"Huge" Hawaii Turnout?

Over at The Plank, Barron YoungSmith calls turnout in Hawaii's caucuses "legitimately huge":

As previously noted, Hawaii caucus turnout has never been above 5,000. The Obama camp's pie-in-the-sky prediction was 18,000.

Final tally? 37,247.

Measured against previous Hawaii caucuses, this turnout certainly is huge. But Hawaii is a late-caucus state that ordinarily votes after the nominee has already been made clear. In most years, there is literally no good reason to waste your time caucusing in Hawaii. I don't think it's a very meaningful finding that many more people attended this year's relevant caucus than previous, irrelevant caucuses.

On the other hand, this year's caucus turnout is not huge compared to the size of Hawaii's electorate. Hawaii cast 231,708 votes for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. So, 2008 Democratic caucus turnout was 16.1% of that figure. Looking at figures I calculated previously, that's a bit higher than Minnesota (14.7%) and Nebraska (15.1%), and much higher than Kansas (8.4%), but significantly below early caucuses in Nevada (29.6%) and Iowa (30.6%). It's also way below primary state turnouts, from 37.7% in New Mexico to 86.3% in New Hampshire.

So, I think it's more accurate to say that Hawaii's turnout was a bit better than par for this year, for a caucus state, but not "huge."

Read More......

Wow...

I sure was wrong about Hawaii, huh?

Read More......

Veepstakes Gong Show: Haley Barbour

The Veepstakes Gong Show profiles spectacularly bad running-mate suggestions.

In Volume 4, we turn to Haley Barbour, former Washington superlobbyist, ex-chair of the Republican National Committee, and current two-term governor of Mississippi.

Whose hare-brained idea was this? Pretty much everybody's. National Review readers, for one; Lisa Schiffren, who's been collecting Veepstakes suggestions at NR, says Barbour is the suggestion she sees third most often, after Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. Marc Ambinder's readers are also pushing the idea. Fittingly for a superlobbyist, there is even a Draft Haley for Vice President PAC, which is currently seeking your donations to put this TV spot on the air:



Why might a sentient person, at first, think this idea makes sense? Barbour is a twice-elected governor of a southern state, and he's been widely praised for his administration's effective response to Hurricane Katrina. Also, Schiffren suggests that he's "immensely charming" and "very smart"-- valuable traits in any superlobbyist or vice-presidential candidate. (Actually, in one of the more dubious turns of praise I have seen in a while, Schiffren describes Barbour as follows: "Imagine if Trent Lott had been really smart.")

So why does this idea suck? Did we mention that Barbour's primary career was "Superlobbyist"? For nearly 20 years, he ran Barbour, Griffith & Rogers LLC, which Fortune named the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington in 2001. Today, BGR's clients include:

• Pharmaceutical companies and associations (Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, PhRMA, Wyeth)
• Oil companies (O2Diesel, Rompetrol)
  
• Health insurers and associations (The American Association of PPOs, UnitedHealth)
• A tobacco company (Lorillard)
• Various parties involved in the mortgage crisis (Citigroup, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America)
  
• And, of course, overseas governments of dubious benevolence (Qatar, Serbia)

Needless to say, everybody loves a tobacco/oil/insurance/Serbia lobbyist.

Also, speaking of Haley Barbour being like Trent Lott: a 1982 New York Times story* on Barbour's failed Senate race of that year included this charming vignette:

The racial sensitivity at Barbour headquarters was suggested by an exchange between the candidate and an aide who complained that there would be 'coons' at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.

That'll play in Peoria.

*Link is to a 2003 Boston Globe op-ed quoting the 1982 NYT article. The original article is available here, behind the Times' pay wall.

See previous Veepstakes Gong Show posts.

Read More......

Obama Vague on Gun Rights

The AP is running the headline "Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights," and its story focuses on one aspect of Barack Obama's comments today on gun regulation: his apparent endorsement of an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. During a press conference today in Wisconsin, Obama said he thinks "there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation."

However, as NBC's First Read reports, the sum of Obama's comments is a good bit murkier:

"The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, D.C.," Obama said. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our constitution."

Remember, these comments come in the context of District of Columbia v. Heller, the challenge to the District's gun laws which the Supreme Court will hear next month. This case will mark the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has addressed the scope of the Second Amendment. The law at issue, Washington DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, is a ban on the possession of functioning firearms. Handguns are prohibited entirely, and long guns are allowed only if they are "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that this law violates an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

For note, in defending its law, the District of Columbia has argued that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms. However, Obama appears to indicate support for the D.C. law while also saying he believes the Second Amendment does confer an individual right. Does Obama consider the D.C. ban to be a "commonsense regulation" that is consistent with an individual-rights view of the Second Amendment? If so, what meaningful individual right would the Second Amendment confer?

To be fair, Obama simply said that Washington DC is free to impose certain regulations on firearms, not necessarily the set of regulations it has in place. However, in the context of the widely-publicized and pending case, that would be a somewhat esoteric point to make if he actually believes the FCRA to be unconstitutional.

Update to add: I neglected to note that, in 1996, Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Now he says that has never been his position and that the questionnaire response was an error made by a staffer. However, the group that created the questionnaire said they also interviewed Obama in person in 1996 and that, at the time, he did not indicate that any of his questionnaire responses were incorrect.

Read More......

Let's See More Sports Hearings!

Today, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's held a hearing to get to the bottom of a fundamental question facing our nation: did steroids help Roger Clemens become the first AARP member to win a Cy Young award? (Clemens' former trainer says yes; Clemens says no.)

