The next cookie on the primary platter is Tennessee, whose unusual Thursday election features a competitive GOP gubernatorial contest and a host of wild-and-wooly congressional primaries.
These include the nation's most expensive House primary (GOP TN-8), a primary where the Club for Growth accidentally directed readers of a mailer to a phone sex line (GOP TN-3), a primary where a white Jewish incumbent has earned the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus in a campaign against the African-American former mayor of Memphis (Dem TN-9), and a primary where Sarah Palin delved into a crowded GOP field in a staunch Democratic district to endorse her latest "Mama Grizzly" (GOP TN-5). And all that fun doesn't even include America's latest viral video sensation, Republican gubernatorial candidate Basil Marceaux.
First, some basics: Tennessee has open primaries, but is also the rare southern state without a majority-vote (or in North Carolina, a 40%-of-the-vote) requirement for party nominations, which will be a significant factor in a number of crowded primary contests.
Tennessee is also a state with a strong system of in-person early voting, with a state-sanctioned 15-day window that begins twenty days out and ends five days before the actual election. In the last midterm primary in 2006, 43% of the ballots were cast early (2% by mail-in absentee ballot). The official statistics for this year show 14% of registered voters having already cast ballots, which could wind up being about half of the total turnout. A lot of the theatrics in Tennessee races over the last few weeks probably involved efforts to influence early voters.
The Volunteer State has been relatively balanced in state elections (the current governor, term-limited Phil Bredesen is a Democrat; the state senate is controlled by Republicans, and the evenly-balanced House is led by a renegade Republican Speaker elected with the votes of Democrats), but hasn't had a Democratic U.S. Senator since 1994, and has been tilting notably red in recent presidential elections (John McCain won here by a 57-42 margin).
This state also has a strong tradition of regionalism (the three stars on the state flag represent East, Middle, and West Tennessee), which has often been a major factor in statewide political races. In the marquee GOP gubernatorial primary, all three major candidates (Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, Chattanooga congressman Zach Wamp, and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, from northeast Tennessee) are from the east, which has given a major strategic advantage to Haslam thanks to his superior financial resources, allowing him to appeal to the rest of the state via television ads. By mid-July, Haslam had raised $8.7 million, some of it self-funded (he is from the family which owns the Pilot chain of travel centers). Wamp had raised 3.9 million, and Ramsey weighed in at a bit over two million.
There has only been one public independent poll of this race, by Mason-Dixon in the third week of July, showing Haslam at 36%, Wamp at 25%, and Ramsey at 20%. But the perception all along has been that it's Haslam's race to lose. Both Wamp and Ramsey have sought to challenge Haslam's conservative credentials, mainly by talking about his father's involvement in the last effort to introduce an income tax in Tennessee (still a sore subject in Tennessee Republican politics, since the failed income tax campaign was led by the state's last GOP governor, Don Sundquist), and also accusing him of trying to buy the election with oil-company money.
Wamp, long a darling of the Christian Right (he's a longtime resident of the C Street compound run by the shadowy evangelical conservative group The Fellowship Foundation, made famous by fellow-residents Mark Sanford and John Ensign), has lent his campaign a distinctly religious flavor. But he gained national attention recently by suggesting that Tennessee might have to secede from the Union if Congress does not repeal health reform legislation (he later recanted the secession talk, but still said fighting federal power would be a major focus of his governorship).
Meanwhile, Ron Ramsey (note: Tennessee Lt. Govs. are elected by the state senate, not voters) has heavily focused on his A+ rating from the NRA, holding campaign events at firing ranges. Like Wamp, he received some recent derisive national attention when he waded into a controversy raised by 6th District GOP congressional candidate Lou Ann Zelenik over the construction of a mosque in the middle Tennessee college town of Murfreesboro. In an interview, Ramsey suggested that First Amendment protections might not apply to Muslims because it was arguable that Islam was not a religion, but a "nationality, way of life, or cult."
Down the stretch Wamp has taken to pleading that anti-Haslam conservatives unite behind his candidacy on grounds that Ramsey is unelectable, but right now Haslam is the odds-on favorite. That seems to be the assumption of certain Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mike McWherter (son of popular former governor Ned McWherter, and the last candidate standing after a series of rivals withdrew from the race), who's been taking a few shots at the Knoxville mayor while otherwise concentrating on raising money.
BTW, for all his national notoriety, internet sensation and would-be traffic-stop abolitionist Basil Merceaux is a perennial candidate who won't get many votes beyond the ranks of a few mischievous crossover Democrats.
Tennessee's House primaries are quite a spectacle. In Wamp's heavily-Republican 3d District, the contest has turned into a nasty fight between former state GOP chairman Robin Smith and self-funding attorney Chuck Fleischmann. There's a pretty interesting back-story in this race. Fleischmann's campaign manager is former TN GOP chairman Chip Saltsman, who ran Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign in 2008. Saltsman also ran for RNC chair in 2009, and probably wasn't pleased when Smith endorsed SC's Katon Dawson for the post. In any event, it's been a tough race, enlivened when the Club for Growth sent out a mailer attacking Fleischmann's background as a trial lawyer, and then included a phone number for further information that turned out to be a phone sex service. A third candidate, Bradley County sheriff Tim Gobble, has tried to position himself as an alternative to the combatants, but trails them badly in fundraising. A Club-for-Growth commissioned poll conducted on July 12 showed Smith up over Fleischmann by 22 points.
Two other hot GOP primaries are in the districts of retiring Blue Dogs Democrats Bart Gordon (TN-6) and John Tanner (TN-8). In TN-6, two state senators, both standard-brand conservatives, Diane Black (chairman of the Senate Republican conference) and Jim Tracy, were the presumed front-runners, but then former county commissioner Lou Ann Zelenik threw some of her own wealth into the race and as noted earlier, exploited the Murfreesboro Mosque controversy to get free media. She shares a geographical base with Tracy, and has probably cut into his support; an internal poll released by Black in early July showed Black with 41%, Zelenik with 22%, and Tracy with 20%.
The Democratic primary in the 6th features two young decorated war veterans, Bret Carter and Ben Leming. Carter has a fundraising edge, but Leming's been endorsed by the AFL-CIO and a long list of former state Democratic chairmen. Though the 6th (once represented by Al Gore) has a long history as a Democratic bastion, McCain beat Obama there by 27 points.
In the 8th, the Democratic candidate is veteran state legislator Roy Herron, who dropped out of the governor's race to run for the House when Tanner announced his retirement. The Republican primary was supposed to be dominated by the nationally-recruited farmer and gospel singer Stephen Fincher. But two wealthy self-funded candidates, Shelby County commissioner George Flinn and physician Ron Kirkland, jumped into the race and have turned it into a very expensive slugfest. Fincher's under attack from his rivals for accepting federal farm subsidies over the years. Flinn is an admitted carpetbagger who lives outside the district, and has also been hammered for operating a website (shades of J.D. Hayworth!) encouraging applications for stimulus dollars. A reported $5.2 million--$3 million by Flinn alone--have been spent by the candidates in this primary, not counting $1.3 million spent by Kirkland's brother as an "independent expenditure," making this the most expensive House primary in the country so far.
The Nashville-based 5th district, represented by Blue Dog Jim Cooper, isn't supposed to be competitive (Obama carried the district by 56-43), but no less than eleven Republicans are running for the opportunity to test that hypothesis. It's really difficult to figure out how this primary will turn out. Contractor David Hall has released an internal poll showing him romping over the field, with businessman and home-school activist Jeff Hartline running second and Sarah Palin's pick, attorney CeCe Heil running third. Hall and Hartline are the best-financed candidates; as of mid-July, both had spent over $200,000 with the rest of the field not breaking six digits. But Heil will undoubtedly benefit from the attention provided by Palin. Her other advantage is her clever decision to recast her background in entertainment law as equipping her to be a "constitutional lawyer" who can fight to defend the Constitution in Congress (other Republican attorneys, including the infamous "trial lawyer" running in the 3d District, should pick up on that maneuver). Whoever wins will be an underdog against Cooper.
Finally, in the Memphis-based 9th district, Democratic incumbent Steve Cohen is facing a primary challenge from former Memphis mayor Willie Herenton. Like Cohen's 2008 opponent Nikki Tinker, Herenton is making no bones about his claim that the district requires an African-American to represent it in the House, and as with Tinker, it looks like the racial appeal will backfire. Cohen has been endorsed by President Obama, by his most famous African-American predecessor, Harold Ford, Sr., and was given a campaign contribution by the Congressional Black Caucus. Cohen should win big.
8.04.2010
Will Gay Marriage, Once Again, Become a Campaign Issue?
@ 6:50 PM
In a ruling that had been widely anticipated, Judge Vaughn Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco today decided that California's Proposition 8 -- which was narrowly approved by the state's voters in 2008 and amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman -- violated the U.S. Constitution on both due process and equal protection grounds, thereby striking it. The decision is eventually expected to be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where its fate will probably be in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
One of the distinct features of the 2010 campaign to date has been a relative lack of discussion around gay marriage. There are a variety of reasons for this -- there are no marriage ballot initiatives before the voters this year, for instance, and the country has a whole host of other, more tangible problems to deal with. But can we expect this to change with Judge Walker's ruling today?
The issue is certainly unlikely to be pushed into the spotlight by Democrats. Most polls still show at least a plurality of Americans opposed to gay marriage, although the margin is narrowing. More important, perhaps, is that the fact that President Obama is at least nominally opposed to gay marriage, as were the other two leading Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. As I wrote on Twitter, this is a fact that may come to seem remarkable with the passage of time, as most Democrats support same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, given the White House's sluggish pace in working to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, a doctrine which is overwhelmingly unpopular, we are exceptionally unlikely to see a change of attitude on a related issue where the polling still cuts against them.
So it will come down, therefore, to what conservatives want to do with the issue: particularly two groups of conservatives, which we might loosely think of as the Tea Party and the Republican Establishment.
Although polling has shown that large majorities of Tea Party identifiers, like most Republicans and conservatives, are opposed to gay marriage, it has largely avoided discussion of the issue. The extent to which this has been a deliberate strategic choice is unclear, as the Tea Party is unusually decentralized. Nevertheless, it is arguably quite smart. The Tea Party has been successful, in part, because it feels fresh and new to many voters, distinguishing itself from Bush-era establishment conservatism and sometimes taking on the auspices of libertarianism. Were the Tea Party to come out strongly against gay marriage, or take explicit positions on other social issues like abortion and marijuana legalization, it would become indistinguishable from movement conservativism circa 2004, and would risk undermining the differentiation in its brand.
