On Politik

At long last, Kathy.

2009-03-02T12:31:00.003-05:00

Since time immemorial, this blog has held a candle for the unbelievably popular and effective Governor of Kansas. In a few minutes time she will be nominated as Health and Human Services Secretary. Not only will this gift Obama a talented cabinet minister but America will benefit from the universal health care programme she will usher in. Change we can believe in indeed.

Some have expressed a logical concern that this will cost Dems any chance of picking up the Kansas open Senate seat in 2010 but I feel that that exchange is a price well worth paying to end the travesty of 47mn uninsured Americans (and to stop Phil 'Child hater' Breddesen in his tracks). Besides, the 2010 table is already set beautifully for our Senate chances.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some early afternoon champagne to pop, and thoughts of 2016 to occupy my mind...

Twittering Obama's First Congressional Address

2009-02-24T20:55:00.001-05:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

Ticket to Ride

2009-02-24T14:08:00.003-05:00

Leave it to us - we're professionals.

As we’ve previously written, not everyone is happy with the stimulus, and that includes us at VomPolitik. There are serious questions about whether it is large enough, whether the mix of spending and tax cuts is appropriate, and whether the Democratic majority should have rammed a left-of-center partisan plan down the throats of recalcitrant Republicans. That’s not why we’re unhappy, though. After years of trying to see the big picture, we’ve decided to take a vacation and become that most dreaded of political animals, the Single Issue Voter. And what is our Single Issue? High-speed rail.

Marcus and I have been obsessing over high-speed rail for years. We’d like to pretend that it’s because building high-speed rail would create jobs, hasten commerce, and provide cleaner competition to air travel. All of those are true, and there are other arguments as well, but that’s not why we, in particular, want it. We just really like trains. And the $9 billion in the stimulus package for high-speed rail won’t buy us nearly enough. In fact, it’s so little it disgusts us and fills us with loathing.

Let us assume, though, that our more sophisticated readers have taken a more nuanced view and decided to make national transportation policy decisions for reasons other than personal inclination, finding, for argument’s sake, the environmental justification persuasive. What would it take to build a national, high-speed rail network?

Marcus and I have drawn up plans for what amounts to a Circle Line for the United States, with the following main lines (all with stops at convenient cities): Boston to Miami; Chicago to San Francisco; Seattle to Los Angeles; and Los Angeles to Miami via Phoenix, Dallas, etc., with the lines connecting at their nearest points (Boston-Miami connects to the Chicago line via a New York-Chicago run, for example), laying 9,700 miles of track in all.

At an average speed of 200mph (slower than records set by European and Asian high-speed lines but better than the Acela’s current 150mph), this would allow travelers to get from Boston to Miami in seven and a half hours (only one or two hours more than the flying process); the entire circuit could be concluded in slightly over two days, with the longest stretch being Boston-Seattle, at 20 hours. Readers will note that this is significantly longer than it takes to fly, an inconvenience to be balanced by the lower ticket prices and greater comfort of the train (tickets being cheaper because of the train’s far greater passenger capacity).

And what, you might ask, is the price tag of this wondrous system that will allow us to travel from one end of the country to another at speed and in comfort? Estimates on cost per mile vary, but a fair figure is between $40 million and $80 million per mile, which we average at $60 million. $60 million for 9,700 miles of track means that it will cost a scant $582 billion to build a nation-wide, high-speed rail network. Worth every penny, in our view. All aboard!

Today's stimulus reading (Updated)

2009-02-09T11:26:00.004-05:00

Why should you read these? Because we may very well be on the brink of a depression and we need to get the stimulus right if we're to prevent it or at least mitigate it and that means understanding the issue both politically and economically. Thankfully, smart people who can write real well help:

Paul Krugman explains how Centrist Democrats and Republicans are sabotaging the stimulus.
Ambinder seeks to get the Administration's definition of a depression.
Gallup shows that Obama (and to a lesser extent Congressional Dems) are beating the GOP in the court of public opinion on the stimulus.
And noted economist Dean Baker sums the matter up nicely: "Trying to save money on a stimulus is like finding a short cut for your jogging route. We can do it, but it undermines the whole point of the effort. " (h/t Ben Smith)
Update: And as the Stimulus heads into Conference between House and Senate here's proof positive by Anglo-American economist Will Straw of the dangers of a centrist approach, namely the loss of at least 430,000 job opportunities by shifting from the liberal House bill to the centrists Senate bill.

Amidst a snowstorm of protest... (Updated)

2009-02-06T15:07:00.003-05:00

In comparison to Bredeson, I pray that Ambinder is right about DeLauro now in contention for HHS. In the meantime, for some Obama old-school grassroots activism feel free to drop the White House a line if you oppose Phil 'screw the children' Bredeson.

Update: Now Kathy's name is being trailed again... don't tease us again Barack!

Unacceptable

2009-02-06T13:06:00.003-05:00

The Page is reporting that Tennesee Governor Phil Bredeson is poised to become Health & Human Services Secretary. Such a move would be seriously endanger the cause of universal healthcare. As a result, it would likely create serious outright opposition from more then just liberal netroots but serious healthcare reformers.

Why? Because Bredeson's record of cutting healthcare and restricting access to healthcare amongst even the poorest in his state is dangerous prologue for the healthcare fights with the Right to come. Furthermore, his ludicrous analogy of healthcare as a commodity not unlike groceries show's a fundamental lack of intellectual understanding on matters of public goods. Jonathan Cohn, of The Treatment healthcare blog, as ever breaks down the danger succinctly and sharply.

If Bredeson is nominated to lead HHS he should be opposed. Healthcare matters more then giving Obama another free pass on a crucial national priority.

Reach for the reset button: Obama so far and the Health Czar vacancy

2009-02-05T11:34:00.006-05:00

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not best pleased with the Obama Administration of late:

The stimulus is too small.
Foreign policy star General Zinni was badly snubbed.
Tom Daschle withdrew as Health Czar, damaging the prospects of universal health care this year.

Now, based upon the clear and obvious understanding that the sole purpose of Barack Obama's presidency is to please me then there is but one thing that he can do to get me back on side, and her name is Kathy...

Tax Bites Dems - Again

2009-02-04T11:27:00.009-05:00

The sound of inevitability

Alas, Tom Daschle, we hardly knew ye. Ditto Nancy Killefer. Congratulations to Tom Geithner, whose nomination matured to confirmation.
Readers will know what these three Obama Administration nominees have in common: their path from designate to office-holder took a turn for the rocky over issues to do with failing to pay tax. Daschle, the Health and Human Service Secretary nominee, withdraw his candidacy over the trouble, as did White House Chief Performance Officer-nominee Killefer. Geithner survived his spot of bother, and the Obama Administration has declared the matter closed.
It is not my intention to excuse or apologize for a failure to pay tax, but I submit this for your consideration: is it that high-level policy-wonk Dems, as a species, are fundamentally incapable of paying tax, or is there a systemic problem at work, perhaps to do with a tax code of such complexity that no one seems sure how long it really is?

Stimulus we can believe in...

2009-01-29T15:46:00.003-05:00

Ok, so now we've explored unity as a rhetorical device, a strategic imperative and as a change from the "chilidish" things of our past partisanship. What is thus left, is the question of the stimulus itself, or to be specific, what is the purpose of the stimulus and how should it be achieved?

Republicans talk of stimulus as "targeted, timely and temporary". Even Vice President Biden warns of the need for the stimulus to not possess "a long tail" leading to future mandatory spending. But with America's roads, rails, water and basic systems receiving a D grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with the power grid failing under the stress and strain of a regular January snowstorm, with the US Postal Service considering scaling back deliveries of mail to 5 days a week, it is clear that the stimulus should go further.

In short, what is needed is not "targeted, timely and temporary" stimulus but rather a massive broadside of a stimulus, as far reaching as it is long lasting, that goes beyond the needs of the economic crisis at hand to address the fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economy as a whole. Such an economic package would have the following purposes:

1) Major economic stimulus in both the short and long term

2) Saving existing jobs and creating new jobs

3) Transforming the state of American infrastructure from thirdworld standards to envy of the world

Let's now conside how each of these can be achieved in turn:

1) Major economic stimulus

Keep in the bill and indeed expand those elements that have been assessed by Moody's Investor Service as having a direct stimulative effect on the economy far greater then that of either personal or corporate tax cuts. Remove from the bill, those elements that don't deliver value for the tax payers dollar.

That means food stamps (yielding $1.73 of economic impact per $1 of government spending), extending unemployment benefits ($1.64) and infrastructure spending ($1.59). Each of these elements has been assessed by Moody's Investor Service as having a direct stimulative effect on the economy far greater then that of either an across the board tax cut ($1.03) or a corporate tax cut ($0.30!).

2) Jobs

As the saintly CNBC economic maven Erin Burnett notes: "Every billion dollars you spend on infrastructure CEOs will say is about 18 to 20,000 jobs."

With unemployment at 4.7mn and likely to climb far higher as the crisis's full force is revealed it would thus cost the Federal Government some $235bn to employ the entire unemployed workforce to date on infrastructure projects. In this Keynesian moment, that is probably a price well worth paying to not only stop unemployment but to secure the kind of infrastructure this nation needs - which leads us to our final point.

3) Transforming American infrastructure

The American Society of Civil Engineers have called for $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending to modernise the very"roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together" that President Obama spoke of in his inaugural address. Although as the AP notes,

"even though the pricetag to fix America's physical needs is $2.2 trillion over five years, it's really only half that bad because $1.1 trillion of that is already being spent or planned, Herrmann said. The biggest "gap" between what's being spent or planned and what's needed is an additional $548.5 billion in roads and bridges, the report said. Second is $189.5 billion for public transit."

As such it's clear that a different approach to stimulus could have the desired economic impact in terms of stimulating spending, ensuring jobs and building up the nation's vital infrastructure in one fell swoop. What is needed now is the political courage, and indeed partisanship, to create a new stimulus package capable of achieving these aims through dramatic government interventions in the domestic economy. The scale of such an effort is likely to be staggering, but it is matched by the very scale of crisis itself. It is to this issue that we shall turn our attention next.

The Stimulus Pie

2009-01-28T16:21:00.002-05:00

“This is a screwed up, month-late Christmas tree with a bunch of thrift store ornaments.” – DC Duck

Apparently, not everyone is happy with the stimulus package. Marcus has commented on the question of unity surrounding the Obama team’s approach to the stimulus and posed two good questions: how does 44 deal with Congressional Republicans now that they’ve refused the offer, and what should the stimulus look like?

To tackle the first question, the unity approach marks a welcome change from the zero-sum game where the party in power gets its way and the opposition is frozen out until eight years later, when all policies are instantly reversed, and the only way to prevent extremes is to bog the nation down by electing an executive and legislature of different parties. Of all the childish things it is time to put aside, this one in particular should pass into its mortal maturity un-mourned.

Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans don’t seem to see it that way, and unity, by definition, requires consent by more than one actor, alas. What to do with the recalcitrant Republicans?

Imagine the stimulus package as a pie. The pie is made up of dollars and of political capital, and 44 offered the Republicans an approximate 40% of it (one-third of its money in tax cuts, some cosmetic victories by cutting out the provisions for contraception) – less than half of the pie, and certainly a great deal less than what they would have wanted, but nonetheless much more than a minority party, recently destroyed in a general election, would have any right to expect.

The Republicans refused. The problem they face is that 44 and the Democratic Congress have only to retain Democratic support and win over two Republican Senators to get a cloture-proof majority in the Senate and pass whatever stimulus pie they choose – not a hard job considering that all Obama has to do is convince two Republican Senators not to be the people who stopped the stimulus pie. If that isn’t leverage enough, he’s giving away cash like it’s going out of style, and it’s hard to believe there aren’t two Republican Senators who’d like a bridge constructed or a bus-fleet built in their state.

How to deal with R’s after the stimulus pie goes through is a new question. Marcus, and he’s not alone, is inclined to take a partisan line – 44 offered the R’s a chance at unity, they declined, so they get to be a beaten-up minority for the next few years. My own view on this is that 44 must stick with his unity approach – for the next pie, he must go back and offer them 40% again. If they take it, so much the better. If not, 44 and the Dems simply take more for themselves, the point being that negotiations don’t start with the Republicans demanding more and compromising at 40% - the deal starts at 40% and only gets worse for them. The next pie, 40% again, and so on.

This changes the game from a piece of public ritual drama where two sides are seen demanding 100% their way and then reaching the inevitable compromise, to one of real collaboration – the majority gets 60%, the minority gets 40%, and we move on to the next issue. The downside is that the ruling party, which could probably get a much bigger piece of the pie, has to give up a bit of its share in the name of unity government. The upside is that there’s a real chance that some lasting policy might come out of such a system.

Of course, Republicans could continue to not play, refusing their 40% on a regular basis. The downside is that this sinks any hope of unity. The political upside is that the Republican leadership has to return, time and again, to the rank-and-file and explain why they turned down a fair deal in favor of a worse one, and the rank-and-file must go back to voters and explain same.

Of course, the question of how much of the pie Republicans should get is only one part of the problem. Perhaps a more serious one is whether or not the pie is big enough. For a man who claims to like pie so much, the President has made this one perilously small. More on that to come.

The price of unity: part II

2009-01-27T15:35:00.002-05:00

The thing about political unity is, I'm a fan. A big fan in fact. Not only does it provide some of my favourite rhetorical moments in an Obama speech but I actually believe there is a serious strategic imperative to it. Let's think about those two aspects before we consider where we go from here with regard to Obama, the GOP and the stimulus.

Rhetorically, unity is a beautiful, moving theme, The first half of Obama's acceptance speech at the Convention I found to be clever but conventional. The second half, where he spoke of both the power and practice of unity made my heart soar:

"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."

That's the kind of unity I want: finding common ground where there has been division both needless and painful. What I don't want is to give away our values and our moment for the sake of attempting unity where in reality it does not exist. Rachel Maddow's "I won" segment last night captured this aspect of the issue beautifully.

As I struggled over this issue at lunch Frank reminded me that the thing about real bi-partisanship is, that you have to have a serious partner. In their treatment of the Administration's stimulus proposal there is little sign that the GOP is ready to be a real partner. And if the rhetorical lift was all that there was to it I'd be prepared to dismiss it out of hand and move forward as a good partisan once more, but alas there's more to unity then just language.

The rhetorical and emotional upsides of unity aside, there is a strategic aspect to it and that is the idea that one of the big reasons why government in the last 20 years has been as ineffective as it has been because of the lack of unity. Think Healthcare in '93, Social Security reform in '05 or the so-called War On terror, let alone Iraq. Where there is a lack of fundamental agreement, then it becomes very difficult to execute policy and achieve major outcomes, because the chances are you only passed your legislation by a hairsbreadth and then those that oppose you waged a guerrila campaign to undermine your efforts in practice thereafter.

More conceptually, where a lack of unity in the national polity exists there is a lack of will and will, as Clausewitz noted, is often the very essence of victory. Col. Harry Summers in his brilliant Clausewitzian analysis of Vietnam, 'On Strategy' concluded that lack of national unity behind that war was a key cause of US failure as it manifested in a lack of national will with degenerative effects throughout the polity. If such is the case in foreign policy, how much more so the domestic polity?

Thus, Obama's paen to unity makes sense in both rhetorical and strategic terms. More unity = more force. More force = more results. Ta daaaa.

But what do you do when unity is unachievable for lack of a serious partner? Many, including myself at times argue for retrenching back to a more partisan line, but that still leaves open the key questions for understanding the current Washington situation: what do you do with the Republicans? And what kind of stimulus is actually needed? It is to these questions that we must next turn our attention.

What price unity?

2009-01-27T12:14:00.002-05:00

This weekend, even the purveyor of conventional wisdom extraordinaire David Gregory noted when interviewing White House economic chief Larry Summers that the $825bn Obama stimulus package may be too small to turn the economy around.

Meanwhile, the ever astute Bill Moyers Journal discussed whether Obama's unity-first approach came at too high a price if it meant trading actual positive economic impact for GOP support.

These two questions are linked and strike at the heart of the political debate about what kind of Administration this is.

The Administration began by offering $300bn in tax cuts to please GOPers, despite liberal economist views that tax cuts are not as stimulative as spending. At Obama's request, House Dems have now cut $200mn in birth control funding from the stimulus package to placate social conservatives. Obama has met with GOP leaders three times to personally seek common ground. Rahm has had countless phone calls with them. And, oh yes, there's an economic crisis of titanic proportions underway that just yesterday claimed at least 73,000 jobs.

And yet House Republicans have already decided to vote no.

Obama wants bi-partisanship and clearly considers the pursuit of unity through compromise to be both the goal and the approach that guides his first major Congressional challenge, but liberals are right to fear that at a certain point bi-partisanship comes at too high a price. If the GOP continue in their obstinacy then Obama should declare his diplomatic efforts at an end due to Republican intransigence, strip those provisions from the package that were there to assuage conservatives, restore the mass-transit spending that the Administration replaced with tax cuts, and pass a Democrats-only bill that actually stimulates the economy, saves and creates jobs and pays out huge sums for the massive infrastructure challenges that this nation faces.

Such a package would likely cost far more then $825bn and would be a deeply partisan affair but if Nobel Laurette Paul Krugman is right (and he's been right about this whole imbroglio thus far), that's what it'll take to save us from depression. The President may soon be forced to choose between bi-partisan unity and the economy. I think we know what the unemployed would choose.

January 20th, 2009

2009-01-20T00:24:00.002-05:00

"Out of many we are one and while we breath, we hope." - Barack Obama

With language like this, oratory that soars in both heart and head, how can expectations for tomorrow be anything less then epic? And as they say in West Wing, when expectations are so high the only thing you can do is exceed them.

And so tonight, even as we worry over whether the stimulus is large enough, whether Afghanistan is intractable, whether Chuck Todd will ever again cover a campaign so perfect, we know that Obama will give a speech for the ages come tomorrow.

Lincoln's inaugurals. FDR's. JFK's. And now Obama's. We get to see history tomorrow and it will be both an honour and a privilege. With this in mind On Politik offers it's heartfelt thanks to the survivors of Gore 2000, Carnahan '02, Ohio for Kerry and Madrid for Congress: Our time for change has come.

On Politik On The March!

2009-01-13T12:27:00.002-05:00

Can victory be far behind?

A word to our readers:
It's a week exactly until the 44th President of the United States takes the Oath of Office. Having chronicled and commented on what history may record as the most edifying, engaging, and entertaining presidential campaign in modern political history, we're expanding our remit at On Politik to explore the broader aspects of the word 'politik'. We will continue to comment on electoral politics, of course, but we will also address policy (foreign and domestic), the politics of governing (not just winning elections) - 'politik' in its truest sense as the business of the polity.

Richardson's Loss Could Be Senate Dems' Gain

2009-01-04T15:20:00.007-05:00

Let it Snowe...

Happy New Year. We kick off this year the way we closed the last - with the discomfiture of a governor. This time it is Bill Richardson of New Mexico, laid low by charges that his Administration illegally gave state contracts to a firm that had donated substantially to his political campaigns. While the case itself will take some months to investigate and adjudicate, Richardson has withdrawn his appointment as Commerce Secretary.

Who should take his place in the Cabinet? Kathleen Sebelius, floated early as a possible nominee, would be on the list. Bill Daley, Commerce Secretary under Clinton and, like Obama, a Chicagoan of note, is a dark-horse contender but a worthy one. Into this hat it's worth tossing the name of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), a Republican who serves on the Senate Commerce Committee. She'd come into the job with the issues at her fingertips, and her nomination would further support Obama's pledge to reach across the aisle. More than that, her appointment would open a Senate seat in Maine, to be filled by the appointee of Democratic Governor Jim Baldacci. The appointee would then run for (re)election in 2012 in a state that generally votes Democrat except against its two incumbent Republican Senators (the other is Susan Collins; Maine has two Democratic Congressman, a Democrat-controlled State Senate and House, and a Democratic Governor in Baldacci), inching Democrats closer to the filibuster-proof majority.

And now, from the Department of Disturbing Coincidences: when not abroad, I have lived in three American states (not counting short hitches on political campaigns) - New Mexico, Illinois, and New York. Their governors as of this time last year: Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer. Quite.