Conservative and liberal observers have criticized the hearing as a waste of Congress' valuable time. Lisa Schiffren of The Corner asks, "Does Henry Waxman have nothing better to investigate?" Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic says, "For my part, I think congress ought to grow up and hold hearings on something important."

Personally, I'm all for these hearings because the subject matter is unimportant. Any time Congress wastes with hearings about steroids is time it doesn't spend actively screwing things up, for example by trying to "fix" the mortgage crisis.

As such, I sincerely hope that Arlen Specter will subpoena Bill Belichick to talk about Tapegate.

Read More......

In Virginia, Lower Class Whites Fell Away from Clinton

These Virginia results look very bad for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama won 64%-35% statewide and won almost every demographic subgroup. He cleaned up in heavily black areas around Richmond and Norfolk, and he won by solid margins in northern Virginia. He also performed remarkably strongly in some parts of Virginia where I said Clinton needed to do well. While she held her base in southwest Virginia (taking as much as 90% of the vote in some counties near the Kentucky border), Obama basically tied most counties in the Shenandoah Valley, a heavily white, middle- to lower-class region.

Take a look at Augusta County in the Shenandoah Valley. The county is 95% white, rural and middle class, with a median household income of $43,045. Barack Obama won here, 53%-46%. In neighboring Highland County, which is whiter and poorer, Obama did slightly better, winning 54%-45%. If Clinton can't win in places like this, what is her path to the nomination?

Read More......

"The Rush Limbaugh Effect"?

The AP notes from the Virginia exit polls (hat tip: KJL):

Republican voters in Virginia who said they frequently listened to conservative talk radio voted 51 percent for Huckabee, while non-listeners voted 57 percent for McCain. The more often people listened to conservative talk radio, the less likely they were to vote for McCain.

The AP calls this "The Rush Limbaugh Effect." I think they're probably giving Limbaugh too much credit, as I doubt the causation flows from him to the votes. I suspect that voters who are more conservative are both (a) more likely to listen to talk radio and (b) more likely to oppose John McCain.

I'd be interested to see this question crosstabbed with the "Do you consider yourself very conservative/conservative/moderate" question, to see whether self-identified very conservatives were more likely to oppose McCain if they listened to talk radio.

(Another problem with attributing this effect to Limbaugh, of course, is that he has been very critical of both Huckabee and McCain, saying that neither is a "real conservative.")

Read More......

I Touched Hillary Clinton's Heart

So, full disclosure: I gave Hillary Clinton a $25 donation during 2007. I did this mostly to get on her fundraising mail list, which has provided excellent entertainment value. A few minutes ago, Hillary herself sent me the following mash note-- personally-- via e-mail:

From: Hillary Clinton
To: Josh Barro
Subject: You touched my heart

Dear Joshua,

I will never, ever forget how you were there for me when I needed you the most. When you learned that my campaign needed your help, you didn't hesitate. And the overwhelming generosity that you showed in the past week is like nothing I have ever seen.

As the race for the nomination continues, I hope you'll remember that you have made this campaign your campaign. Our victories are your victories. I know that you are standing with me and that I can rely on you for help. And with your support, I know we'll win.

I wanted to share some of the kind words and stories you've shared with me over the past week, along with some of my favorite recent moments from the campaign trail. Take a look at the album on my website here:

http:/www.hillaryclinton.com/thankyou

Again, thank you so much for all you have done. My heart is truly full.

Sincerely,


Hillary Rodham Clinton

Speaking as a former political campaign correspondance aide, I am humbled by the awesome ability of Hillary's ghostwriters to tug the heartstrings.

Update: My friend Julie responds, "I'll be more impressed when I hear you touched her va-jay-jay."

Read More......

Veepstakes Gong Show, Volume 3

The Veepstakes Gong Show profiles spectacularly bad running-mate suggestions.

Today's selection is Michael Steele, whose sole experience in elective office was one term as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. Since losing the 2006 Maryland Senate race, Steele has served as Chairman of GOPAC, a Republican PAC that used to be important back in the 1990s.

Whose hare-brained idea was this? Steele's advocates include Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics, Helen Reynolds of InstaPundit, and, according to Michael Goldfarb, a number of attendees at CPAC.

Why might a sentient person, at first, think this idea makes sense? Hard to say, especially since most of his backers claim to oppose affirmative action.

So, why does this idea suck? Serving one term as a Lieutenant Governor is not usually considered a qualifying accomplishment for the vice presidency. Indeed, since Maryland elects its governor and lieutenant governor on a ticket, Steele has never even won an election to public office in his own right. Neither does he have any notable accomplishments in the private sector. If Steele were white, he would be a laughable addition to anybody's shortlist; and if he were picked, he would only serve as a pathetic reminder that today's Republican Party does not have a single black elected official who is reasonably qualified for the vice presidency.

Just as importantly, Steele has a mustache. Wisely, since 1948*, no major party has chosen a presidential or vice presidential nominee with facial hair.

*Presidential nominee statistic from the linked page. Vice presidential nominee statistic determined by research with Google Image Search.

Read More......

Whoops: Obama Wins Maine

Yesterday, Barack Obama soundly beat Hillary Clinton in the Maine caucuses, running up a 59%-40% margin. This defied my, some others', and the Obama campaign's own leaked expectations that Clinton would win, or at least keep things close. We expected a strong Clinton performance because Maine's demographics-- almost entirely white and relatively downscale-- favored her, even as Obama had a stronger organization.