For the Republican Establishment, the calculus is somewhat different. They make no bones about being emphatically opposed to gay marriage. But a focus on the issue might look petty in comparison to weightier ones like unemployment, the deficit and health care, all of which are providing them with considerable momentum on their own.
However, the ruling today is potentially a game-changer in that it will allow both groups to frame the issue as one of judicial activism, rather than "family values". This line of attack makes for cogent soundbytes, and it will arguably be quite salient to voters, as Walker overturned a referendum passed by the majority of California's voters a mere 21 months ago. The less equivocal among the Republican Establishment may try to bolster their case by pointing to the fact that Walker himself is gay.
The fact that the issue is now almost certain to come before the Supreme Court also renders it less abstract than usual. Were Barack Obama to have the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice with a liberal one, or an incoming Republican President in 2013 the reverse, that would probably be decisive for the issue, perhaps for many decades.
My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls. For instance, will Sarah Palin produce a tweet or Facebook post containing the the phrases "activist judge" or "judicial activism" within the next 24 hours? It may depend on which type of conservatives -- the tea-partiers, or the movement conservatives of the Republican Establishment -- that she ultimately wants to affiliate herself with.
One of the distinct features of the 2010 campaign to date has been a relative lack of discussion around gay marriage. There are a variety of reasons for this -- there are no marriage ballot initiatives before the voters this year, for instance, and the country has a whole host of other, more tangible problems to deal with. But can we expect this to change with Judge Walker's ruling today?
The issue is certainly unlikely to be pushed into the spotlight by Democrats. Most polls still show at least a plurality of Americans opposed to gay marriage, although the margin is narrowing. More important, perhaps, is that the fact that President Obama is at least nominally opposed to gay marriage, as were the other two leading Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. As I wrote on Twitter, this is a fact that may come to seem remarkable with the passage of time, as most Democrats support same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, given the White House's sluggish pace in working to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, a doctrine which is overwhelmingly unpopular, we are exceptionally unlikely to see a change of attitude on a related issue where the polling still cuts against them.
So it will come down, therefore, to what conservatives want to do with the issue: particularly two groups of conservatives, which we might loosely think of as the Tea Party and the Republican Establishment.
Although polling has shown that large majorities of Tea Party identifiers, like most Republicans and conservatives, are opposed to gay marriage, it has largely avoided discussion of the issue. The extent to which this has been a deliberate strategic choice is unclear, as the Tea Party is unusually decentralized. Nevertheless, it is arguably quite smart. The Tea Party has been successful, in part, because it feels fresh and new to many voters, distinguishing itself from Bush-era establishment conservatism and sometimes taking on the auspices of libertarianism. Were the Tea Party to come out strongly against gay marriage, or take explicit positions on other social issues like abortion and marijuana legalization, it would become indistinguishable from movement conservativism circa 2004, and would risk undermining the differentiation in its brand.
For the Republican Establishment, the calculus is somewhat different. They make no bones about being emphatically opposed to gay marriage. But a focus on the issue might look petty in comparison to weightier ones like unemployment, the deficit and health care, all of which are providing them with considerable momentum on their own.
However, the ruling today is potentially a game-changer in that it will allow both groups to frame the issue as one of judicial activism, rather than "family values". This line of attack makes for cogent soundbytes, and it will arguably be quite salient to voters, as Walker overturned a referendum passed by the majority of California's voters a mere 21 months ago. The less equivocal among the Republican Establishment may try to bolster their case by pointing to the fact that Walker himself is gay.
The fact that the issue is now almost certain to come before the Supreme Court also renders it less abstract than usual. Were Barack Obama to have the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice with a liberal one, or an incoming Republican President in 2013 the reverse, that would probably be decisive for the issue, perhaps for many decades.
My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls. For instance, will Sarah Palin produce a tweet or Facebook post containing the the phrases "activist judge" or "judicial activism" within the next 24 hours? It may depend on which type of conservatives -- the tea-partiers, or the movement conservatives of the Republican Establishment -- that she ultimately wants to affiliate herself with.
UK: Labour Leadership Battle is Brewing
@ 2:10 PM
Behind the scenes of the UK general election this spring, another political skirmish was underway. With their electoral campaign deeply endangered by falling poll numbers, several senior Labour MPs, ostensibly in cahoots with some ambitious Labour frontbenchers, launched a bid against then Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the reins of the Party. While the January 'coup' attempt failed, leaving the media to speculate that then Foreign Secretary David Miliband was waiting in the breach to succeed Brown, it became clearer than ever than Brown's days as Labour leader were numbered.
Five days after the May 6th election, Brown did indeed step down, ending a stretch of 25 years as a senior figure within Labour, from his appointment as Shadow Secretary for Trade in 1985 to his 10 years as Chancellor (1997-2007) and 3 final years as Prime Minister. Having lost their first election in four cycles, Labour watched painfully as David Cameron's Tories and Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats formed the first coalition government since Churchill's multi-party cabinet during World War II.
Wasting little time, the ever-eager David Miliband annouced the day after Brown's resignation that he would stand for the party's leadership election, which will be held in the month preceding the annual Labour Party Conference scheduled for the end of September. After two agonizing days, his brother Ed, the outgoing Energy Secretary, announced that he would challenge the elder Miliband in the leadership contest, ensuring the race would have no shortage of drama.
In the week following, four other candidates announced their intention to run, though the overall slate was reduced to five when the John McDonnell (chair of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group) deferred to fellow lefty Diane Abbott*, the only non-white candidate and only woman running for the post. Within days of the others, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's close ally and Secretary of Education and Andy Burnham, Brown's short-lived second Secretary of Health, joined the fray.
As, it seems, with many other electoral processes to determine the internal direction of a political party, the Labour leadership election has all the requisite layers of complexity and opportunities for inside baseball.
In this case, the Labour electorate is split into three parts, which each have one third of the overall vote share.
First there are the Labour party's Members of Parliament, including the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the House of Lords. The second third of the votes come from Labour's party membership, which fluxuates in number from month to month and election to election, ranging from more than 400,000 in 1997 to just under 180,000 in 2007. Finally, there are the members of the Labour party's several hundred supportive trade unions, along with a few dozen recognized Socialist Societies, which together have about 7 million voting members. This figure is a range because according to recent studies, while there are about 7 million trade union members, at least 1.6 million are not actually covered by collective bargaining agreements ('legacy' unions, if you will).
If that was not complex enough, the system uses ranked voting/instant run-off to adjudicate the contest, meaning that weaker candidates are eliminated and their lower preference votes redistributed if no candidate receives a first-preference majority -- something is very likely to occur. As a result, there is talk of candidates offering second preference endorsements to each other in exchange for political favors down the road.
All in all, David Miliband looks to be in the strongest position at the moment, with the highest overall name recognition, thanks to his years as Foreign Secretary, and the tacit support of many parts of the Blair-ite Labour Party establishment. Ed Miliband, dubbed "The Insurgent" by a the well-known left-wing UK magazine The New Statesman, is running the strongest challenger's campaign, using his popularity in the blogosphere and among younger party members to mount a strong campaign. In the last week he blasted an SMS request for volunteers and supporters to Labour party members, netting his campaign more than a thousand new volunteers.
What remains unclear, however, is how much this leadership campaign represents an internal smoky-room affair among the seniormost members of the Labour movement, jockeying amongst themselves for the best spot in the revampt Labour Party, and how much a true bottom-up balloting. While will certainly be a trial balloon process for labour voters to react to various leadership options, the perception that internal party politics is a relatively closed-door, highly technical process continues to pervade. Particularly as the supposed party of working class, with their most likely winners among the innermost political elites, this is a perception they will have to work to dispell in order win back 10 Downing Street in the next election.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international affairs columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
*To be on the ballot for the Labour leadership contest, one must receive a formal nomination from at least 12.5% of the Labour MPs, in this case 33. Because David and Ed Miliband scarfed up so many in short order (in all 81 and 63, respectively), it became impossible for the remaining candidates to all take 33. In the Balls, Burnham and Abbott each received the minimum of 33, after McDonnell left the race.
Five days after the May 6th election, Brown did indeed step down, ending a stretch of 25 years as a senior figure within Labour, from his appointment as Shadow Secretary for Trade in 1985 to his 10 years as Chancellor (1997-2007) and 3 final years as Prime Minister. Having lost their first election in four cycles, Labour watched painfully as David Cameron's Tories and Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats formed the first coalition government since Churchill's multi-party cabinet during World War II.
Wasting little time, the ever-eager David Miliband annouced the day after Brown's resignation that he would stand for the party's leadership election, which will be held in the month preceding the annual Labour Party Conference scheduled for the end of September. After two agonizing days, his brother Ed, the outgoing Energy Secretary, announced that he would challenge the elder Miliband in the leadership contest, ensuring the race would have no shortage of drama.
In the week following, four other candidates announced their intention to run, though the overall slate was reduced to five when the John McDonnell (chair of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group) deferred to fellow lefty Diane Abbott*, the only non-white candidate and only woman running for the post. Within days of the others, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's close ally and Secretary of Education and Andy Burnham, Brown's short-lived second Secretary of Health, joined the fray.
As, it seems, with many other electoral processes to determine the internal direction of a political party, the Labour leadership election has all the requisite layers of complexity and opportunities for inside baseball.
In this case, the Labour electorate is split into three parts, which each have one third of the overall vote share.
First there are the Labour party's Members of Parliament, including the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the House of Lords. The second third of the votes come from Labour's party membership, which fluxuates in number from month to month and election to election, ranging from more than 400,000 in 1997 to just under 180,000 in 2007. Finally, there are the members of the Labour party's several hundred supportive trade unions, along with a few dozen recognized Socialist Societies, which together have about 7 million voting members. This figure is a range because according to recent studies, while there are about 7 million trade union members, at least 1.6 million are not actually covered by collective bargaining agreements ('legacy' unions, if you will).
If that was not complex enough, the system uses ranked voting/instant run-off to adjudicate the contest, meaning that weaker candidates are eliminated and their lower preference votes redistributed if no candidate receives a first-preference majority -- something is very likely to occur. As a result, there is talk of candidates offering second preference endorsements to each other in exchange for political favors down the road.
All in all, David Miliband looks to be in the strongest position at the moment, with the highest overall name recognition, thanks to his years as Foreign Secretary, and the tacit support of many parts of the Blair-ite Labour Party establishment. Ed Miliband, dubbed "The Insurgent" by a the well-known left-wing UK magazine The New Statesman, is running the strongest challenger's campaign, using his popularity in the blogosphere and among younger party members to mount a strong campaign. In the last week he blasted an SMS request for volunteers and supporters to Labour party members, netting his campaign more than a thousand new volunteers.