The Fall of Rod

2008-12-09T14:49:00.005-05:00

Alas, Rod Blagojevich, corrupt soon-to-be-former Governor of Illinois, we hardly knew ye. And it’s probably just as well. Let this be a lesson to us all: never elect a candidate for governor who promises tax cuts on the back of cutting waste in the public universities – such people cannot be trusted. Of course, no one predicted that Governor Blagojevich would go so far as to nakedly try to sell the Senate seat of the President-elect of the United States to the highest bidder, but the point remains.

A few observations:

You have to go back to 1994 for the last time the good people of Illinois elected a governor whose tenure did not end in an arrest for corruption (as seems likely for Rod).

To impeach Blagojevich, the Illinois House of Representatives must investigate the charges against him, then recommend an impeachment trial in the Illinois State Senate. There’s been talk of impeaching Blagojevich for some months in connection with the Tony Rezko business, but it hadn’t gone far - much of it was the usual haziness of state-level corruption changes.

To move forward with the impeachment investigation, the Speaker of the Illinois House would have to create a commitee to do so. Speaker Michael Madigan’s antipathy for Blagojevich is well known, but the matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that Speaker Madigan’s daughter, AG Lisa Madigan, appears to be Senate Candidate Number 2 referred to in the indictment.

Should the committee recommend impeachment, the trial by Senate would take place on the home turf of Emil Jones, the outgoing President of the Senate, an ally of Gov. Blagojevich’s, one-time Obama mentor, and possible Senate appointee himself. The question now, though, is whether Jones was ever in serious consideration, given that his friends may well have been priced out of the market as Blagojevich’s bag-man, Chief of Staff John Harris, tried to shake down the likes of SEIU and Warren Buffet?

So, Blagojevich’s fate now rests with legislative bodies ruled by the father of a now-tainted (and presumably perfectly innocent) Senate appointee-prospect, and an ally whose claim to the Senate is almost certainly hopeless. Resigning now might be less painful.

Final point: Ben Smith reports that this morning’s arrests may have been the result of swift action by Rahm Emmanuel, responding himself to a shakedown attempt. All right and proper on Rahm’s part, of course, but here’s a thought – having taken down Rod Blagojevich, elevated Bill Richardson to Commerce and Janet Napolitano to DHS, and considering elevating Arnold Schwarzenegger to energy czar, Jennifer Granholm to Transport, and Kathleen Sebelius to Labor or Education, Rahm and the Office of the President-elect may end up removing from power over 10% of the nation’s governors. If I were Duval Patrick, I’d sleep with one eye open.

Back from fishing...

2008-12-02T12:15:00.008-05:00

...or rather a blissful week in Albuquerque for Thanksgiving with Frank's clan. Sorry for the silence of late: let's get stuck in with what's happened since.

On Hillary: (GULP) it's a good call. It says he thinks he can control the Clintons and that he cares less about their media distractions then he does about implementing his policy (as Nate has now also noted, strategy and tactics anyone?) but it should work out. I may have preferred Kerry (and dreamed of Zbig) but this is as good choice a choice as can be for those desirous of dealing both firmly and fairly with Israel and the Palestinians. Between Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton the Administration has all the pro-Israeli creds it needs to broker a serious peace deal that trades the Palestinian right of return for Israeli settlements so as to create a practicable, territorially contiguous Palestinian state. Land for peace is the best guarantee of Israel's security and I think Secretary Clinton understands that.

On Jones: The most surprising cabinet pick by Obama thus far. Apparently, Obama only spoke with him at length twice during the campaign. As NATO commander Jones showed a preference for force in Afghanistan that I found surprising. Whether he has learned the lessons of the limited utility of force in that country particulalry is something I'm looking into. Still, if anyone can hold their own against Hillary in argument it's likely to be the man who once held the title Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe - surely the only title in the world better then POTUS!

On Gates: as long as it's short term (no more then a year) then it's a good play. Puts a Republican face on Iraq troop drawdowns. That should make the GOP's fostering of a Dolchstoßlegende more difficult. After a year though, I want Danzig to step up, not least because I want DoD to be a Democrat's domain.

On Obama's NSC: Including Eric Holder and Susan Rice in yesterday's roll out sent important messages in both policy and political terms: first, that obeying and implementing the law will be key to Obama's war on terror approach whilst re-engaging with the international community through the UN will be crucial to national security as a whole. Second, that Gates, Jones and Clinton will be balanced by two deeply loyalist voices for Obama himself in all NSC discussions. As such, Obama's own likely thinking will be reflected in the NSC from interesting angles: the Justice Department and the UN Ambassador. And that in a team of big, powerful personalities with likely conflicting agendas and counsels will leave Obama where he wants to be as, in the words of his predecessor, "The Decider".

Playing the long game...

2008-11-19T10:41:00.003-05:00

President-elect Obama likely picked up two new votes for his domestic agenda last night: Mark Begich (AK) and Joe Lieberman (FU). On Lieberman, partisans like me wanted vengeance but Obama continues to pursue his oh-so-annoying-because-it-makes-sense approach to ignoring slights in favour of his pursuit of The Prize. Savvy commentators have also pointed out why Lieberman so richly deserved to lose his chairmanship for policy reasons but also how Obama, as a poker player, can win in the end.

It's almost as if Obama knows the difference between strategy and tactics.

Obama wants to move a big agenda. He needs to have as close to 60 votes as possible in the Senate (paging Senators Collins and Snowe). He needs to have a White House staff and departmental leadership that can deliver on his ambitions for the country and the world. I believe a pattern is forming: Obama is forgiving enemies, securing votes and selecting many experienced, clever Clintonistas so that he can govern with maximum effectiveness. This is politik as policy more then politics. In the short term he might pay a political price in terms of complaints from his left flank on Lieberman and the embrace of the Clintons, in the long term his bet is that history will judge him not for what he did with Joe, Bill and Hillary but rather with the economy, national security, healthcare and climate change.

Mark Halperin raises the prospect of an Iraq/Afghanistan redeployment... via Syria?

2008-11-18T16:49:00.007-05:00

Per The Page: "Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Adm. Mullen tells the AP the Pentagon is developing plans to get troops quickly out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Says the military has already practiced traveling out of Iraq through Turkey and Jordan to determine "what the challenges might be.""

This begs 3 questions:

1) Has the US military actually practiced marching 160,000 troops through Turkey and Jordan recently?

2) Why is the US planning to march west to Afghanistan instead of east?

3) Should Syria be worried?

Obama's legislative program: costs & priorities

2008-11-18T10:54:00.004-05:00

Obama should LBJ things with big moves as fast as possible on his big campaign priorities. I also like the idea of him channelling Reagan in '81 and walking from the Capitol's steps after his inauguration but that may be a little much given the scale and complexity of the legislation at hand. Here's what his initial program might look like:

Economy/stimulus: tax cuts (estimated at $188bn over 2 years), Detroit restructuring ($25bn for now...), infrastructure package for transportation, public works and general construction (estimated at $150bn over 10 years)
Healthcare: Expands public insurance by 48.3mn people at an estimated cost of $1.2tn over 10 years.
Energy/environment: moving towards renewables and energy independence in 10 years, creating 5mn new green collar jobs at an estimated cost of $150bn over 10 years
DoD re-budgeting: Army, Marines expansion (at least $67bn of additional spending per year)
Education: the Obama education plan emphasizes funding for No Child Left Behind, an expansion of pre-school care and ensuring college tuition affordability for the middle class at an estimated cost of $18bn per year.

That adds up to roughly $354bn in new spending for FY2009 at a time when tax revenues will be down and debt reaches historic levels.

So, the key questions are: how many of these pieces can he afford in terms of both political capital and actual money? How fast can he move them legislatively? And what, if anything, gets cut back, cancelled or even expanded?

Obama's Secretary of State

2008-11-17T11:37:00.006-05:00

Secretary of State Clinton

On the journey to and from Ohio, we listened to 'Team of Rivals' which is now the zeitgeist book of the political cognoscenti. When I first backed Obama in October 2006 I argued that at worst he would be Reagan (gifting us a transformed electoral map - check), he could well be Kennedy (and inspire a new generation to public service - looking good) and at best he could be Lincoln (let's talk in 50 years).

Obama as Lincoln is possible, but is Hillary really Seward?

Lincoln's Secretary of State was his greatest rival for the 1860 Republican nomination was indeed a New York Senator once thought as destined for White House who was eclipsed at the eleventh hour by a come-from-nowhere Illinois rival. I can already hear Doris Kearns Goodwin's shorthand scribblings!

I have some serious concerns about Senator Clinton in the position of senior cabinet officer: her management record during the campaign was horrific, her gaffes were often foreign policy related (from landing under fire to bringing peace to Northern Ireland) and the Bill factor in terms of deeply dodgy Kazak deals and dubious donations (albeit for great causes) should in and of itself provide pause for grave reflection.

Still, perhaps she would shine in a position that gives her a spotlight, removes her from domestic politics and allows her to genuinely broker peace deals and face down tyrants - I don't think anyone doubts who would win an Ahmadinajad/Hillary show down! She's also a better choice then Richardson who gave exemplary service as global envoy and UN Ambassador (if ever there was a man made for the haggling of international diplomacy at the world's greatest bazaar it was Bill) but his 'running' of the Energy Department and Ryan Lizza's primary season character assassination should rule him out.

Kerry would be a decent choice. "Knows the game" (as Halberstam might have said), respects Obama, is respected in turn by many international leaders. Al Giordano makes a strong case for him as the 'no drama' choice. He'd also be a worthy successor to Secretary Rice in sartorial terms.

Still, my own preference is for Dick Lugar, senior Senator from Indiana and ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Lugar and Obama have a strong relationship. Lugar and Biden have a strong relationship. Lugar has the right instincts on matters of America's moral leadership role, nuclear proliferation and Darfur. What's more, a Republican at State would probably mean a Democrat at Defence - especially as I worry about the wisdom of keeping Gates on in even a short term capacity (more on that soon).

So, to sum up, I'd like Lugar best although I doubt it'll be him. I'd prefer Kerry over Hillary but would settle for Hillary over Richardson. That said, I think now it will be Hillary and so Doris' scribblings shan't be in vain.

Obama's cabinet: fantasy & reality

2008-11-14T10:49:00.005-05:00

Courtesy of evil Washington lobbyists via Politico, here's a DC parlour game tipsheet for the Obama cabinet:

It's worth noting that Hillary is not even mentioned on the sheet.

What follows is my take on what I'd like to see, regardless of what the contenders themselves have said on the subject. In brackets are those who I actually think will get the appointment.

State: Richard Lugar (John Kerry)

Treasury: Paul Volcker

Defence Secretary: Robert Danzig (Robert Gates)

Deputy SecDef: John Hamre

National Security Advisor: Anthony Zinni (James Steinberg)

Secretary of Commerce: Penny Pritzker

Education: Colin Powell

Energy: Jeff Bingaman

Health & Human Services: Tom Daschle

Justice: Eric Holder (Janet Napolitano)

Homeland Security: Richard Clarke (James Lee Witt)

DepHomeSec: Ray Kelly

Veterans: Max Cleland (actually I think Cleland will wind up as Secretary of the Army)

Labour: David Bonior

Agriculture: Tom Vilsack

Office of Urban Policy: Valerie Jarret

Enviormental Protection Agency: RFK Jr.

US Trade Representative: Lael Brainard

UN Ambassador: Susan Rice

Ambassador to the Court of St. James: Caroline Kennedy

Climate change Tsar: Al Gore (Jerry McNerney)

Energy Security Council: John Podesta

Your thoughts?

The McCain Campaign Threw in the Towel - in October

2008-11-13T15:17:00.009-05:00

October surprise?

Marcus has brought this fantastic article to my attention. By way of passing the favor on, I direct you to the following portion:

‘On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain's core group of advisers—Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons—met to decide whether to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had "a pulse."’

This raises just a few questions.

1) What
2) The
3) [deleted]?

I won’t say “in seriousness”, because I don’t believe it’s possible to get there with this piece of inside information, but to try and be a bit analytical, I suppose the glaring question here is what, precisely, was this meeting meant to be in aid of?

Leaving aside the ludicrous conclusion that the only standard of viability to which McCain’s senior staff appeared to hold their candidate was that he had not yet technically joined the choir invisibule, to what point and purpose this secret meeting? What if they had decided that, in fact, the race was absolutely over, and had said the same to Senator McCain? What exactly would that have accomplished, beyond demoralizing their already exhausted candidate? Let us call a spade a spade: McCain’s senior staff met to determine whether it was time to surrender.

This, of course, begs another relevant question: how exactly does one surrender a presidential campaign? Refuse to accept electoral votes? Fire your field organizers and demand the ritual suicide of your senior staff? Refuse further contributions? Refund the money? Let your VP have a go at it? Endorse your opponent?

The concept does, however, provide a nice end to the arch of the McCain campaign – from an imaginary victory to an impossible surrender.

How cool is this:

2008-11-06T17:10:00.001-05:00

http://change.gov/page/s/application

Dropping the Rahm Bomb

2008-11-06T14:28:00.004-05:00

"I have three words for Congressional Republicans, and all of them are f***"

Returning from Ohio in triumph (still having trouble believing I'd ever write those words), Marcus and I spoke about the Rahm Emanuel pick for Chief of Staff. Marcus has a lot of respect for Rep. Emanuel's famous abilities, but is concerned about the reports of his ferocious temper and tendency to savage subordinates. This kind of behavior is not at all in keeping with the way Obama ran his campaign and Marcus was quite understandably concerned that Obama is moving away from the core organizational values that made him the most effective presidential candidate in modern history.

This is understandable, and I believe that President-Elect Obama is already taking steps to address this question. Before I write more, however, I should add that while Marcus respects Rahm very much, I'm more by way of being a rabid fan. My contact with Representative Emanuel has been pretty minimal, but I admire his intensity, intelligence, and aggression absolutely.

That caveat aside, I'm prepared to admit that those same traits aren't necessarily ideal, particularly the intensity and aggression bits. Rahm has been known to lay into subordinates, emphasizing his points by stabbing them in the forehead with his finger. His gladiatorial tendencies were incredibly useful during the Dems' time out of power, when he directed a hugely successful 2006 offensive at the Democratic Congressional Committee, then, having slain his enemies at the congressional level, took on the most powerful man in the United States - the Vice President himself. That same belligerence might not be such a boon in the office of a man elected on the promise of reaching across the aisle to do something other than strangle the first Republican handy.

This, of course, is where Marcus's concerns come from, and they're not unreasonable. My initial response is to suggest that Rahm Emanuel isn't always a blood-soaked gladiator - he can be a tremendous motivator, a skilled political operative, and a gifted negotiator. Further, a Chief of Staff takes on the character of his or her boss, and Emanuel is a bright man who will understand that Obama's patience for antagonistic or undisciplined staff is not in great supply.

More than that, though, the President-elect has made some key appointments that should keep Rahm on the straight and narrow. He appointed Pete Rouse, Tom Daschle's former of chief of staff (who was so powerful in that position that he was called the 101st Senator, Marcus tells me, and most recently serving as chief of staff in Obama's Senate Office and on his campaign) to be Deputy Chief of Staff. Obama has also appointed chief strategist David Axelrod to a senior adviser position. Neither of these appointments is a surprise, but they're significant in that, having picked a fiery Chief of Staff, Obama immediately surrounded him by men of uncommonly even temper. My sense is that Obama is building a box around Rahm, containing his ferocious energy from exploding in all directions and pointing it at one place - Capitol Hill.

Scoring VomPol's Predictions

2008-11-06T10:50:00.005-05:00

A quick summation of how we at VomPol did with our predictions for E-Day. Note that there are two ways of scoring this. One is simply to award the win to whoever got closest to the real result, which has the advantage of actually making intuitive sense. The other way is Price-Is-Right (PIR) rules, which awards the win to the person who got closest to the actual number without going over. I associate this with field organizers, as several with whom I have worked seem to favor it, but I don't know if it's one of those nation-wide field-organizer-culture oddities or just a quirk limited to a few people whom I happen to have met. Any help getting to the bottom of this would be greatly appreciated. In any event, we're giving an award for both methods of scoring.

Caveat: Please note that the result for Nebraska 2 is still in doubt, and the call in Missouri could end up in court. We're handing out awards based on Nate Silver's map, because Darrell Royal was right. We're not handing out awards for the Senate and House predictions - too many contests will go into extra innings.

Now, the results :

1) Electoral Map and Electoral Votes.
Result: 364 Electoral Votes for Obama
Winner: Mark D (appearing on these pages as DC Duck). Mark proposed a map identical to Marcus's, minus Nebraska 2 and Indiana, for a total of 356 EVs, a scant 8 votes off.
PIR Winner: Mark.
Honorable Mention: John Emerson, 11 votes off.
Wooden Spoon: Me, a shocking 18 votes off with 382. Disgraceful.

2) Percentage of the Electorate.
Result: 52.4% Obama, 46.3% McCain.
Winner: (tie) John and I both had 52%-46%, although John dared to be more specific with his.
PIR Winner: Tie to John and me.
Wooden spoon: Marcus, with 51%-47%.

3) Total voters.
Result: 136 million (AP projection)
Winner: Me, with 140m.
PIR winner: Marcus, with 130m.
Wooden spoon: John, with 128m.

The morning after the 8 years before...

2008-11-05T09:32:00.002-05:00

America rises once more.

Here's how I think the next moves play out:

White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Emmanuel (the inspiration for Josh Lyman!)

Treasury Secretary: Paul Volcker

Defence Secretary (short term): Robert Gates

Secretary of State: Richard Lugar

Deputy Defence Secretary: Robert Danzig (Defence Secretary later)

National Security Advisor: Susan Rice

Secretary of Education: Colin Powell

Attorney General: Eric Holder

Health & Human Services: Tom Daschle

In the Senate, Lieberman should be stripped of his committee seniority and may well leave the Democratic caucus. If Coleman holds on in MN I think I may well breathe a sigh of relief as the RNC won't be able to raise $4mn off every fundraising e-mail. As for Alaska, come off it. A convicted felon as a Senator? Even for 5 mins before he resigns? For heavens sake.

Oh, and I am still holding out hope for NE-2.

Poll closing times and the election hour by hour.

2008-11-04T16:43:00.004-05:00

In addition to our twittering, here's what you need to know courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

And here's Nate's excellent guide to the hour by hour. Stay tuned and stay with us as America rises again.

Live from Warren Ohio!

2008-11-04T05:56:00.000-05:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

November 4th prediction by John Emerson

2008-11-04T01:07:00.009-05:00

Final prediction: Near landslide

Presidential Race

Popular Vote

Turnout: 128m

Obama: 52.45% McCain: 46.15% Other: 1.4%

Electoral Vote

Obama 353 McCain 185

Senate Race: +8 (VA, NM, CO, NC, NH, MN, AK, OR)

House Race: +25Dems

November 4th predictions: MAR

2008-11-04T00:58:00.003-05:00

Obama landslide

Nationally

Obama: 379 electoral votes (51%)

McCain: 159 electoral votes (47%)

Other: 0 electoral votes (1%)

Voters: 130mn

Senate seats

Democrats: +9 (VA, NH, NC, NM, CO, MN, OR, GA, AK). Heartbreaks in KY and MS and a surprisingly close race in TX.

House seats

Democrats net gain: +28

November 4th predictions: FAS

2008-11-04T00:44:00.007-05:00

Obama Nation

National

Obama: 382 Electoral votes (52%)

McCain: 156 Electoral votes (46%)

Other: 0 electoral votes (~1%)

Voters: 140 million

Senate

Democrats: +9 (VA, NH, NC, NM, CO, MN, OR, GA, AK)

House

Democrats: + 31

Brief preview of final polling

2008-11-03T00:30:00.000-05:00

Here is a brief preview of final state polling, and which polls (IMO) to look for:

Ohio: The university of Cincinnati poll is usually counted as the gold standard for Ohio. The SUSA poll nailed the primary results so look out for their final poll and perhaps also PPP which came very close and also will have a large sample size. (The university of Cincinnati also came very close). Just for some variability also look to the Rasmussen poll which weighs it’s sample by party-id.

