The general is away, but the troops are at battle. If Barack Obama isn't coming to rain-soaked Georgia, his ground organization is very much here. In addition to the existing Georgia organizing infrastructure that has stayed on board, at least fifty outside organizers showed up in Georgia within a few days of November 4. The mission: to help Democrat Jim Martin in his U.S. Senate runoff against incumbent Saxby Chambliss. More organizers arrive each day. They're young -- but they're veterans -- and they've jumped right in.
In other parts of the country, including northern and southern California, Obama organizers run phone banks into Georgia on Martin's behalf. So many organizers have flooded in that in Savannah yesterday, the candidate himself mistook us for organizers and thanked us for coming down.
Ohio's organizers, in particular, have a special relationship with Georgia. When Obama pulled a number of his staff out of Georgia during the general election, a large percentage of that group headed to the Buckeye state, and anyone in that category has returned on paid staff under Georgia's Campaign for Change.
Martin has ground to make up in the race; on November 4, Chambliss narrowly missed the 50% mark that would have given him an outright win. Instead, Chambliss and Martin will vie on Tuesday for one of the two undecided Senate seats in a runoff election that has drawn larger-than-usual national attention due to still-live Democratic hopes to reach a symbolic 60-seat caucus.
Barack Obama's choice not to visit the state personally has come under criticism. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich have all visited the state for Chambliss, and Sarah Palin will be stumping four times for the Republican on Runoff Eve. Jim Martin has had Al Gore and Bill Clinton stump for him, but the big missing name is Obama.
Different theories abound, but the simplest explanation is Obama is unwilling to squander any perception of strength this immediately into his term as President. (Technically, Obama will be sworn in January 20, 2009, but nobody disputes that an impotent George Bush has essentially curled into a fetal ball in the face of the massive economic crisis and that Obama is acting as de facto President.) Fairly or unfairly, if Martin fails to pull off the upset in red Georgia, Obama's "mandate" would come under question. It's a hard risk-reward calculus, especially for a Martin team that believes an Obama appearance would be extremely helpful, but it's the reality.
At the human level, there is almost a wistful, gravitational pull for many of these organizers in returning to a race. To work on the Obama campaign, these folks had to disconnect from their previous lives. Friendships, relationships, and other plans all took a backseat to the single-minded mission to elect Barack Obama. Plugging back into the world, especially when job plans for most of these twenty-somethings are uncertain, is a difficult task. While the pride is evident, conversations with many of these organizers reveals a strange sense of feeling lost, untethered from an all-consuming routine. So when organizers hear other organizers are coming to Georgia, it's a form of therapeutic reunion for many, much like a reunion of military veterans. Unless you've been through it, it's hard to explain.
The Martin campaign has 25 field offices in the state, which is the same number of offices Chambliss has. We visited the Savannah offices Friday night and yesterday, and the organizing edge goes to Martin. On Friday night, the Chambliss office was open but empty, and a couple of dialers worked on Saturday around noon.
As Gillian Bergeron, Obama's deputy field director in Colorado and our special photographer for this trip, snapped away, the cordial Chambliss staff subtly joined the volunteers to add perception to a larger phone bank. In reality, there were three dialing volunteers while we were there. The operation was phone calls; Martin's operation in Savannah was doorknocking, following a morning rally at the ILA Hall.
Polling in the runoff -- notoriously unreliable since nobody knows what turnout model to predict -- seems to peg the race at two or three points in Chambliss' favor. Chambliss, who finished three points ahead of Martin on November 4, remains the favorite. Still, Chambliss votes trailed McCain votes by nearly 182,000 on Election Day, while Martin votes trailed Obama votes by nearly 87,000.
This can be interpreted in one of two ways. One way is that not much enthusiasm exists for Chambliss within his own base, that nearly 9% of McCain voters were there to vote for President only (compared with under 5% of Obama voters who didn't also vote for Martin, with cross-ticket voters canceling each other out). Maybe this reflects a larger apathetic stance among Republicans toward Chambliss.
The other way to interpret the numbers is that Martin needed Obama on the ballot to get a higher percentage of his votes, and that without Obama there to inspire Democratic turnout, particularly among African-American voters, Martin will lose by a wider margin. In other words, Chambliss may have had higher dropoff from McCain, but he is less dependent on McCain's coattails than is Martin.
Whatever turns out to be the case, at the close of early voting Wednesday, according to the Secretary of State's office 345,564 had voted, and 22.5% of those votes were African-American, an ominous dropoff from the 34.5% of black early voters for the general election.
Still, according to Georgia Democratic Party spokesman Martin Matheny, thousands of volunteers were hard at work across the state knocking doors in the rain and making phone calls on Jim Martin's behalf. The lines on Election Day will be much shorter than during the general election, given the much shorter ballot, and Democrats here think that most of its voters are going to turn out on Runoff Day itself.
Lots of unknowns in rainy Georgia. We'll be bringing you a few more updates in the next two days, so stay tuned.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Obama's Organizers in Georgia, But Not Obama
Saturday, November 29, 2008
2010 Senate Rankings, Part II: Races #11-#20
This is part two of our periodic series ranking the 35 senate seats currently known to be contested in 2010 (a list that is likely to grow by at least one in the coming days if and when Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State).
Seats are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties; for more complete ground rules and a ranking of races #21-#35, please see the previous article in this series.