What remains unclear, however, is how much this leadership campaign represents an internal smoky-room affair among the seniormost members of the Labour movement, jockeying amongst themselves for the best spot in the revampt Labour Party, and how much a true bottom-up balloting. While will certainly be a trial balloon process for labour voters to react to various leadership options, the perception that internal party politics is a relatively closed-door, highly technical process continues to pervade. Particularly as the supposed party of working class, with their most likely winners among the innermost political elites, this is a perception they will have to work to dispell in order win back 10 Downing Street in the next election.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international affairs columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
*To be on the ballot for the Labour leadership contest, one must receive a formal nomination from at least 12.5% of the Labour MPs, in this case 33. Because David and Ed Miliband scarfed up so many in short order (in all 81 and 63, respectively), it became impossible for the remaining candidates to all take 33. In the Balls, Burnham and Abbott each received the minimum of 33, after McDonnell left the race.
8.03.2010
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri Primary Results
@ 11:45 PM
In the triad of Midwestern primaries today, the biggest news was probably in Michigan, where labor stalwart Virg Bernero handily defeated House Speaker Andy Dillon for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, while "one tough nerd," former Gateway exec Rick Snyder, defeated self-identified True Conservatives Mike Cox and Peter Hoekstra for the Republican nomination.
Meanwhile, in KS, in the conservative cage match for the Republican Senate nomination, as of this writing Jerry Moran holds a narrow lead over Todd Tiahrt, and is likely to hold on for the win.
In the rich assortment of House primaries, one incumbent, MI Democrat Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (mother and political victim of former Detroit mayor and now prison inmate Kwame Kilpatrick), has lost to state senator Hansen Clarke.
In the MI gubernatorial primary, Virg Bernero won virtually all of the higher-population Democratic areas, with narrow but consistent wins in the Detroit metro area (Andy Dillon's base), and big margins in labor-dominated counties outside Detroit.
On the Republican side, Hoekstra won in his Western Michigan base, but Snyder won nearly everywhere else, with Cox finishing behind him in their common base region of the Detroit metro area. It's unclear at this point if Snyder's late effort to encourage Democratic crossover votes was a major factor, but it's likely that he won a plurality of the Republican vote anyway.
In the KS GOP Senate race, Moran won his district, and Tiahrt won his, and they are surprisingly close in the vote-rich KC suburban 3d District. But Moran seems to have more voters in his district, and is probably going to pull out the win.
In the MO Senate primary, Roy Blunt destroyed Tea Party activist Chuck Purgason by a 71-13 margin.
Aside from Kilpatrick's loss in MI, Sandy Levin easily held onto his own House seat. Among Republicans, Dan Beneshiak has a narrow lead over Jason Allen in Bart Stupak's old UP-centered district; Club for Growth favorite Justin Amash won handily in the 3d District Western Michigan open seat; in southern Michigan's 7th district, Tim Walberg won a rematch with freshman Democrat Mark Schauer; and in the Detroit-suburb 9th district, Rocky Raczkowski won the nomination to face another freshman Dem, Gary Peters.
In MO, the big GOP House primary was in the 4th District, to choose an opponent for House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton. Religious Right activist Vicki Hartzler beat front-runner Bill Stouffer 40-30 for the Republican nod.
And in KS's 3d District, a vulnerable Democratic open seat, heavily funded establishment candidate Kevin Yoder beat conservative activist Patricia Lightner by a 45-37 margin, and will face Democrat Stephene Moore, wife of retiring incumbent Dennis Moore, in November.
WEDNESDAY AM UPDATE:
Last night's report focused on contests expected to be competitive in November. But there were several House primaries in Republican-held open seats that are worth mentioning.
In MI-2, Pete Hoekstra's western Michigan district, former state rep. (and former Hoekstra staffer) Bill Huizenga upset ex-NFL player Jay Riemersma by 660 votes. Huizenga appears to have gotten some traction with charges that Riemersma (who outspent the field significantly) violated campaign finance laws.
In MI-3, where Rep. Vern Ehlers is retiring, state rep. Justin Amash, a Club for Growth candidate with significant Tea Party backing, handily defeated former county commissioner Steve Heacock (Elhers' choice) and state senator Bill Hardiman.
In central-western KS-1, where incumbent Jerry Moran is running for the U.S. Senate, state senator Tim Huelskamp used a significant financial advantage (including Club for Growth backing) to comfortably win the nomination over fellow state senator Jim Barnett and realtor Tracey Mann (who gained fame for publicly embracing "birther" views late in the campaign).
In Wichita-based KS-4, where Todd Tiahrt also ran for the Senate, still another Club for Growth endorsee, RNC member Mike Pompeo, beat pro-choice state senator Jean Schodorf and oil executive Wink Hartman, after a contest dominated by Pompeo-Hartman crossfire.
And in MO-7, represented by GOP Senate nominee Roy Blunt, auctioneer and first-time candidate Billy Long, who managed to win endorsements from the state's powerful right-to-life lobby and from Mike Huckabee, defeated state senator Jack Goodman in a crowded field.
A couple of notes on late results: In MI-1, Bart Stupak's seat, the Republican nomination contest is almost certainly headed to a recount, with Dr. Dan Benishek leading state senator Jason Allen by either 1 or 12 votes, depending on which elections report you follow.
And in KS, Jerry Moran did indeed hold on to defeat Todd Tiahrt by a 50-45 margin.
In the comments thread, several readers drew attention to the vote on Proposition C in Missouri, a controversial referendum on a state law that seeks to block implementation of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, a key element of "ObamaCare." I didn't mention it last night because it was largely a symbolic measure (unless you think the federal courts are going to invalidate the Supremacy Clause), subordinate to separate legal efforts to challenge the constitutionality of health care mandates. As a political matter, the 71% vote for Prop C will get some national attention, but it should be noted that (using the Senate vote as a measure) Republicans dominated Missouri primary turnout by a 2-1 margin.
And in reference to another topic discussed in the comments thread, I'll be making an effort over the next couple of days to assess the crossover vote for Rick Snyder in the MI governor's race.
Meanwhile, in KS, in the conservative cage match for the Republican Senate nomination, as of this writing Jerry Moran holds a narrow lead over Todd Tiahrt, and is likely to hold on for the win.
In the rich assortment of House primaries, one incumbent, MI Democrat Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (mother and political victim of former Detroit mayor and now prison inmate Kwame Kilpatrick), has lost to state senator Hansen Clarke.
In the MI gubernatorial primary, Virg Bernero won virtually all of the higher-population Democratic areas, with narrow but consistent wins in the Detroit metro area (Andy Dillon's base), and big margins in labor-dominated counties outside Detroit.
On the Republican side, Hoekstra won in his Western Michigan base, but Snyder won nearly everywhere else, with Cox finishing behind him in their common base region of the Detroit metro area. It's unclear at this point if Snyder's late effort to encourage Democratic crossover votes was a major factor, but it's likely that he won a plurality of the Republican vote anyway.
In the KS GOP Senate race, Moran won his district, and Tiahrt won his, and they are surprisingly close in the vote-rich KC suburban 3d District. But Moran seems to have more voters in his district, and is probably going to pull out the win.
In the MO Senate primary, Roy Blunt destroyed Tea Party activist Chuck Purgason by a 71-13 margin.
Aside from Kilpatrick's loss in MI, Sandy Levin easily held onto his own House seat. Among Republicans, Dan Beneshiak has a narrow lead over Jason Allen in Bart Stupak's old UP-centered district; Club for Growth favorite Justin Amash won handily in the 3d District Western Michigan open seat; in southern Michigan's 7th district, Tim Walberg won a rematch with freshman Democrat Mark Schauer; and in the Detroit-suburb 9th district, Rocky Raczkowski won the nomination to face another freshman Dem, Gary Peters.
In MO, the big GOP House primary was in the 4th District, to choose an opponent for House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton. Religious Right activist Vicki Hartzler beat front-runner Bill Stouffer 40-30 for the Republican nod.
And in KS's 3d District, a vulnerable Democratic open seat, heavily funded establishment candidate Kevin Yoder beat conservative activist Patricia Lightner by a 45-37 margin, and will face Democrat Stephene Moore, wife of retiring incumbent Dennis Moore, in November.
WEDNESDAY AM UPDATE:
Last night's report focused on contests expected to be competitive in November. But there were several House primaries in Republican-held open seats that are worth mentioning.
In MI-2, Pete Hoekstra's western Michigan district, former state rep. (and former Hoekstra staffer) Bill Huizenga upset ex-NFL player Jay Riemersma by 660 votes. Huizenga appears to have gotten some traction with charges that Riemersma (who outspent the field significantly) violated campaign finance laws.
In MI-3, where Rep. Vern Ehlers is retiring, state rep. Justin Amash, a Club for Growth candidate with significant Tea Party backing, handily defeated former county commissioner Steve Heacock (Elhers' choice) and state senator Bill Hardiman.
In central-western KS-1, where incumbent Jerry Moran is running for the U.S. Senate, state senator Tim Huelskamp used a significant financial advantage (including Club for Growth backing) to comfortably win the nomination over fellow state senator Jim Barnett and realtor Tracey Mann (who gained fame for publicly embracing "birther" views late in the campaign).
In Wichita-based KS-4, where Todd Tiahrt also ran for the Senate, still another Club for Growth endorsee, RNC member Mike Pompeo, beat pro-choice state senator Jean Schodorf and oil executive Wink Hartman, after a contest dominated by Pompeo-Hartman crossfire.
And in MO-7, represented by GOP Senate nominee Roy Blunt, auctioneer and first-time candidate Billy Long, who managed to win endorsements from the state's powerful right-to-life lobby and from Mike Huckabee, defeated state senator Jack Goodman in a crowded field.
A couple of notes on late results: In MI-1, Bart Stupak's seat, the Republican nomination contest is almost certainly headed to a recount, with Dr. Dan Benishek leading state senator Jason Allen by either 1 or 12 votes, depending on which elections report you follow.
And in KS, Jerry Moran did indeed hold on to defeat Todd Tiahrt by a 50-45 margin.