I see two possible explanations for Clinton's failure in Maine. One is bad news for her, and the other is worse:

1. It may be that Obama's stronger organization overwhelmed Clinton's demographic advantage. Unlike other caucus states, Clinton certainly did not cede Maine-- she's been campaigning aggressively here both in person and with surrogates since Super Tuesday. But you can't build a campaign organization in a handful of days, and Obama likely retained a significant advantage in the ground game. This explanation is favorable to Clinton in that it doesn't suggest that her supporters are defecting. However, to win the nomination, you need to win states; if Clinton couldn't turn out her voters in a state where the demographics were so favorable, that bodes ill for places like Ohio.
2. Alternatively, Obama may have won because he actually gained ground among working-class whites. This is the more alarming scenario for Clinton, because if her voters defect to Obama, no amount of organizational catch-up in the later states will get her the nomination. Unfortunately, as Noam Scheiber notes, Maine did not have any entrance or exit polls, so we can't see a demographic vote breakdown. However, this seriously incomplete map of ward-level returns provides some clues. In favor of Hillary panicking: Obama won almost everywhere. In favor of Hillary not panicking: his margin of victory varied widely. He did very well in upscale seaside towns, winning Kennebunk better than 2-1 and Bar Harbor by 3-1. Hillary was stronger in blue-collar areas, winning the one reported ward of the industrial town of Lewiston and losing the northern town of Presque Isle by just 63-60.

I lean toward explanation (1). Of course, it's no cause for Clinton-camp celebration that she basically tied the parts of Maine that should have been her strongholds. But the divergence in town-by-town results suggests that her demographic advantages have not melted away.

Tomorrow, watch Virginia to see how these forces play out. Obama will almost surely win the state, based on his strength in the northern and Tidewater regions-- the former is heavy on affluent white liberals, the latter on black voters. Clinton's strongest regions should be the Shenandoah Valley and southwest Virginia, which are white and downscale. If Obama also runs well in that part of the state, that will mean he's won over working-class whites, and that Clinton's goose is close to cooked.

Read More......

So Why Are Caucuses So Bad For Hillary?

Now that we see that primaries generate about three times the turnout of caucuses, another question is why that's so bad for Clinton. There are a number of theories, but I think the most important factors are, in decreasing order of importance:

1. Obama has more money and, relatedly, much better organization in many of the caucus states. This makes his campaign much better positioned to identify and turn out its voters. Further, this advantage has led Clinton to cede many of the caucus states entirely, increasing Obama's margin of victory.
2. Obama's supporters are more energized than Clinton's.
3. Obama's supporters tend to be more affluent, and therefore are more likely to find it logistically feasible attend a caucus.
4. Obama is the cool, trendy candidate, and there is peer pressure among Democrats to back him; as such, he is advantaged by the lack of secret ballots in caucus voting.
   

Read More......

Caucus Voters vs. Primary Voters

One theme of this year's Democratic primary campaign has been Hillary Clinton's stronger performance in primaries and Barack Obama's in caucuses. To date, Clinton has done pretty well in primaries, winning most of the large state contests. By contrast, Obama has won 10 of 11 caucuses to date, in some cases by better than 2:1 margins.

In an attempt to downplay her caucus underperformance, Clinton has portrayed the caucus process as unrepresentative and undemocratic. ABC News quoted Clinton in advance of the Nevada Caucuses (ironically, the one caucus contest she would go on to win):

"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."

Clinton appears to be pretty accurate on this score: caucuses see only about a third the participation level that primaries generate. The table below shows this year's caucus or primary turnout in a selection of states, compared to John Kerry's vote total from 2004. (Caucus states are in yellow, primary states in green.) This ratio is a measure of relative participation by the states' Democrats and Democratic leaners.

*Turnout estimate provided by the Washington Democratic Party.
**While the New Mexico contest was called a "caucus", it functioned like a primary: voters used a secret ballot which they could cast at polling sites between noon and 7 PM on election day.

Caucus turnout was especially low in the later caucus states, which don't benefit from Iowa's longstanding caucus culture or Nevada's intense candidate focus (and controversial workplace voting sites). Of my sample, the strongest late caucus ratio was Nebraska's 15.1%.

Granted, some of the turnout depression reflects the fact that Clinton has effectively ceded many of the caucus states and made little effort to turn out her voters. We'll see if Maine, which Obama looks to be leading by a healthy but not overwhelming margin, shows a higher turnout as a heavily contested state. Even so, the roughly 30% ratio in Iowa and Nevada still looks weak compared to primary states.

Read More......

Pat Toomey Misdiagnoses McCain's Base Problem

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, an op-ed from Club for Growth head Pat Toomey noted that the "GOP will, for the first time since 1976, select a candidate at odds with a large portion of its conservative members to be the standard bearer." (Hat tip: Ross Douthat.) He then wisely suggested that John McCain use his VP slot to bridge a gap between himself and the conservative base. Unfortunately, Toomey identified the wrong gap.

Toomey says that McCain needs a "true-blue fiscal conservative" to please the Republican base and "[re-establish] the GOP as a party of limited government and economic freedom." Really? McCain's base problem is his insufficient commitment to limited government and economic freedom?

Somehow, Toomey got though an entire column on McCain's base problem without mentioning social issues or even using the word "immigration." To look at Republican dissatisfaction with John McCain and to ignore these areas demonstrates a major blind spot-- and reflects Toomey's role as the head of the Club for Growth. Of course, the Club's principal beef with McCain is his imperfect record at shrinking government. The Club explicitly takes no positions on social issues, and as supporters of free enterprise, they probably line up on immigration more with McCain than with the Republican base.

