In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to whether voters were contacted by the respective campaigns.
National Exits
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (13%) Obama 80, McCain 19
Only McCain (6%) McCain 82, Obama 17
Both (13%) McCain 51, Obama 47
Neither (66%) Obama 50, McCain 48
Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 26%) Kerry 66, Bush 33
(2008, 26%) Obama 64, McCain 34
No
(2004, 74%) Bush 57, Kerry 42
(2008, 72%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 24%) Bush 62, Kerry 38
(2008, 18%) McCain 60, Obama 38
No
(2004, 76%) Kerry 52, Bush 47
(2008, 79%) Obama 55, McCain 43
Analysis. There is a wealth of information in this data which speaks very clearly to the effectiveness of the respective campaigns. Before looking over the information, we need to conceptualize how a good voter outreach operation works. In other words, who were the campaigns reaching out to, and why, and how does this data reveal whether the campaigns were effective in their outreach? In a campaign, the key group you are reaching out to is of course your base, the voters you want energized and out voting either on election day or earlier (depending on the state). After that, a good campaign is interested in reaching out to persuadables -- targeted voters who could swing to either side, and are thus worth lavishing attention on. Consider those voters only hit up by one campaign exclusively as base voters -- ones that one party wants to get out, and the other knows are unwinnable. The center is that group contacted by both parties, and is made up of many voters both campaigns see as winnable. Examining this latter group and the exits should give us a good idea which campaign was more persuasive with swingables.
Anyway, to my mind, one of the things that stands out most from this data is the wider net the Obama campaign was able to cast compared to that of Team McCain. As noted at the top, both campaigns had basically equal effectiveness with those voters who were only contacted by the individual campaigns, but the difference lies in the fact that there were twice as many such voters in Obama's pool than McCain's. Additionally, we can see that whereas Obama contacted the same percentage of voters as Kerry four years ago, McCain contacted 6% fewer voters than Team Bush in 2004. So, while Obama's level of success with contacted voters was slightly less than Kerry's, this was alright since the McCain campaign did such a mediocre job of voter contact.
Colorado
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 17
Only McCain (5%) ?
Both (29%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Neither (42%) McCain 53, Obama 45
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (51%) Obama 64, McCain 34
No (49%) McCain 56, Obama 42
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (34%) McCain 51, Obama 48
No (64%) Obama 57, McCain 41
Analysis. Colorado was one of the very most important swing states in this past election. He was highly coveted by both sides, and expected to be very close. In the end, Obama won an easy victory here in part because of his tremendous campaign in the state. Note that whereas Obama's campaign touched just over half of the state's voters, Team McCain only hit one-third of voters, an enormous difference, which, as you can see, translated to a wide disparity among ultimate vote totals. It is a sad commentary that the sample of size of voters contacted by only the McCain campaign was so small that we cannot discern how effective the campaign's core outreach was.
Florida
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 75, McCain 24
Only McCain (7%) McCain 71, Obama 27
Both (14%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Neither (63%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Contacted by the Obama/Kerry campaign?
Yes
(2004, 35%) Kerry 65, Bush 34
(2008, 29%) Obama 60, McCain 37
No
(2004, 65%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 69%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Contacted by the McCain/Bush campaign?
Yes
(2004, 34%) Bush 63, Kerry 36
(2008, 20%) McCain 58, Obama 39
No
(2004, 66%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 77%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Analysis. Again, we see that in terms of exclusive contacts, Obama's Florida operation hit twice as many voters as did McCain's, and the former's campaign was more effective to boot. Interestingly, far less voters were contacted in Florida than in 2004, by both sides. However, Team McCain only touched about one-fifth of voters in the state, a very lower number, and 14% below Bush/Cheney in 2004.
Indiana
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (23%) Obama 73, McCain 26
Only McCain (8%) McCain 80, Obama 19
Both (14%) McCain 53, Obama 43
Neither (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (37%) Obama 62, McCain 36
No (62%) McCain 57, Obama 43
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (22%) McCain 63, Obama 34
No (77%) Obama 54, McCain 45
Analysis. As you can see, Indiana was a state where voter outreach made a huge difference. Over the summer, we postulated that McCain would have to leave states like Indiana untouched in hopes that they could hold on without large infusions of money. The rationale behind this view was simply that Team McCain would not have the funds to fight in traditional red states. In the end, McCain's (necessary) gambit failed, as Obama poured a lot of resources into Indiana with great impact. Obama hit 15% more voters than McCain. Obama lost every cross-section by a health margin except those nearly one-quarter of voters who were contacted. Obama won this group by just enough to win statewide. Voter outreach here made a big difference. Indeed, McCain badly lost voters he never contacted.
Nevada
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (26%) Obama 80, McCain 18
Only McCain (5%) McCain 88, Obama 10
Both (24%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (43%) Obama 50, McCain 47
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (48%) McCain 51, Obama 46
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (29%) McCain 55, Obama 43
No (69%) Obama 62, McCain 36
Analysis. I've said it before, and in light of this data I will say it again: the individuals who ran Obama's Nevada operation should be taken care of in the administration. Just look at one number: 50, as in the percentage of voters who were contacted by the Obama campaign. Half of the state's voters received a contact, and of that bloc, Obama won two out of every three votes. That's your ballgame right there. Now, Nevada was seemingly predisposed to support Obama this year, as indicated by McCain's slim lead among voters Obama did not contact (as opposed to a wide lead, which would have been expected). Still, Obama's incredible state operation played a big role in shaping that predisposition. How the heck did Obama exclusively contact one-quarter of voters, while McCain similarly hit only 5% in a state the GOP had only lost twice since 1948? I guess it was true what the NY Times reported when an unnamed operative said that McCain had no presence here.
North Carolina
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (14%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Only McCain (6%) McCain 85, Obama 15
Both (20%) Obama 50, McCain 49
Neither (58%) McCain 55, Obama 44
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (34%) Obama 66, McCain 33
No (64%) McCain 58, Obama 41
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (26%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (72%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Because the two campaigns split down the middle the pool of switchables contacted by both camps, this race came down to which side was able to bring out its base better, and on that score, Obama won easily. He again doubled up on base contacts here, and brought them to the polls at a better clip.