20. Connecticut (D-Dodd)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Chris Dodd (D)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
Quinnipiac 6/28 51 34 +17Chris Dodd's approval ratings aren't as strong as they once were as the result of the Countrywide mini-scandal and a relatively uninspired run for the Presidency. But which Republican in Connecticut is going to be in a position to take a shot at him? Popular Republican Governor Jodi Rell might have a chance, but is not thought likely to run, and Chris Shays' surprisingly large margin of defeat on Election Day gives you a sense for how non-Rell Republicans are likely to fare in Connecticut. There is also a chance that Dodd could retire, which would do the Republicans the favor of avoiding his formidable fundraising machine, but that doesn't solve the problem of their weak bench in this state.19. Louisiana (R-Vitter)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: David Vitter (R)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
SMOR 4/2 52 32 +20For whatever reason -- perhaps his decision to quickly beg the public's forgiveness -- the DC Madam scandal just never took all that much of a hit on Vitter's popularity at home in Louisiana. This is also one of those states that is trending away from the Democrats, with Barack Obama having lost badly on Election Day and Mary Landrieu having a somewhat closer call than the polling anticipated. Worth exploratory efforts on the part of the Democrats but unless they find a compelling candidate somewhere, unlikely to be a top-tier race.18. Alaska (R-Murkoski)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Lisa Murkowski (R)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
Hays Research 3/11 63 33 +30Mark Begich's closer-than-expected win on Election Day -- and Ethan Berkowitz' loss for Alaska's at-large House seat -- ought to give the Democrats a reality check about their ability to marshal public support in this state. With that said, the political climate in Alaska could change, particularly if oil prices remain relatively low -- eating into the state's revenue base -- or Murkowski has less success securing earmarks under a Democratic presidency. For Democrats to have a chance, they probably also need Sarah Palin's star to dim, as a popular Palin (who will be running for re-election in 2010) would have plenty of coattails for Murkowski.17. Iowa (R-Grassley)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Chuck Grassley (R)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
SurveyUSA 10/18 63 29 +34
Selzer 2/19 67 18 +49This race ranks where it does solely because Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.16. Delaware (D-Kaufman, but probably Open)
I didn't like how the Democrats handled the appointment of Joe Biden's replacement in this state, which went to little-known politico (and former Biden Chief of Staff) Ted Kaufman. But Kaufman almost certainly will not be the nominee, that honor instead most likely going to Beau Biden. The younger Biden is a capable politician on his own merits and will be difficult to defeat if he runs. Republican Mike Castle, Delaware's lone Represenative, could potentially make things interesting if he wants the seat, but it is not clear how likely that is, as he'll be 71 in 2010 and suffered two minor strokes during his 2006 campaign.
15. Illinois (D-??)
Although it's uncertain who Rod Blagojevich is going to pick to take Barack Obama's seat, that's not for lack of talent in the Democratic ranks, as prospective replacements like Jan Schakowsky or Alexi Giannoulis would likely prove fairly popular. Conversely, the Republicans have absolutely zero bench in Illinois, having failed to come closer than within 10 points of the unpopular Blagojevich in the gubernatorial race in 2006. This seat likely becomes significantly more vulnerable, however, if Jesse Jackson Jr. is the appointee, who could make the state a fundraising magnet for Republicans.
14. California (D-Boxer)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Barbara Boxer (D)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
SurveyUSA 10/18 49 42 +7
PPIC 9/13 44 39 +5
Field Poll 5/22 48 31 +17Boxer's approval ratings are not as strong as you might think, and Arnold Schwarzenneger -- who will be term-limited in 2010 -- is rumored to be interested in her seat. California has a quirky electoral history and the generic Democratic advantage at the top of the ticket has not always carried over to statewide races. Still, Boxer likely remains the favorite even if Arnie runs, and a heavier favorite if he doesn't, as most of the more talented Republicans are liable to focus on the Governor's race.13. Georgia (R-Isakson)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Johnny Isakson (R)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
PPP 11/24 30 25 +5
Strategic Vision 11/1 50 38 +12We'll know more about this seat once we learn the results of Georgia'a runoff, but Isakson is not particularly more popular than Saxby Chambliss, and could also be vulnerable. In addition, some Democratic intangibles will arguably be more favorable in 2010, as they'll have had a full cycle to target this seat, rather than nominating Jim Martin at the last minute and realizing -- perhaps too late -- how competitive they might be. They will also have had two more years of favorable demographic change in Georgia, which is gradually becoming more urban.12. Colorado (D-Salazar)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Ken Salazar (D)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
PPP 8/6 39 36 +3This seat excites a lot of Republicans as Salazar's approval ratings are tepid, but Colorado is very much moving in the wrong direction for them. Salazar starts off with a significant built-in advantage from Colorado's Hispanic community, and in addition, he'll get to benefit from the vastly superior voter lists that the Democrats built up in 2008. There is also the question of just who the Republicans might nominate to unseat him, as their candidates in the last few statewide races have been uninspired. Salazar has had an advantage over several plausible nominees in preliminary polling.11. Missouri (R-Bond)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Kit Bond (R)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
SurveyUSA 10/18 51 42 +9
PPP 8/20 44 43 +1Head-to-head polling has shown Bond in toss-up races against Dick Gephardt or either of a couple Carnahans, and there is also a chance that he could retire. However, although Claire McCaskill won Missouri in 2006, and Barack Obama came within several thousand votes of doing so on November 4, it has not been trending blue as fast as the rest of the country, and will most likely settle in as a Lean Republican state if and when the political climate becomes less favorable to the Democrats. In ranking these races, we are assuming that the Republicans will in fact have eroded the Democrats' generic ballot advantage some by 2010, as usually happens after the White House changes hands. If they have not, Missouri is probably a top-tier race.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Minnesota Challenged Ballot Examples
The Star Tribune has nearly 600 actual challenged ballots available for your perusal. I don't know whether this is a truly random sampling or not, although it appears to be. The site is a little slow and you'll have to sign into their website to be able to peruse all of them, but it's apparent that:
1) This gets old in a hurry, and fatigue is going to be something of a factor when it comes time for the Canvassing Board to review what could wind up being as many as 7,000 challenged ballots;
2) The vast majority of challenges on both sides are frivolous, often utterly so. Perhaps 1 in 10 challenges -- maybe slightly more than that -- actually required a judgment call of some kind.
It should be remembered, however, that even a small systematic edge for one or another campaign in the challenge process could wind up being decisive. With this many challenged ballots in play, if, say, 13% of the Franken campaign's challenges are upheld as compared to 11% of the Coleman campaign's challenges, that could make a rather large difference.
Furthermore, irrespective of the frivolity of one or another campaign's challenges, different types of challenges have different types of effects on the state's quasi-official count; absent more information about the nature of the challenges, it's very difficult to diagnose where we stand.