In the comments thread, several readers drew attention to the vote on Proposition C in Missouri, a controversial referendum on a state law that seeks to block implementation of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, a key element of "ObamaCare." I didn't mention it last night because it was largely a symbolic measure (unless you think the federal courts are going to invalidate the Supremacy Clause), subordinate to separate legal efforts to challenge the constitutionality of health care mandates. As a political matter, the 71% vote for Prop C will get some national attention, but it should be noted that (using the Senate vote as a measure) Republicans dominated Missouri primary turnout by a 2-1 margin.
And in reference to another topic discussed in the comments thread, I'll be making an effort over the next couple of days to assess the crossover vote for Rick Snyder in the MI governor's race.
Granite State Update
@ 9:49 AM
Along with Ohio and Colorado, New Hampshire became a state emblematic of the Democratic resurgence after 2004. What used to be a contrarian, moderately conservative state dominated by Republicans in very short order flipped decisively to the Democrats: its state legislature, governor, two US House seats and one Senate seat all changing partisan hands in a very short span of two election cycles. Most of you elections junkies will recall that NH was the lone New England state to hold out for George W. Bush in 2000, and had it not America might never have known what a hanging chad is. John Kerry eked out a win in the Granite State in 2004--the only state he won that Al Gore lost--and by 2008 Barack Obama was carrying every NH county as he cruised to a nearly 10-point victory against an opponent who had enjoyed great electoral successes there.
The Granite State has been making electoral headlines again of late, but the story now--just two years after Obama's big victory there, as well as the re-election of fellow Dems including Gov. John Lynch, Rep. Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter--is whether Democrats can hold onto their recently-obtained power. Both House seats are listed by various prognosticators as toss-up or slightly leaning to one party or the other, for example. But it is Senate matchup between Democrat Paul Hodes (who abandoned his House seat to run) and Republican Kelly Ayotte that attracted national attention when Sarah Palin got involved in the race by endorsing Ayotte.
That endorsement has puzzled some, in part because Ayotte doesn't seem like a Palin-esque Republican in a state that one might suspect an endorsement from the former vice presidential candidate to backfire. Here's an excerpt from David Frum's recent musings on this electoral development, who formulates three possible explanations for why Ayotte, who is a conservative that nevertheless has supported many moderate positions, got Palin's blessing and whether it's good for her or for Palin:
Enter Dante Scala*, one of the state's--no, nation's--top political scientists on matters electoral. In his GraniteProf blog, Scala compared the two most recent NH Senate polls--one by Public Policy Polling, followed shortly thereafter by one from his UNH colleague Andrew Smith--and concluded:
For that reason alone--not to mention the recent swing of New Hampshire from red to blue, and the fact that this is a predominantly white state so there will be no effect from drop-off or return of Obama's minority "surge" voters--this is going to be a great race to watch over the next three months. Buckle up.
*Those of you junkies who are already gearing up for the 2012 primaries should get your hands on a copy of Scala's Stormy Weather, the definitive scholarly book on the New Hampshire primary.
The Granite State has been making electoral headlines again of late, but the story now--just two years after Obama's big victory there, as well as the re-election of fellow Dems including Gov. John Lynch, Rep. Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter--is whether Democrats can hold onto their recently-obtained power. Both House seats are listed by various prognosticators as toss-up or slightly leaning to one party or the other, for example. But it is Senate matchup between Democrat Paul Hodes (who abandoned his House seat to run) and Republican Kelly Ayotte that attracted national attention when Sarah Palin got involved in the race by endorsing Ayotte.
That endorsement has puzzled some, in part because Ayotte doesn't seem like a Palin-esque Republican in a state that one might suspect an endorsement from the former vice presidential candidate to backfire. Here's an excerpt from David Frum's recent musings on this electoral development, who formulates three possible explanations for why Ayotte, who is a conservative that nevertheless has supported many moderate positions, got Palin's blessing and whether it's good for her or for Palin:
How then did Ayotte gain the Palin endorsement?Whatever Palin's motives, the conventional wisdom is that Ayotte's gambit has backfired: That she aligned herself with Palin unnecessarily, and in doing so is caused voters who might otherwise want to lash out at incumbents, or at Democrats, or to send a message to the White House (voting against Hodes would accomplish all of these) to pause and rethink the race.
Three theories:
1) The “early states” theory. Palin wants to earn favors in early primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. In those states she is endorsing likely winners even when (as with Iowa’s Terry Brandstad) that likely winner tilts more to the middle than Palin’s current political identity.
2) The “go with the winner” theory. Palin is seeking to make herself look more powerful within the party by claiming credit for other people’s successes.
3) The “woo women” theory. Palin has endorsed women candidates against men she might have been expected to prefer: eg Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore in California. These endorsements enabled and justified Palin’s recent “Mama Grizzlies” ad. By positioning herself as a champion of women in politics, Palin distracts attention from one important weakness of any Palin candidacy: her unpopularity among women voters...
Enter Dante Scala*, one of the state's--no, nation's--top political scientists on matters electoral. In his GraniteProf blog, Scala compared the two most recent NH Senate polls--one by Public Policy Polling, followed shortly thereafter by one from his UNH colleague Andrew Smith--and concluded:
The new UNH Granite State poll, conducted by my colleague Andrew Smith, provides little support for the notion that Sarah Palin's endorsement last week had some sort of immediate, Kryptonite-like effect on GOP Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte.Scala concludes that Palin's effect has been to consolidate base support on both sides--liberals to Hodes, conservatives to Ayotte. OK, no surprise there. What's going to be interesting, if future or post-election polling can tease it out, is whether in a state like New Hampshire that's supposedly chock-full of contrarian, non-partisan moderates the introduction of Palin into the race nationalizes it, and if it does, whether doing so helps or hurts a candidate like Kelly Ayotte.
But it does hold some measure of good news for Paul Hodes, whose campaign has been anxiously watched by fellow Democrats for signs of life.
As mentioned in an earlier post, Public Policy Polling's survey suggested Hodes was having problems consolidating his base among New Hampshire liberals. UNH shows just the opposite.
For that reason alone--not to mention the recent swing of New Hampshire from red to blue, and the fact that this is a predominantly white state so there will be no effect from drop-off or return of Obama's minority "surge" voters--this is going to be a great race to watch over the next three months. Buckle up.
*Those of you junkies who are already gearing up for the 2012 primaries should get your hands on a copy of Scala's Stormy Weather, the definitive scholarly book on the New Hampshire primary.
8.02.2010
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri Primary Preview
@ 8:20 PM
Three states (Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri) are holding primaries tomorrow, and aside from marquee gubernatorial contests in both parties in MI, and a close Republican Senate primary in KS, there will be a host of competitive congressional races, mostly on the GOP side, and many for open but relatively safe Republican seats.
In terms of races expected to be competitive in November, the contests to watch are the governor's race in MI, along with the 1st, 3d, 7th, and 9th CDs; the 3d and 4th CDs in KS; and the 4th CD in MO.
Looking at the basics: MI and MO are open primary states, while in Kansas, Republicans have a close primary and Democrats allow independent voters to participate. Michigan's system is unusual in that voters are given ballots with both primary contests included, and decide whether to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary in the privacy of the voting booth (this system also seems to encourage a lot of confusion and spoiled ballots based on the misperception that voters can participate in both primaries).
Turnout is expected to be pretty much (depressingly) normal for midterm primaries: 20-25% in Michigan; 25% in Missouri; 20% in Kansas. In the open primary states, there's considerable uncertainty about the partisan split in turnout, though the higher number of competitive GOP races is likely to boost Republican turnout in both states.
Looking at the big nationally significant races first:
The Michigan gubernatorial contest must be understood in terms of the state's recent Democratic tilt, counterbalanced by voter fatigue with two-term Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm (the state House is also controlled by Democrats, and the Senate by the GOP). Neither Democratic candidate for governor is running as Granholm's protege. But there is a distinct perceived ideological difference between House Speaker Andy Dillon, generally considered a pro-business moderate, and Lansing mayor Virg Bernero, backed by Michigan's powerful labor movement. The recent EPIC/MRA poll shows Bernero surging into a 40-32 lead over Dillon, but with a large undecided vote.
On the Republican side, that same survey indicated a very close three-way race among Attorney General Mike Cox, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and former Gateway executive Rick Snyder. A fourth candidate, Oakland County sheriff Mike Bouchard, who's gotten a lot of attention as the preferred candidate of rocking right-winger Ted Nugent (whom I saw perform, way back in the day, down in Georgia with the Amboy Dukes), was well back from the pack but theoretically in striking distance.
I've done a separate FiveThirtyEight post on Snyder's campaign and its unusual (this year) appeal to crossover voters, but it's not at all clear whether the "nerdy guy" can win, despite a gusher of self-funded spending. The Cox-Hoekstra-Bouchard competition for the "true conservative" mantle does, in a non-runoff state, create some political real estate for an unapologetic moderate, and if Snyder can get a serious crossover vote, he's the favorite to win.
Meanwhile, over in Kansas, two Republican congressmen, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, are in a cage-match for the nomination to succeed Sen. Sam Brownback, who is the odds-on favorite for election to the governorship. Moran represents the heavily Republican central-west KS first CD, while Tiahrt represents the slightly more marginal Wichita-based 4th CD. Both candidates are hard-core conservatives by national standards, but despite endorsements from Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, Moran is fighting the RINO label, and may depend on a strong showing in the relatively moderate Kansas City suburbs to win. Moran has had a decided financial advantage. Tiahrt has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, Tom Tancredo, and major gun rights and anti-abortion groups. A late SUSA poll showed Moran leading 49-39, but with Tiahrt having some momentum.
If you want a good indication of how finely movement conservatives are splitting hairs over the Moran-Tiahrt choice, look at this post from Kathryn Lopez at National Review's The Corner, which examines their anti-abortion views in detail.
The other big statewide primary tomorrow is in MO, where congressman Roy Blunt is the heavy favorite to defeat Tea Party activist Chuck Purgason. Blunt had a comfortable lead in the last public poll back in March, and has since vastly outspent Purgason.
As noted above, there are four Republican House primaries in MI involving competitive districts.
In the 1st (Upper Peninisula based) District, formerly represented by the famous pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak, Republicans are rumbling for the chance to take on designated Democratic Garry McDowell. The two favorites are Tea Party-ish Dr. Dan Beneshiak, who was the putative Republican challenger to Stupak before he got out of the race, and state senator Jason Allen. They both have raised and spent a lot of money, and the results should be close.
In the Western Michigan 3d District, an open seat represented by retiring Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers, Democrats have a strong candidate in Pat Miles. The GOP primary features an African-American Republican elected official, state rep. Bill Hardiman, who is in the middle of a pack including former local elected offical Steve Heacock and Club for Growth favorite Justin Amash. A Michigan polling firm shows Amash leading Haridison 28-23, with Heacock at 17.
