton to even get close to Obama — let alone to take any sort of delegate lead. My calculations now put her 149 pledged delegate away from Obama with 86 remaining to be attributed in 3 states, two of which favor her opponent.

Meanwhile, superdeleates are continuing to flow towards Obama, though the the count this morning is tied so far: Obama got the support of Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, while Clinton was endorsed by Ohio add-on Craig Bashein. Clinton did get some hope to regain her footing in one metric that only some Democrats insist is important: the popular vote. She netted a 150,000 vote advantage yesterday in her quest to a popular vote majority without counting Michigan.