For now, however, the various iterations if the statistical process that we applied before now show Norm Coleman as the slight favorite, although his edge is small and might reverse itself if Franken is able to get discarded absentee ballots reconsidered. Look for a more comprehensive update on Minnesota tomorrow.
Matthews Denies Report
Chris Matthews flatly denied our report indicating his active hiring for the Pennsylvania Senate seat currently held by Arlen Specter.
"It is absolutely not true," said Matthews, in a statement.
The Population and the Popular Vote
In response to our post from earlier this week on the size and scale of Barack Obama's popular vote victory, several readers wrote in to ask how Barack Obama's popular vote total ranks as a share of the United States population at the time of his election.
Obama has received at least 68,724,397 popular votes for the Presidency. I say "at least" because they're still counting in California and several other states, and so Obama's total should wind up comfortably over 69 million; 70 million appears unlikely, but is not entirely out of the question.
This total represents 22.62 percent of the Census Bureau's 2008 estimate of United States population, which was 303,824,640. That figure doesn't sound that impressive at first glance -- fewer than one in four Americans actually voted for Barack Obama -- but it's actually the second-highest percentage ever, trailing only Ronald Reagan in 1984:
(Note: for 1900 onward, population figures are based on yearly Census Bureau estimates as of July 1st of the year in question. For years prior to 1900, they are based on a linear extrapolation of population figures from the nearest decennial Censuses.)
Modern candidates, it should be noted, have several distinct advantages over older ones. In particular, the vote now extends to women, African-Americans, and 18-to-21 year-olds, which it did not originally. There are no longer any poll taxes, or any of the widespread suppression of the black vote that was present until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Also, the population has gotten a little older as human lifespans have increased, which means that the percentage of the population which is of voting age has increased. Finally, the percentage of the population which are US citizens (i.e. the percentage that aren't immigrants) is lower than many periods throughout history...
...still, Barack Obama can lay claim to being president of the entire country in a way that few candidates of the past can.
Chris Matthews Staffing Up for Probable Senate Run in 2010
[EDIT -- 8:26 AM. I am changing the reporting and headline slightly to more cautiously reflect what our sources are telling us. Matthews, we have strong reason to believe, is hiring staff for a run at the Senate, although there have certainly been candidates in the past who have staffed up but subsequently elected not to run. -Nate]
Chris Matthews, it appears, is in.
FiveThirtyEight has been hearing for some time that Matthews is serious about running for the United States Senate, but it took a trip to Georgia among the Georgia-runoff-congregated and well-connected Obama organizer throng to confirm.
According to multiple sources, who confirmed the Tip O'Neill staffer-cum-MSNBC host has negotiated with veteran Obama staffers to enlist in his campaign, Chris Matthews is likely to run for United States Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. Matthews, 62, would run as a Democrat. Arlen Specter, the aging Republican incumbent, will be 80 if he chooses to run for re-election.
Preliminary public polling suggests Matthews would start at a deficit, in part because Matthews' name recognition is lower than Specter's.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Mini-Sota Update, Day #7
The campaigns have been making noises about some sort of détente on the matter of challenged ballots but ... well, there's no sign of it yet. On the contrary, the rate of ballot challenges nearly doubled today from their previous, already-high levels.
The Coleman campaign challenged 38.7 ballots for every 10,000 counted today, the Franken campaign 33.8 per 10,000. On the first day of the recount, those rates were 2.5/10,000 and 2.3/10,000 respectively.
Coleman's lead according to the Secretary of State's accounting is 292 ballots, an increase of 54 votes from his 238-vote margin yesterday. However, Coleman has challenged 78 more ballots than Franken within the past 24 hours. This may actually have been a fairly good day for Franken, for all we know, although we really don't know very much.
Georgia Runoff On Our Mind
A quick little pre-Thanksgiving road map from the red clay state of Georgia, where on Tuesday we'll learn the identity of the 99th member of the Senate. Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent Republican, fell just short on Election Day of the 50% mark needed to avoid the runoff against Democratic opponent Jim Martin.
While the President-Elect is not expected to appear in person on Jim Martin's behalf, there's no doubt Barack Obama's organization is here in force. Organizers, who began showing up almost immediately after the election, are all over the state. Phone banks run by Obama organizers from other states are up and running.
On Saxby Chambliss' side, the big guns have all come down to campaign, including John McCain and Runoff Eve's guest Sarah Palin, who has visits planned in Augusta, Savannah, Macon and Atlanta. We'll be checking out the ground operation around the state for Chambliss, and we're optimistic that we'll get solid access.
As a quick note, I walked into the Gwinnett County Democratic field office less than an hour ago, and the vibe was eerily identical in terms of hustle and focus that we witnessed in Obama offices during our eight week cross country journey leading up to November 4. The concentration level was high enough, and the task level obviously significant enough that I walked in and took a self-guided tour and left without anyone noticing. (Part of that is not showing the hesitation of a volunteer, who would be pounced on and put to efficient use right away.)
Over the next few days, we'll be giving you a closer look at what the campaigns are doing, what we're seeing on the ground, and of course a Monday full o' Palin surrogacy. Opportunistic with our spit firing -- and maybe if you're good, America, Nate'll clarify where that impossibly great phrase came from as a holiday treat -- we'll be dispatching from the state over the final stretch, and hopefully have one or two surprises in store.
In the meantime, enjoy the mashed potatoes and the football.
Minnesota Canvassing Board Punts on Rejected Absentee Ballots
Minnesota's Canvassing Board today unanimously rejected a request by the Al Franken campaign to mandate that absentee ballots initially rejected as invalid be reconsidered, essentially declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. However, the Franken campaign has at least two mechanisms by which those votes may in fact be counted.
The first is that the Canvassing Board will reconvene next week to consider a proposal to have county officials sort through their absentee ballots to determine which absentee ballots appeared to have no valid reason for rejection -- a so-called "fifth pile" of ballots, as there are four valid criteria in Minnesota for rejecting absentees. The Canvassing Board could then rule that ballots in the fifth pile be counted. The Franken campaign seems inclined to let this process play out for now; in the meantime, at least one county (Itasca) appears as though it may re-evaluate the rejected absentee ballots on its own, without awaiting instructions from the state.