In the southern MI 7th district, the Republican defeated by freshman Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer in 2008, Tim Walberg, has been the front-runner for a rematch, but is now facing a tough primary from Brian Rooney, brother of Florida congressman Tom Rooney. Though Rooney has been blasting Walberg for accepting an endorsement from pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, he's generally considered the moderate in the race, and the beneficiary of those who'd like to see a different challenger to Schauer.
And in the Oakland County-based 9th District, where another freshman Democrat, Gary Peters, is running for re-election, there's a red-hot GOP primary involving former state rep. Rocky Raczkowski and former congressional staffer Paul Welday. Rackowski was the early favorite, but is now struggling with bad press over the remarks of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly at one of his fundraisers, attacking unmarried women who support Barack Obama as self-interested welfare beneficiaries.
In Kansas's suburban 3d District, where Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore is retiring--to be succeeded, he hopes, by his wife, near-certain Democratic nominee Stephene Moore--ten Republicans are running for the nomination, but only two are competitive: front-runner Kevin Yoder, who has spent nearly a million bucks on his campaign, and former state representative Patricia Lightner, who's been endorsed by pro-life organizations and is hoping for a grassroots-led upset.
And in Todd Tiahrt's 4th CD, there is a potentially strong and well-financed Democrat, Raj Goyle, poised to face the winner of a very competitive GOP primary in which three candidates, pro-choice state senator Jean Schodorf and business owners Mike Pompeo and Wink Hartman are in a close three-way race.
Down in Missouri, the big GOP primary is in the 4th District, where ex-state representative Vicky Hartzler and state senator Bill Stouffer are leading a huge field of candidates for the nomination to face Democratic veteran (and House Armed Services Committee chair) Ike Skelton in a red-leaning district. Hartzler is a longtime Christian Right activist, while Stouffer benefits from some GOP establishment support. The two candidates have been bashing each other as insufficiently conservative, while the embattled incumbent raises money.
There are other primaries in safe Republican districts, and I'll report the results tomorrow night. And there's one significant ballot initiative, in MO: Proposition C, which purports to create obstacles to state implementation of national health reform legislation, and is likely to pass thanks to the preponderance of competitive Republican primaries in the Show-Me State.
In terms of races expected to be competitive in November, the contests to watch are the governor's race in MI, along with the 1st, 3d, 7th, and 9th CDs; the 3d and 4th CDs in KS; and the 4th CD in MO.
Looking at the basics: MI and MO are open primary states, while in Kansas, Republicans have a close primary and Democrats allow independent voters to participate. Michigan's system is unusual in that voters are given ballots with both primary contests included, and decide whether to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary in the privacy of the voting booth (this system also seems to encourage a lot of confusion and spoiled ballots based on the misperception that voters can participate in both primaries).
Turnout is expected to be pretty much (depressingly) normal for midterm primaries: 20-25% in Michigan; 25% in Missouri; 20% in Kansas. In the open primary states, there's considerable uncertainty about the partisan split in turnout, though the higher number of competitive GOP races is likely to boost Republican turnout in both states.
Looking at the big nationally significant races first:
The Michigan gubernatorial contest must be understood in terms of the state's recent Democratic tilt, counterbalanced by voter fatigue with two-term Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm (the state House is also controlled by Democrats, and the Senate by the GOP). Neither Democratic candidate for governor is running as Granholm's protege. But there is a distinct perceived ideological difference between House Speaker Andy Dillon, generally considered a pro-business moderate, and Lansing mayor Virg Bernero, backed by Michigan's powerful labor movement. The recent EPIC/MRA poll shows Bernero surging into a 40-32 lead over Dillon, but with a large undecided vote.
On the Republican side, that same survey indicated a very close three-way race among Attorney General Mike Cox, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and former Gateway executive Rick Snyder. A fourth candidate, Oakland County sheriff Mike Bouchard, who's gotten a lot of attention as the preferred candidate of rocking right-winger Ted Nugent (whom I saw perform, way back in the day, down in Georgia with the Amboy Dukes), was well back from the pack but theoretically in striking distance.
I've done a separate FiveThirtyEight post on Snyder's campaign and its unusual (this year) appeal to crossover voters, but it's not at all clear whether the "nerdy guy" can win, despite a gusher of self-funded spending. The Cox-Hoekstra-Bouchard competition for the "true conservative" mantle does, in a non-runoff state, create some political real estate for an unapologetic moderate, and if Snyder can get a serious crossover vote, he's the favorite to win.
Meanwhile, over in Kansas, two Republican congressmen, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, are in a cage-match for the nomination to succeed Sen. Sam Brownback, who is the odds-on favorite for election to the governorship. Moran represents the heavily Republican central-west KS first CD, while Tiahrt represents the slightly more marginal Wichita-based 4th CD. Both candidates are hard-core conservatives by national standards, but despite endorsements from Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, Moran is fighting the RINO label, and may depend on a strong showing in the relatively moderate Kansas City suburbs to win. Moran has had a decided financial advantage. Tiahrt has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, Tom Tancredo, and major gun rights and anti-abortion groups. A late SUSA poll showed Moran leading 49-39, but with Tiahrt having some momentum.
If you want a good indication of how finely movement conservatives are splitting hairs over the Moran-Tiahrt choice, look at this post from Kathryn Lopez at National Review's The Corner, which examines their anti-abortion views in detail.
The other big statewide primary tomorrow is in MO, where congressman Roy Blunt is the heavy favorite to defeat Tea Party activist Chuck Purgason. Blunt had a comfortable lead in the last public poll back in March, and has since vastly outspent Purgason.
As noted above, there are four Republican House primaries in MI involving competitive districts.
In the 1st (Upper Peninisula based) District, formerly represented by the famous pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak, Republicans are rumbling for the chance to take on designated Democratic Garry McDowell. The two favorites are Tea Party-ish Dr. Dan Beneshiak, who was the putative Republican challenger to Stupak before he got out of the race, and state senator Jason Allen. They both have raised and spent a lot of money, and the results should be close.
In the Western Michigan 3d District, an open seat represented by retiring Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers, Democrats have a strong candidate in Pat Miles. The GOP primary features an African-American Republican elected official, state rep. Bill Hardiman, who is in the middle of a pack including former local elected offical Steve Heacock and Club for Growth favorite Justin Amash. A Michigan polling firm shows Amash leading Haridison 28-23, with Heacock at 17.
In the southern MI 7th district, the Republican defeated by freshman Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer in 2008, Tim Walberg, has been the front-runner for a rematch, but is now facing a tough primary from Brian Rooney, brother of Florida congressman Tom Rooney. Though Rooney has been blasting Walberg for accepting an endorsement from pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, he's generally considered the moderate in the race, and the beneficiary of those who'd like to see a different challenger to Schauer.
And in the Oakland County-based 9th District, where another freshman Democrat, Gary Peters, is running for re-election, there's a red-hot GOP primary involving former state rep. Rocky Raczkowski and former congressional staffer Paul Welday. Rackowski was the early favorite, but is now struggling with bad press over the remarks of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly at one of his fundraisers, attacking unmarried women who support Barack Obama as self-interested welfare beneficiaries.
In Kansas's suburban 3d District, where Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore is retiring--to be succeeded, he hopes, by his wife, near-certain Democratic nominee Stephene Moore--ten Republicans are running for the nomination, but only two are competitive: front-runner Kevin Yoder, who has spent nearly a million bucks on his campaign, and former state representative Patricia Lightner, who's been endorsed by pro-life organizations and is hoping for a grassroots-led upset.
And in Todd Tiahrt's 4th CD, there is a potentially strong and well-financed Democrat, Raj Goyle, poised to face the winner of a very competitive GOP primary in which three candidates, pro-choice state senator Jean Schodorf and business owners Mike Pompeo and Wink Hartman are in a close three-way race.
Down in Missouri, the big GOP primary is in the 4th District, where ex-state representative Vicky Hartzler and state senator Bill Stouffer are leading a huge field of candidates for the nomination to face Democratic veteran (and House Armed Services Committee chair) Ike Skelton in a red-leaning district. Hartzler is a longtime Christian Right activist, while Stouffer benefits from some GOP establishment support. The two candidates have been bashing each other as insufficiently conservative, while the embattled incumbent raises money.
There are other primaries in safe Republican districts, and I'll report the results tomorrow night. And there's one significant ballot initiative, in MO: Proposition C, which purports to create obstacles to state implementation of national health reform legislation, and is likely to pass thanks to the preponderance of competitive Republican primaries in the Show-Me State.
Social Desirability and Survey Reports: Some Evidence form the Research Literature
@ 1:00 PM
After noticing Nate's recent blog about the idea that people will give more "socially desirable" survey responses to human interviewers, my colleague Jeff Fagan, a criminologist, wrote:
Here's one article (by Turner, Ku, Rogers, Linberg, Pleck, and Sonenstein, from 1998), which has led to several others, including David S. Metzger et al., Randomized Controlled Trial of Audio Computer-assisted Self-Interviewing: Utility and Acceptability in Longitudinal Studies
American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 152, No. 2 : 99-106 (2000), and Understanding the effects of audio-CASI on self-reports of sensitive behavior, MP Couper, E Singer, R Tourangeau - Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 385-395 (2003).
P.S. To head off some of the comments: Yes, we usually present our own findings on this blog, but I think it can be helpful to use the published literature to illuminate the analyses of Nate and others.
There's a solid literature showing that people report all sorts of 'sensitive' behaviors at higher rates when people respond using any form of electronic response. NIH showed this in both HIV prevention trials on sexual behavior and in research with adolescents and young adults on violence.
Here's one article (by Turner, Ku, Rogers, Linberg, Pleck, and Sonenstein, from 1998), which has led to several others, including David S. Metzger et al., Randomized Controlled Trial of Audio Computer-assisted Self-Interviewing: Utility and Acceptability in Longitudinal Studies
American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 152, No. 2 : 99-106 (2000), and Understanding the effects of audio-CASI on self-reports of sensitive behavior, MP Couper, E Singer, R Tourangeau - Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 385-395 (2003).
P.S. To head off some of the comments: Yes, we usually present our own findings on this blog, but I think it can be helpful to use the published literature to illuminate the analyses of Nate and others.
Hill Committee Fundraising: Sign of Democratic Doom or Survival?