Ohio
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (15%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (8%) McCain 82, Obama 18
Both (28%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Neither (46%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (43%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (54%) McCain 53, Obama 46
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (36%) McCain 58, Obama 41
No (61%) Obama 58, McCain 41
Analysis. It seems like both sides were effective in turning people they contacted, but Obama contacted more people.
Virginia
Contacted by any campaign? (2008 only)
Only Obama (22%) Obama 81, McCain 19
Only McCain (10%) McCain 84, Obama 15
Both (28%) McCain 57, Obama 42
Neither (38%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Contacted by the Obama campaign?
Yes (50%) Obama 59, McCain 40
No (48%) McCain 54, Obama 45
Contacted by the McCain campaign?
Yes (38%) McCain 64, Obama 35
No (59%) Obama 63, McCain 36
Analysis. Like in Nevada, the Obama campaign was able to reach out to half of the people who ultimately voted. This is a hard thing to beat. Interestingly, Obama badly lost voters targeted by both sides, but he got his winning margin by comfortably winning uncontacted voters.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: When Voters Decided
In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to when voters decided which candidate to support.
National Exits
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 4%) Obama 50, McCain 45
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 47
Last week
(2004, 2%) Bush 51, Kerry 48
(2008, 3%) McCain 50, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 10%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 15%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 53, Kerry 46
(2008, 74%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Analysis. Conventional wisdom (or at least just Republican postgame spin) has said that the financial crisis took a race that was veritably tied in late-September and gave it to Obama. The data says otherwise. Granted, the race was tighter prior to the Wall Street meltdown; Obama only led by by five points with voters who made a decision before October, and by 11% with voters who made a decision during October. Still, given that three-fourths of voters decided before October, McCain was likely in dire conditions anyway. In other words, even though the election may have turned out close had Lehman Brothers never collapsed, I think McCain still would have lost. Heck, he lost the voters who decided on November 4, and barely won voters who made a choice the last week. However, let me add that 50% more voters made a decision in October this year than in 2008. There is little doubt in my mind that the crisis had something to do with that, much to the McCain's detriment. Going further, just note how much better Obama did than Bush: in only one subset -- the final three days -- did McCain enjoy a lead outside the margin of error. Whereas Bush opened strongly enough to hold on to an overall 51-48 victory, Obama's campaign opened and closed strong -- a very impressive feat.
Colorado
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 51, Bush 45
(2008, ?) ?
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 0%) ?
Last week
(2004, 2%) ?
(2008, 3%) ?
In October
(2004, 12%) Bush 50, Kerry 49
(2008, 12%) Obama 53, McCain 45
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 82%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Unfortunately, the small sample sizes give us no data for voters who decided late in the game. Nevertheless, we see that Obama had Colorado locked up before October. Even after the crisis broke and McCain foolishly "suspended" his campaign, he was already cooked in the state, In fact, Obama's level of support with pre-October deciding voters was just about identical to his support among voters who made a decision in October. In a state Kerry was trounced, Obama did spectacular.
Florida
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Last week
(2004, 3%) Kerry 68, Bush 29
(2008, 4%) Obama 55, McCain 42
In October
(2004, 12%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 12%) Obama 60, McCain 38
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 76%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Analysis. This was a close one, and McCain closed here late in strong fashion. The data seems to indicate that this is a state that was won because of the economic crisis. Why? Prior to October, three-fourths of the voters had decided, and Obama held a three-point lead with them. However, October-deciders broke for Obama by over 20 points, ensuring that McCain's late charge would not be enough to come back. This did not occur in 2004, where, despite the fact that people seemed to decide in the same percentages in October and pre-October, Bush had a huge lead with the latter group -- more than enough to counter-balance the +19% Kerry advantage with October voters.
Indiana
Election day
(2004, 5%) ?
(2008, 9%) Obama 50, McCain 46
Last three days
(2004, 4%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 50
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 45
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 13%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 67%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Analysis. The numbers that stand out here are the scores of people who remained undecided late in the game: in the last week of the campaign, about one in five voters were undecided, nearly double the national average. What happened here was that Obama was down prior to October, though not substantially, and as a result he wisely decided to spend big here. The economic crisis gave the Democrat a good cushion, and those voters who rarely went for a national Dem broke for him by just enough to award Obama a tiny statewide victory in one of the most unlikely of states.
Nevada
Election day
(2004, 8%) Bush 49, Kerry 48
(2008, 4%) Obama 53, McCain 47
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) Obama 50, McCain 44
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 48, Obama 44
In October
(2004, 13%) Kerry 57, Bush 40
(2008, 14%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 72%) Bush 54, Kerry 45
(2008, 74%) Obama 56, McCain 42
Analysis. Nevada was an old-fashioned beat-down. Obama organized the heck out of the state, and McCain never had a chance, even before the Wall Street crisis. Needless to say that the pre-October polls showing a real horse-race were not terribly accurate.
North Carolina
Election day
(2004, 4%) Kerry 71, Bush 26
(2008, 3%) Obama 55, McCain 42
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 57, Bush 43
(2008, 2%) Obama 54, McCain 42
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 67, Obama 32
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 14%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 77%) Obama 52, McCain 48
Analysis. Again we find another example where Obama was in strong shape before October. While his lead was fairly narrow, most of his work was done prior to October 1. McCain closed very strong in October and the last week -- the former period is interesting as the economic crisis did not deliver a new majority to Obama over October -- but Obama countered over the final days.
Ohio
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 61, Bush 39
(2008, 5%) Obama 48, McCain 44
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 64, Bush 36
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 43
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) McCain 52, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 61, Bush 36
(2008, 16%) Obama 51, McCain 47
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 70%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Like in North Carolina, Obama actually did better pre-October than in October. Food for thought. And like in Indiana, we had more undecided voters after September than in many other states. It's likely that a lot of voters in Ohio could not commit to Obama, and many of the late deciders, didn't.
Virginia
Election day
(2004, 5%) Bush 48, Kerry 48
(2008, 5%) Obama 49, McCain 49
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) McCain 67, Obama 30
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) ?
In October
(2004, 8%) Bush 52, Kerry 45
(2008, 11%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 81%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 74%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Obama did most of his hard work in Virginia before the meltdown, but the event certainly clinched the state for him.