The second mechanism would be to do the good, old-fashioned American thing and sue. It is quite likely that the Franken campaign will sue if the Canvassing Board does not mandate that the "fifth pile" ballots be counted; the reporters at The Uptake think such a lawsuit would have a fair chance of prevailing.
The St. Paul Pioneer press reports that about 12,000 absentee ballots were rejected statewide. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of these were rejected for valid reasons, but reviews of such ballots in counties like Ramsey (St. Paul) have revealed that material numbers were rejected due to human error, and Minnesota's Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, has estimated that between 500 and 1,000 absentees were rejected improperly.
The behavior of both the Coleman and Franken campaigns would suggest that Franken stands to gain if these absentee ballots are reconsidered, but the extent of the potential gain is hard to determine. In late October, a Public Policy Polling survey showed Al Franken with an 8-point lead over Norm Coleman among persons who had already voted, although that survey slightly overestimated Franken's support overall. Most likely, Franken would stand to add a vote for somewhere between 1 in every 10 improperly rejected absentee ballots, and 1 in every 20. Given this range and the estimate of improperly rejected absentees provided by Ritchie, that would suggest that Franken campaign stands to gain a net of somewhere between 25 and 100 votes if these ballots are in fact counted by the state.
As of early yesterday, the Franken campaign told reporters that it was within 84 votes of Coleman on the assumption that all ballot challenges are rejected, a different assumption than the Secretary of State makes in providing its accounting of the state of the recount. This estimate roughly squares with attempts I have been making to infer the frequencies of different types of challenges on behalf of each campaign, and their concomitant impact on the state's reported totals.
If the Franken campaign's estimate is correct, that would put them on pace to be within 40-50 ballots of Coleman should all ballot challenges be rejected. The Franken campaign could then prevail in the recount in one of two ways. Firstly, a higher fraction of their challenges could be accepted. This is not entirely unlikely, especially if a higher proportion of the Coleman campaign's challenges fall into 'Type 1', which are challenges of ballots deemed legal by the local elections judge -- my inference is that 'Type 1' challenges are especially unlikely to be accepted. The second way is if the rejected absentee ballots are re-considered.
Franken attorney Marc Elias also suggested at his press conference today that the Franken campaign will be reviewing its challenges, and might unilaterally withdraw challenges that it considers to be frivolous before the Canvassing Board meets in December. If this were to happen, Coleman would gain a lot of ground in the state's running tally -- but Franken, arguably, would re-gain the moral highground. The Coleman campaign, for its part, has suggested to Franken's attorneys that it might be willing to consider a bi-lateral process for withdrawing certain challenged ballots.
Obama Popular Vote Margin Largest Ever for Non-Incumbent
Here's an impressive-sounding statistic, even if it's mostly an artifact of population growth. Barack Obama's victory margin from November 4th now stands at 9,124,522 votes, and will probably grow a bit more once states like Illinois, New York and California finalize their counts.
This is the 6th largest victory margin of all time, and the largest ever by a non-incumbent.
Largest Popular Vote Margin
Year Candidate Inc? Margin
1972 Nixon Yes 17,995,488
1964 Johnson Yes 17,951,287
1984 Reagan Yes 16,678,120
1936 Roosevelt Yes 11,070,786
1956 Eisenhower Yes 9,551,152
2008 Obama No 9,124,522*
1980 Reagan No 8,423,115
1996 Clinton Yes 8,201,370
1924 Coolidge Yes 7,377,547
1988 Bush No 7,077,121
* ProvisionalIf looked at in percentage terms, however, Obama's 7.0-point margin is really fairly middle of the road, having been bettered 26 times overall and by 12 non-incumbents:Largest Popular Vote Percentage Margin, Non-Incumbents Only
Year Candidate Inc? Margin
1920 Harding No 26.2%
1932 Roosevelt No 17.7%
1928 Hoover No 17.4%
1912 Wilson No 14.4%
1836 Van Buren No 14.2%
1828 Jackson No 12.4%
1856 Buchanan No 12.2%
1952 Eisenhower No 10.9%
1860 Lincoln No 10.3%
1980 Reagan No 9.7%
1908 Taft No 8.6%
1988 Bush No 7.8%
2008 Obama No 7.0%*
* ProvisionalOne compromise between these two approaches is to look at a candidate's raw popular vote margin divided into the total number of eligible voters; this accounts for population growth while rewarding a candidate for higher turnout. By this metric, Reagan's win in 1980 is still somewhat more impressive than Obama's -- he won by 8,425,115 votes out of 159,635,102 available, or 5.3%. By contrast, Obama won by 9,124,522 votes out of 213,005,467 available, or 4.3%. However, Obama's fraction is slightly better than George H.W. Bush's in 1988, who won by 7,077,121 votes out of 167,701,904 available, or 4.2%.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Mini-Sota Update, Day 6
The rates of challenged ballots keep on rising, with a gap opening up between the Coleman and the Franken campaigns:
The reward for his hard work? Coleman now leads by 238 votes -- a larger margin than when he started the recount -- according to the Minnesota Secretary of State. As before, many caveats apply when evaluating these results before challenges are resolved; not all challenges are created equal.
Obama's Agenda & The Difference Between Tactics & Strategy
There is, to say the least, a lot of jumping to conclusions about just which type of President Barack Obama is liable to be, by which I mean whether he'll govern from the left or the center. This speculation has been principally based on his cabinet appointments, a subject that people may be reading too much into. The initial Bush cabinet contained a number of people who could be described as moderate or center-right, including Colin Powell, Tommy Thompson, Norman Mineta, Christine Todd Whitman, Paul O'Neill and arguably Mitch Daniels and Ann Veneman. Obviously, this was balanced out to some degree by the Rumsfelds and the Ashcrofts, but it is not clear that Bush's 2001 cabinet was any more right-wing than Obama's 2009 cabinet is left-wing. Bush ran a very conservative government -- but the authority came from the top down.