@ 11:00 AM
The four so-called "Hill committees"--the House and Senate campaign organizations for each of the two parties known by their familiar acronyms: DCCC, NRCC, DSCC, NRSC--can bolster a party's chances of holding or recapturing one or both chambers. They recruit candidates, develop message, conduct research, commission polls, run ads, and support candidates. House Democrats and Senate Republicans both recently announced major ad buys, for example.
To pay for all of this and more, Hill committees must raise a lot of money. How much money so far this cycle? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has outraised the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $74M to $68M; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has outraised the National Republican Congressional Committee, $94M to $76M.
That Democrats have the edge is no real surprise: Generally speaking, the majority party's Hill committee outraise the minority party's--a reflection of the fact that most cycles the majority party after the election will remain the same as it was before. In that sense, a significant share, though certainly not all, of the money acts as a bet by various interest groups and trade associations--and particularly those without longstanding fealty or connection to one party or another, like labor unions or chambers of commerce--on which party will be in control of one or both chambers after the election. Of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to this: If contributions tilt toward one party over the other, it has the effect, ceteris paribus, of making that party more competitive and thus more likely to hold or capture that chamber.
That effect aside, if we conceived of fundraising as a bet on the prospect of which party will emerge after every other November as the majority party in the House and/or Senate, the ratio of that spending is somewhat akin to the intrade price for a particular proposition bet. About a year ago I wrote a post speculating as to whether the GOP's Hill committees--though still in the minority in both chambers--might actually be able to outraise the Democrats in the 2009-10 cycle. There are now almost two full fundraising cycles since the Democrats recaptured Congress in 2006. And although the final figures for 09-10 will not be known for a few months, we are close enough to November to make a preliminary comparison between this cycle and the previous one.
As the figure above shows, Hill committee donors are far more bullish on the Republicans this cycle. The Democrats still hold an overall advantage. But it is smaller for both chambers, and the overall edge for Senate Democrats has shrunk to just $1.09 for every dollar the GOP has raised. (Full data and details from the Center for Responsive Politics for 2009-10 are here; for 2007-08 here.) The bottom line is that the Democrats will probably hold onto their Hill committee fundraising advantages for the remainder of the cycle--but the tilt is not as lopsided as it was last cycle, a reflection of the fact that interest groups in Washington are hedging their bets.
To pay for all of this and more, Hill committees must raise a lot of money. How much money so far this cycle? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has outraised the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $74M to $68M; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has outraised the National Republican Congressional Committee, $94M to $76M.
That Democrats have the edge is no real surprise: Generally speaking, the majority party's Hill committee outraise the minority party's--a reflection of the fact that most cycles the majority party after the election will remain the same as it was before. In that sense, a significant share, though certainly not all, of the money acts as a bet by various interest groups and trade associations--and particularly those without longstanding fealty or connection to one party or another, like labor unions or chambers of commerce--on which party will be in control of one or both chambers after the election. Of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to this: If contributions tilt toward one party over the other, it has the effect, ceteris paribus, of making that party more competitive and thus more likely to hold or capture that chamber.
That effect aside, if we conceived of fundraising as a bet on the prospect of which party will emerge after every other November as the majority party in the House and/or Senate, the ratio of that spending is somewhat akin to the intrade price for a particular proposition bet. About a year ago I wrote a post speculating as to whether the GOP's Hill committees--though still in the minority in both chambers--might actually be able to outraise the Democrats in the 2009-10 cycle. There are now almost two full fundraising cycles since the Democrats recaptured Congress in 2006. And although the final figures for 09-10 will not be known for a few months, we are close enough to November to make a preliminary comparison between this cycle and the previous one.
As the figure above shows, Hill committee donors are far more bullish on the Republicans this cycle. The Democrats still hold an overall advantage. But it is smaller for both chambers, and the overall edge for Senate Democrats has shrunk to just $1.09 for every dollar the GOP has raised. (Full data and details from the Center for Responsive Politics for 2009-10 are here; for 2007-08 here.) The bottom line is that the Democrats will probably hold onto their Hill committee fundraising advantages for the remainder of the cycle--but the tilt is not as lopsided as it was last cycle, a reflection of the fact that interest groups in Washington are hedging their bets.
Conservative, Liberal Sites Both Fueling Race "Conversation"
@ 8:11 AM
There are three topics in the American political discourse that trigger something of a Pavlovian response for me: these are Israel, race and media bias. When a story in one of these subject areas creeps to the top of my Twitter feed, I'm pretty much ready to shut the Internet off, go out for a long walk, and call it a day. Subjects like these are prone to hyperbole and hysteria, and it may be next to impossible to have a rational political conversation until the news cycle has run its course.
We pretty much never write about Israel -- I mean, literally, we've never published an article on it. We do sometimes address media bias -- an interesting subject that people say mostly uninteresting things about -- but it's not our main beat. Race, on the other hand, is a subject that's a little more central to understanding the behavior of the electorate, and so we can't entirely avoid it.
Nevertheless, the race "conversation" is often counterproductive. It's not that the issue can't be talked about intelligently -- but as a matter of fact, it usually isn't; none of us were made any the wiser by the Shirley Sherrod incident, certainly.
I therefore thought it was worth doing some investigation into just who is responsible for driving the obsession with race and racism. Is the new media primarily responsible for propagating the "conversation", as opposed to traditional news outlets? Are partisan sites more responsible than non-partisan ones?
The basis of my study is a count of how many times various websites mentioned the terms 'racism', 'racial' or 'racist' in the past 30 days, out of the fraction of all articles they published, according to a search on Google News. For instance, 132 of 5752 stories in the Los Angeles Times used one of the three terms above, or 2.3 percent.
A site was included in the analysis if (i) it is currently in the Memeorandum Top 100 -- these are the sites that drive the coverage in the political blogosphere; (ii) its contents are contained in Google News; (iii) it had published at least 100 articles in the past 30 days, and (iv) the Google News hits did not consist disproportionately of wire stories which had been republished, which knocked out a few otherwise-eligible websites like the Washington Examiner and Salon. This left me with a sample size of 59.
I then classified the websites according to three criteria:
New Media versus Old Media. A new media website is one which is not associated with a print product, or a radio or television station. An old media website is one which does emanate from a television, radio, newspaper or magazine outlet, and whose content consists primarily of material which is also published in those venues. A hybrid website is one which is technically still associated with a bricks and mortar product like a magazine, but which publishes a significant amount of online-only content or is disproportionately more influential online than in print.
I also developed three subcategories within the old and new media groups, respectively. Old media sites were classified as broadcast (TV/radio), print (newspaper/magazine), or newswires. New media sites were classified into the following groups: 'neo-traditional' (these are sites which do a fair amount of original reporting and are essentially online newspapers or magazines, like Huffington Post), 'watchdog' (these are sites which focus on media criticism or muckraking), and 'commentary'.
Obviously, it should be acknowledged that these these distinctions are sometimes blurry. I'm not all that interested in debating how particular sites were classified, and this shouldn't make much difference given that we have a fairly robust and diverse group of websites.
Politics Focus. Sites which have a primary focus on American politics are marked with an asterisk in the chart you'll see below. I apply this tag fairly conservatively -- for example, MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com are not classified as having a primarily politics focus. Although MSNBC's and Fox News's televised programming probably does have a principally political focus, the content associated with their websites (which is what we're measuring here) is somewhat more well-rounded.
Liberal, Conservative or Neutral. News outlets which take an explicitly liberal or conservative viewpoint are designated in blue or red, respectively, in the chart below. The key word here is explicitly: I classify a site into one of these groups only if it more or less wears its politics proudly on its sleeve. Neither FoxNews.com nor MSNBC get one of these labels -- again, I might feel differently if we were evaluating their television programming, but both purport to be neutral and their web content is somewhat more even-handed than their TV channels.
Certainly, some other cases are debatable, and my bias is generally toward classifying a site as neutral rather than placing into one of the partisan camps. A good general test is the volume of headline space that is devoted to storylines which are favorable to liberals or conservatives. For instance, although both Huffington Post and Daily Caller do a fair amount of original reporting, occasionally including stories which are not favorable to their 'teams', their frontpages are usually devoted mostly to storylines which tend to be favorable to one particular side. This doesn't necessarily mean that these sites are biased -- which is not at all the same thing -- but they have a fairly clear partisan viewpoint.
The results of the study follow. The percentages indicate the proportion of stories that the outlet published in the past 30 days which included the terms 'racial', 'racist', or 'racism'.
There are several things to notice here:
-- The site which has been most focused on racial storylines, unsurprisingly, is Andrew Brietbart's Big Government, which played a central role in the Shirley Sherrod controversy. Some 44 percent of stories published at the website in the past month use the terms 'racial', 'racist' or 'racism'.
-- Some liberal websites also rank very highly. Media Matters mentioned race in 32 percent of its articles, and The Nation in 22 percent of its articles. (NewsBusters.org, which is arguably Media Matters' conservative counterpart, wrote about race 21 percent of the time.)
-- The figures for websites affiliated with television stations were lower. Stories on FOXNews.com mentioned race 3.9 percent of the time, barely any higher than CNN.com (3.2 percent), CBSNews.com (3.0), MSNBC.com (3.0) or ABCNews.com (1.7), and lower than NPR.com (4.3 percent). But keep in mind that this reflects content published on the respective websites only. Focusing on their televised content might produce a much different answer; this study does not purport to address that question.
-- Outlets which report mostly on domestic politics certainly seem to mention race more often than most newspapers: The Hill does 6.2 percent of the time, the McClatchy DC Bureau 6.5 percent of the time, and Politico 7.5 percent of the time, much higher than other newspapers or newswires. However, these percentages are still fairly low as compared with partisan and/or non-traditional outlets.
-- It appears at first that most of the differences are driven by the old media versus new media distinction. Sites which I classify as old media wrote about racism just 2.2 percent of the time, on average, versus an average of 11.3 percent of the time for the hybrid sites and 12.4 percent of the time for the new media sites. But this is potentially a bit misleading: the new media sites also tend to be more explicitly partisan, and tend to have a more explicit and exclusive focus on domestic politics, which also correlate with more frequent mentions of race.
To analyze this problem more robustly, we can do a simple linear regression analysis in which the dependent variable is the percentage of stories which mention racism. (This next bit gets a bit technical.) The independent variables in the regression analysis were a series of four dummy variables: 'newmedia' (which takes on a value of -1 for old media sites, 0 for hybrid sites, and 1 for new media sites), 'focus' (1 if the site mostly focuses on domestic politics and 0 if it doesn't), 'liberal' (1 if the site has a liberal orientation and 0 if it doesn't) and 'conserv' (1 if the site has a conservative orientation and 0 if it doesn't).