Don't get me wrong: conservatives do frequently knock McCain for his deviations on economic issues, particularly his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and frequent support for new regulations on businesses. However, economic conservatives also admire McCain for defending their principles in areas where President Bush and most other Republicans in Washington have abandoned them. These include McCain's loud opposition to the rapid expansion of the federal government, his often acrimonious fights against earmarks, and his politically costly opposition to farm subsidies. McCain, unlike Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, is also an unqualified supporter of free trade. He even opposed the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

That said, some of Toomey's VP suggestions-- Mark Sanford, Jim DeMint, and Phil Gramm-- would likely please both social and economic conservatives. But that's not why Toomey proposed them. And both Mike Pence and (hah!) Steve Forbes have taken positions on immigration that are likely to further alienate restrictionists on the Republican side.

Read More......

This Weekend in Nomination

I think Barack Obama will easily sweep today's contests: the primary in Louisiana, and caucuses in the Virgin Islands, Nebraska, and Washington State. (In fact, I recently took a Poll of One which suggests that, in Washington, 100% of Clinton-leaners are breaking late for Obama.) However, I agree with Noam Scheiber that Hillary Clinton is likely to win Maine's caucuses tomorrow.

Read More......

Veepstakes Gong Show, Volume 2

The Veepstakes Gong Show profiles spectacularly bad running-mate suggestions.

Today, we turn our attention to Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent Mayor of New York City. Bloomberg has been laying the groundwork for an indpendent run for President, while denying his interest with a wink and a nod.

Allegedly, he would also be an ideal running-mate for John McCain.

Whose hare-brained idea was this? "One Republican," according to the New York Post's Page Six.

Why might a sentient person, at first, think this idea makes sense? According to said source, because "Bloomberg would lock up the Jewish vote and help carry New York." Also, Bloomberg has a bazillion dollars available to spend on negative attack ads.

So, why does this idea suck? Trying to appeal to Jews and New Yorkers is a really stupid electoral strategy for a Republican. Like most mayors of New York, Bloomberg is something of an egomaniac who wouldn't be very good at playing second banana. Bloomberg is an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, gun control, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and a carbon tax; as such, he might exacerbate McCain's existing base problems. Oh, and according to a Bloomberg spokesman, "he's already said he's not interested."

No wonder "one Republican" didn't want to be associated with this idea on the record.

Read More......

Don't Count Hillary Out in Hawaii

The next month's calendar for caucuses and primaries looks fairly bleak for Hillary Clinton. While March 4 features primaries in Ohio and Texas, big states likely to break for Hillary, the interim period is heavy on caucuses and on states that are demographically favorable for Barack Obama. It's even possible Hillary will go the whole month without winning a single contest.

However, I think Hillary is likely to take one state that most pundits are ceding to Obama: Hawaii, which votes on February 19. There are two reasons people assume Obama will win: (1) it's a caucus, and Obama has won 7 of 9 caucuses to date, in many cases by large margins; and (2) Obama grew up in Hawaii.

However, there are other factors that I think make Hillary the Aloha State favorite:

• The Demographics: Over 70% of Hawaii's population is partly or wholly Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. In California, Hillary dominated among Asians; according to the CNN exit poll, she carried their votes 75%-23% over Barack Obama. Even though Hawaii's A-NH-PI voters are sure to have distinct political interests from those in California, this demographic condition is favorable to Hillary. Even more importantly, less than 2% of Hawaii's population is black.
• The Establishment: Since statehood in 1960, Hawaii's politics have been very favorable to establishment politicians. (And despite Mark Penn's protestations, Clinton remains the establishment politician in this race.) Recent Democratic primaries for the Senate and the governorship have seen voters choose labor-backed establishment politicians over reform candidates, which should bode well for Hillary. And Hillary has backing from Sen. Daniel Inouye, the state's well-respected elder statesman.
• The Beer Track: Relately, unions and union members are a particularly powerful force in Hawaii's Democratic politics. Hawaii is more a beer-track state than a wine-track state, and even if some unions are endorsing Obama, Hillary will benefit from strong participation by union members.
• The Prodigal Son?: Barack Obama was born and raised in Hawaii, but he hasn't lived there since 1979. Obama never worked or pursued political office in Hawaii, and has no particular ongoing connection to the political establishment or the populace. So, his vaunted "favorite son" status in Hawaii may be overstated.

Of course, Hawaii allocates only 29 delegates and isn't a major electoral prize. But in what's likely to be a month of bleak news for Clinton, she may get a favorable news cycle out of beating Obama in his birth state.

Read More......

We Get Results

Sure enough, Harry Reid caved in and agreed to bring the House version of the stimulus package to a vote, sans expansion of unemployment benefits or home heating oil subsidies. I predicted the cave at 11:21 AM, and the Senate had passed the House bill by 4:36 PM, meaning 5:15 elapsed between prediction and failure.

Read More......

I Was Right about California, Sort Of

Earlier, I proposed that Mitt Romney might win the statewide vote in California yet fall behind in the delegate count. This proved a moot point: contrary to my prediction that Romney would prevail, McCain cleaned house, carrying 49 of 53 congressional districts and therefore 158 of 170 available delegates. But based on the district-level results, it appears my claim was right: for any given statewide vote total, McCain would have overperformed in the delegate count.