Most of this discussion, moreover, has dwelt in the realm of tactics, presentation and salesmanship rather than grand strategy. One can "govern from the center" and implement a number of liberal policies -- by shifting the Overton Window a couple of panes at a time, and selling classically liberal policies as commonsensical and centrist. (Which, in the case of some major items like health care and clean energy, they already are). Likewise, as David Sirota notes, one can co-opt leftist rhetoric, enthusiasm and mindshare and implement a centrist agenda, as Bill Clinton arguably did.
In the case of Barack Obama, however, I would argue that there is not as much need to worry about tactics. If his campaign was any indication, Obama is not much of an outsourcer -- he will dictate the tone of his administration. Moreover, we actually have quite a bit of information about what his longer-term goals are. This morning, I went to Obama's website and began transcribing essentially all the specific policy proposals that he was willing to commit to publicly -- as you will see, there are dozens and dozens of them. I then began classifying these positions on a truncated political spectrum running from liberal/progressive to center-right, further dividing the policies into economics and taxation (green), other domestic policy (yellow) and foreign affairs (blue). Here is what I came up with:
Now, you're welcome to critique my characterizations of certain policies as 'progressive' versus 'centrist' (and I'm sure that many of you will), but a couple of key themes emerge:
1. In the realm of domestic policy, there are a surprising number of proposals -- mostly buried within the fine print of Obama's website -- that are more or less unapologetically progressive/liberal. These include things such as doubling public spending on science and after-school programs, banning racial profiling, expanding the use of non-traditional courts and detainment facilities for non-violent drug offenders, several different block grant programs targeted at inner cities, expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, and a large array of protections for workers and consumers. While Obama also has a number of programs that have broader, centrist appeal -- such as reforming No Child Left Behind or allowing the importation of prescription drugs from abroad -- very few are incompatible with the progressive agenda, with just a couple of exceptions like Obama's advocacy for clean coal and charter schools. Obama's domestic program is, by and large, progressive and ambitious (probably overambitious).
2. In the realm of economic policy, there are also some explicitly progressive items, such as raising the minimum wage, investing $1 billion in anti-poverty jobs programs, and of course, reversing the Bush tax cut. There is also a heavy overlap, however, with what might be called libertarian paternalism: "smart" policies which incent good behavior through tax credits or choice architecture (a classic example is Obama's plan to enroll all employees in pension programs by default, until they elect to opt out). Obama's health care program, given its lack of a mandate, is also arguably an example of libertarian paternalism (although its incentives need to be better designed than in their current conception). A libertarian paternalist framework supplemented with a number of smaller-scale, piecemeal programs that tend more classically toward social welfare (such as heating assistance for lower-income families) would hardly be the worst place for progressives to end up, even if a bit less ideologically pure than the New Deal or the Great Society. One notable exception is free trade, where Obama is not really pretending to be anything other than centrist.
3. Lastly, in the realm of foreign policy, Obama is fairly circumspect, but where he shows his hand, tends fairly explicitly in the direction of the political center. The withdraw of troops from Iraq has been carefully hedged (at least it is now, if it wasn't during the primaries). Obama advocates national missile defense; he advocates increasing defense spending. Perhaps just as revealing are the things that Obama doesn't promise -- there is no mention, for instance, of amending FISA. It would seem that when national security goals conflict with other ones in the Obama administration, national security goals will usually win.
Still, this can hardly be described as a centrist agenda (even though much of it should have significant appeal to moderates). The appropriate critique, rather, is that not very much of it may be realized, because portions of it would be rather expensive to enact. It seems to me that to implement a material portion of his domestic policy agenda, Obama needs TWO of the following three things to happen:
a. He needs to follow through with his promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and/or,
b. He needs to decrease rather than increase Pentagon spending, and/or,
c. He needs the economy to recover more quickly and more robustly than generally anticipated.
The fight over the Bush tax cuts, it seems to me, could be the fight of Obama's first year in office; there may be a massive intraparty fight at first (should the tax hikes be brought to the table?), followed potentially by an interparty fight. This is one place where partisans on all sides could have a lot of influence.
But in the longer term, the fight over the defense budget, which will probably trade off more or less explicitly with Obama's domestic policy prerogatives, could be the key flash point between progressives and the administration. In certain ways, an increase in defense spending seems incompatible with Obama's notion of a smarter, more aerodynamic government, particularly one that is able to restore American soft power in lieu of military spending, and/or is (eventually) able to end the conflict in Iraq. If progressives are looking for strategic rather than tactical (or ideological) fights, that may be the place to start.
Georgia: Martin Stuck in Neutral?
Although Jim Martin performed well enough on Election Day to hold incumbent Saxby Chambliss under 50 percent, he still lost by the nontrivial margin of 3 percent. There are basically three ways -- taken alone or in combination -- that Martin could hope to make that deficit up.
The first way would be to win the lion's share of votes from the Libertarian candidate, Allen Buckley, who has been kicked off the island for the runoff. Exit polls suggested that a majority of Buckley voters also voted for Obama, although the sample size is probably too small to be meaningful. If this is a help to Martin, it's probably not by more than a couple of tenths of a point.
The second way would be to have a superior turnout on Runoff Day -- something which is always possible since runoffs elicit much lower turnout than elections held in conjunction with a Presidential race. So far, the evidence on that score is not so good for Martin. In contrast to the run-up to November 4th, when African-Americans overperformed in early voting, so far black voters make up only about 23 percent of Georgia's early vote in the runoff, slightly underperforming their share of the state's electorate.
The third way would be some sort of game-changing event. We're only talking about 3 points, so he wouldn't necessarily need some kind of Macaca moment -- but a little something to move the needle. Democrats thought they might have had a little something in the Imperial Sugar case, a February explosion at a Port Wentworth sugar refinery that killed 13 people -- Chambliss was subpoenaed in the ongoing trial against Imperial Sugar but has refused to testify. But, the case has yet to really go viral. And if a visit by Barack Obama was supposed to be a game-changer, so far the President-elect has revealed no plans to make a trip down South.