The regression finds that only the 'conserv' variable is clearly statistically significant, but 'focus' and 'liberal' are also promising. On the other hand, whether the site is an old media or new media outlet does not appear to make much difference. If we eliminate the 'newmedia' variable and re-run the analysis, we get the following:
Now, the conservative variable is even more clearly statistically significant. Meanwhile, 'liberal' has become statistically significant at the 95 percent certainty threshold, and 'focus' is very close to it.
Another experiment is to look only at the 25 media outlets that have a primarily political focus. This brings us down to just two independent variables, 'liberal' and 'conserv':
The coefficients have not changed much, although the significance values have gone down, partly because we now have a smaller sample size. 'conserv' remains statistically significant at the 95 percent threshold, however, while 'liberal' is only significant at the 80 percent threshold.
Finally, we can check for robustness by eliminating the website Big Government, which is arguably something of an outlier, from the analysis.
Even with Big Government eliminated, the conservative variable remains statistically significant at the 90 percent threshold. Interestingly, eliminating Big Government also makes 'liberal' somewhat more statistically significant, it also once again surpasses the 90 percent confidence level.
None of these model specifications is necessarily better or worse than the others, by the way -- it helps to look at all of them in concert. If we do that, we can come to the following conclusions (those of you who are mathophobic are welcome to start reading again now):
Conclusions
-- Conservative political websites almost certainly talk about racism more frequently than non-partisan political websites.
-- Liberal political websites probably also talk about racism more often than non-partisan political websites.
-- We cannot say with a great deal of confidence that conservative political websites talk about racism more frequently than do liberal political websites, although this is more likely than not.
-- Sites which concentrate mostly on domestic politics very probably talk about racism more often than those with a broader focus.
-- There is not an obvious causal relationship between the business model and the frequency of mentions of race. Although, as a matter of fact, 'new media' websites do talk about racism quite a bit more often than old media websites, this is likely driven by factors other than the respective business models themselves. However, a more complete study would need to look at other mediums beyond web publishing, and in particular television.
***
I don't necessarily mean to convey the sense that everyone is equally at fault here. Certainly, there are relatively more intelligent ways to talk about racism and relatively less intelligent ones -- compare Te-Nehisi Coates against Jeffrey Lord, for instance.
Nevertheless, there seems to be something of an arm's-race mentality here. Although conservative sites talk about race much more often than the "lamestream media" does, the same is probably also true of liberal sites. Of course, a lot of the time, the sites are talking about racism because they think the mainstream media isn't talking enough about it: liberals think the media isn't focused enough on demonstrations of racist behavior at tea parties; conservatives think that there's a double-standard and that the media isn't focused enough on the NAACP's "reverse racism" or an incident or two involving the New Black Panther Party.
I happen to disagree with both of those complaints. Overt displays of racism have been rare at tea-party rallies; to focus on the few exceptions is a form of nutpicking. Moreover, although racism may be a minor ingredient in the tea party "soup", to posit a central role for it while ignoring the impact of more immediate causes like the economy seems contrived. The media's coverage of something like the alleged voter intimidation incident in Philadelphia, on the other hand, seems proportionate to its isolated nature.
If it were merely just a matter of people trying to "work the refs", that would be one thing. But my view is even a bit more cynical than that. It seems to me that much of the "conversation" about race -- most of which is taking place between white liberal elites and white conservative elites -- really isn't about at race all. Instead, the issue has simply become another front in the banal, day-to-day struggle for traffic and eyeballs and ratings points, something used on slow news days to give babble an air of gravitas, and name-calling the air of moral authority.
---
EDIT: The original version of this article misclassified National Review as a liberal media outlet -- not an easy mistake to make! Fortunately, this doesn't really have a tangible impact on our conclusions.
We pretty much never write about Israel -- I mean, literally, we've never published an article on it. We do sometimes address media bias -- an interesting subject that people say mostly uninteresting things about -- but it's not our main beat. Race, on the other hand, is a subject that's a little more central to understanding the behavior of the electorate, and so we can't entirely avoid it.
Nevertheless, the race "conversation" is often counterproductive. It's not that the issue can't be talked about intelligently -- but as a matter of fact, it usually isn't; none of us were made any the wiser by the Shirley Sherrod incident, certainly.
I therefore thought it was worth doing some investigation into just who is responsible for driving the obsession with race and racism. Is the new media primarily responsible for propagating the "conversation", as opposed to traditional news outlets? Are partisan sites more responsible than non-partisan ones?
The basis of my study is a count of how many times various websites mentioned the terms 'racism', 'racial' or 'racist' in the past 30 days, out of the fraction of all articles they published, according to a search on Google News. For instance, 132 of 5752 stories in the Los Angeles Times used one of the three terms above, or 2.3 percent.
A site was included in the analysis if (i) it is currently in the Memeorandum Top 100 -- these are the sites that drive the coverage in the political blogosphere; (ii) its contents are contained in Google News; (iii) it had published at least 100 articles in the past 30 days, and (iv) the Google News hits did not consist disproportionately of wire stories which had been republished, which knocked out a few otherwise-eligible websites like the Washington Examiner and Salon. This left me with a sample size of 59.
I then classified the websites according to three criteria:
New Media versus Old Media. A new media website is one which is not associated with a print product, or a radio or television station. An old media website is one which does emanate from a television, radio, newspaper or magazine outlet, and whose content consists primarily of material which is also published in those venues. A hybrid website is one which is technically still associated with a bricks and mortar product like a magazine, but which publishes a significant amount of online-only content or is disproportionately more influential online than in print.
I also developed three subcategories within the old and new media groups, respectively. Old media sites were classified as broadcast (TV/radio), print (newspaper/magazine), or newswires. New media sites were classified into the following groups: 'neo-traditional' (these are sites which do a fair amount of original reporting and are essentially online newspapers or magazines, like Huffington Post), 'watchdog' (these are sites which focus on media criticism or muckraking), and 'commentary'.
Obviously, it should be acknowledged that these these distinctions are sometimes blurry. I'm not all that interested in debating how particular sites were classified, and this shouldn't make much difference given that we have a fairly robust and diverse group of websites.
Politics Focus. Sites which have a primary focus on American politics are marked with an asterisk in the chart you'll see below. I apply this tag fairly conservatively -- for example, MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com are not classified as having a primarily politics focus. Although MSNBC's and Fox News's televised programming probably does have a principally political focus, the content associated with their websites (which is what we're measuring here) is somewhat more well-rounded.
Liberal, Conservative or Neutral. News outlets which take an explicitly liberal or conservative viewpoint are designated in blue or red, respectively, in the chart below. The key word here is explicitly: I classify a site into one of these groups only if it more or less wears its politics proudly on its sleeve. Neither FoxNews.com nor MSNBC get one of these labels -- again, I might feel differently if we were evaluating their television programming, but both purport to be neutral and their web content is somewhat more even-handed than their TV channels.
Certainly, some other cases are debatable, and my bias is generally toward classifying a site as neutral rather than placing into one of the partisan camps. A good general test is the volume of headline space that is devoted to storylines which are favorable to liberals or conservatives. For instance, although both Huffington Post and Daily Caller do a fair amount of original reporting, occasionally including stories which are not favorable to their 'teams', their frontpages are usually devoted mostly to storylines which tend to be favorable to one particular side. This doesn't necessarily mean that these sites are biased -- which is not at all the same thing -- but they have a fairly clear partisan viewpoint.
The results of the study follow. The percentages indicate the proportion of stories that the outlet published in the past 30 days which included the terms 'racial', 'racist', or 'racism'.
There are several things to notice here:
-- The site which has been most focused on racial storylines, unsurprisingly, is Andrew Brietbart's Big Government, which played a central role in the Shirley Sherrod controversy. Some 44 percent of stories published at the website in the past month use the terms 'racial', 'racist' or 'racism'.
-- Some liberal websites also rank very highly. Media Matters mentioned race in 32 percent of its articles, and The Nation in 22 percent of its articles. (NewsBusters.org, which is arguably Media Matters' conservative counterpart, wrote about race 21 percent of the time.)
-- The figures for websites affiliated with television stations were lower. Stories on FOXNews.com mentioned race 3.9 percent of the time, barely any higher than CNN.com (3.2 percent), CBSNews.com (3.0), MSNBC.com (3.0) or ABCNews.com (1.7), and lower than NPR.com (4.3 percent). But keep in mind that this reflects content published on the respective websites only. Focusing on their televised content might produce a much different answer; this study does not purport to address that question.
-- Outlets which report mostly on domestic politics certainly seem to mention race more often than most newspapers: The Hill does 6.2 percent of the time, the McClatchy DC Bureau 6.5 percent of the time, and Politico 7.5 percent of the time, much higher than other newspapers or newswires. However, these percentages are still fairly low as compared with partisan and/or non-traditional outlets.
-- It appears at first that most of the differences are driven by the old media versus new media distinction. Sites which I classify as old media wrote about racism just 2.2 percent of the time, on average, versus an average of 11.3 percent of the time for the hybrid sites and 12.4 percent of the time for the new media sites. But this is potentially a bit misleading: the new media sites also tend to be more explicitly partisan, and tend to have a more explicit and exclusive focus on domestic politics, which also correlate with more frequent mentions of race.
To analyze this problem more robustly, we can do a simple linear regression analysis in which the dependent variable is the percentage of stories which mention racism. (This next bit gets a bit technical.) The independent variables in the regression analysis were a series of four dummy variables: 'newmedia' (which takes on a value of -1 for old media sites, 0 for hybrid sites, and 1 for new media sites), 'focus' (1 if the site mostly focuses on domestic politics and 0 if it doesn't), 'liberal' (1 if the site has a liberal orientation and 0 if it doesn't) and 'conserv' (1 if the site has a conservative orientation and 0 if it doesn't).