McCain won almost everywhere and got almost all the delegates. However, his performance varied widely across the state:

• Statewide, McCain won 42.0% of the vote, or 55.2% of votes cast either for him or Mitt Romney (the "two-candidate vote").
  
• McCain won every Democratic-held CD. His share of the two-candidate vote in these CDs generally ranged from 53% to 67%, with one outlier (Nancy Pelosi's 8th) at 72%. His total share of the two-candidate vote in Dem CDs was 60.3%.
• McCain also won 15 of 19 Republican-held CDs. However, his total share of the two-candidate vote was just 51.5%-- 8.8% lower than in the Democratic districts-- and ranged from 48% to 56%.
• The 19 GOP CDs cast more total votes than the 34 Dem ones, so the equal weighting for each district constituted a clear advantage for McCain.
  

I adjusted the numbers to produce two delegate scenarios. First, a virtual tie: I changed the statewide totals for Romney and McCain to be equal, and then adjusted each district's vote total proportionately.

• In this scenario, John McCain would have won 31 congressional districts and Mitt Romney only 22. McCain would have taken all but four Democratic-held districts, and Romney all but one Republican-held district.
• A statewide McCain win by one vote would have netted him 104 delegates (11 for winning statewide plus 3 x 31 districts), leaving 66 for Romney (3 x 22 districts). A Romney win by one vote would have given McCain 93 delegates (3 x 31) and Romney only 77 (11 + 3 x 22).

Then, I swapped McCain and Romney's actual statewide totals, to see a scenario where Romney won the two-candidate vote by exactly as much as McCain did in real life.

• In this scenario, Mitt Romney would have managed 38 congressional districts, but McCain would have held on to 15: 12 of the 13 Bay Area districts and three heavily Hispanic districts in Southern California.
  
• The resultant delegate counts would be Romney 125, McCain 45.
  

So, 44.2% of the two-candidate vote was good for 12 Romney delegates, but would have gotten McCain almost four times as many.

Read More......

Richer Supporters = Smaller Average Donation Size

My friend Josh Patashnik has an insightful post at The Plank, arguing that Barack Obama's much-vaunted fundraising among small donors is more due to circumstance than strategy:

Obama isn't following his high-volume, low-dollar model because he decided that that would be the best way to raise money, while Clinton decided the reverse. Rather, Obama's been so successful with his fundraising model mostly because the type of people who support him--namely, well-educated liberals who are affluent but not spectacularly wealthy--are the type of people generally inclined to give $100 or $200 to a candidate who inspires them... Similarly, Hillary raised money in the way she did (by shaking down a whole bunch of rich friends) because her blue-collar supporters aren't the type of people who make a ton of small donations.

Obama's impressively granular fundraising does demonstrate his base's energy, but also reflects his alignment with the wine track. Even Obama himself used the example of "a mid-level executive" when describing his medium-dollar donors in the Nevada debate.

Read More......

New Feature: The Veepstakes Gong Show

Now that we know John McCain will be the Republican nominee, the blogosphere will spend from now until the Republican convention in St. Paul speculating about whom he will put on the ticket. Give thousands of people seven months to brainstorm, and what will they come up with? Mostly, a lot of bad ideas.

As such, from now through August, I will catalogue the bad suggestions and ridiculous choices put forth as running mate options for John McCain. Should the Democrats ever select a nominee, I'll widen the net to include that search as well.

Without further ado...

Bad Veep Idea #1: Tom Coburn

Whose hare-brained idea was this? Kathryn Jean Lopez and Bill Bennett have recently floated Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R) as a plausible McCain running mate.

Why might a sentient person, at first, think this idea makes sense? Coburn and McCain like each other a lot, and everyone knows Tom Coburn is more conservative than God.

So, why does this idea suck? Coburn and McCain like each other a lot because they're both hotheaded mavericks unafraid to seriously piss off other Republicans. Ted Stevens even threatened to resign from the Senate if Coburn got his way on the Bridge to Nowhere. This isn't a pick that will unite the party, and even McCain/Coburn fans are likely to consider the pair too much of a good thing.

More problematically, Coburn has a penchant for extreme positions and outlantish claims that make him seem, well, sort of nutty. For example, he advocates the death penalty for abortionists, and touts this position in a press release on his campaign website. And during his 2004 Senate campaign, he famously asserted that rampant lesbianism is a key problem in Oklahoma schools.

Read More......

Romney's Out

This makes sense. Mathematically, he had no chance of winning the nomination. Some conseratives wanted him to stay in to make some sort of point about principle, or to extract conservative concessions from McCain at the convention.

But Romney's primary objective in this race has never been to make the next administration as conservative as possible. Romney ran for President because he wants to be President. With his key objective off the table, why would he spend millions more of his own dollars? Certainly not to make Kathryn Jean Lopez happy.

Read More......

Bold Prediction: Harry Reid Will Cave

Republicans last night blocked cloture on the Senate Democrats' stimulus package, which was loaded with more generous goodies than the House version. Senate Republicans want Reid to bring up the House version for a vote with few to no changes. Reid is saying he won't back down, which means, of course, that he will back down.

58 senators (of the 60 needed) voted for cloture: every Democrat**, the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and seven moderate Republicans: Coleman, Collins, Dole, Domenici, Smith, Snowe and Specter.

**Correction 2-8-08: Every Democrat except Harry Reid voted for cloture. Reid changed his vote to Nay in a standard parliamentary move which allows him to reserve the right to move to reconsider the question of cloture. If there had been 60 votes available for cloture, Reid would have maintained his Yea vote, and as such Sununu held the balance of power on this vote, even with John McCain absent. As such, moot comments below have been struck out.