National Exits
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 4%) Obama 50, McCain 45
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 47
Last week
(2004, 2%) Bush 51, Kerry 48
(2008, 3%) McCain 50, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 10%) Kerry 54, Bush 44
(2008, 15%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 53, Kerry 46
(2008, 74%) Obama 52, McCain 47
Analysis. Conventional wisdom (or at least just Republican postgame spin) has said that the financial crisis took a race that was veritably tied in late-September and gave it to Obama. The data says otherwise. Granted, the race was tighter prior to the Wall Street meltdown; Obama only led by by five points with voters who made a decision before October, and by 11% with voters who made a decision during October. Still, given that three-fourths of voters decided before October, McCain was likely in dire conditions anyway. In other words, even though the election may have turned out close had Lehman Brothers never collapsed, I think McCain still would have lost. Heck, he lost the voters who decided on November 4, and barely won voters who made a choice the last week. However, let me add that 50% more voters made a decision in October this year than in 2008. There is little doubt in my mind that the crisis had something to do with that, much to the McCain's detriment. Going further, just note how much better Obama did than Bush: in only one subset -- the final three days -- did McCain enjoy a lead outside the margin of error. Whereas Bush opened strongly enough to hold on to an overall 51-48 victory, Obama's campaign opened and closed strong -- a very impressive feat.
Colorado
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 51, Bush 45
(2008, ?) ?
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 0%) ?
Last week
(2004, 2%) ?
(2008, 3%) ?
In October
(2004, 12%) Bush 50, Kerry 49
(2008, 12%) Obama 53, McCain 45
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 82%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Unfortunately, the small sample sizes give us no data for voters who decided late in the game. Nevertheless, we see that Obama had Colorado locked up before October. Even after the crisis broke and McCain foolishly "suspended" his campaign, he was already cooked in the state, In fact, Obama's level of support with pre-October deciding voters was just about identical to his support among voters who made a decision in October. In a state Kerry was trounced, Obama did spectacular.
Florida
Election day
(2004, 6%) Kerry 53, Bush 44
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 45
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 51, Obama 48
Last week
(2004, 3%) Kerry 68, Bush 29
(2008, 4%) Obama 55, McCain 42
In October
(2004, 12%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 12%) Obama 60, McCain 38
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 76%) Obama 51, McCain 48
Analysis. This was a close one, and McCain closed here late in strong fashion. The data seems to indicate that this is a state that was won because of the economic crisis. Why? Prior to October, three-fourths of the voters had decided, and Obama held a three-point lead with them. However, October-deciders broke for Obama by over 20 points, ensuring that McCain's late charge would not be enough to come back. This did not occur in 2004, where, despite the fact that people seemed to decide in the same percentages in October and pre-October, Bush had a huge lead with the latter group -- more than enough to counter-balance the +19% Kerry advantage with October voters.
Indiana
Election day
(2004, 5%) ?
(2008, 9%) Obama 50, McCain 46
Last three days
(2004, 4%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 50
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) Obama 50, McCain 45
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 56, Bush 43
(2008, 13%) Obama 55, McCain 44
Before October
(2004, 77%) Bush 65, Kerry 34
(2008, 67%) McCain 50, Obama 48
Analysis. The numbers that stand out here are the scores of people who remained undecided late in the game: in the last week of the campaign, about one in five voters were undecided, nearly double the national average. What happened here was that Obama was down prior to October, though not substantially, and as a result he wisely decided to spend big here. The economic crisis gave the Democrat a good cushion, and those voters who rarely went for a national Dem broke for him by just enough to award Obama a tiny statewide victory in one of the most unlikely of states.
Nevada
Election day
(2004, 8%) Bush 49, Kerry 48
(2008, 4%) Obama 53, McCain 47
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) Obama 50, McCain 44
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 48, Obama 44
In October
(2004, 13%) Kerry 57, Bush 40
(2008, 14%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 72%) Bush 54, Kerry 45
(2008, 74%) Obama 56, McCain 42
Analysis. Nevada was an old-fashioned beat-down. Obama organized the heck out of the state, and McCain never had a chance, even before the Wall Street crisis. Needless to say that the pre-October polls showing a real horse-race were not terribly accurate.
North Carolina
Election day
(2004, 4%) Kerry 71, Bush 26
(2008, 3%) Obama 55, McCain 42
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 57, Bush 43
(2008, 2%) Obama 54, McCain 42
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 3%) McCain 67, Obama 32
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 50, Bush 48
(2008, 14%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 60, Kerry 39
(2008, 77%) Obama 52, McCain 48
Analysis. Again we find another example where Obama was in strong shape before October. While his lead was fairly narrow, most of his work was done prior to October 1. McCain closed very strong in October and the last week -- the former period is interesting as the economic crisis did not deliver a new majority to Obama over October -- but Obama countered over the final days.
Ohio
Election day
(2004, 5%) Kerry 61, Bush 39
(2008, 5%) Obama 48, McCain 44
Last three days
(2004, 4%) Kerry 64, Bush 36
(2008, 3%) McCain 52, Obama 43
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) McCain 52, Obama 48
In October
(2004, 11%) Kerry 61, Bush 36
(2008, 16%) Obama 51, McCain 47
Before October
(2004, 78%) Bush 55, Kerry 45
(2008, 70%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Like in North Carolina, Obama actually did better pre-October than in October. Food for thought. And like in Indiana, we had more undecided voters after September than in many other states. It's likely that a lot of voters in Ohio could not commit to Obama, and many of the late deciders, didn't.
Virginia
Election day
(2004, 5%) Bush 48, Kerry 48
(2008, 5%) Obama 49, McCain 49
Last three days
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 5%) McCain 67, Obama 30
Last week
(2004, 3%) ?
(2008, 4%) ?
In October
(2004, 8%) Bush 52, Kerry 45
(2008, 11%) Obama 59, McCain 40
Before October
(2004, 81%) Bush 56, Kerry 44
(2008, 74%) Obama 53, McCain 46
Analysis. Obama did most of his hard work in Virginia before the meltdown, but the event certainly clinched the state for him.
Breaking Down Swing State Exit Polls: Party ID
In this post, we are going to look through swing state exit poll data relating to voter party identification.