Pennsylvania: There is no one poll which I would emphasize in the keystone state but probably an average of Rasmussen, SUSA and the Muhlenberg/Morning Call tracker should give a good prediction. I would normally add PPP but this was the one state which they got badly wrong during the primary. They were open about this and have apparently corrected the problem, hopefully this will be shown on Tuesday.

Florida: Mason-Dixon has a good reputation in the sunshine state. It is also below the mason-dixon line (Mason-dixon, at least in the east, tend to poll well below the line but badly above), also look out for Rasmussen and perhaps Quinnipaic (large sample).

Colorado: SUSA was the closest to the actual results in 04 with Mason-dixon a close second so look out for those polls. Perhaps also keep an eye out for the final rocky mountain news poll although they were out somewhat in favour of Bush in 04. PPP have already released their final CO poll showing Obama up by 10 with a heavy lead among those already voted.

Virginia: This is a little bit of guess-work as in the past there has only been infrequent polling of the presendential race. Times-Dispatch was the closest in 04 followed by mason-dixon, unfortunately this year Mason-Dixon did the polling for Times-Dispatch and during the primary they missed the result by over 10 points however they did nail the 06 Webb/Allen race. To make matters worse the final Mason-Dixon results this year was 47O-44M with a far too high 9% undecided. SUSA who came closest to the primary result should be taken seriously. (Their final poll is 50O-46M). Perhaps the average of PPP, Mason-dixon, Rasmussen and SUSA might be the best bet.

North Carolina: The in-state PPP should be the first call. They both have the most experience and the most at stake in their home state, not to mention being closest to the primary result. The other in-state pollster Civitas should also be looked at (although it is affiliated with the republican party). SUSA for some reason tends to lean to McCain in North Carolina so anything equal to or better than a tie would be excellent for Obama.

Missouri: Rasmussen, SUSA and Mason-Dixon all came very close to the 04 result so taking the average of these polls would seem reasonable here.

Indiana: This should be an interesting one considering how many years it has been since Indiana has been a swing state. SUSA was about the only pollster to poll Indiana in the last week in 04 and came very close. In the primary PPP did very well. So perhaps an average of these two would be in order. Also if Selzer does another poll before Tuesday that should be a very good indicator.

Iowa: Well SUSA’s final poll has it at Obama +15, the oracle of Iowa (Selzer) has it at +17. McCain’s internals apparently have it at +1. No prize for guessing which is right.

New Hampshire: UNH tracker, Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen all came very close to the actual result in 04. So an average of these should give a reasonable result. All polls missed the primary results by a large margin. (Fingers crossed that does not happen ever again).

New Mexico: Unlikely to be close especially looking at the early voting but if a prediction is required then an average of SUSA, Rasmussen, PPP and the Alberquerque Journal would be seem reasonable.

Nevada: Hard state to poll, but Rasmussen did best in 04. Also note the early voting has been especially heavy in this state giving the Democrats a very strong lead.

Georgia: With African-American turnout (looking very high in early voting) and support for Barr being very difficult to predict this year, any poll could be a long way off. The in-state Insider Advantage tends to predict a higher turnout for African-Americans so perhaps this is the poll to look out for, but only if they (unlike usually) have a decent sample size.

Montana: There is a expected relative high third party vote in the Treasure state, so look out for polls which show this.

North Dokata: One of the problems with expanded the map is a complete lack of polling history. With nothing really to base results on I would suggest just averaging all (if there are any) poll from the last week.

Arizona: Recently added due to tightening polls. Again not much history to run on, in 04 the result was exactly in the middle of Rasmussen and SUSA, so perhaps an average of these.

Notes: Do not rely too much on any one poll (especially one with low sample size) as even the best poll will suffer from sampling error.

Mason-Dixon did very well in 2004 but are using a conservative model in terms of turnout especially in terms of youth vote and African-american (and Hispanic) make-up of the electorate, so there is a good possibility of this pollster being off by 2-3 point this year.

Do not take anything zogby interactive or ARG show seriously.

GOP 2012: Into the Wild?

2008-11-03T00:01:00.004-05:00

Wanted: Horses, men (Royal service a must) for difficult political repair-work. Non-union.

The Republican coalition born out of remarkable political personalities needs to be rebuilt by a remarkable political personality. The GOP needs a W in 2012. Not a win. A Bush.

In my last post I wrote about the departure of security voters from the GOP, the loss of whom does not just spell electoral defeat now - it is a potentially crippling blow to the Republican Party, one that leaves them vulnerable to a divisive internal struggle which could prolong their period in the wilderness.

The problem is not simply one of numbers. The national security advantage of the GOP concealed a serious crack in the Party's foundation - the fact that wealth conservatives and social conservatives are not natural allies. There can be areas of overlap - a wealthy conservative may be against gay marriage, for example, and a social conservative may favor lower taxes - but there are a host of opportunities for conflict within the party that have been sidestepped by a general consensus over national security.

A good example of this is immigration, which pits the socially-conservative, populist base (opposed to the supposed loss of American jobs and, in my experience, to the Spanish language as concept and reality) against wealthy corporate conservatives, many of whose business interests benefit from a class of worker not protected by labor laws and unions. National security was a trump card for the GOP (and some Democrats) - 'we have to close our borders because bad people could sneak across', a talking point which satisfies both.

The future of the GOP has played out during the economic crisis, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have railed against a political system that favors Wall Street over Main Street. The devil in these particular details is that Wall Street and Main Street are both Republican constituencies, and the only thing that kept them away from a bloody class-war was the military base in between. Now that the soldiers, vets, and concerned citizens of that base have decamped, there is no buffer. What the GOP must fear is that Main Street social conservatives will continue to publicly militate against wealthy Wall Street conservatives, who have already demonstrated an inclination to stray from the Republican fold.

This does not mean that the Republican Party will automatically devolve into civil war, or that the wealthy will depart permanently. The Republican Party has the market on tax cuts for the wealthy, and as long as that incentive is around the wealthy will eventually return. What it does mean is that the Republican Party will require a very skilled leader as their candidate in 2012 to make peace between the party's financiers and its core voters; that might not win them the election, but it will go a long way toward coalescing and energizing a dispirited and fractured party.

Who will play the role of the 2012 Bush, rebuilding what W himself shattered? Let's take a look at some of the likely Republicans auditioning for the 2012 role of all the king's horses and all the king's men (I rely on readers of this blog to let me know who I have omitted, as this will not be the last time we at VomPolitik write about the GOP race in 2012):

Tier One:

- Mike Huckabee (former Governor, Arkansas; conservative television presenter)

- Sarah Palin (Governor, Alaska; Vice Presidential candidate)

- Mitt Romney (former Governor, Massachusetts)

Tier Two:

- John Thune (Senator, South Dakota)

- Bobby Jindal (Governor, Louisiana)

- Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House of Representatives; conservative political analyst)

Tier Three:

- Tim Pawlenty (Governor, Minnesota)

- Rick Perry (Governor, Texas)

The danger for the Party is clear. Of the Top Tier candidates (whom I define based on recent exposure and experience on the national trail - all three were on the stump this year in one form or another), only one of them has the chance to be the party's next W. That would be Mike Huckabee, whose conservative Christian roots created initial concern amongst some members of the GOP but who has since mended fences via his strong anti-tax positions, eliciting the support even of Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. More than that, he's been able to balance interests on the potentially-lethal immigration question, calling immigrants 'the children of god' while at the same time supporting the 700-mile wall.

Palin, meanwhile, has branded herself as the representative of the small-town Republican Party that belittles and despises the educated, wealthy conservative elite of which Romney is one of the most public examples. The choice of either is not likely to unify the Party and give the Republican leadership permission to be heard again by its own membership, delaying by four years the chance to win permission to be heard by the electorate as a whole.

The other candidates have their own advantages, of course, and some of them have the potential to develop into the next W. Any analysis of the strong candidates, however, must begin with the Top Tier, who have been in critical states as candidates for the White House for the past year, and that same analysis must note the significant absence of a national security candidate. For now, the GOP's chances of beginning its rebuilding in 2012 from its Top Tier stand at no better than one in three. The long, dark night is just beginning.

The campaigns in perspective: a strategic scorecard

2008-11-02T18:26:00.000-05:00

Scorecards are in vogue. Politico offers their take daily, Halperin offers his weekly. But what would a score card of the whole campaign look like? Here's On Politik's take...

Pre-Announcement

Obama: 1 (Per the Washington Post: a book tour for the 'Audacity of Hope' and his front covers of Time and GQ. Not a bad start for a freshman Senator, 22 months in the job!)

McCain: 1 (McCain put together a highly experienced staff, and looked set to raise a ton of money, he was the heir apparent.)

Announcement

Obama: 1 (Before a crowd of 15,000 on a freezing Illinois day Obama gave a speech for the ages.)

McCain: 1 (His 'Letterman' announcement was considered a McCain-of-old classic: popular, unconventional, yet safer then it looks.)

2007 Q1

Obama: 1 (Obama's first quarter fundraising results showed him head to head with Hillary and secured his position as a serious contender.)

McCain: 0 (McCain's campaign first quarter fundraising was so disastrous as to bring his campaign to the brink of implosion.)

2007 Q2

Obama: 1 (Obama's fundraising machine bested Hillary's.)

McCain: 0 (Lacking both money and message, the McCain campaign imploded.)

2007 Q3

Obama: 1 (Obama calmed concerns about his campaign with steady debate performances, strong fundraising and a clear field plan for winning Iowa.)

McCain: 1 (Stripped of staff and broke, McCain began his campaign from scratch, focusing on Iraq and New Hampshire: good bets.)

2007 Q4

Obama: 1 (Obama's Jefferson Jackson speech before the Iowa caucus was hailed by the sage of Iowa, David Yepson as quite possibly the moment he won Iowa.)

McCain: 0 (McCain had yielded Iowa and only had a path to the GOP nod if Huckabee could somehow best Romney in Iowa allowing McCain a chance to beat Romney one-on-one in the subsequent NH primary. Hope is not a strategy.)

2008 Q1

Obama: 1 (Obama wins Iowa and nets the most delegates on Super Tuesday.)

McCain: 1 (McCain wins NH and nets the most delegates on Super Tuesday.)

2008 Q2

Obama: 1 (Obama wins the Democratic nomination.)

McCain: 0 (McCain's campaign flounders amidst unforced errors and a lack of message discipline.)

Veeps

Obama: 1 (Joe Biden.)

McCain: 0 (Sarah Palin.)

Conventions

Obama: 1 (Dem's achieve Party unity and Obama's Invesco speech is described by arch-conservative Pat Buchanan as "the greatest convention speech".)

McCain: 1 (McCain's Palin pick may have failed overall but it certainly boosted McCain to a feel-good Convention.)

Debate I

Obama: 1 (Obama was as calm as he was commanding and the voters responded accordingly.)

McCain: 0 (Remember when McCain wanted to cancel the debate? In hindsight, perhaps he should have.)

VP debate:

Biden: 1 (Joe Biden wins the voters nod.)

Palin: 0 (Sarah Palin's winks earn her voter scorn.)

Debate II

Obama: 1 (Obama mastered the townhall format, connecting strongly with voters.)

McCain: 0 (McCain's confusion and petulance did not go over well with voters.)

Debate III

Obama: 1 (Per the polling, Obama makes it three in a row.)

McCain: 0 (McCain's last huzzah falls flat.)

October Surprise

Obama: 1 (Turns out, it was the economy, stupid.)

McCain: 0 ('The fundementals of the economy are strong! Fire the SEC chair! Suspend the campaign! Talk about Ayers! Support the bailout! Criticize it! Talk about Ayers some more!' Gov. Rendell nails it at the 2:55 mark.)

Endgame

Obama: 1 (A Revolution in Political Affairs versus...)

McCain: 0 (The McCain/RNC Victory office in battleground Florida, 72hrs before close of polls, pictured here.)

Final score

Obama: 16

McCain: 5

To win the Primaries, McCain needed the political equivilant of an straight flush: Huckabee had to beat Romney in Iowa, a weakened Romney had to be beaten in NH, Thompson had to be strong enough in SC to hold Huckabee back there, Huckabee had to be strong enough to divide the anti-McCain vote in FL and then Huckabee and Romney had to repeat the same trick nationwide on GOP Super Tuesday. Hope is not a strategy and neither is luck.

Contrast that with the Obama primary strategy: A clear plan for each chapter of the campaign, an ability to stick to it where appropriate and modify where necessary, and an ambition for money and machine that was all the more extraordinary for it's actual realization.

As for the story of the General Election, On Politik has often bemoaned the difficulty of trying to analyze strategy comparatively when Obama's campaign is all strategy, all of time and McCain's doesn't even know the difference between strategy and tactics.

Politics is a dynamic activity: the actions of one party have an impact upon the other. But the stronger force meets less resistance in following it's path whilst the weaker one is more frequently buffeted. Such was the story throughout the Obama and McCain campaigns from start to finish. The Obama campaign consistently pursued it's strategic goals and resisted temptations to pursue targets of opportunity offered by McCain errors at a cost to their pursuit of strategic goals. In contrast, the McCain campaign pursued precisely the opposite course, sacrificing again and again the long term for the short term whilst over-reacting to the actions of Team Obama.

The Obama campaign has always focused on big goals, pursued with great effort over long periods of time. It has always borne in mind both the challenge in front of it and looked over the horizon towards what's next. It has remained focused, reacted appropriately and operated efficiently and thus it has achieved it's strategic objectives. It has been both a pleasure and an honour to have witnessed this politically and I am thrilled at the thought of what this offers in policy terms in the years to come.

On Politik goes to war

2008-10-31T11:14:00.002-04:00

Frank and I are heading back to the scene of our 2004 defeat whilst John will continue to offer his analysis from our secret Edinburgh HQ.

To all our readers in the field: good hunting!

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

The battleground map (31 October, 2008)

2008-10-31T01:00:00.003-04:00

Obama landslide E-4 days

Our last update before we shift from state-of-play to prediction-only. McCain can hope for a national tightening in the polls all he wants but unless he can achieve what Nate Silver calls the 2-2-2 rule (within 2 points in 2 out of these 3 states VA, CO, PA by at least 2 reputable pollsters) he has no path to 270 electoral votes. Meanwhile, Obama's offensive drive expands even further.

Here's the maps:

Marc Ambinder

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, IA (197 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: MN, NM, NV, MI, WI, PA, NH, CO, VA (94) electoral votes)
Toss-ups: FL, OH, NC, MO, IN (84) electoral votes)
Lean McCain: GA, MT, ND, WV, NE-2 (26) electoral votes)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, SD, NE 1,3,4,5 OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY, ND (137) electoral votes)

Obama likely + leaners: 291 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 163 electoral votes
Tossups: 84 electoral votes

First Read

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (175 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, PA, WI (111 votes)
Toss-up: FL, IN, MO, NV, NC, OH (89 votes)
Lean McCain: AZ, GA, MT, NE 02, ND, SD, WV (40 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AK, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE (the rest of the state), OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY (123 votes)

Obama likely + leaners: 286 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 163 electoral votes
Tossups: 89 electoral votes

On Politik

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, ME (all 4 EVs), MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI (255 EVs)
Lean Obama: CO, NH, NM, NV, VA (36 EVs)
Toss-up: FL, IN, MT, NC, NE-cd2 (1ev), MO, OH (85 EVs)
Lean McCain: AZ, GA, MT, WV, ND (36 EVs)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE(4EVS), OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY (126 EVs)

Obama likely + leaners: 291 electoral votes

McCain likely + leaners: 162 electoral votes

Toss-ups: 85 electoral votes

State by state

NH moves from Lean to Likely Obama as his numbers reach the stratosphere.
AZ itself moves from Likely to Lean McCain as the polls narrow in McCain's home state. Beware Al in TN in 2000 Senator!
NV to Lean Obama as the NV political sage Joe Ralston declares the GOP faces an "almost impossible task" due to early voting.
MT moves from Lean McCain to Toss Up as polling narrows.
ND moves from Lean McCain to Toss Up as polling narrows.
GA moves from Lean McCain to Toss Up as the poll trajectories narrow to near meeting point and the early voting shows that 1,572,293 voters have already voted (with extraordinary African American turnout) set against 3,317,336 votes in total in the 2004 election.

Past as predictor of future: a Senatorial psycohistory

2008-10-30T13:56:00.006-04:00

Hari Seldon ponders the Senate race
On the one hand you could just check the pollster.com Senate charts to guess the winners and losers (although GA is going to be a Dem win) or you can play a history-based model out and see what things look like.

Simply put, close Senate races tend to break mostly all one way or the other. The important thing is that there are always one or two exceptions. But whether there is one exception this year or two exceptions is the likely difference between the Dems achieving their filibuster-proof majority dream or not.

This year, the Dems have pick-up opportunities in 10 seats: VA, NM, CO, AK, NH, MN, NC, GA, MS and KY.

In 2006, the Dem wave carried 6 out of 7 Senate targets (VA, MO, MT, OH, PA, RI but failed in TN) - a near 85% success rate. In 2004, the GOP wave carried 6 out of 8 target seats (FL, GA, LA, NC, SD, SC but failed in IL and CO) - a 75% success rate. In 2002, the GOP wave carried 3 out of 4 target seats (GA, MN, MO but failed in AR) - a 75% success rate.

Thus the average success rate was 78.3%. Applying that to this year's Senate seats, it would seem that Dems are on course to pick up 8 out of 10 seats, likely losing only KY and MS - per those pollster.com averages!

A Revolution in Political Affairs: Obama's Levee-en-masse

2008-10-29T23:59:00.006-04:00

Barack Obama?

On Politik contends that Obama's approach to fundraising and field organisation constitutes a revolution in the practice of political affairs of such magnitude as to be comparable with Napoleon's Revolution In Military Affairs, namely a defining transformation in both the scale and practice of the art and science of politics.

To analyse this change, let us now consider Napoleon's own revolution and the scale of the Obama revolution. Post-election, we'll consider the broader implications in the long term of the revolution for both policy and politics.

Napeleon's Revolution in Military Affairs

The Napoleonic era saw a Revolution in Military Affairs in which the small scale, professional, often mercenary armies of the cabinet wars period were swept aside before the power of the man Clausewitz immortalized as "the God of War".

Napeloen's invention of the modern army as a mass force of conscripts (the "levee-en-masse") came about because he tapped the passion of the people (the third and most powerful element of Clausewitz's Trinitarian theory of war: Reason (Govt.), Chance/Probability (Army/Commander) and Passion (People)) and so was able to massively escalate the resource pool he could draw from in waging a larger scale of war then had ever previously been seen.

Simply put, Obama has awoke the passions of the people (the electorate) and by so doing has been able to raise more money then the 2004 field combined, establish more field offices with professional paid staffers and recruit more grassroots volunteers into the campaign process then was previously thought even possible. By so doing he has escalated political warfare to a higher level then has ever preciously been achieved.

The scale of the change: more money, more volunteers, more voters

More money

"The most extraordinary development in this year's election may well be the Obama fundraising juggernaut" - Bradley Smith, former Federal Elections Commission chair

Source: Open Secrets

Obama fundraising from small donors: "Obama’s vast base of small donors – 1.7 million was the last public count — carries big clout. To date (July 21, 2008), Obama has reported raising $338 million for his campaign from individuals and 94% of his donations have come in amounts of $200 or less." - Politico
Obama fundraising from bundlers (each raising $50,000+): $63mn (estimated at 10-25% of overall Obama fundraising)
Per Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: Obama's largest donor groups are retirees and young people.
Per Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: Approximately $200mn has come in donations of $200 or less.

More volunteers

Al Giordano of the Field and Sean Quinn of 538 have done yeoman's work in detailing the unfolding Obama revolution in field organising while Zack Exley's 'New Organizers' series is a must-read examination of the operations of the Obama field game. Taken individually, their examples might be dismissed as exceptional stories, taken collectively, they reveal a strategic approach to field organising of unprecedented ambition and accomplishment. Here's the story so far:

The Field on organising the Illinois region states (WI, MI, MO, IN, IA)
The Field on organising North Carolina from red to blue
The Field on the anatomy of a rally in North Carolina
The Field on what it takes to win Ohio
The Field on what it takes to win Virginia (with Tim Kaine!)