Somewhat shockingly, John Sununu (R-NH) voted against cloture, even though it included relief provisions related to home heating oil that are very popular in New England. Every other targeted Republican incumbent up in 2008 voted for cloture. Sununu is arguably the most vulnerable Republican senator seeking re-election in 2008, and his opponent, former governor Jeanne Shaheen, has already been attacking him for opposing the last stimulus package brought to a vote. And since there were only 58 votes for cloture, he could have voted Yes and still seen the bill fail.

A few possible reasons that he voted against cloture:

1. John Sununu is one of the most economically conservative members of the Senate, and I'm sure he thinks the stimulus package-- especially loaded up with things like an extension of unemployment benefits-- is terrible public policy.
2. Sununu expects McCain to be the nominee. McCain is massively popular in New Hampshire and will provide a significant boost to down-ballot Republicans. As such, maybe Sununu thinks his seat is a lot safer than it would be otherwise, and gives him some wiggle room to make unpopular votes.
3. Ultimately, some stimulus package will pass the Senate with Sununu voting Yea, so he'll be able to respond to charges he opposed the stimulus package by saying he supported the stimulus package, thus arguing the issue to a draw.
4. Finally, it's possible Sununu voted No in order to protect McCain (whom he supports for president). McCain missed this cloture vote, and he's taking some heat for that from Democrats already. At least now McCain can say the outcome would have been the same even if he'd attended and voted Yea. If Sununu had changed his vote, then McCain's absence would have mattered. Still, you'd think they could have found a less vulnerable senator than Sununu to fall on that sword, like Pete Domenici, who is retiring anyway.

Read More......

James Dobson Won't Vote for John McCain

One of his grievances is that McCain "often uses foul and obscene language."

Read More......

Romney Maxed Out to Dole in 1996 Primaries

Now Mitt Romney says he wasn't dissing Bob Dole; rather, he was pointing out that Dole and McCain's presidential campaigns share a bad characteristic:

You know you like every endorsement and Bob Dole is an American hero, another terrific guy. … But you know, I don’t think if I were the McCain campaign that’s the parallel I would have wanted to draw. Just because you know he was selected as somebody who had been a long term Senator and was seen as the anointed choice. You know the inevitable choice, the one who is next in line. I think we’re best as a party, at least in my own view, when we bring somebody in from the outside.

But in 1995, Mitt Romney made a $1,000 contribution to Dole for President, then the maximum allowed by law. (It's the last contribution listed on this image.) Romney made the contribution on 12/19/1995, before any primaries or caucuses, and he didn't give to any other presidential candidates. If you need an outsider to bring change, why didn't he back, say, Lamar Alexander? Didn't Romney want to change Washington in 1996?

Read More......

Talk About Racially Insensitive

From Alexander Hamilton to Walt Disney, every candidate on the New York Democratic Party's Super Tuesday sample ballot is white.

Read More......

Paultards to Allocate West Virginia Delegates

David Freddoso reports that West Virginia conventiongoers have eliminated Ron Paul and John McCain in the first round of balloting. McCain's supporters have switched their backing to Mike Huckabee, in an effort to deny Romney a win. The power to determine the convention winner now lies with 118 backers of Ron Paul.

If you're a Ron Paul supporter, I have to think you prefer Huckabee over Romney. Consider:

1. Ron Paul supporters are probably anti-war. Neither Huckabee nor Romney suits their needs on this score, but at least Huckabee accused the Bush Administration of having an "arrogant bunker mentality." Romney, meanwhile, wants to double Guantanamo Bay.
2. Like Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee has an insane plan to abolish the IRS.
3. Most importantly, if you're advocating some hare-brained policy (like abolishing the Federal Reserve and putting the U.S. back on the gold standard, or withdrawing from free trade agreements to trade freely on a unilateral basis) then Mike Huckabee is clearly your man. He became a FairTax supporter after an activist asked him to read a book about it. He proposed widening I-95 from Miami to Maine the other day just because he felt like it, cost-benefit analyses and environmental impact studies be damned. With a little effort, I'm sure the Paultards could get Huckabee railing against the secret plan for the North American Union inside a few weeks.

This convention is winner-take-all, by the way, which means that the Friends of Paul will decide the fate of all 18 delegates.

Update: Freddoso is told that most of the Paul backers are indeed switching to Huckabee.

Read More......

McCain Derangement Syndrome

Mark Krikorian edition:

Given the likely results today, tomorrow begins a period of penitence, prayer, and fasting — a five-year period for conservatives and Republicans to reflect on our pride, envy, anger, sloth, covetousness, gluttony, and lust.

Read More......