National Exits
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 89, Bush 11
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: None
Republicans
(2004, 37%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 32%) McCain 90, Obama 9
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 49, Bush 48
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Let's first look at the turnout picture. The percentage of voters who were self-identified Dems rose a slight 2%, but more importantly the number of GOPers dropped a not-too-small 5%. There were also 3% more indies out there. How did this translate in the election? Well, interestingly, Obama improved over Kerry very marginally with Democrats, while jumping three percent in support with the other two groups. This is where the election was won for the Democrat: among disillusioned Republicans and indies. In 2004, when Bush won just about every single Republican -- with GOPers equal to Dems as part of the voting populace -- Kerry lost when he ended up basically tied with indies. Obama's big victory with independents, combined with the drop in self-IDed Republicans equaled a cool victory.
Colorado
Democrats
(2004, 29%) Kerry 93, Bush 7
(2008, 30%) Obama 92, McCain 7
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 38%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 87, Obama 13
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 33%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 39%) Obama 54, McCain 44
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Colorado's results mirror some of the national numbers. Obama won the state by enjoying a larger slice of a smaller Republican pie, and a bigger piece of a bigger indie pie. It looks like a lot of GOPers identified themselves as indies, many of them crossing party lines to support Obama in the process.
Florida
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 37%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: No change
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 41%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 34%) McCain 87, Obama 12
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 23%) Kerry 57, Bush 41
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, Bush 45
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -5% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -8% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Florida was an interesting state in this election, and one I certainly want to write separately about in time. As we saw with the breakdown on ideology, Obama did not improve over 2004 with moderates, nor any better with independents. The difference was at the poles, where he saw decent imrprovement among Dems and very good movement with Republicans. Later, I will come back to look at how the Florida counties voted. As we will see later, Obama did not achieve across the board improvement in the state, and focused on his base counties to win.
Indiana
Democrats
(2004, 32%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 36%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 46%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 41%) McCain 86, Obama 13
Turnout: -5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 22%) Bush 51, Obama 46
(2008, 24%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Turnout: +2% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Really, changes in turnout between 2004 and 2008 were not drastic. Sure, more Democrats and less Republicans came out, but GOPers still outnumbered Democrats by 5%. The key fact to be gleaned from the exit data is simple: Obama played in Indiana -- something Dems never do -- and he was able to improve across the board. I really don't think it was any neat trick. It was smart, absolutely, but just by entering the state, there was low-hanging fruit to be plucked. Kerry 39% in Indiana or whatever it was does not reflect Democratic support in the state. This is not to say that national Democrats should win in Indiana, just that their real level of support is not that low. To my mind, Indiana was the most impressive result of election night. That Obama was able to close such a large gap in four years, in a very conservative state, is a testament to his strengths as a candidate, the national environment, and his campaign's intelligence. As we will see in a future separate post, his improvements were across the geographic and partisan spectrum.
Nevada
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 38%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 30%) McCain 88, Obama 11
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 54, Bush 42
(2008, 32%) Obama 54, McCain 41
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Huge cause for worry for Republicans: self-identified Republicans dropped 9% in the state from 2004 when the two parties enjoyed parity. This rate is nearly double what the national drop was (average 5% nationally). In a state that has been reliably Republican in presidential contests for decades, Republicans need to turn things around fast or risk losing control of this key fast-growing Western state.
North Carolina
Democrats
(2004, 39%) Kerry 86, Bush 14
(2008, 42%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 96, Kerry 4
(2008, 31%) McCain 95, Obama 4
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 21%) Bush 56, Kerry 41
(2008, 27%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Obama won this state by consolidating support among Democrats. While his numbers with the other two groups appears, underwhelming, that is not entirely true. His support with GOPers was the same as Kerry's, but because turnout dropped 9%, Obama ended up with many more Republicans voters than did Kerry. Similarly, his support with indies was lower than Kerry's, but with a jump in turnout, Obama did slightly better than break even. In the end, all of it was enough to give Obama a very narrow victory here.
Ohio
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 9
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 94, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 25%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 30%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -10% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. We've talked a little about Ohio so far. While it is incredible Obama was able to get a majority in the state despite the drop in support he received with indies, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry lost the state with 49%, so Democrats did not need enormous improvement to take the state. Ohio was won by Obama's performance with Republicans. That marginal uptick made the difference. As we will see when we look at the geographic splits in the state, Obama's hard work in western Ohio won him the state's 20 electoral votes.
Virginia
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 39%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 33%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -6% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Independents
(2004, 26%) Bush 54, Kerry 44
(2008, 27%) Obama 49, McCain 48
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. It's interesting that Obama's percentages among both Dems and GOPers was identical to Kerry's rates four years ago. However, with Dem participation rising 4% while GOP participation dropping 6%, Obama ended up in the black in terms of gaining more voters. The state was won among independents, with whom Obama squeezed out a tight win. In fact, he did better with indies in the Commonwealth than nationally.
National Exits
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 89, Bush 11
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: None
Republicans
(2004, 37%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 32%) McCain 90, Obama 9
Turnout: Down 5% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 49, Bush 48
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: Up 3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Analysis. Let's first look at the turnout picture. The percentage of voters who were self-identified Dems rose a slight 2%, but more importantly the number of GOPers dropped a not-too-small 5%. There were also 3% more indies out there. How did this translate in the election? Well, interestingly, Obama improved over Kerry very marginally with Democrats, while jumping three percent in support with the other two groups. This is where the election was won for the Democrat: among disillusioned Republicans and indies. In 2004, when Bush won just about every single Republican -- with GOPers equal to Dems as part of the voting populace -- Kerry lost when he ended up basically tied with indies. Obama's big victory with independents, combined with the drop in self-IDed Republicans equaled a cool victory.
Colorado
Democrats
(2004, 29%) Kerry 93, Bush 7
(2008, 30%) Obama 92, McCain 7
Turnout: Up 1% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 38%) Bush 93, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 87, Obama 13
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +7% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 33%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
(2008, 39%) Obama 54, McCain 44
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Colorado's results mirror some of the national numbers. Obama won the state by enjoying a larger slice of a smaller Republican pie, and a bigger piece of a bigger indie pie. It looks like a lot of GOPers identified themselves as indies, many of them crossing party lines to support Obama in the process.