On the road: 538's guide to battleground state field ops

Minden, NV: "If you want to talk about Republican domination, try this. Not since 1946 has a Democrat been elected to a county office here. George Bush beat John Kerry countywide 15,192 to 8,275, and Kerry lost statewide by 21,500 votes (Bush and Kerry together got approximately 815,000 votes statewide). Another way to put it is that about a third of Bush's 2004 victory margin came from an area contributing less than 3% of the statewide vote. You can see why reducing that margin by even a thousand votes would be a worthwhile investment in Nevada's ground game."
Reno, NV: "In just the last year, Washoe County’s R-D voter registration gap has dropped from R +16,000 to R +5,000. The several months on the ground leading up to the January 19 caucus helped. That shift represents a lot of grinding, day-by-day work by organizers and volunteers to canvass and recanvass neighborhoods that can't be crammed at the last minute."
Las Vegas, NV: "Democrats have gained over 100,000 registrations in Clark County, which helped net roughly 70,000 statewide in the last year. 30,000 new Democrats registered on caucus day alone. Democrats have 5 field offices in Clark County, 14 offices open in the state as a whole, with 3-5 more planned, 90 paid staff and 75 field organizers."
Gallup, NM: "In our personal Gallup poll, it seems clear Barack Obama will exceed the Kerry margin in McKinley, simply because Democrats are working with an unprecedented presence here. Having an office open 2-3 months before a general election versus sweeping in for the final 10 days makes all the difference, especially in a state where early voting by mail needs to be organized well ahead of time."
Espalaola, NM: "170,000 registered Hispanic voters didn't vote in the 2004 election, and Hispanics are roughly 40% of the state population here."
Albuquerque/Santa Fe, NM: "John McCain and the Republicans are running a workmanlike ground game here. They now have ten offices open, up from five a week ago. Their volunteers often begin calling showing up at 8:30 am to make phone calls. Some call all day. In larger offices they'll fill the twenty-ish seats for a full phone bank."
Durango Cortez, CO: "In terms of numbers, there was more going on at the Obama office, which is open 9 to 9 every day of the week. In the twenty minutes we spent at the office, we saw a local woman come in to register and take a form for her daughter. Another 70-something woman returned with her completed phone sheet and took another one home. Two phone bankers made dials. Another man, who volunteers twice a week, had taken upon himself the task of blind-knocking his trailer park and was getting a high contact and success rate."
Grand Junction, CO: "Grand Junction, CO (two parts): Let's do a little math. 12 face-to-face contacts is one new voter who would not have otherwise voted that you personally generated. You just doubled your own vote by speaking at the door to twelve voters. Of course, then it comes down to contact rate -- how often is the person home that you're trying to reach. A very low contact rate is probably 10%, and that happens. A very high contact rate can be 50%. Average is in the 25% ballpark. On average, you'd have to knock on 48 doors to generate 12 face-to-face contacts and one additional vote. 48 doors is a pretty standard, approximate walk list. In Glenwood Springs up the road an hour or so, we saw the process repeat. A volunteer named Barclay Lottimer raved about the Obama organizer there, whose program in Garfield County had generated 3,000 knocks the previous weekend and 2,500 knocks so far this weekend when we stopped midday. Garfield had at least 1,000 new Democratic registrants. Summit County has flipped its registration edge from R to D based on the voter reg work spearheaded by Obama's organizers and volunteers."
Colorado Springs, CO: "The whiteboard in the Obama office listed different volunteers and their total numbers of registrations earned. 100 gets you a free T-shirt, and most names had earned somewhere between 25 and 80 toward that goal. Robert had 341, not including the 12 new ones he'd returned with moments after we arrived. (He doesn't care about the shirts.) He's lived here 15 years and hasn't seen any Democratic presence like this one. He told us a friend of his had been here 30 years but had never seen a Democratic presidential office in Colorado Springs."
Boulder, CO: "John McCain's campaign doesn't have an office in Boulder's blue oasis, whereas Barack Obama is willing to put his organizers all over deep red territory. Overall, the Colorado field office edge stands at 32-11, after the Obama campaign added their 32d office Tuesday. Moreover, in our travels we're finding the Obama offices have generally opened earlier in the season than the McCain offices and have more organizers attached to each office. In the more rural areas like Cortez, Obama might have one full-time organizer, but in places like Colorado Springs and Boulder we counted very large staffs."
Denver, CO: "Kathy Archuleta is now a Latina Advisory team member for Barack Obama. Along with three other women, she has organized an impressive women-to-women outreach program aimed at adding 10,000 undecided and/or least-likely women voters to vote for Obama. In just two and a half weeks, Archuleta’s effort has coordinated a 1,000-strong-and-growing group. The goal for each member is to get at least eight women to vote for Obama who probably would not have voted otherwise. Among the group’s ranks, Archuleta counted 100 women in Colorado Springs, 100 in Vail, 100 in Evergreen, 50 in Pueblo, and 250-400 in the Denver area who would be counted on for this targeted outreach."
Omaha, NE (!!!): "This past weekend in Omaha, Republicans knocked on 11,000 doors. Two weeks ago when Barack Obama's permanent office opened, 1,100 volunteers showed up for the office opening. Eleven hundred people. "We essentially shut down midtown," said John Berge, Obama's Nebraska State Director. Omaha -- land of one precious electoral vote -- is not being conceded."
Des Moines, IA: "The ground game is extraordinarily numbers-based. For both campaigns, every single precinct in every state has a vote goal -- a specific number of votes the campaign has determined it needs to stay on pace with its overall path to victory in the state. By voting early, a supporter of a given candidate are giving his or her candidate a kind of donation. The sacrifice is the feeling of having participated in a vote on Election Day -- it feels like giving up a little bit of tradition. But campaigns are less concerned with tradition than with winning."
St. Louis county, MO: "We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director."
Tippecanoe, IN: "Although John McCain has only one field office open in the state, Barack Obama has two on the same block. One is a large phone bank office, and a few doors down on the corner is the canvass staging area. We heard stories from volunteers who sometimes canvass because the phone bank is so frequently packed to capacity that if they want to volunteer, knocking on doors is the only option."
Bloomington, IN: "A few students got together to start the Obama group, and then each person brought two friends, and so forth, until the student group had a dedicated staff of 10-25 who regularly call and knock. Often they hit near 2000 dials in a night, the same as one of the three McCain Las Vegas, NV offices in its entirety."
New Albany, IN: "Democrats have to be considered the underdog here. Indiana hasn't gone blue since 1964 in LBJ's landslide year, and Republicans won by roughly 510,000 votes in 2004. Still, if we apply our 80-20 split on the self-selecting new Obama registrants (80% Obama registrants, 20% McCain) and a 75% turnout rate (newly registered voters vote in higher rates than regularly registered voters), then Obama just added approximately 318,000 votes in Indiana. Now the challenge is to get about 100,000 existingly-registered Bush voters to switch to Obama, approximately 4% of the roughly 2.5 million Indiana voters from 2004."
Dueling rallies, OH: "Obama did five rallies here in two days: Dayton, Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Chillicothe, and Columbus, while Palin did events in Wilmington (home of the DHL plant closing that David Plouffe promised to highlight in local radio ads) and Cleveland."
Troy, OH: "The first thing that stands out about the Troy, Ohio Obama field office is its placement. It's right in the heart of town. It catches everyone's attention -- you can't miss it. The next thing that caught our attention was that, since the office had first opened, 800 different people from Miami County had come through the office's doors to volunteer. There were only 51,760 voters in the entire county in 2004, and a mere 17,606 were Kerry voters. 4.5% of the entire Miami County Kerry vote has already walked in the doors to volunteer."'
Columbus, OH: "Barack Obama has 89 field offices open in the state of Ohio right now, about a 2-1 edge on John McCain. Kerry had 50 offices open in Ohio, and only 4 field organizers in Franklin County. Obama has three dozen, and Franklin County itself comprises two regions. As elsewhere, Ohio is the beneficiary of the long primary season. "Well over half" of Obama's general election organizers were veterans of the primary. Every Regional Field Director went through the primary or caucus. They've been through the wars. An organizer ages in dog years."
Toledo, OH: "Now that Debrah (Bush 04 defector) has settled into her role as one of Obama's Toledo Community Directors, she's amazed at the sophistication of the Obama structure. As a Community Director, she oversees three Neighborhood Team Leaders, volunteers who comprise the heart of Obama's volunteering infrastructure. Each neighborhood team, in turn, has up to five different coordinators: (1) the canvass coordinator; (2) the phonebank coordinator; (3) the volunteer coordinator; (4) the data coordinator; and (5) where applicable, the faith coordinator. In Ohio, Campaign for Change State Director Jeremy Bird told us, there are 1,231 defined neighborhoods, as of August 25 there were about 800 in place, and as of Saturday approximately 1,100 NTLs had been tested and were up in operation. By "tested," Bird said, each NTL had undergone and met a series of specific challenges the field organizers had presented."
Marietta, OH: "The other day at Obama's rally in Toledo, the local organizer asked everyone in attendance to (1) early vote; (2) make 40 phone calls or knock 40 doors; and (3) take Election Day off to help the volunteering effort. This is routine practice at every single event the campaign holds."
Morgantown, WV: "When we asked Vogel why he was confident about Obama's chances in a state nearly everyone had written off until the recent surge in polling, he pointed out that Democrats had 20 open offices, over 30 paid staff and thousands of volunteers. (McCain, by contrast, has one Charleston office open and one paid staffer.)"
Western PA: "In Washington County, a bellwether in this traditional swing state that John Kerry carried by a mere 552 votes out of over 96,000 cast, the Obama campaign's mood is optimistic but very cautious. The campaign has registered over 4,000 new voters in this county, and enough statewide since the primary season to push the Democratic registration edge to over 1.2 million."
Philadelphia suburbs, PA: "Obama himself hopped on a nationwide all-staff conference call Friday to emphasize this point to the troops. Pledging to "come down hard" on anyone getting "too cocky"."
Northern VA: "660 people attended just this one office opening."
Richmond, VA: "They've done it. The McCain campaign has gone and pissed off Miss Virginia. When McCain senior adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer divided Virginia into the DC suburbs and "real Virginia," Kristi Lauren Glakas felt extremely disappointed. Glakas, a recent three-time Miss Virginia title holder and whip-smart University of Virginia scholarship honor student, said the comments were divisive."
Charlottesville, VA: "As for the Obama campaign here, well, you know the story by now if you've been reading our long series. Between the Coordinated Campaign offices and Campaign for Change offices and canvassing-only and phonebank-only offices, we saw no fewer than five office locations, all thrumming with energy and volunteers. All the offices had workers busy very late into the evenings, long past midnight."
Stone Gap, VA: "Mitch Stewart, Virginia State Director of Obama for America and one of the heroes of Iowa, told us in a sit-down interview that the Campaign for Change now boasted 49 offices in Virginia, with an additional 23 Virginia Coordinated Campaign party offices. 40 additional GOTV offices, not including the myriad GOTV staging locations clustered out from those offices, were already up and running."
Charlotte, NC: "After the training, we talked with Crandall about what he'd seen in Charlotte. He estimated the office would train 75 doorknocking volunteers just that day, just in that one Charlotte office. One thing that struck him was the way the campaign trusted its volunteers to take responsibility if the campaign simply provided the tools and overall direction. "The delegation of responsibility was tremendous," said Crandall."
Raleigh, NC: "The Democratic HQ across town was much busier. When Republican offices are empty and shutting down, 7:30 pm in an Obama HQ or field office is only just past the halfway point of the workday."

More voters

The evolution of Obama primary operations into voter registration efforts into a GOTV attack of epic proportions will pay it's full dividends on Nov. 4 but in the meantime can already be measured by the impressive voter registration and early voting results.

Voter registration

Pennsylvania: Per The Field: "Since April's primary, Democrats - mainly through the very aggressive voter registration efforts of the Obama campaign working out of 78 offices throughout the state - have added 186,908 voters to their column, while Republicans have added just 31,407 - a six-to-one tromp. In the final two weeks, Republicans made an eleventh hour push and registered 17,627 of those into their party, but during the same time period, 50,803 Democrats were added to the rolls."
Pennsylvania: The shock troops of the Obama revolution: volunteers like Leslie Wars who registered 1, 136 new voters.
Nevada (per the Secretary of State's office): 2004: D: 430k R: 434k. 2008: D: 625k R514k. In the only NV congressional district (CD2, which has never elected a Democrat to Congress) the GOP used to enjoy a +9% party ID advantage. Democrats now marginally outnumber GOPers Washoe. This is all the more critical given that Washoe represents 70% of the state's electorate as a whole.
Colorado: Per Daily Kos: 2004: D: 942k R: 1.118mn I: 1.024mn. 2008: D: 1.051mn R: 1.063mn. I: 1.069mn. "As of January, 2008, Democrats made up 30.33% of the total registered electorate, Republicans made up 34.82%, and Independents made up 34.40%. As of October 22, 2008, Democrats make up 32.81%, Republicans 33.19%, and Indies 33.38%."
Virginia: VA has added, 438,000 new voters this year (the state does not catagorise by party). Per 538: "Obama campaign strategists believe that, with their massive months-long, grinding-it-out-every-day registration plan, that 80 percent of those new registrations would vote for Obama, and that 75% of the newly registered voters will turn out. If 75% of an 80-20 split on 300,000 new registrants turns out, that’s Barack Obama adding 135,000 bonus votes to his total in Virginia alone."
Florida: Per the AP: "Democrats have added more than two and a half times the number of new voters to the rolls than Republicans have. Democrats increased their numbers by approximately 461,000 registered voters while Republicans increased their registered voters by approximately 172,000. Republicans now have 4,064,301 registered voters and Democrats have 4,722,076, according to the Florida Division of Elections, giving Democrats an edge of roughly 658,000 registered voters. In 2004, the state had 3,892,492 registered Republicans and 4,261,249 registered Democrats, for a gap of 369,000. Overall, Florida now has nearly 1 million more voters than four years ago. The total, including people not registered with any party, is now 11,247,634 registered voters, up from 10,301,290 in 2004."
Ohio: Per the Dayton Daily News: "Democrats appear to have won the voter-registration battle in Ohio. Of the 822,804 newly registered voters in the state, almost six in 10 — more than 475,000 — are in the 16 counties that went Democratic in 2004 presidential election, a Dayton Daily News analysis of statewide voter registration data has found. The 72 remaining counties that went for President Bush in 2004 recorded some 347,000 voters. And most of Ohio's new voters are young, which polls indicate should favor Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain on Nov. 4. The analysis found that almost 452,000 or 55 percent of the newly registered voters are under 30 years old. And more than a quarter, or 227,852, are 20 or younger. The latest Dayton Daily News/Ohio Newspaper Poll found that likely voters 29 and under favored Obama over McCain by 62 percent to 38 percent."

Early voting

Overall: Per CNN: "As of Tuesday, at least 9,813,052 ballots had been cast in 31 states that allow early, in-person or absentee voting without having to provide an excuse. The figures are based on reports from state election officials. Of those votes, at least 1.2 million ballots have been cast by registered Democrats and at least 731,200 by registered Republicans. These 1.9 million votes make up 19.6 percent of the 9.8 million early votes available for calculation by CNN.com. Many early voting states do not specify party affiliation for voters."
North Carolina: Per CNN: "As of Tuesday, just over 396,000 registered Republicans had cast early votes in North Carolina, compared with registered Democrats, who had cast 771,500 ballots -- nearly twice as many."
Colorado: Per the respected GMU US Elections Project, approximately 50% of Coloradans have already voted, with a slight edge to the Dems (numbers will be updated here once released tommorrow).
Virginia: VA does not have early voting.
Florida: Per CNN: Florida, well known as a presidential battleground, has brought out nearly 1.2 million early voters so far, according to election figures. According to figures provided Wednesday by the Florida Democratic Party, in-person early-vote ballots cast by registered Democrats in Florida totaled 772,694. Florida ballots cast in person by registered Republicans totaled 431,520. Forty-one percent of Florida's registered voters are Democratic and 37 percent are Republican, according to state election officials.
Nevada: Per CNN: "Election officials in Nevada only report party registration for Clark and Washoe counties, where the major cities of Las Vegas and Reno are located. There, early voters have been trending heavily Democratic: 161,463 to 90,017. The two counties account for about 90 percent of the state's population, and Democratic turnout is currently about 75 percent higher than turnout for Republicans, according to The Early Voting Center."
Ohio: Per the OH Secretary of State: "
Today Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner announced key statistics on absentee ballots, early voting, and anticipated turnout. Highlights:
- Through October 24th, 221,368 Ohioans requested in-person absentee ballots and 1,234,996 requested mail-in absentee ballots – an unprecendented total of 1,456,364 absentee ballot requests. (This is the first presidential election in which any Ohio voter can request an absentee ballot without a reason.)
- Brunner expects "historic" voter turnout of 80%, or 6,480,000 Ohio voters, and anticipates absentee ballots could account for up to 1/3 of those voters. To date, absentee ballot requests represent 22.5% of that anticipated turnout.
- During the one-week "overlap" period for same-day in-person registration and voting, 652,875 absentee ballots were requested, of which 585,467 were mail-in and 67,408 were in-person. However, only about 12,800 of Ohioans requesting in-person absentee ballots also registered on the same day.
  The highest turnout precentage in any prior presidential election (since 1977 when such percentages became available) was 77.15% in 1992. The turnout in 2004 was 71.77%.
  * If Brunner is right about turnout and if a third of those voters will have voted early, that means that the number of people actually walking into polling places on November 4th will be about 4,290,000. Judging by this chart, that appears to be fewer Election Day voters than any presidential election since 1980, perhaps even 1977 (depending on how many people voted absentee in prior years, when a valid reason for doing so was required).

The Obama Revolution in Political Affairs

By expanding his supporter base, utilising the internet (whilst optimizing traditional fundraising means) to raise record sums, re-shaping the electorates of key states and putting new states into play, Obama has revolutionised political campaigning. Critically, Team Obama operationalised this approach by brilliantly integrating it's field operations from the primary season into a magnificent voter registration programme which in turn became a GOTV juggernaut.

Obama's campaign has seen the advent of a new and powerful donor/activist model (one that both Huckabee and Palin are likely to utilise in their struggle for the 2012 GOP nod), it has shown that electorates are not static statistical models (Nov. 4th could be the Iowa Caucus writ large) and it has huge potential governing implications for a President Obama (which we will explore during the bizarre twilight that is Transition).

All of this will be tested on Nov. 4, but if this assessment is accurate, Nov. 4th isn't the end of the Obama model, it is the beginning of nothing less then the transformation of political campaigning. Boney and Carl would be proud.

Fall of the House of George

2008-10-28T15:17:00.003-04:00

House for sale. Fixer-upper, handyman's delight. Motivated seller.

In my last post I outlined the three-pillars of the GOP House that George Built – wealthy conservatives, social conservatives, and security conservatives - tracing their origins back to Nixon.

McCain has claimed, as any still-technically-viable candidate must, that reports of his campaign’s death are premature. This is not true; to the extent that the fortunes of its presidential campaign are a reflection of the fortunes of the party, reports of the demise of the GOP are if anything tardy in the extreme. The House that George Built collapsed in 2006 because one its pillars, security conservatives, collapsed.

Security conservatives have made the difference for Republicans since 1968. What is critical about these voters is that, unlike wealthy conservatives and social conservatives, they are not Republican loyalists. In fact, they take in a great many 2s and 3s – registered Democrats and independents who share the GOP’s traditional emphasis on a strong military but may vote Democrat on local matters. It is no coincidence that traditional swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, as well as new battlegrounds such as Virginia and North Carolina, are in the top ten states in the nation for number of military recruits from the state or the number of active-duty personnel in residence.