New Poll Has Obama, Romney Up Big in CA

The new Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll has Romney up 7 in California and Obama up a whopping 13. Personally, I expect that Romney and Obama will carry California, though I'm skeptical that the margin could be so wide. A few thoughts:

1. As discussed below, Romney could win the statewide vote in California and not win a majority of the delegates. Jim Geraghty's source in the Romney campaign, "Middle Cheese", thinks Romney may take 2/3 of California's congressional districts, but I don't see how that math can work. He characterizes California Republican primary voters as "very conservative," but again, that's a phenomenon concentrated in California's heavily Republican areas, which are a minority of CDs. I have trouble imagining Romney carrying Bay Area or Westside L.A. districts, even in a Republican primary. And while Romney may win some of the minority-majority districts in L.A., I don't see how he can be confident about sweeping them.
2. If Obama wins California, and especially if he wins big, watch his penetration with Hispanics. Mickey Kaus notes that Obama has been tacking hard to the left on immigration, endorsing driver licenses for illegals and calling claims that immigration drives down unskilled wages "scapegoating." Hillary has staked out a position well to his right. If Obama wins over Hispanics with this contrast, he'll take away one of Hillary's key electoral advantages in the primary. Of course, favoring driver licenses for illegals will be toxic in the general election, which is probably why Hillary (once forced to take a position) came out against.
3. Finally, as referenced by Kaus, KNBC expects that "half the ballots cast in the [Democratic] primary will be absentee ballots." They note specifically that Clinton has focused on collecting absentee votes. This may reduce the importance of Obama's last-minute surge.

Read More......

Romney Disses Bob Dole

Quick backstory: Rush Limbaugh's been bashing John McCain nonstop on his radio show since the Florida primary. Bob Dole released a letter telling Rush to back off. Mitt Romney dismissed the letter, calling Dole "probably the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me." He then compared Dole's 1996 primary campaign to McCain's, saying "it's the guy who's next in line, the inevitable choice."

So, Romney has attacked a well-liked elder statesman of the Republican Party. I think this is, to say the least, a mistake. During the 1996 primaries, it's true that a lot of conservatives thought Dole was a squish and wished they could have picked a more conservative nominee. Rush Limbaugh probably still thinks this. However (1) Dole did win the nomination, and (2) rank-and-file Republicans today remember him as a guy with character who stood up to Bill Clinton, not as a mushy moderate. He is also, as McCain's statement points out, a war hero who (unlike Romney) has always been unreservedly a Republican.

Plus, I mean, it's Bob Dole. Grandfatherly, dryly humorous Bob Dole. Bob Dole who did the Viagra, Pepsi and Visa campaigns. What Republican doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for Bob?

Update: Looks like Romney is trying to walk back the dig a little, but he hasn't apologized, like NC Sen. Richard Burr (R) (and McCain himself) have asked him to do.

Read More......

McCain Campaigns in Massachusetts Today

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard notes that John McCain is campaigning in Massachusetts today, and he's trying to figure out why. He asks, "Why in Massachusetts, which isn't a particularly tight race, instead of California, where some last minute stops might make a big difference?" Ultimately, he settles on the idea that McCain (1) is already pretty sure he's going to clinch the nomination tomorrow, (2) really hates Romney on a personal level, and (3) wants to rub his victory Romney's face as much as possible by campaigning in Romney's home state with Romney's Republican gubernatorial predecessors.

That's a fun idea, and I'm sure McCain finds it delicious to piss Romney off. However, there are also reasons for McCain to think he can make a real delegate dent in Romney's home state, or even pull off a huge (and embarrassing) upset and win:

1. The polls are narrowing. While the RealClearPolitics average has Romney up 22%, the freshest poll has the margin down to 13%, with Romney at 50%.
2. Massachusetts has an open primary, and a majority of state voters are registered independents-- only about 15% are registered Republicans. Because of those independents, McCain cleaned up in Massachusetts in 2000, beating George W. Bush by more than a 2-to-1 margin. He did better in Massachusetts than he did in Arizona. So, McCain has a deep reservoir of Massachusetts support. Unlike in 2000, many of those independents will be drawn to vote in a competitive Democratic race, but McCain is still likely to pick up some of these voters. It is hard for pollsters to accurately model independent participation in this year's Republican primary, making the polling difficult to evaluate.
3. Romney is not universally loved by Massachusetts Republicans. Every recent Republican governor has tired of the governorship, either resigning mid-term or declining to seek election to a second term. When I worked for Romney's gubernatorial campaign in 2002, Republican activists expressed serious resentment of Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift for using the governorship as a vehicle for personal ambitions rather than building the state party. Romney is now guilty of the same sin. It doesn't help that he's spent the last two years running around the South talking about what a leftist basket case Massachusetts is.
4. Like California, discussed below, Massachusetts is not a winner-take-all state. It allocates three delegates based on each congressional district, and 10 based on the statewide vote. Unlike in California, each of those sets of delegates is allocated proportionally, so in practice most districts will produce 2 delegates for candidate A and 1 for candidate B. This means that McCain can pick up extra delegates by doing well in Massachusetts, even if he doesn't win outright.
5. Unlike California, Massachusetts is a one-media-market state. This Boston rally will be a big news story (pushed by the Romney-hating Massachusetts media) that can have a real impact on voters. Retail campaigning is less likely to be effective in California, where McCain is better off depending on surrogates (like Arnold Schwarzenegger) and paid media.
6. Even if Romney wins statewide, McCain is likely to carry the 1st and 2nd congressional districts in Western Massachusetts, where Romney has never been well-liked. He may also do well in the 4th, 7th, and 8th congressional districts, which are strongly liberal Boston-area districts.

Let's say McCain walks out of Massachusetts with 44% of the two-candidate vote and three congressional districts. He'll get 17 pledged delegates (2 x 3 for CDs won, 1 x 7 for CDs lost, and 4 for getting about 40% of the statewide vote). Romney will get 23 pledged delegates (2 x 7 for CDs won, 1 x 3 for CDs lost, and 6 for the statewide vote). "Romney only barely carries home state" will be a very compelling headline, and will encourage the media to stick a fork in Romney. So, I think it's quite rational for McCain to make a play for Massachusetts.