. regress raceshare newmedia focus liberal conserv
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 59
-------------+------------------------------ F( 4, 54) = 13.77
Model | .204183574 4 .051045893 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | .200186102 54 .00370715 R-squared = 0.5049
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.4683
Total | .404369676 58 .006971891 Root MSE = .06089
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raceshare | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
newmedia | .0121124 .0134629 0.90 0.372 -.0148791 .0391039
focus | .0397226 .0263053 1.51 0.137 -.0130162 .0924615
liberal | .0473042 .0302723 1.56 0.124 -.0133881 .1079965
conserv | .0921375 .0327596 2.81 0.007 .0264584 .1578166
_cons | .0302334 .0149248 2.03 0.048 .0003109 .0601559
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regression finds that only the 'conserv' variable is clearly statistically significant, but 'focus' and 'liberal' are also promising. On the other hand, whether the site is an old media or new media outlet does not appear to make much difference. If we eliminate the 'newmedia' variable and re-run the analysis, we get the following:
. regress raceshare focus liberal conserv
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 59
-------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 55) = 18.15
Model | .20118289 3 .067060963 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | .203186786 55 .003694305 R-squared = 0.4975
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.4701
Total | .404369676 58 .006971891 Root MSE = .06078
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raceshare | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
focus | .0473919 .0248426 1.91 0.062 -.0023938 .0971777
liberal | .0576054 .0279749 2.06 0.044 .0015425 .1136683
conserv | .1021085 .0307746 3.32 0.002 .0404349 .1637821
_cons | .0206681 .0104562 1.98 0.053 -.0002867 .0416228
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the conservative variable is even more clearly statistically significant. Meanwhile, 'liberal' has become statistically significant at the 95 percent certainty threshold, and 'focus' is very close to it.
Another experiment is to look only at the 25 media outlets that have a primarily political focus. This brings us down to just two independent variables, 'liberal' and 'conserv':
. regress raceshare liberal conserv if focus==1
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 25
-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 22) = 2.53
Model | .042672926 2 .021336463 Prob > F = 0.1030
Residual | .1858856 22 .008449345 R-squared = 0.1867
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.1128
Total | .228558526 24 .009523272 Root MSE = .09192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raceshare | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
liberal | .0683176 .0474674 1.44 0.164 -.0301239 .1667591
conserv | .1088037 .0484463 2.25 0.035 .0083323 .2092751
_cons | .0613649 .0375263 1.64 0.116 -.01646 .1391897
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coefficients have not changed much, although the significance values have gone down, partly because we now have a smaller sample size. 'conserv' remains statistically significant at the 95 percent threshold, however, while 'liberal' is only significant at the 80 percent threshold.
Finally, we can check for robustness by eliminating the website Big Government, which is arguably something of an outlier, from the analysis.
. regress raceshare liberal conser if focus==1 & outlet~="Big Government"
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 24
-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 21) = 2.37
Model | .022902641 2 .011451321 Prob > F = 0.1175
Residual | .101254899 21 .004821662 R-squared = 0.1845
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.1068
Total | .12415754 23 .005398154 Root MSE = .06944
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raceshare | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
liberal | .0683176 .0358577 1.91 0.071 -.0062526 .1428878
conserv | .0745192 .0375009 1.99 0.060 -.0034682 .1525066
_cons | .0613649 .028348 2.16 0.042 .0024119 .1203178
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with Big Government eliminated, the conservative variable remains statistically significant at the 90 percent threshold. Interestingly, eliminating Big Government also makes 'liberal' somewhat more statistically significant, it also once again surpasses the 90 percent confidence level.
None of these model specifications is necessarily better or worse than the others, by the way -- it helps to look at all of them in concert. If we do that, we can come to the following conclusions (those of you who are mathophobic are welcome to start reading again now):
Conclusions
-- Conservative political websites almost certainly talk about racism more frequently than non-partisan political websites.
-- Liberal political websites probably also talk about racism more often than non-partisan political websites.
-- We cannot say with a great deal of confidence that conservative political websites talk about racism more frequently than do liberal political websites, although this is more likely than not.
-- Sites which concentrate mostly on domestic politics very probably talk about racism more often than those with a broader focus.
-- There is not an obvious causal relationship between the business model and the frequency of mentions of race. Although, as a matter of fact, 'new media' websites do talk about racism quite a bit more often than old media websites, this is likely driven by factors other than the respective business models themselves. However, a more complete study would need to look at other mediums beyond web publishing, and in particular television.
***
I don't necessarily mean to convey the sense that everyone is equally at fault here. Certainly, there are relatively more intelligent ways to talk about racism and relatively less intelligent ones -- compare Te-Nehisi Coates against Jeffrey Lord, for instance.
Nevertheless, there seems to be something of an arm's-race mentality here. Although conservative sites talk about race much more often than the "lamestream media" does, the same is probably also true of liberal sites. Of course, a lot of the time, the sites are talking about racism because they think the mainstream media isn't talking enough about it: liberals think the media isn't focused enough on demonstrations of racist behavior at tea parties; conservatives think that there's a double-standard and that the media isn't focused enough on the NAACP's "reverse racism" or an incident or two involving the New Black Panther Party.
I happen to disagree with both of those complaints. Overt displays of racism have been rare at tea-party rallies; to focus on the few exceptions is a form of nutpicking. Moreover, although racism may be a minor ingredient in the tea party "soup", to posit a central role for it while ignoring the impact of more immediate causes like the economy seems contrived. The media's coverage of something like the alleged voter intimidation incident in Philadelphia, on the other hand, seems proportionate to its isolated nature.
If it were merely just a matter of people trying to "work the refs", that would be one thing. But my view is even a bit more cynical than that. It seems to me that much of the "conversation" about race -- most of which is taking place between white liberal elites and white conservative elites -- really isn't about at race all. Instead, the issue has simply become another front in the banal, day-to-day struggle for traffic and eyeballs and ratings points, something used on slow news days to give babble an air of gravitas, and name-calling the air of moral authority.
---
EDIT: The original version of this article misclassified National Review as a liberal media outlet -- not an easy mistake to make! Fortunately, this doesn't really have a tangible impact on our conclusions.
8.01.2010
Second Quarter GDP Overview
@ 8:00 AM
Last week two very important and wide-ranging economic reports were released: the Beige Book and the second quarter GDP report. The Beige Book provides good background information on the economy, but due to the length of the GDP report that follows, the Beige Book is beyond the scope of this article. I have three summations of the information contained therein on my blog that you can read here, here and here. The short version of the report is the expansion slowed over the last six weeks.
Below is a detailed look at the second quarter GDP report. The original report is here.
First, let's see how this recovery's first four quarters stack up against the previous two recoveries' first four quarters in terms of GDP growth.
Here is a chart comparing them:
The purple lines represent the first four quarters after the 1991 recession. Notice how they started out slowly for the first three quarters but jumped higher in the fourth quarter after the recession. In comparison, notice the blue lines that represent the post 2001 quarter to quarter GDP growth which continually declined for three quarters after the recession ended. This recovery has printed strong numbers for the second and third quarters coming out of the recession and still printed a 2.4% in the fourth. By way of comparing the last three recession, here is a chart of the median rate of growth of the last three recoveries in the four quarters after the recession ended.
Note this recovery is printing a far stronger median growth rate than the other two recoveries four quarters in.
Here is a chart that shows what parts of GDP contributed to growth:
Notice the growth is spread out across different categories -- PCEs, investment and exports all contributed.
Below are four charts that show real personal consumption expenditures and the various components of PCEs for the last four quarter.
Real PCEs are increasing at a moderate pace.
Services comprise the largest percentage of PCEs, representing about 65% of all expenditures. Last quarter was the first quarter these picked-up over the last four quarters.
Non-durable purchases were increasing nicely, but dropped a bit last quarter.
Sales of durable goods have increased at a solid pace for the last two quarters and three of the last four quarters.
Now let's look at gross domestic investment.
Non-residential structures investment increased last quarter for the first time in four quarters.
Investment in equipment and software continues to increase at a strong pace.
Residential investment increased last month as well.
Exports have been increasing at a good rate for the last four quarters.
Last quarter saw a big surge in imports, which detract from GDP.
Let's tie all this together:
1.) While the pace of GDP growth has decreased for the last two quarters, it is still growing at a decent but not good rate. In addition, GDP is growing at a faster median rate for the first four quarters after the recovery than the previous two recession.
2.) PCEs are increasing modestly. Despite low consumer confidence and sentiment, durable goods purchases are surprisingly strong. The interesting laggard is service expenditures which were growing at approximately twice the current rate before the recession.
3.) Businesses continue to invest in equipment and software, retooling their facilities and facilities. In addition, the increases in residential and non-residential investment were welcome surprises.
4.) Exports continue to increase at a good pace, indicating the rest of the world continues to grow.
5.) The real surprise in the report was the increase in imports, which grew 35.4% from the previous quarter.
Below is a detailed look at the second quarter GDP report. The original report is here.
First, let's see how this recovery's first four quarters stack up against the previous two recoveries' first four quarters in terms of GDP growth.
Here is a chart comparing them:
The purple lines represent the first four quarters after the 1991 recession. Notice how they started out slowly for the first three quarters but jumped higher in the fourth quarter after the recession. In comparison, notice the blue lines that represent the post 2001 quarter to quarter GDP growth which continually declined for three quarters after the recession ended. This recovery has printed strong numbers for the second and third quarters coming out of the recession and still printed a 2.4% in the fourth. By way of comparing the last three recession, here is a chart of the median rate of growth of the last three recoveries in the four quarters after the recession ended.
Note this recovery is printing a far stronger median growth rate than the other two recoveries four quarters in.
Here is a chart that shows what parts of GDP contributed to growth:
Notice the growth is spread out across different categories -- PCEs, investment and exports all contributed.
Below are four charts that show real personal consumption expenditures and the various components of PCEs for the last four quarter.
Real PCEs are increasing at a moderate pace.
Services comprise the largest percentage of PCEs, representing about 65% of all expenditures. Last quarter was the first quarter these picked-up over the last four quarters.
Non-durable purchases were increasing nicely, but dropped a bit last quarter.
Sales of durable goods have increased at a solid pace for the last two quarters and three of the last four quarters.
Now let's look at gross domestic investment.
Non-residential structures investment increased last quarter for the first time in four quarters.
Investment in equipment and software continues to increase at a strong pace.
Residential investment increased last month as well.
Exports have been increasing at a good rate for the last four quarters.
Last quarter saw a big surge in imports, which detract from GDP.
Let's tie all this together:
1.) While the pace of GDP growth has decreased for the last two quarters, it is still growing at a decent but not good rate. In addition, GDP is growing at a faster median rate for the first four quarters after the recovery than the previous two recession.
2.) PCEs are increasing modestly. Despite low consumer confidence and sentiment, durable goods purchases are surprisingly strong. The interesting laggard is service expenditures which were growing at approximately twice the current rate before the recession.
3.) Businesses continue to invest in equipment and software, retooling their facilities and facilities. In addition, the increases in residential and non-residential investment were welcome surprises.
4.) Exports continue to increase at a good pace, indicating the rest of the world continues to grow.
5.) The real surprise in the report was the increase in imports, which grew 35.4% from the previous quarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
9 comments
Post a Comment