Basically, there is not yet any reason to conclude that the race will turn out all that much differently than it did on November 4th -- and not coincidentally, most polls show Saxby Chambliss holding onto about the same 3-point margin that he won by on Election Day.
Fortunately, we'll have Sean deploying to Georgia within the next 24 hours. Neither Sean nor I have any idea of what we expect to see or hear, but as with many races -- and particularly runoffs and special elections -- this one may look different from the ground up. From here in chilly Chicago, however, it looks like it's about time for Martin to get his butt in gear.
Minnesota Challenged Ballot Primer
As there is a lot of confusion about the nature of challenged ballots in Minnesota, a field guide of sorts is in order. From what I can gather, a campaign has four principal reasons to challenge a ballot. For purposes of this exercise, everything will be written from the standpoint of the Coleman campaign -- the four reasons that Coleman might want to challenge a ballot. If you want to think of things from the Franken campaign's point of view instead, just substitute Franken every time you see Coleman, and vice versa.
Type 1: LL (Legal Vote/Legal Vote).
Description: Ballot initially counted as a legal vote for Franken. Elections judge rules it a legal vote for Franken. Coleman challenges, argues that it shouldn't count.
Disposition: Franken loses one vote from his count. If challenge is rejected, Franken gets that vote back.
Rationale: Usually, a campaign will argue to disqualify a ballot for one of three reasons; (i) they claim it is an undervote, e.g. the voter did not fill in the oval all the way; (ii) they claim it is an overvote, e.g. there appear to be markings beside more than one candidate; (iii) they claim that the voter marked the ballot -- e.g. revealed his identity through a signature or some other distinguishing means (under Minnesota law, marked ballots are considered void).
Frequency: This is by far the most common type of challenged ballot, probably representing something like 75-80% of all challenges (or perhaps more). This is also the type of ballot most prone to gamesmanship, e.g. you can deduct a vote (temporarily) from the opponent's score even if the challenge has a low chance of being upheld. There is some evidence -- although it is debatable -- that a higher percentage of Coleman's challenges fall into this category. If so, that is good news for Franken, since these ballots have already been deducted from his total, but are likely to be added back once the challenge is rejected.
Prognosis: I would surmise that very rarely will this type of challenge prevail -- probably not more than 5% of the time, and perhaps not more than 1-2%. Minnesota has a fairly liberal (lower-case 'l') voter intent law, and if a ballot has been accepted by both the machine scanner and by the elections judge, good luck getting it rejected. About the only successful challenges, I would guess, will revolve around cases when the voter did appear to unambiguously mark the ballot, such as by signing it or providing his Social Security number.
Type 2: LX (Legal Vote/No Vote).
Description: Ballot initially counted as a legal vote for Coleman. Election judge rules that the vote isn't legal. Coleman campaign challenges, arguing that the vote should count after all.
Disposition: Coleman loses one vote from his count. If challenge is accepted, Coleman gets that vote back.
Rationale: If a machine scanner initially counted a ballot, and the elections judge then rejects it, the campaign will usually have a self-explanatory reason to appeal and will probably do so some large fraction of the time, as human beings will usually count more ballots than machines. A fair number of these cases probably involve marked ballots (see above).
Frequency: Probably about 5-10% of all challenges. May be slightly more common from the Franken campaign, if Democrats tend to be responsible for a higher fraction of sketchy ballots.
Prognosis: This is probably the type of challenge with the best chance of prevailing, since (i) the elections judge and machine scanner disagree, and (ii) Minnesota's voter intent law is in the challenger's favor, and will tend to be interpreted to count more, rather than fewer votes.
Type 3: XX (No Vote/No Vote).
Description: Ballot determined by machine to be undervote or overvote. Coleman argues it is a legal ballot and should count. Elections judge disagrees with Coleman (but agrees with machine), rules that the vote is illegal. Colmean challenges, arguing that the vote should count.
Disposition: Since the vote wasn't counted in the first place, nothing changes in the state's count. If challenge is accepted, Coleman gains a vote.
Rationale: By definition, the campaign will argue that voter intent is discernible. Among the more controversial cases will be those where voter appears to have crossed the name of one (or more) candidates out before voting for another one; these will usually be read as overvotes by the machine but are allowable if voter intent is clear.
Frequency: Likely the next most common case after Type 1, probably accounting for about 10% of challenges. My inference is that this type of challenge is more common from the Franken campaign, as it appears to occur more often in blue precincts.
Prognosis: The challenge may have a fighting chance, but with both the machine scanner and the elections judge having ruled against the ballot, it's an uphill battle.
Type 4: XL (No Vote/Legal Vote).
Description: Ballot determined by machine to be undervote or overvote. Elections judge disagrees, rules that the vote shows intent for Franken. Colmean challenges, arguing that the vote should not count after all.
Disposition: Since the vote wasn't counted in the initial count, nothing changes immediately. However, Coleman has to win his challenge, or else Franken gains a vote. For that reason, you don't so much mind Type 4 challenges, since most will be rejected and you'll probably be gaining a vote.
Rationale: If the machine rejected the ballot the first time around, it will usually have some type of imperfection, as instances of true machine error are relatively rare among optical scanners.
Frequency: Somewhat self-limiting, since a prerequisite is that machine and elections official have to disagree ... unlikely to be more than 5% of challenges. May be slightly more common from the Coleman campaign, if indeed there are more marginal Franken ballots.
Prognosis: The campaign is on the wrong side of the voter intent presumption, although the fact that there was a disagreement between the machine and the elections judge provides hope. You'd certainly prefer to take your chances with this type of challenge than a Type 1.
*-*
That should account for almost all challenges, although there are a few oddball cases. Apparently, for instance, both campaigns may challenge the same undervoted (and rejected) ballot if they each think it shows intent for their candidate. Theoretically, a campaign could also argue that a vote has been counted for the wrong candidate (e.g. Coleman argues that a Franken vote should be a Coleman vote, rather than a no-vote), but I'd guess that these cases are exceptionally rare. One exception may be votes for third-party candidates (e.g. a Barkley vote that Coleman wants counted as a Coleman vote), where a campaign might have a slightly easier time closing the sale since the third-party won't have representation in the room; these instances would be essentially analagous to Type 3 challenges.