Florida
Democrats
(2004, 37%) Kerry 85, Bush 14
(2008, 37%) Obama 87, McCain 12
Turnout: No change
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 41%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 34%) McCain 87, Obama 12
Turnout: -7% under 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 23%) Kerry 57, Bush 41
(2008, 29%) Obama 52, Bush 45
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -5% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -8% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Florida was an interesting state in this election, and one I certainly want to write separately about in time. As we saw with the breakdown on ideology, Obama did not improve over 2004 with moderates, nor any better with independents. The difference was at the poles, where he saw decent imrprovement among Dems and very good movement with Republicans. Later, I will come back to look at how the Florida counties voted. As we will see later, Obama did not achieve across the board improvement in the state, and focused on his base counties to win.
Indiana
Democrats
(2004, 32%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 36%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 46%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 41%) McCain 86, Obama 13
Turnout: -5% under 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 22%) Bush 51, Obama 46
(2008, 24%) Obama 54, McCain 43
Turnout: +2% over 2004
Change: +8% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +5% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Really, changes in turnout between 2004 and 2008 were not drastic. Sure, more Democrats and less Republicans came out, but GOPers still outnumbered Democrats by 5%. The key fact to be gleaned from the exit data is simple: Obama played in Indiana -- something Dems never do -- and he was able to improve across the board. I really don't think it was any neat trick. It was smart, absolutely, but just by entering the state, there was low-hanging fruit to be plucked. Kerry 39% in Indiana or whatever it was does not reflect Democratic support in the state. This is not to say that national Democrats should win in Indiana, just that their real level of support is not that low. To my mind, Indiana was the most impressive result of election night. That Obama was able to close such a large gap in four years, in a very conservative state, is a testament to his strengths as a candidate, the national environment, and his campaign's intelligence. As we will see in a future separate post, his improvements were across the geographic and partisan spectrum.
Nevada
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 10
(2008, 38%) Obama 93, McCain 6
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +3% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 93, Kerry 7
(2008, 30%) McCain 88, Obama 11
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +1% over Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 26%) Kerry 54, Bush 42
(2008, 32%) Obama 54, McCain 41
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Huge cause for worry for Republicans: self-identified Republicans dropped 9% in the state from 2004 when the two parties enjoyed parity. This rate is nearly double what the national drop was (average 5% nationally). In a state that has been reliably Republican in presidential contests for decades, Republicans need to turn things around fast or risk losing control of this key fast-growing Western state.
North Carolina
Democrats
(2004, 39%) Kerry 86, Bush 14
(2008, 42%) Obama 90, McCain 9
Turnout: +3% over 2004
Change: +4% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +4% over Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 96, Kerry 4
(2008, 31%) McCain 95, Obama 4
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: -3% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 21%) Bush 56, Kerry 41
(2008, 27%) McCain 60, Obama 39
Turnout: +6% over 2004
Change: -2% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -5% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. Obama won this state by consolidating support among Democrats. While his numbers with the other two groups appears, underwhelming, that is not entirely true. His support with GOPers was the same as Kerry's, but because turnout dropped 9%, Obama ended up with many more Republicans voters than did Kerry. Similarly, his support with indies was lower than Kerry's, but with a jump in turnout, Obama did slightly better than break even. In the end, all of it was enough to give Obama a very narrow victory here.
Ohio
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 90, Bush 9
(2008, 39%) Obama 89, McCain 10
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: -1% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Democrats
Republicans
(2004, 40%) Bush 94, Kerry 6
(2008, 31%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -9% under 2004
Change: +2% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: -1% under Dem national gains with Republicans
Independents
(2004, 25%) Kerry 59, Bush 40
(2008, 30%) Obama 52, McCain 44
Turnout: +5% over 2004
Change: -7% Obama under Kerry
Difference with national gains: -10% under Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. We've talked a little about Ohio so far. While it is incredible Obama was able to get a majority in the state despite the drop in support he received with indies, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry lost the state with 49%, so Democrats did not need enormous improvement to take the state. Ohio was won by Obama's performance with Republicans. That marginal uptick made the difference. As we will see when we look at the geographic splits in the state, Obama's hard work in western Ohio won him the state's 20 electoral votes.
Virginia
Democrats
(2004, 35%) Kerry 92, Bush 8
(2008, 39%) Obama 92, McCain 8
Turnout: +4% over 2004
Change: +0 Obama with Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Republicans
(2004, 39%) Bush 95, Kerry 5
(2008, 33%) McCain 92, Obama 8
Turnout: -6% under 2004
Change: +3% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: No difference
Independents
(2004, 26%) Bush 54, Kerry 44
(2008, 27%) Obama 49, McCain 48
Turnout: +1% over 2004
Change: +5% Obama over Kerry
Difference with national gains: +2% over Dem national gains with Independents
Analysis. It's interesting that Obama's percentages among both Dems and GOPers was identical to Kerry's rates four years ago. However, with Dem participation rising 4% while GOP participation dropping 6%, Obama ended up in the black in terms of gaining more voters. The state was won among independents, with whom Obama squeezed out a tight win. In fact, he did better with indies in the Commonwealth than nationally.
Jonathan Martin and Politico: GOP Hackery in Perfect Symmetry
Regular readers know that I have a love-hate relationship with the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico. While I often link to stories from Politico, and I think there are many good pieces in the paper, on the whole I think Politico leans to the right. Perhaps more annoying, reading Politico you get the impression that all of its writers are of the too-cool-for-school variety, and their articles drip with unnecessary snark. A few days ago, I made some of these points in criticizing a recent piece by Politico writer Jonathan Martin which attacked Barack Obama for not appointing enough Republicans to his cabinet -- well before Obama had made any appointments at all. To me, Martin's article is typical of a lot of the stuff in Politico, and it is why Politico, despite the big ego of its writers, is what I read third after Roll Call and The Hill in the morning.
Anyway, I was curious to see what else Martin has recently written. Maybe that article was an aberration, right? Here are Martin's last five pieces:
Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right (11/27)
Bill Richardson: Downwardly Mobile? (11/24)
Obama skips church, heads to gym (11/23)
Whither the cabinet Republicans? (11/23)
Would-be appointees quizzed on guns (11/20)
Wow, if I had not told you these were news stories in Politico, you might have wondered if these headlines were plucked directly from the Drudge Report, because clearly, each of them has an anti-Democratic agenda.