Read More......

Romney Might Win California, But Still Lose California

With John McCain about to run away with victory in most Super Tuesday states, all Republican eyes are on California, the only large primary that looks close. Real Clear Politics has John McCain up by just 3.2% in their poll of polls, so the state is truly up for grabs. Mitt Romney is surely helped by the fact that California's primary is closed-- McCain can't draw on independent voters who would be likely to favor him strongly.

The Problem

The problem for Romney-- aside from the fact that he'll lose many other states-- is California's system of delegate allocation. Of California's 172 delegates to the Republican Convention, 159 are allocated to winners in each congressional district. Further, each district gets three delegates, regardless of how many Republicans it has. (10 delegates are awarded to the statewide winner, and 3 are reserved for party leaders.) I think this system is likely to strongly favor McCain.

To fully understand the perversity of this system, realize that some California congressional districts have almost no Republican voters. Diane Watson's (D) 33rd District cast only about 30,000 votes for George W. Bush in 2004; compare that to a strongly Republican district, Wally Herger's (R) 2nd, which gave Bush 169,000 votes. Each Republican in the 33rd District will have nearly six times' stronger a voice in this primary than a 2nd District Republican.

My read on this system is that McCain benefits, because he will do relatively will with Republican primary voters in Democratic districts. This is because even these areas’ Republican electorates will tend to be more liberal than California Republicans in general.

The Simple Math

Let's say Mitt Romney wins every district with a Republican congressman and John McCain wins every district with a Democratic congressman. Romney will win the statewide vote, because those Republican districts will cast many more primary ballots than the Democratic ones. He'll take home 19 x 3 + 11 = 68 delegates. But John McCain will take 34 x 3 = 102 delegates.

Of course, it’s a big assumption that the wins will break down this way. However, after we classify the state’s congressional districts by likely winner, I reach essentially the same conclusion. Here are my five sets of California congressional districts, and how I expect each to vote.

Latte Liberal California

The first set includes coastal districts that are relatively wealthy and white, and that have a strong Democratic lean; however, they have a significant minority of Republican voters and will have more than a marginal turnout. By my count, these comprise just over half of California’s Democratic seats (18 out of 34: the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 23rd, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 36th, and 53rd). Generally, these districts are in rural coastal Northern California (1), metro Sacramento (1), suburban SF Bay (9), central coast (2), white suburban Los Angeles (5), and urban San Diego (1).

Republicans in these districts will tend to be more liberal, especially on social issues, than the median California Republican, and I expect them to be strongly disposed toward John McCain. He will sweep these districts.

The People’s Republic of California

The second set consists of very heavily Democratic seats. Except for Nancy Pelosi’s 8th, which consists of the epicenter of American leftism and is over 40% white, these districts are drawn to have a very heavily minority population. I count 10 of these districts (the 8th, 9th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 37th, 38th, and 39th). These districts are in San Francisco (1), Oakland/Berkeley (1), and black and Hispanic L.A. County (8).

Republican turnout here will range from small to minuscule-- remember, you have to be a registered Republican to vote in the primary-- which means that a campaign can win one of these seats by turning out just a handful of voters. I think McCain will win most of these districts, especially those where Bush won as much as 30% of the vote in 2004. However, Ron Paul has apparently been targeting a few (like Barbara Lee’s Oakland/Berkeley-based 9th) and Romney could pull some out with his strong organization, especially the most Democrat-dominated ones where organization will matter more than organic popularity.

Purple California

The third set consists of districts that are only marginally Democratic. They are located in traditionally Republican regions, but have just enough urban and minority population to tip them Democratic. These districts (the 11th, 18th, 20th, 43rd, 47th, and 51st) are in the Central Valley (3), Orange County (1), Inland Empire (1), and suburban San Diego (1).

These seats have large Republican primary electorates that ought to be similar to those in the surrounding Republican districts. I expect Mitt Romney to do well in these areas.

Pete Wilson California

Now I’ve complicated my simple division by giving Mitt Romney some of the Democratic districts. However, I had also oversimplified by not giving John McCain any of the Republican districts. McCain is likely to do well in districts that are Republican, but not by much; where voters like California’s moderate Republican governors, but where Republican congressmen are increasingly holding on by the skin of their teeth. Schwarzenegger’s endorsement will help McCain here.

Unfortunately for McCain, I only see five of these districts-- there used to be more, but a lot have elected Democrats and moved into the Latte Liberal column. The remaining ones are the 24th, 25th, 26th, 45th and 46th districts. These are located in Santa Barbara/Ventura Counties (1), north L.A. County (1), San Gabriel Valley (1), Palm Springs (1), and rich coastal L.A. & O.C. (1).

Ronald Reagan California

Remaining are 14 strongly Republican congressional districts. These are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 25th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 44th, 48th, 49th, 50th, and 52nd, which are located in rural Northern California (2), suburban Sacramento (1), Central Valley (3), Orange County/Inland Empire (5), and San Diego County (3).

These seats are the bedrock of California’s Republican Party, home of the base that keeps forcing the party to nominate unelectable conservatives like Bill Simon. With that kind of predisposition, folks here will just adore Mitt Romney.

Sum Total

The district-by-district analysis (assuming McCain manages to sweep the People’s Republic seats) shifts just one net seat to Romney, resulting in a total delegate count of 71 for Romney and 99 for McCain. So, watch for sad faces at Romney HQ, even if he manages to eke out a Golden State victory.

Read More......