In the ten presidential elections from 1968 to 2004, security voters did not deliver the popular vote for a Republican or conservative candidate only three times - 1976, 1996, and 2000 (remember that in 1992 the conservative vote was split, allowing Bill Clinton to prevail without 51% of the popular vote). These same voters gave the GOP a ringing endorsement in 2002, and delivered enough for a second Bush term in 2004. By 2006, however, they had abandoned the Republican Party almost wholesale, returning power over Congress to the Democratic Party. It is clear, based on polling in the battlegrounds described above, that security voters have not rushed to the GOP’s standard bearer in 2008 in droves, despite the fact that he is, himself, a veteran. Some of this has to do with the fact that national security is not the dominant issue of the day, squeezed out by the economy and health care, but McCain’s record on veterans’ affairs has been roundly criticized and Obama has been endorsed by a number of high-profile veterans and veterans-groups.

McCain, and other Republican candidates, will suffer next Tuesday because one of its three key pillars has simply disappeared. But, for the GOP, these days it’s always darkest just before it goes pitch black. The worst will come in 2012. More on that in my next post.

The final week: where will they be?

2008-10-27T08:52:00.002-04:00

As of tommorow, it's 7 days to go so where will the principals spend the final week? Weigh in below please!

My bet:

Obama: OH, PA, IN, MO, VA, WV, NC, FL

Biden: OH, PA (often), WV, FL

McCain: OH, PA (often), NH, VA, NC, FL

Palin: CO, NV, NM, OH, PA, VA, FL

Your thoughts?

Pennsylvania & Admiral Ackbar

2008-10-24T00:31:00.006-04:00

As previously noted, McCain's only hope is Pennsylvania. But what if the Obama campaign are cleverly, cunningly luring the McCain campaign into making their stand on a battleground in which they have no real hope? What if Pennsylvania is, as Admiral Ackbar would say: "A TRAP!"

Let's consider the 'evidence' of faux-Obama weakness:

A leaked Obama poll (by a "rogue" agent no less) showing Obama up only two points; and
Recently declassifed communiques from PA Governor Rendell to the Obama High Command pleading for the return of Senator Obama to the Keystone state.

I'm sure that the McCain Alliance (secretly massing at Sullust) is already congratulating themselves on their glorious victory to be at End...errrr, Pennsylvania. But no! For the polls actually look like this:

And Governor Rendell says Obama is on course to over-perform Kerry's 419,000 Philadelphia-area result with an over/under of 470,000-500,000 votes.

The good Governor also notes that: "If you look at the polls, the breakdown of the polls, Barack Obama is carry South Central Pennsylvania, he's carry Cumberland and Dolphin and places like that and it's pretty remarkable as no Democrat since Lyndon Johnson has carried those areas."

Perhaps no plan is too cunning for the Clausewitzian genius of Plouffe and Axelrod. Afterall, On Politik would never engage in Ritchie-Hook-esque warrentless strategic speculation - unless of course this was reverse-reverse psychology...

The battleground map (23 October, 2008)

2008-10-23T22:40:00.002-04:00

Obama landslide probable

The map tells the story. Even if McCain were to somehow miraculously flip PA he'd still have to run the table on all our current Toss-up states to win - the equivalent of flipping the coin 6 times and calling it correctly on each occasion (which John informs me is a 1 in 64 chance or 1.5625%). Good luck Senator.

Onto the maps!

Marc Ambinder

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, IA (197 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: MN, NM, MI, WI, PA, NH, CO, VA (89) electoral votes)
Toss-ups: FL, OH, NV, NC, MO, IN (89) electoral votes)
Lean McCain: GA, MT, ND, WV, NE-2 (26) electoral votes)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, SD, NE 1,3,4,5 OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY, ND (137) electoral votes)

Obama likely + leaners: 286 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 163 electoral votes
Tossups: 89 electoral votes

First Read

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (175 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, PA, WI (89 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, MO, NV, NC, OH, VA (111 votes)
Lean McCain: GA, MT, NE 02, ND, SD, WV (30 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE (the rest of the state), OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY (133 votes)

Obama likely + leaners: 264 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 163 electoral votes
Tossups: 111 electoral votes

On Politik
Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, ME (all 4 EVs), MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI (255 EVs)
Lean Obama: CO, NH, NM, VA (31 EVs)
Toss-up: FL, IN, NC, NV, NE-cd2 (1ev), MO, OH (90 EVs)
Lean McCain: GA, MT, WV, ND (26 EVs)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE(4EVS), OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY (136 EVs)

Obama likely + leaners: 286 electoral votes

McCain likely + leaners: 162 electoral votes

Toss-ups: 90 electoral votes

State by state

Florida returns to Toss-up after it's brief flirtation as a Lean Obama state as the polls tighten in the Sunshine state.
Montana remains a Lean McCain state but will move to Toss-up as and when mainstream polling shows the race to be neck and neck.
North Dakota remains a Lean McCain state and will move per the same basis as Montana.
Nebraska 2 remains a Toss-up. We may be lacking proper polling but if Obama is running so strongly in the Dakotas and even in Kansas then his NE-2 operation should be within a coin flip of victory.
Maine-2 moves back to Likely Obama as McCain winds down in Maine.
Minnesota moves to Likely Obama as he opens up a clear poll lead and McCain's ad spending dries up.
Pennsylvania may be McCain's only path to 270 but the polls and incidentals don't show him breaking through. He needs to be in single figures at least in the average to bring it back to Lean Obama and thus have a shot.

The House That George Built

2008-10-22T18:22:00.003-04:00

I hear you can take over the mortgage for pennies on the dollar

As you can tell from previous posts, we at VomPolitik are just about calling this election, and we’re not the only ones. The electoral math hasn’t been there for McCain for a while, and he now has no realistic path to victory.

This is not just the end of the McCain candidacy. His technically hypothetical but now virtually inevitable defeat marks the end of Republican primacy in national politics. Marcus even predicts, quite reasonably, that the midterm of 2010 will favor the party in power and deliver or consolidate Democratic control in the Senate.

While McCain need look no further than the mirror to find a compelling reason for the end of his candidacy, there is no doubt that he inherited a party with serious structural problems. The Republican Party is very much a house divided, and we know what its greatest member said about those. This narrative is already out and about in the media, but what is not discussed is the fact that, for the Republican Party, the worst is yet to come. Eight years after victory in the presidential race (and Supreme Court), six years out from an historic election triumph, and four years out from a second presidential victory that had Republicans toasting to permanent power and the Dems in disarray, The House That George W. Built has well and truly collapsed, and it may be impossible to rebuild. In the post I will talk about its construction, and later will detail its collapse and cast an eye over its very grim future.

Curious George Builds a House

The Republican Party of the post-Nixon-era was founded on three pillars: social conservatism, economic conservatism, and security conservatism.

It’s important to note that the joining of the three forces represented a new birth for the GOP. The Republican Party began as liberals and social reformers, popularized under Lincoln, and continued in this vein through Teddy Roosevelt. After Roosevelt the Republican Party began to forsake a bit of its liberalism, trading it in for market-based competence, which went rather out of favor with Herbert Hoover. The next Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, bore very little resemblance to modern Republicans, presiding over some of the highest tax rates in US history as he insisted on balancing a budget heavy on government spending.

It was not until Nixon that Republicans truly became the conservatives we know today. Economic conservatives, who believed in small government and low taxes, had been with the party more or less since Franklin Roosevelt drove them into opposition; social conservatives whose sensibilities were offended by the 1960s (either its excesses or its genuine progress) joined in; and security conservatives who believed that the Republican Party could justifiably claim the title of pro-military and pro-soldier (and anti-communist) in view of the Left’s increasing anti-militarism turned up as well. Some Democratic Party loyalists are wont to describe these three constituencies as the Intolerant, the Insecure, and the Greedy. Marcus suggested that recent market events require this be updated to the Intolerant, the Insecure and the Insolvent. I could not possibly comment.

Nixon himself wasn’t solely responsible for the rise of modern conservative Republicanism – William F. Buckley Jr. deserves his share of credit, among a host of others – but his election was the first one based on the three pillars. That he then became embroiled in the greatest political scandal in American history and forever tarnished the Office of the Presidency was a bit of a setback, but it was only seven years after his resignation that conservative Republicanism reached its apotheosis in the form of the Reagan Revolution, a dominating political performance based on the promise of low taxes, a muscular military and foreign policy, and rhetoric strong in the language of socially conservative values.

To understand how dominant this ideology has been, consider that of the seven presidential elections between 1980 and 2004, more voters cast their ballot for left-of-center candidates than right-of-center candidates only twice (1996 and 2000), and one of those was the reelection campaign of a president whose middle-of-the-road liberalism prevailed in 1992 only because the 56% conservative vote was divided between two candidates. Even that mid-road liberalism was rejected by voters a scant two years later in the Republican Revolution of 1994.

By 2000, though, the stool appeared ready to weaken. Democrats had gained in 1996, 1998, and would go on to win the popular vote in 2000. That the presidential election of 2000 was decided under rather dubious circumstances is a matter of public record. It is also a matter of public record that George W. Bush prevailed. Low-tax conservatives responded to his talks of tax cuts. Security hawks had never been crazy about Bill Clinton and did not much like Al Gore. More importantly, though, social conservatives responded to his Born-Again background and rhetoric; his “restoring dignity to the White House” line was a huge hit, and Bush became the first president elected by a Republican Party dominated by the religious right.

Even so, the dodgy circumstances of his election, coupled with his loss of the popular vote and the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords from the Republican Party, returning power over the Senate to the Democrats, left Bush without much clout for the first year of his Presidency. September 11, 2001 sent security voters hurrying for authority, and Bush’s Reagan-esque, moralist, us v. them foreign policy was just right for the moment. The Republican Party leveraged it into a crushing electoral victory in 2002 when security-minded voters were so alarmed that they were even persuaded that Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the service of his country in Vietnam, was somehow disloyal to the American military. The Republican House had never been more imposing.

Four years later, its modern maker had badly weakened it. Six years later, he had destroyed it.

Here's your starter for ten...

2008-10-21T15:45:00.004-04:00

Whilst Frank, John and myself write our pieces on the state of the GOP, the battleground map and a strategic score card for the campaigns in their totality I'd be interested in your desires for election day. Presuming 270+ EVs, rank the following states in order of your desire to see them won by Obama on November 4th: Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Nebraska 2, West Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Virginia.

My starter:

1) Ohio (personal revenge for my '04 defeat)

2) Nebraska 2 (proof of detailed oriented strategy)

3) Indiana (proof of strategic ambition)

4) Georgia (proof of work + luck = victory)

5) West Virginia (proof of a well timed exploitation of a target of opportunity)

6) North Carolina (as a screw-you to OH and FL)

7) Florida (political revenge)

8) Missouri (personal revenge for my '02 defeat)

9) Colorado (Conventions work!)

10) Nevada (so Harry Reid can be a Blue state Majority Leader of his 61 Senators)

Endgame

2008-10-20T15:41:00.004-04:00

Obama raises $150mn. Colin Powell endorses. The DSCC reaches for 60 Senate seats. West Virginia, North Dakota and Georgia are in play. McCain's path to 270 is near non-existent.
Endgame.

Belatedly, the McCain campaign will embrace an all out attack on Pennsylvania (at the likely cost of Colorado!) creating an electoral map (and math) that is even more improbable then Gore's Florida-only path, or Kerry's Ohio-only path. In fact, it may just be simpler in future elections to ask 'who has the more realistic paths to 270?' and declare them the winner (as glimpsed here 10 weeks ago).

Meanwhile, the media has already begun discussing everything from the Obama cabinet to his first hundred days.

So whilst the grand strategic narrative seems set, there are still some points of real interest in the last days of the campaign such as: the prospective end of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush GOP, the Revolution in Political Affairs that is the Obama ground game, the ultimate manipulation of the angles of approach (message, ground game, candidate) to smash the enemy's centre of gravity, as well as the serious foriegn and domestic policy challenges that President Obama awaits. On Politik will, naturally, be exploring these.

(And this doesn't even include the more meanspirited, if enjoyable, musings of John who wants to consider: why Palin not Ridge? Why couldn't the McCain campaign keep a consistent message for just a day or two? And, of course, our all-time favourite: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy." Bliss.).

So, even though we know the end of the game, we hope you'll stick with it 'til it's game over.

Analysis of State Pollsters

2008-10-17T13:23:00.013-04:00

There are two main types of state pollsters: Public pollsters who are usually sponsored by news channels and university pollsters, who have one key advantage in the form of cheap labour, students.

Most multi-state public pollsters try and cut costs by using automated calling service (i.e. without a live interviewer), called Interactive Voice Response (IVR). While some pollsters object to this, in the 2004 they performed better than the more traditional methods as shown here, and fivethirtyeight has two of the largest IVR pollsters, SUSA and RasmussenReports, very near the top of his pollster ratings. Nate Silver at 538, ranks pollsters in order of their perfomance in past elections compared to their competitors.(Actually it's a little bit more complicated than that, here is full description with the warning that it becomes quite technical.)

For a more detailed analysis, this article lays outs the benefits and possible problems of IVR. There are also campaign pollsters who occasionally release their results, usually when they just complete an especially good poll for their candidate, or a bad set of public polls come out against their candidate.

Here is a quick rundown of the main public and university pollsters:

Rasmussen Reports: Rasmussen does the most amount of state polling of all the pollsters and despite that volume is ranked an impressive 3rd on 538. Like his national tracker Rasmussen does weigh his state poll by party-id. He does this by adjusting the party weighting given in 2004 and 2006 state exit polls, by the difference between the 2004 and 2006 national exit polls and his current numbers for his tracker. He also keeps track of his previous polls from the same state and may do some fine tuning if the numbers do not match.
His sample sizes can be quite small at 500LV (although his weekly 5 battleground polls which are sponsored by fox are a more respectable 1000LVs), this combined with the large number of poll he commissions is bound to lead to some outliers. For example, last month his New Mexico poll had McCain up by 2 or in July his Ohio poll had McCain up by ten, but these are relatively rare.
Compared to the average of all pollsters Rasmussen tends to lean a couple of points towards McCain. That’s not to say Rasmussen is necessarily biased or wrong (indeed if 2004 is anything to go by then he is more likely to be right) but just relative to the average of all pollsters, his poll tend to lean slightly to McCain. This is not a uniform leaning across all the states, so while rasmussen’s polls are near the average in Florida and North Carolina, they tend to lean McCain in Virginia and Ohio. Despite this Rasmussen polls are certainly important polls to keep an eye on.

SurveyUSA(SUSA): Does the second most state polls, but unlike Rasmussen does not weigh for party-id. After weighing for the usual demographic factors, (gender, age, race, geographic location), SUSA just lets the party-id fall where the sample happens to come up. Much like in the national polls this leads to a somewhat more variable poll but prevents one source of bias entering. SUSA was the most accurate pollster during the primary season, often and (rather eerily) predicting the exact result. However the same caveats apply that applied to Rasmussen applies to SUSA, that any pollster which does a large number of polls with a relatively small sample size will have some outliers such as this Minnesota poll. SUSA deserves much credit for releasing arguably the most detailed internals of all pollsters.

Insider Advantage: This pollster is run by an ex-republican Georgian congressman Matt Towery. I/A polls tend to have small samples and do weigh for party-id. While there does not seem to be a systematic bias towards either candidate, their poll's internals can be very erratic. Throughout the primary season they substantially underestimated Obama support among african-american voters, (to some extent all pollsters did this, but I/A were the worst) and have continued in the general election.

(Note: As of late I/A have stopped releasing their internals)

Strategic Vision (SV): This is a pollster which is associated with the republican party. It does not release details of their internals or for that matter their methodology. However it does use relatively large sample sizes, usually 1000+. Their poll tends to lean to the republicans by a couple of points from the average pollster.

Public Policy Polling (PPP): This pollster is associated with the democratic party but unlike SV, does release all their internals and methodology. PPP subscribes to a system known as Aristotle which provides a list of registered voters with key demographics (Gender, age, race, location, party-id) so they can create a proportionate voter pool of what they predict the electorate will be on election night, and hence can then randomly pick from this pool for their poll sample. It has a relatively large sample usually 1000+LVs. Intriguingly, PPP runs a blog which allows for Tom Jenson (the communication director of PPP) to explain his methods and interesting findings. The blog also allows for those interested to post questions, comments and very recently, once per a week, to actually vote on where PPP should poll next. PPP polls do not weigh for party-id and tend to lean to the democrats by a couple of points from the average of pollsters.

Quinnipiac: A generally well-respected university pollster. It has large sample sizes of over 1000LVs and does not weigh for age. It tends to lean to the democrats by two or three points.

Research 2000 (R2000): An independent pollster which like SUSA releases almost complete internals to their polls. It tends to be sponsored by relatively small companies (small-ish tv stations or quite often daily kos) and hence usually has relatively small polls (around 600). It does weigh it polls by party-id and it tends to lean to the democrats by a couple of points.

Mason-Dixon: A well-regarded independent pollster who much like R2000 tends to be sponsored by small companies. It has a small sample size and weighs it’s polls by party id. It tends to lean to republicans by a couple of points.

Selzer: The oracle of Iowa. Selzer has the highest ranking on 538. Only polls Iowa and some of the nearby states (Michigan and Indiana). Selzer has an interesting method for dealing with the expected higher turnout of the youth in 2008. She records the response rate and likelihood of adults, of varies ages, of actually voting, and then multiples the prospensity to vote of these age groups by the demographics of the state. (Rather than just looking at the results of previous election.) Due to this method, she is predicting a younger electorate and hence tends to lean to the democrats by a couple of points.

CNN/TIME/ORC: Unfortunately release very little about their polls. They have moderate sample size (about 700LVs) and tend to lean a couple of points to the democrats. (The polling company ORC is also commissioned by fox to do their national poll)

Marist: Another respected university poll. It has moderate sample sample (about 800LVs). Marist does weigh by party-id. Strangely while Marist demographic weights would imply a republican leaning, the outcome leans to democrats by several points.

Big Ten: Universities of ten battleground states came together in order to provide what was meant to be a good look at the upcoming election, however the results were mixed with some odd results such as Iowa poll showing the race tied while all other poll have had Obama with a double figure leads. There were other oddities among the internals of these polls. Hopefully they will be able to work past these teething problems.

American Research Group (ARG): An independent pollster, which had a torrid primary season often missing the actual results by more than ten or even twenty points. Even the normally innocuous Mark Blumenthal felt the need to repudiate ARG. Moreover the editorial comments bring into question whether they are competent (or perhaps honest) enough to be in the industry given such absurd assertions as their explanation that the reason why their polls leaned to Clinton during the primary by 4-5 points was due to undecideds going uniformly to Obama, despite the exit polls showing that if anything they tended towards Clinton. Do not trust these polls.

Zogby Interactive: The internet poll, which gives all other internet polls a bad name. Whether it is zogby’s weighting or some problem with the methodology, these polls are more erratic than a drunk dart’s player. Sometimes they hit the board but are of extreme danger to those who analysis the state of the race by taking averages of all available polls. Some of the more absurd results were Obama leading by 3 points in Arizona and giving Barr 15% in New Hampshire. They have one of the lowest ratings on 538.

The battleground map (15 Oct. 2008)

2008-10-17T01:06:00.004-04:00

"Wherever this race is on October 15th is where this race is going to be" - Chuck Todd, Sept. 9, 2008
(Re-posted after earlier technical problems. Apologies.)

The polls continue to show Obama dominating, and even Pat Buchanan is succumbing to the power of Obama's early voting advantage. Ambinder and First Read are in broad agreement, the only difference being the status of NE-cd2 and Indiana. On Politik however thinks things have progressed beyond mere near advantage, particularly as Obama moves field staff from Michigan to Indiana and North Carolina...

And so here are the maps:

Marc Ambinder

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, IA (197 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: MN, NM, MI, WI, PA, NH (67 electoral votes)

Toss-ups: FL, OH, NE-2, NV, CO, VA, NC, MO (101 electoral votes)

Lean McCain: GA, IN, MT, SD, WV (36) electoral votes)

Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE 1,3,4,5 OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WY, ND (137) electoral votes)

Obama likely + leaners: 264 electoral votes

McCain likely + leaners: 173 electoral votes

Tossups: 101 electoral votes

First Read
Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (175 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, PA, WI (89 votes) Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, MO, NV, NC, OH, VA (111 votes)

Lean McCain: MT, WV (8 votes)

Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY (155 votes)
Obama likely + leaners: 264 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 163 electoral votes
Toss-ups: 111 electoral votes

On Politik
Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, ME (3 EVs), MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI (244 EVs)
Lean Obama: CO, FL, MN, ME-cd2 (1ev), NH, NM, VA (69 EVs)
Toss-up: IN, NC, NV, NE-cd2 (1ev), MO, OH (63 EVs)
Lean McCain: GA, MT, WV, ND (26 EVs)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE(4EVS), OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY (136 EVs)

Obama likely + leaners: 313 electoral votes
McCain likely + leaners: 162 electoral votes
Toss-ups: 63 electoral votes

State by state

Maine (which, like Nebraska splits its EVs) is divided into Likely Obama (3 EVs) and Lean Obama (1 EV in ME-cd2) as we await sufficient polling on the state of the race there (although the RNC going dark indicates that ME-cd2 may move to Likely Obama next week).