Takeaways and Extensions:
- Type 1 challenges are by far the most common type, and are probably becoming even more common as challenge wars escalate, since there's an essentially unlimited supply of legal ballots. However, casual observers seem to assume that *all* challenges are Type 1; they are not.
- Type 1 challenges are also the only type that result in an immediate deduction from the opponent's pre-recount total.
- There is more of a one-to-one correspondence between the number of challenges and deductions from the opponent's total in red (Coleman) precincts, suggesting that a higher fraction of challenges are Type 1 in such precincts. (n.b. Franken has challenged a higher percentage of ballots in such precincts).
- Type 1 challenges almost certainly have the least chance of being accepted.
- Type 2 challenges probably have the best chance of being accepted.
- Type 1 and Type 4 challenges are "no win" challenges. The vote is already being excluded from your opponent's total, which is the best you can do; if the challenge is rejected, the opponent nets a vote. You would like for as many of your opponent's challenges as possible to be Type 1 and Type 4 (especially Type 1).
- Type 2 and Type 3 challenges are "no lose" challenges. The vote hasn't been counted for you yet, but could be counted if the challenge is accepted. You would like for as many of your challenges as possible to be Type 2 and Type 3 (especially Type 2).
- Bayesian probability is largely responsible for dictating the relative frequencies of different types of challenged ballots. There are far more legal ballots than undervotes, and the elections judge will agree with the machine scanner more often than he disagrees with it. Therefore, Type 1 challenges are the most common (legal ballots where the judge agrees with the machine), and Type 4 are probably the least common (undervotes where the judge overrules the machine).
Monday, November 24, 2008
[UPDATED] State Pegs Coleman Lead at 172 Votes; Challenges Increase for Fourth Straight Day
UPDATED at 9:50 PM with technical mumbo-jumbo.
The nightly, 8 PM update from the Minnesota Secretary of State now shows Norm Coleman with a nominal lead of 172 votes over Al Franken. According to the state's accounting, Franken has gained 43 votes on Coleman since the recount process began. However, the high number of challenges on both sides probably obscures any true movement in the vote counts.
Indeed, whereas as of midday, it appeared that the Coleman campaign was challenging significantly more ballots than Franken, Franken has fully caught up with Coleman's rate of challenges in the 8 PM count, with both campaigns challenging record-setting numbers of ballots. The Franken campaign's challenge rate in ballots counted today was 18.3 per 10,000 votes; Coleman's was 18.2 per 10,000 votes. The rates of challenged ballots have been increasing by an aggregate of about 50 percent per day over each day of the recount process.
TECHNICAL UPDATE: Different versions of the projection technique that we unveiled yesterday continue to peg Franken as a slight favorite. I am going to list four different versions here -- this will get technical:'Gross' models evaluate each candidate's results individually, e.g. how much Franken gains in the absolute count. 'Net' models evaluate how much Franken gains relative to Coleman, without worrying about the absolute count. 'Simple' models include a maximum of three variables (plus a constant term): Franken's share of the two-way vote in that precinct, the frequency of challenges initiated by Coleman, and the frequency of challenges initiated by Franken. 'Complex' models account for two-way and three-way interactions (where statistically significant) between these independent variables. The regression is weighted based on the square root of the number of votes tabulated in that precinct. Variables are dropped if not statistically significant at the 95 percent certianty level.
Type Depth Franken Coleman Net Result
The various versions of the model project a Franken win by between 48 and 136 votes once all ballots are re-counted and all challenges are resolved. However -- disclaimer! -- the margins of error on these regressions are HIGH, e.g. at least +/- 200 votes to achieve a 95 percent certainty level. The point is not really to project a precise margin of victory (or defeat) for Franken but to suggest Franken probably has made more progress in the recount than is implied by the state's in-progress totals and may in fact be the favorite to win it.
Gross Simple +473 +138 Franken +335 Franken +120
Gross Complex +368 +17 Franken +351 Franken +136
Net Simple -- -- Franken +336 Franken +121
Net Complex -- -- Franken +263 Franken +48
...and actually, there's a (relatively) simpler way to get at the same result. Taking a simple regression of Franken's challenge rate on Coleman's net total and vice versa, the models suggest that Franken is losing about .87 votes for every Coleman challenge, whereas Coleman is losing .74 votes for every Franken challenge. That would imply that about 87% of Coleman's challenges are to Franken votes that were initially ruled legal, and that 74% of Franken's challenges are to Coleman votes that were initially ruled legal. Challenges of this type result in a temporary deduction to the opposing candidate's total until the challenges are resolved.
Given each candidate's present number of challenges, this would suggest that Coleman has succeeded in (temporarily) deducting 1,211 from Franken's total by challenging legal ballots, whereas Franken has succeeded in deducting 1,033 votes from Coleman's total -- a gap of 178 votes. If all such challenges are rejected, Franken would presently have a lead of 6 ballots, and presumably would be on pace to make up additional ground as the final 26 percent of ballots are counted.
The key intuition is that, although the candidates have issued almost exactly the same number of challenges, Coleman is almost certainly making more of the type of challenge -- challenging ballots initially ruled to be legal -- that result in a deduction to the opponent's total. Conversely, Franken is probably appealing the local election official's decision more frequently on ballots ruled to be undervotes -- but this type of challenge has no immediate impact on the state's reported totals. This has nothing to do with which campaign's challenges are more frivolous or not -- it's just that much of Coleman's apparent lead is an artifact of the way that the state keeps score of different types of challenges.
EDIT: Well, let me qualify the above finding some more. Whether or not you arrive at the result I describe above -- that a higher percentage of Coleman's challenges are to legal Franken ballots -- depends heavily on whether and how you're weighting the regression to account for precinct size. I suspect this is because both campaigns' standards for challenging ballots have changed (i.e. loosened) with each subsequent day of the recount, and also with each subsequent day of the recount, we have tended to move into larger precincts. So, sprinkle in additional 'probablys' and 'maybes' as needed. This is confusing stuff.