The first one seems to be interesting in sowing dissent among Democrats (classic Drudge). The second one is typical Politico snark, snickering at Bill Richardson for taking a cabinet position that Politico seems to believe is a step down in prestige for the former Energy and UN Secretary and current New Mexico Governor. The third one wants to make Obama appear disinterested in religion and piety. The fourth one we've discussed: Martin would like to assail Obama for actions he has not yet taken. And the fifth one is a nice dig and a way for Martin to draw Obama as anti-gun. Great GOP hackery all around.
You will note that I called these "news" stories, and therein lies the problem. If these were opinion pieces, that would be one thing entirely, but they are not, and nowhere are they labeled as such. In fact, in four of these pieces, the word "news" appears in the URL. Only the Richardson piece is not a news article, as it appears on Politico's diary of the Obama transition. These are thus not news articles. They are slanted pieces, Matt Drudge-style, clearly written to push a particular viewpoint, in this case, a Republican viewpoint.
Does Martin's own bio provide any guidance for us? Let's take a look. This is lifted directly from the short bio provided by Politico:
Martin comes to Politico from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the Web site. Prior to that, he worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles.
A former writer for the National Review? Shocking!
Look, just because a guy has written for a partisan body should not permanently disqualify him from professional journalism with what is meant to be a party-less publication. But to do so, we need one of two things: either Politico needs to point out that Martin is an opinion writer and not a news writer, or Martin, if he wants to write news, needs to actually do that instead of Republican hit-pieces.
Politico is new to the scene, and if it ever wants to be as good as Roll Call, it really needs to clean up its act.
Anyway, I was curious to see what else Martin has recently written. Maybe that article was an aberration, right? Here are Martin's last five pieces:
Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right (11/27)
Bill Richardson: Downwardly Mobile? (11/24)
Obama skips church, heads to gym (11/23)
Whither the cabinet Republicans? (11/23)
Would-be appointees quizzed on guns (11/20)
Wow, if I had not told you these were news stories in Politico, you might have wondered if these headlines were plucked directly from the Drudge Report, because clearly, each of them has an anti-Democratic agenda.
The first one seems to be interesting in sowing dissent among Democrats (classic Drudge). The second one is typical Politico snark, snickering at Bill Richardson for taking a cabinet position that Politico seems to believe is a step down in prestige for the former Energy and UN Secretary and current New Mexico Governor. The third one wants to make Obama appear disinterested in religion and piety. The fourth one we've discussed: Martin would like to assail Obama for actions he has not yet taken. And the fifth one is a nice dig and a way for Martin to draw Obama as anti-gun. Great GOP hackery all around.
You will note that I called these "news" stories, and therein lies the problem. If these were opinion pieces, that would be one thing entirely, but they are not, and nowhere are they labeled as such. In fact, in four of these pieces, the word "news" appears in the URL. Only the Richardson piece is not a news article, as it appears on Politico's diary of the Obama transition. These are thus not news articles. They are slanted pieces, Matt Drudge-style, clearly written to push a particular viewpoint, in this case, a Republican viewpoint.
Does Martin's own bio provide any guidance for us? Let's take a look. This is lifted directly from the short bio provided by Politico:
Martin comes to Politico from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the Web site. Prior to that, he worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles.
A former writer for the National Review? Shocking!
Look, just because a guy has written for a partisan body should not permanently disqualify him from professional journalism with what is meant to be a party-less publication. But to do so, we need one of two things: either Politico needs to point out that Martin is an opinion writer and not a news writer, or Martin, if he wants to write news, needs to actually do that instead of Republican hit-pieces.
Politico is new to the scene, and if it ever wants to be as good as Roll Call, it really needs to clean up its act.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Ted Stevens and John Dingell
"Politics is a fateful calling. The voters can end a political life in a few hours on any Tuesday. Promising public careers can be terminated abruptly. But like life itself, political life should be measured by its quality rather than its quantity."
-Senator Dick Durbin
Late last week we saw the end of the political careers of two congressional titans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (yes, I realize Dingell was not beaten for re-election, but he lost his very reason for being in office, his gavel). In an eerie coincidence, literally minutes after Dingell was ousted as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- a post he has held continuously for nearly 30 years -- Stevens came to the Senate floor to deliver his final speech. That both men met the low points of their long careers moments apart was a little strange, but perhaps very appropriate. For, despite the fact that one is a staunch Republican and the other a lifelong FDR Democrat, both men are examples of politicians who probably stayed around a little too long.
I have to be honest, while I think that what happened to both Stevens and Dingell was good for the country, I felt sorry for both men. Seeing the two old political warriors, men who not long ago were among the most powerful in the country completely stripped of their power and their dignity was striking and really, somewhat tragic. But both men could have avoided their fates if they had just relinquished their positions earlier and not been so stubborn.
Ted Stevens first came to the Senate in 1968, and before this year, he never faced a close re-election. He was the King of Alaska, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when his house was raided by the FBI at the age of 84, Stevens should have announced his retirement right then and there. He could have left on the right note, and had his legacy preserved. Perhaps his retirement would have even made him a less attractive target to the Justice Department. Alas, Stevens arrogantly plowed ahead with his re-elections plans. Even after he was indicted, he remained unbowed, and we all know how that ended: he was convicted on all charges, and last week, it was determined that he was ousted from his seat, albeit narrowly. Today, his career is over and prison time appears likely. This is a pathetic ending for such a distinguished and self-made public servant.
While John Dingell was not indicted or disgraced like Stevens, he too should have seen the writing on the wall. He had run the E and C committee for decades, sure, but he has had problems with Nancy Pelosi for some time, and was thus a marked man in politics of sorts. Furthermore, how did he not watch out for Henry Waxman as the California donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to fellow members and Democratic challengers across the country? After all, Dingell was there in 1978 when Waxman ousted another more senior member to take over a powerful panel. Simply put, Dingell did not watch his back and protect himself enough. He has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.
It may seem surprising that a political hack like me would feel sorry for two Old Bulls, one of whom -- Stevens -- is someone I have taken a lot of shots at in recent months. But my personal affection for either man (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. As a political follower, it is difficult for me not to feel some sympathy for men who could have ended their careers with much more grace and dignity. Unfortunately, the combined 93 years of service of both men will be greatly overshadowed now. The obituaries of both men will mention their recent downfalls in the first paragraph, and I think that's regrettable.