Nebraska CD2 continues to be a Toss-up (also in need of further polling).

PA moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama as Obama opens up staggering poll leads. With this move, McCain's only hope of achieving the positive object is ended.

MI moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama, as McCain's withdrawal and Obama's 10%+ poll lead means Team Obama is confident enough to move staff to offensive battlegrounds like Indiana and North Carolina.

WI moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama as Obama's polls hold up despite multiple McCain/Palin visits and as the RNC goes dark in the state.

MN remains Lean Obama for now but teeters on the edge of moving into his Likely column.

MO remains a Toss-up state.

NH remains a Lean Obama state but may move to Likely Obama next week.

WV moves from Likely McCain to Lean McCain as polls show Obama closing in the heart of Appalachia.

North Dakota moves from Likely McCain back into the Lean McCain column as polls show Obama surprisingly close.

GA completes the weakening of McCain's position as it moves to Lean McCain based both on polls, sensational African American turnout (plus beautiful stories like this) and the fact that if NM and MN are classed as Lean Obama, then GA by contrast should be Lean McCain!

VA achieves it's destiny and joins the Obama column in the Lean category.

CO joins VA in moving from Toss-up to Lean Obama.

Last week we said we would only move FL if Obama's numbers held up. Well they actually got even better. Add this to Charlie Crist bailing on McCain and Team Obama's $39mn FL budget and FL moves from Toss-up to Lean Obama and with it, McCain's possession of the negative object is ended. Game over.

Coming soon: the RNC versus John McCain

2008-10-16T23:38:00.002-04:00

With Obama expanding his attack into West Virginia and even Kentucky and McCain facing what 538 estimates is a 5% chance of victory, the RNC is pressed to do more then ever in terms of funding the flailing McCain candidacy But the RNC has broader responsibilities: to it's Senate, House and other down ballot candidates. So, when will the RNC give up on McCain and move to protect the Party's long term interests in the face of an all fronts Democratic assault?

With the Democrats nearing their filibuster-proof goal of 60 seats in the Senate, the RNC will find itself under particular pressure to protect GOPers in states like Georgia and Mississippi while McCain will need to focus on Florida and Ohio. Simply put, there will be a growing discrepancy between defending states that are in McCain's interests, and state's that are in the RNC's broader interests.

At what point will this boil over into open conflict? Will we be treated to McCain campaigning in Pennsylvania without air cover in the form of RNC ads whilst the RNC buys up air time in the deep South whilst their national candidates are miles away? For Democrats, perhaps the best is yet to come...

The verdict?

2008-10-16T00:53:00.002-04:00

Mr. President

Final debate night: Live Twittering!

2008-10-15T17:47:00.003-04:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

Only in New York...

Today Could be the Last Day of the McCain Candidacy

2008-10-15T17:40:00.003-04:00

Will the real John McCain please stand up?

Tonight is McCain’s last chance to save his candidacy. The polls are dreadful and the Republican National Committee seems to be in a money-pulling mood lately, potentially abandoning McCain offensive targets in favor of reinforcing traditionally red states. If he’s going to turn this around, he has to do it tonight.

What can he do? There’s a good argument to be made for ‘nothing’; the polls are too far gone, and his campaign still seems to be operating without a strategy, pursuing strange targets of opportunity in place of an all-out offensive in Pennsylvania and defensive in Ohio and Florida.

The problem he has to overcome is that whether he’s lost his brand or branded himself successfully as the Experience candidate (albeit in a Change year), whether he has a brilliant hidden strategy or no strategy at all, the voters have seen John McCain, and they don’t much like him. He has to turn this around with something dramatic. Pledging only to serve one term or vowing to put Dems in his cabinet won’t do it (although either would help).

The only way he can change the course of his candidacy is to do a radical re-brand tonight by being a different John McCain, one that voters will like. He must throw his own campaign (including himself) under the bus, apologizing for the negative tone and the focus on small things (borrowing Obama’s language if he must). He can then go to work on George W. Bush, abusing his presidency volubly before moving on to how he would make things different.

He can and must be in praise of Obama tonight. The principal difference between them, McCain must argue, is that desperate times call for a steady hand. Obama can be a great president one day, and perhaps he, McCain, might even endorse him, but these dark times call for proven leadership to deliver the change we need (moving the McCain candidacy into that rarest of things - Experience and Change simultaneously). This can be combined with the bipartisan cabinet and so on, but the core message is simple: Obama may be right for the future, but the country needs me today.

What McCain must not do is use this debate as a vehicle to attack Obama. Negative campaigning is widely derided but can in fact be quite effective, but only when the attacker is protecting a lead; in such circumstances, all you have to do is persuade a certain portion of the population not to like your opponent. When you are behind, however, you have to actually change the minds of voters from liking the front-runner to liking you. Being nasty does not accomplish this.

McCain does not have a lead. He must persuade voters to change their minds. His plan, apparently, is to do this by attacking Obama tonight, by being the same McCain voters have already seen, only even nastier. If so, the McCain candidacy is about to die by its own hand.

"The debate: watch it before it happens..."

2008-10-15T13:24:00.001-04:00

Once again, Ambinder does it best:

Analysis of national pollsters

2008-10-13T20:03:00.009-04:00

The esteemed author of the blog asked me to give a quick rundown of the pollsters so here is a quick (and almost certainly incomprehensive) summary of the main ones. Starting with the national polls:

Gallup Daily: This is a three day tracker, (i.e. it's daily number is the average of polling taken on the previous three days), it measures registered voters rather than likely voters, (it will probably switch to likely voters after the debates) and does not weigh for party-id*, however it does have a large sample size (At least 1000 adults every day). Despite this large sample size, Gallup tends to have rather erratic individual day’s results so it probably best to look at the weekly average.

Rasmussen: This is also a three-day tracker. But unlike the Gallup daily it measures both likely voters and does weigh for party-id. It has a rather unique way of doing this, Rasmussen records the party-id numbers from the previous six weeks of polling before the party weight are applied, and then uses this average for the next week, so effectively this poll has a 6 week rolling tracker on party-id which updates every Sunday. This seems (at least to me) one of the better ways to keep track of party-id numbers. The tracker itself has a sample size of about 2500. The combination of a large sample and party weighting leads to a steady poll which does not quickly or overly reacts to individual events.

R2000: This tracker is sponsored by Daily Kos. Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, it has a significant democratic party leaning due to a party weighting of +9 democratic (that is there is 9% more self described democrats than republican, 35D - 26R). While this might occur if the democrats play the perfect ground game while the republicans have a terrible one, the tracker is more useful for measuring trends due to the large number of independents this poll predicts. It also has a complete breakdown of all demographics and sub-groups which I wholeheartedly approve of. It is also a likely voter poll.

Hotline: This poll should be a neutral tracker, but also one which, unfortunately does not explain it's methodology clearly. It has a small sample size and has been incredibly erratic in the last week, it moved 5 points in one day which should never happen in 3day tracker. (In a three day tracker only one third of the sample is changed every day). To start with Hotline was a registered voter poll but now has changed to a likely voter poll.

Zogby/Reuters: The most recent of the tracker. It has a moderate size about 1200LVs and also gives its results to one decimal place which is helpful. Unfortunately it weighs party-id to a very conservative +2 democratic. This should give it a strong republican leaning (even more leaning/biased than the R2000/Kos poll.

GWU/Battleground: This poll has been plagued by early methodological problems. Hence it difficult to come to any particular conclusion about this poll, although in the past GWU has had a good reputation. It is a sometimes 4 day, sometimes 5 day tracker which used to but no longer weigh for party-id. It has a low sample size for individual day (200LVs) so expect it to be erratic and do not put much weight into individual days. (For further information about the early problems, here is a link)

YouGov/Economist: This is a weekly internet poll. Normally internet polls are very unreliable however YouGov has a pretty good record and reputation in Britain. The poll tends to have a relatively large number of undecideds and voter for other candidates. Hence this poll is a probably a good poll to examine the base support for each candidate but may not tell you where the leaners are going. This is the only poll which measures all adults.

ODC/Fox news: Despite their sponsor this is a relatively neutral poll, although Fox News interpretation of their poll is always amusing. (Like the You_Gov this poll has a large number of undecideds but a fairly average party weighting and moderate sample size. Note the fox poll was one of only two pollsters which had Kerry winning in their final poll in 2004.

Pew Research: This is one of the better pollsters, in 2004 they matched the final result exactly (51% Bush - 47% Kerry) and are widely respected. They do not weight their polls. The poll tends to have a good sample size (especially their final poll) and measures likely voters.

CBS & ABC/WaPost: Both these polls have relatively small sample sizes but both were near the 2004 result. Note the CBS uses RVs but ABC uses LVs

NBC/WSJ: This poll uses registered voter and like other news network this poll has a small sample, but anything poll-related that Chuck Todd associates himself with, deserves to be taken very seriously.

Democracy Corp: Despite the company being connected with the democratic party, this poll tends to lean republican due to conservative weighting on key demographics (age and party-id). However it does have one of the most detailed breakdowns on who is included in the poll together with a large amount of information about how voters view the candidates which makes for interesting reading

LA Times/Bloomberg & Newsweek: Neither of these poll weigh for party-id and became somewhat notorious during the summer for giving the number of democratic voters a huge margin over the number of republican voters and hence giving Obama large double figure leads. I would take both polls with a large pinch of salt.

*One of the most difficult decisions a pollster must make is whether to weigh for party-id, and if so at what levels should the party make-up of the electorate be. The advantage of weighing for party-id is it tends to reduce the variability of the poll, the disadvantage is the possibility of introduce a fixed bias if your numbers for the size of each party are wrong.

Introducing John Emerson...

2008-10-13T19:32:00.006-04:00

John Emerson

John Emerson is the Edinburgh-based maths mastermind who serves as the nexus for On Politik's analysis of strategy and metrics. John offers the number crunching capabilities of Nate Silver and the the political analysis of Chuck Todd. And he's not just an armchair general, having actually corrected the Obama delegate numbers in the wake of the California Primary through his superior understanding of the DNC rules and the mathematical formula at work in delegate division.

His hand is in all that we do here at On Politik and we'll be poking him to offer his own thoughts more directly from here on in. John, thank you and welcome.

It is October 2010... (The road to a filibuster proof majority: Part II) 2010

2008-10-13T18:48:00.003-04:00

It is October 13, 2010, three weeks before President Obama's first major electoral strength in the midterm elections. The economy is coming back, 2 years after a series of clever Gordon Brown-inspired equity purchases of banks. Working off the de facto McCain/Obama Iraq policy consensus, the US has drawn down to 80,000 troops in Iraq. And the Adminstration scored marked success on the Hill with it's ambitious Hundred Days offensive on healthcare, energy and climate change.

These policy successes have met with DNC CEO David Plouffe's sharp politics as the GOTV machines of '08 have been fine tuned and indeed expanded to allow Democrats to play offence across the electoral board once again. The bitter civil war in the GOP between the Huckabee, Palin and Romney factions has only added to the Democrats ardour.

Emerging from 2008 with a 58-42 Senate majority (after the January '09 defection of Joe Lieberman), Democrats look set to achieve their long held dream of a filibuster-proof majority, playing offence in 11 seats and defence in just 3...

State by state

Predicated on the belief that a popular Obama presidency and the nearness of Dems to the magic 60 will force a wave of GOP retirements, let's look at just how good the 2010 cycle could be for Democrats:

Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln is a AR Democratic institution. She romped home in the difficult 2004 Senate cycle, she''ll be fine in 2010.
Colorado: Ken Salazar will enjoy an easy re-election campaign against a shattered GOP state party with ever improving demographics for the Democrats in the West
Nevada: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be riding high (he made it through the bad times in NV, he can survive the good times too)
Arizona: An Open Seat contest if McCain retires (and I bet he will). Look for popular Dem Gov Janet Napolitano to run for Senate (unless she's named Obama Homeland Security Secretary first).
Kansas: With Sam Brownback abiding by his 2 term limit, this will be another Open Seat Dem pick up choice that will break for the Democrats should Superstar Sebelius choose to ascend to the national stage. If she takes an Obama Adminstration (Health & Human Services? Education?) job though Dems won't have a chance.
Iowa: GOP incumbant Chuck Grassley greatly enjoyed his power whilst in the majority. I can't see him wanting to stick around for a sixth term in a 60+ seat Democratic world. His retirement, plus GOP weakness in the Hawkeye state bodes well for Dem chances here.
Ohio: Much like Grassley, I think Voinovich will see the writing on the wall and step down.
Pennsylvania: In a state thats changed from purple to blue, look for moderate Republican (and by then) 80 year old Arlen Specter to retire.
Missouri: Republican Kit Bond may call it quits at the prospect of a fifth Senate term spent in a filibuster-proof Senate in which case a MO Toss-up race will be in the offing.
North Carolina: Republican Richard Burr was vulnerable in 2004, with demographic changes and a good candidate, Dems could make a run at the second NC seat.
Florida: Poor Mel Martinez is actually quite a decent chap who's had a rough time in DC. A surprise retirement perhaps? Even if not, FL will be a great battlelground.
Kentucky: GOP Senator Jim Bunning may yet retire in which case Democratic Governor Steve Beshear will be well placed to replace him.
New Hampshire: Will Judd Gregg stay for a 4th term? If so, he'll win. If not, a Dem pick-up beckons.
Louisiana: Will GOPer David Vitter jump or be pushed after his prostitution scandal?

Depending on retirements, Democrats could therefore be in with a real chance in as many as 11 states come 2010. Now all the Democratic Party has to do is defy it's own history and not screw this up both this election - and the next one...

The road to a filibuster-proof Senate majority: Part I) 2008

2008-10-11T14:51:00.008-04:00

As the question turns from whether Obama will win to his margin of victory, attention increases on the Senate races and whether the Democrats can reach the magic 60 seats needed to prevent Republican filibustering (the means by which the minority party can deny the majority party's legislation in the Senate, as depicted beautifully in the West Wing classic, 'The Stackhouse Filibuster').

Once thought of as a wild dream of the liberal netroots , 60 seats is now within sight (although personally, I would like to reach either 59 seats or 61 as I don't want to be dependent on Joe Lieberman for anything).

I think we'll get there, either this cycle or in 2010, so first, let's consider Ambinder and Nate's projections, then I'll channel my DSCC days and offer On Politik's take:

Marc Ambinder

Dem likely gains: Virginia, New Mexico
Dem leaning gains: Alaska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado
Toss-ups: Oregon
GOP leaning: Kentucky, Mississippi

538

Dem likely gains: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire
Dem leaning: North Carolina
Toss-ups: Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota
GOP leaning: Mississippi
GOP likely holds: Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, Maine

On Politik

Dem likely gains: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire
Dem leaning: Alaska, North Carolina,
Toss-ups: Oregon, Minnesota
GOP leaning: Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia
GOP likely holds: Texas, Maine

State by state

Virginia's ex-gov Mark Warner is so popular here, there's even a chance of an up-ballot effect aiding Obama in the Old Dominion
New Mexico's Tom Udall is rated by 538 as having a 100% chance of winning the Red/Green state
Colorado: Tom Udall's brother Mark has opened up a secure 5%+ lead in this key Obama target state
New Hampshire: the Dems' popular former Govenor Jeanne Shaheen is an average of 6.2% ahead. GOP incumbant Sununu's only hope is for a McCain comeback. Quite.
Alaska: I'm sure GOP Senator Ted 'the Hulk' Stevens is facing a guilty verdict in his corruption trial. Regardless, Dem challenger Begich will make it.
North Carolina: the Dole era in the Republican Party is finally coming to an end as Liddy Dole pays the price for spending just 13 days in her state in 2006 whilst Obama transforms the electorate.
Oregon: the most exciting coin-toss of them all. Politically astute GOPer Gordon Smith is waging a creative guerilla campaign in favour of Barack Obama in his bid to hold his seat. If it's a Dem wave though, he'll still get carried.
Minnesota: First, a GOP vote-stealing 3rd party spoiler hurts Senator Coleman's chances. Then, Suitgate broke (watch the video!). Once, Coleman was on course to hold out against comedien Al Franken. Not anymore.
Kentucky: Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell himself is in a surprisingly close race to hold onto the Bluegrass state. Erratic campaign behaviour like this does him no favours.
Mississippi: the Obama campaign has quietly and effectivly organised to give Dem challenger Musgrove a GOTV boost. Still a longshot though.
Georgia, like MS, is a state in which Democrat Jim Martin's hopes rest upon the Obama campaign's downballot focus in delivering a landslide African American vote. If the trendline plays out right through to Nov 4, Saxby "Disgraceful" Chambliss might yet be made to suffer.
Texas: it would take a political miracle of unbelievable African American and Hispanic turnout, combined with a near complete collapse in the Republican vote to unseat Senator Cornyn.
Maine: Democratic challenger Tom Allen is a good candidate who just seems incapable of making headway against RINO Susan Collins.

On Politik thinks that short of a total Obama landslide, Democrats will win 8 seats (VA, NM, CO, NH, AK, NC + OR or MN + KY or MS or GA). So, we'll probably be 2 seats short of a Lieberman-proof majority. Fortunately we'll then have the 2010 midterm elections to achieve that dream and I'll be looking at that scenario next.

It may be the afternoon, but it still feels like the morning after the night before...

2008-10-08T15:22:00.002-04:00

Last night's debate was a clear Obama win. The full glory of the story (complete with STII: TWOK references!) can be found here.

On Politik is now considering where to deploy for the last offensive of the campaign with top contenders being Ohio and Virginia. Given that both Frank and myself were badly mauled in the Buckeye state last time there are reasons both pro and con for a return visit. Feel free to weigh in with your advice below! That said, the new Ohio registration numbers reveal which way we're leaning now...

Time to Go Off-Message

2008-10-07T16:28:00.010-04:00

"I have more temper in my little finger..."

It is a testament to how badly the McCain brand has eroded that the town hall meeting is no longer the right format for the message the candidate wants to deliver. The town hall involves taking questions straight from audience members and provides the candidates with the opportunity to connect with voters while flitting from subject to subject with speed (which can cover for a lack of deep understanding of an issue). These events have been rightly considered McCain’s best format.

But a town hall is the wrong place for character assassination, which, like its mortal cousin, is best done by a third-party, or at least at a distance. There has been a great deal of discussion lately about McCain’s unhappiness with the campaign that he’s been ‘forced’ to run. Had he run the change-oriented campaign of town halls and site visits to poverty-stricken areas that he supposedly originally wanted – essentially, the McCain 2000 campaign all over again – tonight’s debate would have been the climax, his chance to shine against the more formal, ‘aloof’ Obama (a fairly experienced hand at town halls, having done 39 in his first year in the Senate, but a better podium debater and orator).

Instead, McCain has been driven so far from his brand and his game-plan that what should have been his strongest event of the campaign is now an unwelcome deviation from the message he’s trying to get across, which is that this Obama character can’t be trusted. In an indication of how counter-intuitive his strategy (or lack thereof) has become, McCain’s being forced off-message tonight might be his best hope of getting on track, as he might actually have to spend 90 minutes trying to persuade the voters of Pennsylvania (and elsewhere, of course, but PA is the crux) that he’s the man to save the country.

Obama/McCain tonight: live Twittering

2008-10-07T15:40:00.001-04:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

The Battleground Map (7 Oct. 2008)

2008-10-07T11:27:00.008-04:00

Obama landslide now probable

The polls concur that Obama is dominating in battleground states during the vital early voting window allowing him to expand the map even as he secures his hold on critical blue states like Pennsylvania. Obama continues to add further routes to victory, whilst McCain's paths diminish almost by the day.