EDIT #2: Another complication is that it appears as though types of challenges in a given precinct are also a function of the favorability of that precinct for Al Franken. In strong Coleman precincts, almost all of the challenges appear to involve legal ballots that the campaigns are trying to get thrown out. In strong Franken precincts, on the other hand, a more sizable percentage of the action appears to involve undervotes that were not counted initially.
Dubious in Delaware
Pop quiz time. Who is Ted Kaufman?
a) The late comedian who in 1975 guest-starred on the network television premiere of Saturday Night Live.
b) The former owner of the Kansas City Royals;
c) A villain, played by Vincent Schiavelli, in a mediocre James Bond film, or,
d) Your newest U.S. Senator!
Yes, ladies and germs, if you picked answer 'd', you'll be entered into a drawing to win this beautiful parcel of land mere yards away from Du Pont Chemical's scenic thorium manufacturing facility in Smyrna, Delaware!
*-*
Kaufman, who is Joe Biden's former chief of staff, is almost certainly a placeholder for Joseph Biden III ("Beau"), Delware's Attorney General and a Captain in the Army National Guard who was recently deployed to Iraq but who may declare himself eligible for Delaware's Special Election in 2010. A series of better-known candidates, such as Lieutenant Governor John Carney and Secretary of State Harriet Smith Windsor, were passed over by departing governor Ruth Ann Minner.
I am not much of a fan of this decision. Kaufman may well make for a perfectly competent senator -- as a former chief of staff, he'll probably know his way around the Hill better than half the people who actually hold office there. And I don't have a problem in general with the idea of appointing a placeholder, as I've advocated that Rod Blagojevich should do in Illinois.
But I think there ought to be some minimum threshold of public stature for a senate appointee -- preferably an elected official like Windsor or for that matter Minner herself, particularly when the appointment is made by an outgoing, retiring governor who is no longer accountable to public opinion. Kaufman, who did not even have a Wikipedia page until two weeks ago, does not really meet that threshold.
EDIT: To clarify, the difference between this situation and the one in Illinois is that Emil Jones is a prominent elected official -- the president of the Illinois State Senate. I would also have a problem with, say, Valerie Jarrett being the appointee in Illinois or David Plouffe in Delaware, both of which have been rumored at various times.
Coleman Challenges Increasing Exponentially
We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.
Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).
Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war. But news organizations should recognize that -- as of about Friday afternoon when the number of challenges skyrocketed -- the entire first phase of the recount process essentially became a spin war. The running totals being reported by the Star Tribune and the Secretary of State are at this point fairly meaningless, and should be denoted as such; we aren't likely to learn very much more about the ultimate winner of the recount until the state canvassing board convenes in December.
Illinois: Let the People Decide
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich will soon have the honor of selecting a replacement for Barack Obama, who has resigned his position in the Senate in order to accept his promotion to the Oval Office.
There is not much consensus about just whom Blagojevich will appoint; names as wide-ranging as Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett and Blagojevich himself have been subjects of (wild) speculation. But there are two fundamental directions that Blagojevich could go with his decision.
The first would be to select from any among a number of relatively talented and relatively young Illinois Democrats, a list that would include (but not be limited to) US Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr., Jan Schakowsky, and Luis Gutierrez, Illinois Director of Veteran Affairs Tammy Duckworth, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. All of these candidates have some star power: the Madigan and Jackson surnames are powerful in Illinois politics (and in Jackson's case, pretty much everywhere else). Duckworth is a war hero. Schakowsky and Gutierrez are telegenic, and favorites of the netroots. Giannoulias is regarded as something of a savant among Illinois political insiders and would join Olympia Snowe as the only Greek-American senators.
But also, each candidate carries some risks. It's doubtful that any candidate but Jackson had greater than 60 percent name recognition statewide -- and his last name, in certain circles, is a liability rather than an asset. Only Giannoulias and Madigan have been elected to statewide office, and while they have largely managed to keep their hands clean of Blagojevich's scandal-prone administration, 'Springfield' is a far dirtier word than 'Washington' to most Illinoisans. Duckworth has never been elected to anything. Gutierrez, very popular in the mix of Latino and young professional neighbohoods that make up IL-4, would need to find greater range to appeal to voters downstate and in the suburbs. Schakowsky, likewise, is among the most liberal members of the House (she was one of 26 Congresspeople to co-sponsor articles of impechment against Dick Cheney), perhaps creating wiggle room for a moderate Republican to run against her. And since this is Illinois, we can never be quite certain just who has which skeletons in their closet.
Blagojevich's other direction would be to appoint a seat-warmer, most likely State Senate president Emil Jones, who was thought to be contemplating retirement. Jones could then bow out gracefully in 2010, allowing the Democrats to contest the seat in the primary. I would suggest that this is the wiser course of action.
For one thing, if Blajoevich were to appoint one of the half-dozen rising stars, that person would almost certainly be in a dominant position to become the Democratic nominee in 2010, having had a two-year head start on fundraising and building institutional support. This is particularly the case given that just one of the six candidates is a white male (and none of the six are WASPs); it would create a political firestorm to try and primary out a Jackson or a Duckworth, even if they ultimately were not the strongest candidate.
In a redder state, where Democrats simply had to take their best shot, nudging the electorate in the direction of one candidate might be an advantage. But in Illinois, which Democrats are favored to hold regardless of their nominee, somewhat more risk-averse behavior is called for. The way Democrats lose this seat is if they pick a nominee who (i) has some heretofore-unknown scandal or, (2) just doesn't have the political acumen to click at the statewide level, particularly on his or her first try and a high-profile position as US Senator.
The best way to prevent these things would be to appoint a placeholder like Jones and then let the younger candidates battle it out on a level playing field in the primaries. If there's nothing else we learned from the Presidential race this year, it's that there's no better way to vet, challenge and season candidates than vigorously-contested primary.
48 comments
Post a Comment