-Senator Dick Durbin
Late last week we saw the end of the political careers of two congressional titans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (yes, I realize Dingell was not beaten for re-election, but he lost his very reason for being in office, his gavel). In an eerie coincidence, literally minutes after Dingell was ousted as the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee -- a post he has held continuously for nearly 30 years -- Stevens came to the Senate floor to deliver his final speech. That both men met the low points of their long careers moments apart was a little strange, but perhaps very appropriate. For, despite the fact that one is a staunch Republican and the other a lifelong FDR Democrat, both men are examples of politicians who probably stayed around a little too long.
I have to be honest, while I think that what happened to both Stevens and Dingell was good for the country, I felt sorry for both men. Seeing the two old political warriors, men who not long ago were among the most powerful in the country completely stripped of their power and their dignity was striking and really, somewhat tragic. But both men could have avoided their fates if they had just relinquished their positions earlier and not been so stubborn.
Ted Stevens first came to the Senate in 1968, and before this year, he never faced a close re-election. He was the King of Alaska, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when his house was raided by the FBI at the age of 84, Stevens should have announced his retirement right then and there. He could have left on the right note, and had his legacy preserved. Perhaps his retirement would have even made him a less attractive target to the Justice Department. Alas, Stevens arrogantly plowed ahead with his re-elections plans. Even after he was indicted, he remained unbowed, and we all know how that ended: he was convicted on all charges, and last week, it was determined that he was ousted from his seat, albeit narrowly. Today, his career is over and prison time appears likely. This is a pathetic ending for such a distinguished and self-made public servant.
While John Dingell was not indicted or disgraced like Stevens, he too should have seen the writing on the wall. He had run the E and C committee for decades, sure, but he has had problems with Nancy Pelosi for some time, and was thus a marked man in politics of sorts. Furthermore, how did he not watch out for Henry Waxman as the California donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to fellow members and Democratic challengers across the country? After all, Dingell was there in 1978 when Waxman ousted another more senior member to take over a powerful panel. Simply put, Dingell did not watch his back and protect himself enough. He has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.
It may seem surprising that a political hack like me would feel sorry for two Old Bulls, one of whom -- Stevens -- is someone I have taken a lot of shots at in recent months. But my personal affection for either man (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. As a political follower, it is difficult for me not to feel some sympathy for men who could have ended their careers with much more grace and dignity. Unfortunately, the combined 93 years of service of both men will be greatly overshadowed now. The obituaries of both men will mention their recent downfalls in the first paragraph, and I think that's regrettable.
Norm Coleman's Bush-Like Recount Strategy
Nate Silver has a good post up on Minnesota Senate, where he notes that Senator Norm Coleman and his campaign are challenging more and votes as the recount moves along.
We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.
Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).
Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war...
Great info, but I disagree with Nate on one thing: Coleman is being very devious here, and is channeling Bush's campaign in 2000 in the process.
Norm Coleman has one goal right now: he wants to be ahead at the end of the recount. Sounds simple, yes, but it isn't. If Coleman is ahead at the end, but before thousands of challenged ballots are resolved and counted one way or the other, watch for the Senator to loudly declare himself the winner. This will accomplish two things. First, it will give Coleman legitimacy and allow him to solidify claims, whether fair or not, that he won the race. Second, it will allow Coleman and the GOP to demonize Franken for trying to get challenged ballots counted. Republicans will argue that such moves are Franken and the Democrats' way of trying to "steal" the election.
I have no doubt this is what Team Coleman is aiming for. They have to be ahead at the end of this process, regardless of whether many ballots are not including in those numbers. Heck, this is a guy who declared himself the winner on election night despite all of the uncertainties.
What should bother Democrats is that Team Franken seemingly has no strategy to counter Coleman's public relations moves. As Coleman's lawyers have been challenging votes left and right -- assuredly, 99%+ of which are Franken votes, if votes at all -- we've heard very little from Franken or the national Democratic Party.
After Florida 2000, you would think Dems have grown a spine, but you would be wrong. The Dems, after all of their successes, are still weak while Republicans are willing to say and do anything to win an election. This race is going to get very ugly, and watch for these events to transpire if Coleman has his slim lead intact before challenges are resolved.
We'll update these numbers "officially" with the Secretary of State's data dump at 8 PM, but based on intraday numbers compiled by the Star Tribune (as of 4:42 PM local time), Norm Coleman's rate of challenges continues to skyrocket while Al Franken's -- though much higher than it had been on the first couple days of the recount process -- has leveled off some.
Coleman's rate of challenges thus far today is approximately 23.4 for every 10,000 ballots cast. On Wednesday, the first day of the recount, Coleman's rate of challenges was 2.5 per 10,000 ballots. So for some reason, the Coleman campaign is finding reason to challenge more than nine times as many ballots as it did on Wednesday (and the Franken campaign, for its part, is finding reason to challenge about five times as many ballots).
Now, the Coleman campaign isn't being devious or anything like that; they're simply exploiting a flawed system and trying to win a spin war...
Great info, but I disagree with Nate on one thing: Coleman is being very devious here, and is channeling Bush's campaign in 2000 in the process.
Norm Coleman has one goal right now: he wants to be ahead at the end of the recount. Sounds simple, yes, but it isn't. If Coleman is ahead at the end, but before thousands of challenged ballots are resolved and counted one way or the other, watch for the Senator to loudly declare himself the winner. This will accomplish two things. First, it will give Coleman legitimacy and allow him to solidify claims, whether fair or not, that he won the race. Second, it will allow Coleman and the GOP to demonize Franken for trying to get challenged ballots counted. Republicans will argue that such moves are Franken and the Democrats' way of trying to "steal" the election.
I have no doubt this is what Team Coleman is aiming for. They have to be ahead at the end of this process, regardless of whether many ballots are not including in those numbers. Heck, this is a guy who declared himself the winner on election night despite all of the uncertainties.
What should bother Democrats is that Team Franken seemingly has no strategy to counter Coleman's public relations moves. As Coleman's lawyers have been challenging votes left and right -- assuredly, 99%+ of which are Franken votes, if votes at all -- we've heard very little from Franken or the national Democratic Party.
After Florida 2000, you would think Dems have grown a spine, but you would be wrong. The Dems, after all of their successes, are still weak while Republicans are willing to say and do anything to win an election. This race is going to get very ugly, and watch for these events to transpire if Coleman has his slim lead intact before challenges are resolved.