Whilst it is important to note that these characterisations are of the race at present rather then as it may be on Nov. 4, the following maps do demonstrate the near Everest McCain must climb.

Marc Ambinder

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, IA (197 electoral votes)

Lean Obama: MN, NM, MI, WI (42 electoral votes)
Marginal toss-ups: FL, NH, WI, PA, OH, NE 2 (73 electoral votes)
True toss-ups: NV, CO, VA, NC (42 electoral votes)
Lean McCain: GA, IN, MO, MT, SD (43 electoral votes)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE 1, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY, ND (141 electoral votes)

Obama: likely + leaners: 239 electoral votes
McCain: likely + leaners: 184 electoral votes
Tossups: 115 electoral votes

First Read

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (157 EVs)
Lean Obama: IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, OR, PA, WA, WI (107 EVs)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, NV, NC, OH, VA (100 EVs)
Lean McCain: MO, MT (14 EVs)
Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (160 EVs)

Obama: likely + leaners: 239 electoral votes
McCain: likely + leaners: 184 electoral votes
Tossups: 115 electoral votes

On Politik

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, ME (3 EVs), MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (196 EVs)

Lean Obama: WI, MI, MN, ME-cd2 (1ev), NH, NM, PA (68 EVs)

Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, NC, NV, NE-cd2 (1ev), MO, OH, VA (112 EVs)

Lean McCain: MT (3 Evs)

Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE(4EVS), OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (159 EVs)

Obama: likely + leaners: 264 electoral votes

McCain: likely + leaners: 162 electoral votes

Toss-ups: 112 electoral votes

State by state:

Maine (which, like Nebraska splits its EVs) is now divided into Likely Obama (3 EVs) and Lean Obama (1 EV) as the McCain campaign launches a real effort in ME-cd2
Nebraska CD2 is now a true honest-to-god Toss-up on the basis of: Palin's visit + Ambinder's map + 538's assessment
PA remains Lean Obama (although polling + amazing final PA registrant numbers might even see it end up as Likely Obama before Nov 4)
MI remains Lean Obama as we await more post-McCain withdrawal polling
MN moves from Likely Obama to Lean Obama as McCain seems to close amidst somewhat erratic polling in the state
MO shifts from McCain to join the toss-up states on the basis of polling and the total mismatch of the Obama/McCain field operations
NH moves to Lean Obama as polling shows Obama breaking away
VA remains a Toss-up but teeters on the brink of becoming Lean Obama
Recent poll numbers in FL have been so good for Obama that even Pollster has moved it to Lean Obama. We'll be a wee bit more cautious and give the numbers a week to see if they hold up.

McCain's only hope: Pennsylvania.

2008-10-06T14:49:00.002-04:00

Look, Frank offers a reasoned, sensible judgement of the uses and misuses of candidate time and yet McCain/Palin continue to screw up. So, here's a simple overview, one so simple I hope that even Steve Schmidt might be able to grasp:

Yesterday Governor Palin was in Omaha to defend 1 (one) electoral vote.
Today McCain is in New Mexico to defend 5 EVs (he is down 6.2% here)
A week ago McCain was in Iowa to defend 7 EVs (he is down 10.7% here)

Versus

This week, Senator Obama will be attacking North Carolina (15 EVs) and Indiana (11 EVs).

To quote Frederick the Great, yet again: "In trying to defend everything, he defended nothing"

McCain cannot hope to win 270+ electoral votes by holding all 286 Bush '04 EVs. He will lose Iowa and New Mexico and cannot hope to win all of the following: FL, OH, NC, VA, IN, CO and NV.

So, McCain must attack.

He needs to flip a big prize and with the news that he is out of Michigan all that remains is Pennsylvania. He should camp out in the Philly and Pittsburg suburbs whilst Governor Palin lives in the T-Section and declares herself a Scranton native. Fiddling around at the edges with the 1 EV pick ups of Maine and Omaha is something McCain/Palin have neither the time nor the money to do.

If he can flip PA he has a fighting chance of reaching 270+. He could then afford to lose CO + IN, CO + NV or even OH + NV. But he cannot afford to lose CO + OH, OH + NC, OH + VA, VA +NC. And he cannot afford to lose FL full stop.

So, Steve listen carefully: Defend FL, OH, NC, VA, IN and NV only. Expect to lose one of them (other then FL). Cede NM and IA. Attack PA only. Comprende? I doubt it.

Palin v. Biden, or The Campaign in Microcosm

2008-10-03T12:27:00.007-04:00

The debate concluded with a tug-of-war over America's future.

The campaign played out in microcosm last night, and it had almost nothing to do with personalities. The week’s worth of expectation-games was entertaining, but it rather masked the fundamental point about this debate, one that applies to the election itself: the Republican candidate has no positive object. Of Palin last night as of McCain as a whole, the Republicans in this election have (through circumstance and choice) aggressively pursued only the negative object, their primary directive being not to go down in flames.

Mission accomplished.

Palin had two key objectives (debate transcript is here):

1) Do not end the campaign. There was a very real, albeit slim, chance that Palin would do so badly that it would indict McCain’s judgment beyond redemption. That didn’t happen.
2) Keep the base from deserting. Contrary to some media opinion, Palin’s job since her nomination has been to shore up McCain’s support with the Republican base, with whom he has had a deeply uneasy relationship. To the extent that the base was watching, she did that, among other things fielding a question on extending rights to same-sex couples and throwing back a virtual philippic against gay-marriage.

Both of these were negative objects – preventing damage from which the McCain campaign could not recover. Note that she didn’t go after undecided voters who live in the middle of the political spectrum; while the ‘maverick’ line is aimed at them, the social conservatism, ‘flag of surrender’, and anti-tax, get-the-government-off-our-backs lines were pure red meat for the base (and, to be fair, for undecided voters circa 1994).

Biden also had two goals:

1) Do not screw it up. His standard was slightly better than Palin’s, in that there was no real discussion of Biden saying something so outlandish that the campaign would implode, but a gaffe would have been a distraction. He did not make one.
2) Win some undecided voters. This is going to be hard to measure, but the kitchen-table (which got about as much play last night as Iran) material was aimed squarely at undecideds in battlegrounds. My evidence here is anecdotal, but I know of instances where previously undecided, white voters in those states have been convinced to vote for Obama by Joe Biden – this is probably due to some combination of age and race. Much of his appeal to them last night was genuine A-material, including his moving reference to the tragedy at the beginning of his career, his indictment of McCain-as-maverick, and his forceful conclusion.

That has been the campaign all over – the Democrat able to pursue undecided voters in key states while the Republican has been obliged to scurry around defending voters and states that should have been solidly in the Republican camp from the word ‘go’. Last night Palin achieved the minimal negative object, and it appears that nationally McCain has as well – an Obama blowout is still on the table, but it won’t be 1964. But the price of securing that negative object has been time and resources that could have been spent pursuing the positive object (note that the biggest story of the day is the McCain campaign’s withdrawal from Michigan), and the ultimate cost for the McCain/Palin ticket will be the election.

Avoiding a McCain = Brown, Cameron = Obama meme

2008-10-03T11:21:00.004-04:00

"Amazingly, Brown has thrown it all up in the air, after 15 months, and started again." - The Guardian

Sound familiar?

With David Cameron receiving positive Obama comparisons from the US media, Gordon needs to be wary of the development of an Obama/Cameron vs McCain/Brown meme. I applaud the move towards party unity (and think that it might just even achieve that aim) but I worry desperately about Labour ceding the change mantle to the Tories, something that the back to the future return of Peter Mandleson risks.

I was a strong advocate for a snap General Election last year and hated the decision to back out at the last minute. The chief reason for going to the country then (asides from the polls) was that for one brief shining moment Labour owned both the change and the experience mantle: a black swan political event that demanded immediate exploitation.

If Labour is to now have any hope against Cameron it must learn from the lessons of McCain's strategy-less campaign, avoid the temptation to throw more Hail Mary passes and settle down to executing good political strategy in the long term interests of both the country and the party. That means using policy for politics.

The brilliant columnist Polly Toynbee lays out the kind of policy agenda that could win back the change mantle for Labour:

Establish state funding for all parties to take money out of politics and restore voters' trust
Abandon the national ID cards scheme and 42 day detention without trail
Increase taxes on individuals who make more then £100,000 to pay for tax cuts for the middle class
Connect the minimum wage to earnings plus 1%, so the low paid keep advancing instead of falling behind as in the last 2 years
Adopt proportional representation and an elected House of Lords to make Britain a 21st century democracy

The approach may not work in the short term, but it would benefit Britain and Labour in the long term. The way for Gordon to win is not through the 'miracle move' but rather through radical policy that changes peoples lives for the better.

We interrupt our previously scheduled blogging...

2008-10-03T10:52:00.002-04:00

Whisky Tango Foxtrot

Palin/Biden: Live Twittering tonight

2008-10-02T16:56:00.001-04:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

Return of the Amazing Strategy-less Campaign!

2008-10-02T16:21:00.008-04:00

In honour of Admiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve

An integral part of campaign strategy is using the candidate’s time effectively by deploying him/her to critical states. Campaign visits don’t tell the whole story of a battle for a state, of course (see Marcus’s analyses of VA, CO, and OH), but candidate-time is a useful measure of priorities because it is the ultimate finite resource. Field operations and ad buys can be increased with extra funding, but no amount of money can buy the candidate more time until Election Day.

I’ve broken down campaign visits into two categories: offensive and defensive. Offensive campaign visits are appearances in states that went to the opposite party in 2004 – Obama visiting a red state, McCain visiting a blue – and defensive visits are appearances to shore up support in states that went with the candidate’s own party (Obama in blue states, McCain in red). These are the states that the candidates have prioritized in the last month (I have excluded Mississippi, because both candidates were obliged to be there for the debate, and New York, the outcome of which is not in doubt but which is a crucial fundraising stop for both campaigns):

Obama defensive: WI, MI, PA, NH
McCain defensive: OH, IA, MO, FL, VA, CO, NM

Obama offensive: CO, VA, NC, FL, NV, NM, OH
McCain offensive: MN, WI, MI, PA

One of the first points to jump out is the inverse nature of the attack/defend ratio. Both campaigns have prioritized eleven states, with Obama defending four and attacking in seven, and McCain doing just the opposite.

Also of interest here is the fact that while the two campaigns have each prioritized eleven states they haven’t prioritized the same eleven, resulting in several mismatches (where one candidate is spending time and the other is not).
Obama mismatches: NC, NV
McCain mismatches: MN, IA, MO

Obama’s logic is clear. While I cannot imagine he is particularly happy about having to spend time defending four blue states, he is pursuing the positive objective in seven states, all of which could go to him and many of which (FL, VA, NC, OH) carry a significant number of votes in the Electoral College.

McCain’s strategy is not quite as apparent. He is attacking Obama in Minnesota, where Obama’s lead of 3.6% is not particularly strong, and which features onetime potential Republican VP candidate Gov. Tim Pawlenty. It is not unreasonable to believe that Obama might be vulnerable there, although it’s also worth noting that the last time a Republican carried Minnesota was 1972.

McCain, however, has also elected to defend Missouri and Iowa. The Missouri decision is reasonable (McCain’s 3.5% lead is enticingly small, although I believe it will be difficult to overcome), but as I've mentioned before, his decision to ‘defend’ in Iowa, where he trails by 10.7%, is inexplicable. On the math alone his time there appears to be a waste, but his presence in Iowa passes credibility when you consider that every moment he’s there he is not in North Carolina, where, ahead by a scant 1.6%, he stands to lose 15 electoral votes and potentially the election.

This is how the candidates have spent the last month. Where should they spend the all-important next one?

There are two ways to answer this: one is as an exercise is ruthless prioritizing, a worst-case scenario in which any fat must be cut and the candidate’s time spent only in places of the highest possible value. The other is a more holistic approach, which takes into account the importance of assisting down-ballot races, the role of money and field operations, etc. Only one campaign is eligible for this treatment, and Marcus and I will be doing a full analysis of how Obama should spend the last month later. The McCain campaign has already arrived in the full flower of a worst-case scenario, with their poll numbers plummeting, their VP candidate a laughingstock, and their candidate talking about suspending his campaign again.

Obama’s Offensive Priorities (note that this assumes Obama’s Iowa lead holds up):
Tier 1: New Mexico, Colorado OR Virginia
New Mexico is an easy win at this point – Obama has crossed 50% and the McCain campaign and local Republican Party are not exactly the A-team. CO is well within Obama’s reach – see Marcus’s analysis. Getting New Mexico and Colorado or Virginia puts Obama over the 270 mark.
Tier 2: Virginia OR Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada
Any of these states could easily go blue, and you can campaign in NC and VA together with logistical ease, as they share a border. McCain hasn’t turned up to defend Nevada and he did not do well in the Republican primary – return on investment is very solid there.
Tier 3: Ohio, Florida
These are tougher sells, but high return for Ohio and Florida, either of which, plus the Kerry states, wins the election.
Tier 4: Missouri, Indiana
Neither is critical, but they represent a combined twenty-two votes, a handy sum to have around in the event of something strange happening.

Obama’s Defensive Priorities:
Tier 1: Pennsylvania
Losing PA puts Obama in a huge hole.
Tier 2: Michigan
Fewer votes than PA, but not many. Losing both PA and MI makes it very hard for Obama to win.
Tier 3: Minnesota and Wisconsin
The addition of Minnesota is the only real point different than what Obama is doing now; that 3.6% lead is too slim to leave to chance and history, and losing MN wipes out gains in NM and NV. Losing either, plus Tiers 1 and 2, puts the election effectively out of reach.
Tier 4: New Hampshire
Still important, but the Obama campaign could technically afford to lose NH if he wins his top tier offensive states.

McCain is in the worst-case scenario, as I mentioned above. He must defend everything – Florida is the most important, but losses in Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia would be near-fatal for McCain, and he must guard against the fact that Obama’s road to victory could lead through New Mexico, Nevada, and the Omaha-area Electoral district. He must defend everything, which, as Marcus rightly points out, is to defend nothing. What he must not do is spend time and resources trying to overcome a 10 point deficit in Iowa at the expense of Virginia’s thirteen EVs or North Carolina’s fifteen.

Offensively, McCain must pick his target and hit it very hard. Minnesota is simply a target of opportunity for McCain, a chance to pick up ten electoral votes that won’t really mean much if he can’t win Michigan or Pennsylvania. Both PA and MI trend toward Obama but neither is safe, and the loss of either does terrible things to Obama’s electoral calculus. Both the electoral math and the polls say Pennsylvania, with its 21 votes and where Obama’s lead is slightly slimmer than in Michigan.

For one brief moment today it looked as if the McCain campaign had exercised some strategic judgment and made its choice, pulling out of Michigan to use needed resources elsewhere. This was only partially true. The McCain campaign is, indeed, pulling out of Michigan, in that it has stopped its ad expenditures. McCain’s staff, however, will remain in place – by way of achieving what is not entirely clear. The campaign is said to be considering an ad buy in Maine (again, for what reason?), but if they’re really serious about the state, then McCain will have to turn up sooner or later. Otherwise, why spend the money?

All of this focuses attention on McCain’s best offensive hope: Pennsylvania. It’s a good job McCain picked Tom Ridge to be his VP candidate, a popular Pennsylvania governor who gives them a serious shot at winning the state and the election.

The Battleground Map (2 Oct. 2008)

2008-10-02T11:54:00.007-04:00

Likely Obama victory, possible Obama landslideSketching an electoral map during this polling period is as harsh to John McCain as harsh can be. Nevertheless, given that absentee voting is now underway across the country (and early voting is underway in Ohio, Florida and Colorado), and that voters' opinions are hardening this map has real electoral significance.

Thus I suppose, the following maps are harsh, but fair.

First Read

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (157 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MN, NJ, NM OR, WA (55 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, MI, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI (152 votes)
Lean McCain: MO, MT (14 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (160 votes)

Obama: likely + leaners = 212 electoral votes
McCain: likely + leaners = 174 electoral votes
Tossups: 152 electoral votes

Marc Ambinder

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (190 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MN, NM (22 electoral votes)
Marginal toss-ups: FL, MI, NH, WI, PA, OH (99 electoral votes)
True toss-ups: NV, CO, VA, NC (42 electoral votes)
Lean McCain: GA, IN, MO, MT, SD (43 electoral votes)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY, ND (142 electoral votes)

Obama: likely + leaners: 212 electoral votes
McCain: likely + leaners = 185 electoral votes
Tossups: 141 electoral votes

On Politik
Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (207 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: WI, MI, NM, PA (53 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IN, MT, NC, NV, NE-cd2 (1ev), NH, OH, VA (105 votes)
Lean McCain: MT, MO (14 votes)
Likely McCain: AK, AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, ND, NE (4evs), OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (159 votes)

Obama: likely + leaners: 260 electoral votes
McCain: likely + leaners = 173 electoral votes
Tossups: 105 electoral votes

State-by-state:

VA remains a Toss-up but is heading towards Lean Obama.
MI remains Lean Obama. Soon McCain should choose between MI and PA - I don't think he afford in terms of time and money to continue to pursue both.
PA remains Lean Obama.
In McCain's sole piece of good news MT moves from Toss-up to Lean McCain.
NE-cd2 remains a Toss-Up as we await the much rumoured (but does it actually exist?) Research 2000/Daily Kos poll.
NH is still a Toss-up - although more polling is desperatly needed here, especially for judging the merits of an Obama 269-win-the-tie strategy.
IN moves to Toss-up on the basis of a remarkable consensus amongst pollsters for this once reliable Republican red state. The sound you hear is Steve Schmidt raging .
FL moves to Toss-up as the background sound changes to weeping.
MO remains a Lean McCain amidst fears that it could become a Toss-up.
NC moves to Toss-up as the combination of Obama's record breaking voter registration drive and Palin's tanking polls put the state near the top tier now of Obama's potential paths to victory.

Early voting + good polls = good start for Obama in Ohio, Colorado, Florida

2008-10-02T10:51:00.004-04:00

The polls for Obama both nationally and in the key battleground states are simply stunning. Normally, one month out, these such positive results would be good for Obama's media narrative and fundraising and would cause mirror image problems for McCain. These would be nice advantages in and of themselves but that would be that. This election is different thanks to the prevalence of early voting.

Based upon the Obama campaign's impressive early voting operation during the primary, it is highly likely that, during the early voting window, poll leads equal vote leads. This is particularly important given the mixed results Obama is liekly to see amongst late deciders.

Thus it behooves us to take a snapshot of the race in polling terms now in those battleground states in which early voting (as defined by the ability to vote either in-person or by mail without special justification) is currently underway:

Ohio
Current polling: Obama 48% McCain 46% (RCP average)
Early voting window: DCW: Ohio has absentee in-person and by-mail voting available to all voters. September 30th – November 3rd.
Obama primary early voting effect: CBS: For instance: in the Ohio primary, Obama lost to Hillary Clinton by 57% to 41% among those who decided within a week of that election. Obama did a bit better getting 45% among those who’d decided earlier.

Colorado
Current polling: Obama 50% McCain 45% (RCP average)
Early voting window: DCW: October 20th-October 31st (in person) or now- November 3rd (vote by mail)
Obama primary early voting effect: No early voting in the Colorado Democratic Caucus.

Florida
Current polling: Obama 48.6% McCain 45.6% (RCP average)
Early voting window: DCW: Florida has early voting and mail-in voting. October 20th-November 1stst (in person) or now- Nov 4th (vote by mail)
Obama primary early voting effect: Unknown due to uncontested Primary.

Early voting states start dates
New Mexico Oct 6, Minnesota Oct 6, Indiana Oct 6, North Carolina Oct 16, Nevada Oct 18

Once early voting is underway in these states we'll consider the snapshots there.

Absentee voting only
Vrginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire

Battleground analysis: Ohio

2008-10-01T19:07:00.003-04:00

Having reviewed the battlegrounds overall it is helpful to consider them as they relate to some of the different elements of strategy on a case by case basis. Thus I'm offering my thoughts on what I consider the crucial states of VA, CO and OH. After the debates and with the close of early voting in mid-October we'll review the state of play in these key states once again.