Keeping It Warm
In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Miner has announced that she will appoint to Joe Biden's soon-to-vacated Senate seat one Ted Kaufman, Sen. Biden's former Chief of Staff. Kaufman will hold the seat until a special election can be held in November 2010. At that time, there should be zero doubt that Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden will run and win the seat his father first took in 1972. Little Biden was unable to take the appointment now because he was recently deployed as a member of the National Guard.
This appointment has many similarities to what happened to JFK's Senate seat. In 1960, after Kennedy was elected to the presidency, it seemed natural that his younger brother Ted would get the seat. However, at that time Ted was not yet 30 years old, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to sit in the Upper Chamber. Consequently, the governor appointed a man named Benjamin Smith to the seat. Smith, who had been JFK's college roommate, was a Kennedy loyalist, and sure enough, in 1962 when a special election was held, Smith vacated the seat and Ted ran, winning the slot he sits in to this day.
While I've been expecting this to happen since the moment Biden took the veep spot on the Democratic ticket -- and really, even before then as I have always figured Joe's son would one day get this seat -- it is nonetheless disappointing. There may be nothing else in politics that angers me more than naked nepotism. Seats in the United States Senate should not be treated like family heirlooms, or even birthrights that can be bequeathed like a piece of property in a will. Yet, that is exactly what often happens.
Outgoing Lieutenant Governor John Carney, who lost very narrowly in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary to state Treasurer and now-incoming Governor Jack Markell, was seen as someone who could have gotten the nod. He is obviously close to Miner, and has wide support in the state. Still, that he was snubbed should not surprise him or anyone else. Beau's eventual ascension to this seat is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning. And that's a shame.
This is not change we can believe in.
This appointment has many similarities to what happened to JFK's Senate seat. In 1960, after Kennedy was elected to the presidency, it seemed natural that his younger brother Ted would get the seat. However, at that time Ted was not yet 30 years old, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to sit in the Upper Chamber. Consequently, the governor appointed a man named Benjamin Smith to the seat. Smith, who had been JFK's college roommate, was a Kennedy loyalist, and sure enough, in 1962 when a special election was held, Smith vacated the seat and Ted ran, winning the slot he sits in to this day.
While I've been expecting this to happen since the moment Biden took the veep spot on the Democratic ticket -- and really, even before then as I have always figured Joe's son would one day get this seat -- it is nonetheless disappointing. There may be nothing else in politics that angers me more than naked nepotism. Seats in the United States Senate should not be treated like family heirlooms, or even birthrights that can be bequeathed like a piece of property in a will. Yet, that is exactly what often happens.
Outgoing Lieutenant Governor John Carney, who lost very narrowly in this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary to state Treasurer and now-incoming Governor Jack Markell, was seen as someone who could have gotten the nod. He is obviously close to Miner, and has wide support in the state. Still, that he was snubbed should not surprise him or anyone else. Beau's eventual ascension to this seat is about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow morning. And that's a shame.
This is not change we can believe in.
Politico Malarkey
Can the Republican hacks at Politico wait for Barack Obama to actually name his cabinet before they declare that he has broken his promise to name Republicans to his inner circle? In an article that made me laugh, Politico declares the following:
As the top tier of his Cabinet begins to come into focus, however, it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will break new ground when it comes to fashioning a bipartisan government.
Instead, he appears to be taking a check-the-box approach that would differ little from the pattern set by predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Huh? Exactly how many names have officially been announced by Obama, fellas? Can you give the guy a little time? And besides, if you are reading the tea leaves, doesn't the fact that Robert Gates appears likely to stay on at Defense mean anything? Reminds of when Bill Clinton tapped Republican Bill Cohen as his own Defense Secretary.
Perhaps I am just foolish, but Secretary of Defense doesn't exactly seem like small potatos like Transportation or Veteran's Affairs. And remind me, but exactly how many Dems did Bush put in his cabinet in eight years? Hmm, let's see...exactly one: the aged, ineffective Norm Mineta in the Transportation post. Comparing Bush to Clinton or even Obama before he takes office is a joke.
Politico has a lot of good stuff, but in just its second year, its writers are pretty snarky, and please excuse me, they also often seem to possess GOP biases. Good job guys.
As the top tier of his Cabinet begins to come into focus, however, it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will break new ground when it comes to fashioning a bipartisan government.
Instead, he appears to be taking a check-the-box approach that would differ little from the pattern set by predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Huh? Exactly how many names have officially been announced by Obama, fellas? Can you give the guy a little time? And besides, if you are reading the tea leaves, doesn't the fact that Robert Gates appears likely to stay on at Defense mean anything? Reminds of when Bill Clinton tapped Republican Bill Cohen as his own Defense Secretary.
Perhaps I am just foolish, but Secretary of Defense doesn't exactly seem like small potatos like Transportation or Veteran's Affairs. And remind me, but exactly how many Dems did Bush put in his cabinet in eight years? Hmm, let's see...exactly one: the aged, ineffective Norm Mineta in the Transportation post. Comparing Bush to Clinton or even Obama before he takes office is a joke.
Politico has a lot of good stuff, but in just its second year, its writers are pretty snarky, and please excuse me, they also often seem to possess GOP biases. Good job guys.
It's Never Too Early
Bobby Jindal's headed to Iowa. I'm sure it is to go on a fact-finding mission for the benefit of Louisiana's sugar industry or something similar.
Yeah, right. It never ceases to amaze me how early politicians are thinking about the future. Jindal is certainly a conservative star to be reckoned with, and if the economy is in the toilet come 2011, his business-oriented background will make him very attractive. Still, I question if his extremist views might ultimately doom him.
This is a guy I am going to enjoy watching over the next few years.
Yeah, right. It never ceases to amaze me how early politicians are thinking about the future. Jindal is certainly a conservative star to be reckoned with, and if the economy is in the toilet come 2011, his business-oriented background will make him very attractive. Still, I question if his extremist views might ultimately doom him.
This is a guy I am going to enjoy watching over the next few years.
Must-Read of the Day
Is he right? Who the heck knows, but given Nate Silver's track record, I strongly suggest you read his most recent write-up on the Minnesota Senate race recount. Right or wrong, it is fascinating stuff as usual. We likely won't know the ultimate winner of this race for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