And with that, onto the Buckeye State, where the dreams of many a humble field worker (myself included) died in 2004...

2004 result
Bush: 2,859,764 votes
Kerry: 2,741,165 votes
Democratic deficit: 118,599 votes

Polling
The best Ohio Democratic Primary polling was conducted by Survey USA. PPP and the University of Cincinnati are also well respected.

Current polling is as follows:

New registrants
Per the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Across the state, nearly 40 percent of the 700,000 newly registered voters live in precincts that Democrat John Kerry carried with at least 60 percent of the vote in 2004." 25% of new registrants come from Democrat-heavy Cayahoga county (Cleveland).

Ground game
As of early August, Obama led in field offices by 33 to 9. As of mid-September, Obama had 70 field offices to McCain's 9.

Advertising
Per the well respected Wisconsin Advertising Project McCain edges Obama in advertising by $812,000 to $801,000 per week.

Issues
With the unemployment rate reaching a 16 year high, "It's the economy, stupid."

Candidate visits
McCain has visited the Buckeye state 13 times Obama has visited only 5 times

Best OH coverage
Politicker OH, Buckeye State blog, The Field, 538

Demographics
The 2004 network exit poll for Ohio revealed the following demographic breakdown of the OH electorate:

Female: 53%
Male: 47%
White: 86% (estimated 2008 decrease: 84%)
African American: 10% (estimated 2008 increase: 12%)
Hispanic: 3%
Other: 2%
Ages:
Under 30: 21%
31-64: 67%
Over 65: 12%

Party ID 2004:
Democratic: 35%
Republican: 40%
Independent: 25%

Party ID 2006:
Democratic: 40%
Republican: 37%
Independent: 23%

Party ID 2008 estimate:
Democratic: 41%
Republican: 35%
Independent: 24%

The host of recent Ohio polling seems to confirm that self-identifying Democrats are willing to break with party and vote for McCain in sizable numbers. As such, the crucial number in the Buckeye state will not be the party ID divide but rather the party loyalty number (namely that percentage of declared Dems who wil actually vote for the Democratic Candidate).

Geography
Obama strongholds: Cuyahoga County (Cleveland)
McCain strongholds: North West counties, South West counties and South East counties (Appalachia)
Key clash: Trumbull County/Youngstown (Mahoning Valley)

Source: Matt Ross, Trumbull County Field Organiser, Kerry/Edwards 2004

Conclusion
With a deficit of just 118,599 votes, over 700,000 newly registered voters, a disastrous economy and a new Democratic Governor, Ohio should be ground zero for Team Obama - but as the polls show, it isn't - likely due to a combination of disaffected Hillaristas, race hangover and McCain's above average personal popularity in the state.

As such, Obama's route to victory lies in adding so many new voters that even lower Democratic party loyalty will be overcome. Hence, the centrality of his field operation. Still, as his tactical defeats to date in advertising spending and candidate visits show, Obama is not prioritising Ohio as highly as he might.

The new registration numbers in two weeks time (as well as indications of where early voting has been prevalent and in what numbers) will give us a far clearer idea of just how in-play Ohio actually is. Until then I'm saying Ohio is just too-close-to-call.

John McCain Throws Deep

2008-10-01T16:48:00.008-04:00

The most famous Hail Mary in American football history.

After today’s deluge of bad battleground polls, it’s desperation time again for McCain. He’s developed a reputation for doing the unexpected, including nominating Sarah Palin and suspending his campaign. Marcus and I have put together a quick Top Five options for McCain’s next crazy move, with advantages and disadvantages.

Resign from the Senate
Advantage: Bolsters his anti-Washington credentials
Disadvantage: Costs the Republican Party a Senate seat, as Democratic AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano would get to nominate the next. Also, McCain would be unemployed come January 2009.

Surprise visit to Iraq
Advantage: This oldy-but-goody surprise focuses attention on national security, where McCain is stronger than on the economy, and could produce some more ‘the surge worked’ stories, bolstering his claim to good judgment.
Disadvantage: Time spent out of the country is time not spent doing rallies, media events, or fundraisers

Publicly Recommend Bombing Iran
Advantage: Promotes his tough image, takes attention away from economy and focuses it on Iran and Israel, friendlier territory for the McCain campaign.
Disadvantage: Brings back the war-mongering thing.

Dump Palin
Advantage: Cuts losses on a huge liability. Tom Ridge.
Disadvantage: Huge embarrassment. More references to Eagleton. Incenses the Right.

Make and spend a huge personal campaign contribution
Advantage: More badly needed money in play in states where he is being outspent. Shows commitment to winning.
Disadvantage: Now might not be the best time for news stories featuring any aspect of McCain’s fabulous wealth. Also, less money for his retirement.

The typical Hail Mary throughout American football history.

Battleground analysis: Colorado

2008-09-30T11:42:00.000-04:00

Continuing with our analysis of the election-determining battlegrounds of Virginia, Colorado and Ohio, we'll take a look at how they relate to some of the different elements of strategy on a case by case basis. I'll be updating this analysis post-debates/final voter registration numbers. And now, the Centennial State.

2004 result
Bush: 1,101,255 votes
Kerry: 1,001,732 votes
Democratic deficit: 99,523 votes

Polling
The best Colorado polling is done by the Rocky Mountain News and the average of Rasmussen, PPP and Quinnipiac.

Current polling has it as follows:

New registrants
As of the end of July, GOP registered voters stood at 1,024,504 to 946,277. What is crucial here is the trendline:

The mid-October final registrant numbers will be fascinating and I'll update this again then.

Ground game
Obama has 32 field offices to McCain's 11. 538 has chronicled field organising efforts on Colorado in Durango/Cortez, Grand Junction, Colorado Springs, Boulder and Denver.

Advertising
Per the well respected Wisconsin Advertising Project McCain edges Obama in advertising by $553,000 to $522,000 per week.

Issues
Water statewide, gun rights outside of Denver and Boulder.

Candidate visits
Since the Colorado primaries Obama has visited 6 times whilst McCain has visited 7 times. Although it should be noted that one of Obama's visits was the Convention.

Othe factors
Governor Bill Ritter (D), Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R).

Best CO coverage
The Field, 538

Demographics
The 2004 network exit poll for Colorado revealed the following demographic breakdown of the CO electorate:

Female: 56%
Male: 44%
White: 86%
African American: 4%
Hispanic: 8% (estimated 2008 increase: 10%)
Other: 3%
Ages:
Under 30: 15% (estimated 2008 increase: 17%)
31-64: 69% (estimated 2008 increase: 67%)
Over 65: 16%

Since 2000, Colorado has seen impressive increases in the Hispanic population and in the Hispanic electorate (with the Hispanic population in the GOP stronghold of Colorado Springs growing since by over 40%!).

Party ID 2004
Democratic: 29%
Republican: 38%
Independent: 33%

No exit poll data from the 2006 elections is available.

Party ID 2008 estimate:
Democratic: 35%
Republican: 37%
Independent: 28%

Geography
Obama strongholds: Boulder, Denver
McCain strongholds: Colorado Springs
Key clash: Cortez

Conclusion
Paired with Virginia, Colorado is one of Obama's best routes to 270 electoral votes (Ohio, as we will see shortly, lags some way behind).

“Changing the makeup of the electorate is key to changing the outcome of the election’’ says Robert Gibbs, a senior Obama staffer. The campaign is targeting Independents in Colorado’s suburbs, Latinos in the southern part of the state, and voters in Republican-dominated areas most Democratic candidates write off. Given the likelihood of a slight GOP superiority in Likely Voter terms come Nov 4, Independents will be key to the election. As such Obama's months long voter outreach effort, plus the benefits of the Convention will prove powerful advantages.

After the voter registration deadline (Oct 6) I'll post an update on CO's state of play.

Ultimately, Colorado is another toss-up that I feel will ultimately break for Obama.

McCain’s Amazing Strategy-less Campaign

2008-09-29T18:33:00.000-04:00

Politics lends itself to hypocrisy. I am not issuing a condemnation, merely noting a phenomenon. Candidates routinely castigate one another for judgment calls they themselves would have made – it’s simply the nature of the game. Occasionally, however, a pot-and-kettle moment of particular brilliance arrests our attention, and such a moment occurred during the first debate on Friday when McCain accused Obama of not knowing the difference between strategy and tactics.

In the interest of full disclosure, it’s worth noting that that distinction is very close to our hearts here at VomPolitik. In fact, we talk of little else, really. It has been with particular relish that we’ve watched the professional military take McCain to task for being guilty of that same lack of understanding with regard to Iraq, as per Marcus’s post above. I will leave that particular job in their capable hands, and proceed to a wider context, which is that I am now convinced that the McCain campaign is and has been operating in the complete absence of any coherent strategy whatsoever.

My last entry emphasized the importance of seizing the Change mantle during a Change year. Earlier this year, McCain was faced with the same choice that confronted Hillary Clinton: try to win as an Establishment/Experience candidate in a Change year, or try to co-opt Change from Obama.

In this McCain had an odd advantage, in that he could genuinely have gone either way. His long DC career lends itself to the Experience line, but his Senate record is one in which, from a Change perspective, the parts are actually stronger than the whole. Obama can talk about McCain having voted with and for the Bush agenda 95% of the time; McCain could very easily counter with his castigation of Don Rumsfeld, his opposition to Bush on torture, his work in campaign finance reform, his bipartisan efforts in immigration, etc., and claim that he’s actually the voice of Change. As with HRC, it would have been a difficult sell, but not impossible.

McCain went with the Experience line, a decision that could be considered surprising for two reasons – he had just watched Hillary Clinton fail in an attempt to run as the Experience candidate in a Change year, and, more incredibly by far, he had himself been gearing up to run as the Change candidate.

All summer McCain hit the Experience line hard and kept it well in reach, until he pulled what he appeared to be an about-face with the selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate. A big Dem donor told me then, “he’s making a play for the change title,” and that seemed to be the consensus opinion, further bolstered by her frequent references to ‘reform’ in her acceptance speech (not to mention the rather clever line about some candidates using change to promote their careers while John McCain used his career to promote change), and McCain’s use of the word ‘change’ 11 times in his own. Change, it seemed, was in fashion in the McCain campaign.

Except when it wasn’t. One of the McCain campaigns earliest ads for Palin is a schizophrenic attack on Obama’s experience as change agent via Palin’s executive experience. She was then set to attack Obama’s liberalism, red-meat to dedicated Republicans but not much good for the Change narrative. ‘Change’ left McCain’s own vocabulary rather abruptly. Now Sarah Palin’s capacity as an agent of the ‘Change’ mantra has been rather damaged by her apparent inability to utter a single talking point without mangling it.

McCain, meanwhile, had a golden earned-media opportunity on Friday night. Even at this comparatively late date, he could have gone a long way toward grasping the Change mantle by using the Friday debate to talk about his commitment to Change, particularly during the opening discussion on the economy, perhaps the subject ripest for talk of a new direction. Instead, he chose to belabor the point about earmarks, and then, playing the ultimate card in his Experience deck, castigated Obama for his lack of experience in foreign affairs (including the criticism that led to this post).

Strategy in politics isn’t just about message, though. It is, among other things, about using the candidate’s time well in pursuing a coordinated campaign to win critical states. In this, too, the McCain campaign has been suspect. In their first joint appearance after the convention, McCain and Palin appeared in Wisconsin, a state in which Obama enjoys a lead and which last voted Republican in 1984. Today, McCain appeared in Iowa, a state in which he trails by nine points, on the heels of condemning ethanol on Friday. What can he imagine he’ll accomplish there?

To sum up: McCain runs on the Experience platform, even though his campaign had clearly gamed out a Change run. He picks a female VP, a Change move. She talks Change. He talks Change. Then they both stop talking Change. Now she’s the attack dog and he back on Experience. Meanwhile, he periodically visits states not in play.

And it is Obama, apparently, who doesn’t understand strategy.

Strategy & Tactics

2008-09-29T16:38:00.001-04:00

Perhaps it was just me, but I was thrilled by the fact that the potential Commanders-in-Chief gave us the benefit of their insight on the difference between strategy and tactics.

As for whose understanding passes muster, I suppose we should have known something was amiss when McCain at the outset of the debate incorrectly invoked the great Clausewitzian General Eisenhower (a man who, per my old War Studies tutor, read 'Vom Krieg' at least three times) but that was just the start. Here's their exchange:

Obama: "They (US forces) have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war."
...
McCain: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy."

McCain's response came in for particular critiscim by Col. Gerald A. Lechliter (ret.) who wrote:

"I'm a retired (1999) Army colonel and was astounded by McCain's confusion about military "strategy" during the debate. I listened to it and then read the applicable area in the transcript. Either he was using language extremely carelessly or he didn't learn some basics in his military career. He was a Navy captain who attended, I believe, the National War College and national security is supposedly his strong suit. It should be second nature. "

Personally, I think Luttwak's levels of strategy (technical, tactical, operational, theatre strategic, grand strategic) are helpful in making this differentiation. The essential problem between McCain and Obama is that the Surge was neither a tactic nor a strategy: it was an operation that contained within it tactics and was in turn in service of a strategy.

All this and James Fallows offering a Clausewitz/Palin comparison - it really was a bumper weekend for On Politik!

Battleground analysis: Virginia

2008-09-29T04:41:00.000-04:00

Having reviewed the battlegrounds overall it is helpful to consider them as they relate to some of the different elements of strategy on a case by case basis. Thus I'll be offering thoughts on what I consider the crucial states of VA, CO, OH, FL and NV. After the debates and with the close of early voting in mid-October we'll review the state of play in these key states once again.

2004 result
Bush: 1,716,959 votes
Kerry: 1,454,742 votes
Democratic deficit: 262,217 votes

Polling
The best Virginia poll in the Democratic Primary was Survey USA.
Current polling has it as follows:

New registrants
Team Obama aims to register 300,000 new voters in VA and as such intends to secure 135,000 bonus votes from voter registration operations (based upon a calculus of 80% of new registrants breaking for Obama and 75% of those new registrants actually voting).

Ground game
Ultimately, the trench warfare of the ground game need sto be executed near perfectly for Obama to win but with 28 field offices to McCain's 6 I feel confident of Team Obama's capabilities in this respect.

Advertising
Per the well respected Wisconsin Advertising Project Obama outspends McCain in advertising by an astonishing $868,000 to $312,000 per week.

Issues
National Security for voters in Hampton Roads (big Veterans population), Economy elsewhere.

Candidate visits
Since the Virginia Primaries, Obama has visited the state 14 times whilst McCain has visited the state only 7 times.

Othe factors
Governor Tim Kaine (D), Secretary of State Katherine Hanley (D), Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner has a lock on the open VA Senate seat and a remarkable popularity rating.

Best VA coverage
The Field, 538, Washington Post, Raising Kaine, the National Review(!), The New Yorker

Demographics
The 2004 network exit poll for Virginia revealed the following demographic breakdown of the VA electorate:

Female: 54%
Male: 46%
White: 72% (estimated 2008 decrease: 71%)
African American: 21% (estimated 2008 increase: 22%)
Hispanic: 3%
Other: 4%
Ages:
Under 30: 17% (estimated 2008 increase: 18%)
31-64: 73% (estimated 2008 increase: 72%)
Over 65: 10%

Party ID

Party ID 2004:
Democratic: 39%
Republican: 35%
Independent: 26%

Party ID 2006:
Democratic: 36%
Republican: 39%
Independent: 26%

Party ID 2008 estimate:
Democratic: 38%
Republican: 37%
Independent: 25%

Geography
Obama strongholds: Northern Virginia
McCain strongholds: Southern Virginia
Key clash: Hampton Roads

Per Chuck Todd: "To see the difference between winning and losing in the Old Dominion, check out these numbers in the poll: Obama wins Northern Virginia by a 55%-37% margin, while McCain wins the crucial Hampton Roads area by 48%-44%. But in the recent Washington Post/ABC survey, which had Obama leading in Virginia by three points among likely voters, Obama was at 59% in Northern Virginia and was up 50%-45% in Hampton Roads. This tells you that if Obama does get to 60% in NoVa, he just might win the state even if he loses every other region. But Hampton Roads may very well be the ballgame in the state."

Conclusion
Virginia is one of Obama's best routes to 270 (certainly superior to Ohio). Winning will require Obama to dominate in the North with whilst curtailing his losses in the South through a combination of youth and minority tunout and a heavy emphasis on newly registered voters and early voting. Tom Jensen of PPP reckons that such a scenario could deliver an Obama victory in VA with just 39% of the white vote. As such Jensen posits, Obama only needs 1/3rd of undecided voters to break his way whilst demographics and GOTV carries him to victory.

After the voter registration deadline (Oct 4) I'll post an update on VA's state of play.

This is a Toss-up state liekly to the end but if you put me ona razor sharp fence I'd say: Obama.

Am live Twittering the debate

2008-09-26T21:46:00.001-04:00

http://twitter.com/vompolitik

The greatest game in the world, played for the highest stakes imaginable

2008-09-26T11:19:00.000-04:00

Watching Harry Reid shred McCain a few minutes ago, I'm reminded of how useful an ally to Obama he is right now and am proud of my fellow Edinburgh Tatoo fan:

Meanwhile, word is that the new Dem plan includes a $7.5 billion down payment on $25 billion in loans for the struggling auto industry. Looks like the Dems are indeed adopting some of my ideas from yesterday's post!

I'm Twittering the crisis throughout the day.

Politik and the current crisis

2008-09-25T11:33:00.000-04:00

As both the political cognoscenti and even David Letterman turn on McCain's move, Obama's eminently sensible principles (which the McCain campaign rejected for inclusion in the otherwise totally saccharine joint statement) seem the logical way to proceed from a strictly policy-minded perspective:

1) Oversight
2) Taxpayer refund/profit
3) No Govt welfare for CEO greed
4) Foreclosure relief for families
5) No earmarks

Also included should be Senator Schumer's too-sensible-to-be-true idea of handing the money over in tranches, so we're "only" $150bn down for now and the next President can review the situation. And I like the Clintons' idea of "a moratorium on home foreclosures for 60 to 90 days so that they could all be reviewed."

But wait, is McCain preparing to vote no? Even as his Veep warns we're on the brink of another Great Depression? Even as he himself says this is "the most serious crisis since the end of World War II" (and you thought Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam were bad)?

Now, far be it for this blog to see some kind of inter-relationship between politics and policy but if Obama wants to respond in kind to McCain's injection of politics into policy then there's a one word way of doing so:

Earmarks.

Oh how McCain hates them. So, dump your fifth principle Barack and add the following to the bill:

provisions for job training schemes in MI, OH, PA and IN to deal with the 7 year high in unemployment
Congressional protection of CO water rights against Arizonan encroachment
a bailout for the automotive industry in MI
a massive expansion of veterans support in VA
protection for FL seniors' prescription drug coverage

The markets recover. Voters love it. McCain is forced to vote no and becomes both irrelevant and unpopular. Now, Obama won't do it, but I bet LBJ would have.

McCain's latest dice throw...

2008-09-24T15:41:00.000-04:00

"How bad must it be when you decide that you are better off not even campaigning for President?" - Frank Spring

Say what you like about Team McCain, they certainly know how to shake things up. From Britney/Paris ads to picking Palin to 'taking command' of the economic crisis.

Why's he doing this:

Polls, polls, polls. As Ben Smith said: "But in terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling."
McCain hasn't been doing debate prep properly this week (NYC:WTF?), whilst Obama has been on near lockdown.
The economic crisis even led Obama to stage a polling comebac k on his ability to handle a crisis.

In the short term, this will probbaly play to McCain's favour - allowing him to appear commanding on the crisis. Team Obama could call him out for playing politics but that seems hard given that they were the ones who first wanted a joint-response this morning. Long term, the crisis has reminded voters that the economy is the number 1 issue: that benefits the Democratic candidate, not the Republican one.

Does that mean that Obama should accept delaying the debate? I think not. Instead, Obama should accept a 24hr suspension, fly back to DC, negotiate a deal by lunchtime tommorow and do the debate Friday.