Wednesday, January 30, 2008
I predict that next Tuesday John McCain will win over half of the delegates at stake and all but wrap up the nomination, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will split the remaining delegates about evenly with a slight edge to Huckabee. Romney will withdraw and Mike Huckabee may or may not continue, briefly, to compete in the southern states to follow.
With respect to my TTTT contest, I will not actually be competing but, for the sake of interest, here are my guesses for each category and, therefore, my broader predictions for next week:
EASY [order of national finishers in number of delegates]
Republicans: McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani
Democrats: Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel
MEDIUM [order of national finishers in percentage of of delegates]
Republicans: McCain 53%, Huckabee 24%, Romney 22%, Paul 1%, Thompson 0%, Giuliani 0%
Democrats: Clinton 53%, Obama 47%, Kucinich 0%, Edwards 0%, Gravel 0%
HARD [top three in each state] / REALLY, REALLY HARD [percentages of all candidates in each state]
I was very pleased that my predictions for Florida were essentially on the mark (a rare day for me!) but owing to the fact that Edwards and Giuliani (and Thompson and Kucinich) have all dropped out, I am going to extend the deadline for TTTT until Friday, February 1 at 5 p.m. This will allow folks to digest the final two pre-Tsunami debates as well as the changes in the dynamics of the race.
Please make sure to get your entries in by e-mail or by commenting including your email address, choice of difficulty level and predictions by that time.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Check out all of the details right here. The deadline is noon tomorrow (January 30).
My final prediction:
In terms of the South Carolina race over the weekend, it seems to me that I had the essence of it right in predicting a clear win for Obama. I was correct to predict a lot of strength for Edwards, however, I underestimated his weaknesses. Indeed, the exit polls reveal that Edwards won non-Black voters over the age of 29 by a margin of 41 to Clinton's 38 with Obama trailing with only 20. Among the full age spectrum of non-Blacks, Edwards still won with 39-37-24. I had routed my prediction in the assumption that Edwards would take 40% of the non-Black vote so I had that right. The shocking figure was the Edwards received only 3% of the Black vote which is what pulled his numbers way down. Talk about a racial divide!
UPDATE: I read a very interesting factoid which could change everything in terms of how things turn out tonight. Apparently, about a third of Florida Republicans have already voted by means of absentee ballots or advanced polls. Until a few weeks ago McCain had zero (paid) organization in Florida. Thirty-plus percent of voters don't vote early on their own; those numbers were driven by organization. I think it would be fair to imagine that the results of the advanced voting could be, roughly, 35 Giuliani, 35 Romney, 15 Thompson (who had a strong organization in the state) and about 5 each for McCain and Huckabee. I am not going to cop out in the middle of the day and attempt to revise a prediction, but, assuming my numbers above (in my original prediction) are correct of the two-thirds of people voting today and that my rough estimate of advanced voters is also correct, today's results would actually be as follows:
Very interesting. If the results do turn out to be about as above, it will just go to show how important organization can be in politics. Today, a plurality of voters may well prefer McCain but, because a few weeks ago that was not true and some folks did some good organizing to get the vote out then, he could place third.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Two days is a long time in politics.
Since then, though Thompson has dropped out, Huckabee has decided to all but take a pass on Florida. I think that that is a fatal mistake. As I mentioned in my post Monday, a whomping 58% of Florida Republican primary voters are conservatives. In Iowa and South Carolina, this group of voters almost wholly voted for Huckabee and Thompson.
Huckabee's campaign, however, doesn't have a lot of cash so they are going to try to skip Florida (more or less) due to its expensive media market and focus on smaller conservative states on February 5. Unfortunately for Huckabee, that doesn't work. It is the Giuliani strategy (skip hard states to focus on easier ones later) and it has proved to be fatal. Giuliani has 1 delegate to 6 for Ron Paul and is running second or third in all "must win" Florida polls.
So, I am revising my prediction to this (still non-final) view of the Florida Republican race:
As the Demcorats are not campaigning in Florida and no delegates will be awarded, I am not going to bother to guess at that one.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Indeed if you look at the entrace polls from Iowa, Richardson walked in with 7% of the vote and Biden with about 5%. However, as I explained, 14% in any precinct is worth 0% of the county delegates which is what is reported as analogous to "popular vote". Exit (or in this case entrance) polls are not an exact measure of real support by certainly these gentleman likely received closer to 7% and 5% of popular vote as opposed to the 2% and 1% of county delegates they registered.
In Nevada, though he only got 4% of county delegates, the entrance polls show he actually had popular support of 8%. Either way though, that is pretty low. Mea culpa.
Moving on to South Carolina, some interesting things to consider:
- Hillary Clinton is essentially abandoning the state to focus on February 5. Bill Clinton will state in the state to focus on the Black vote.
- Barack Obama won an amazing 83% of Black voters in Nevada, Bill's efforts will chink away at that but I expect Obama will still rack up massive numbers in that demographic.
- Bill Schneider, who in my view is the smartest pundit in U.S. politics, says Edwards won the South Carolina/Congression Black Caucus debate last night.
- Edwards won 52% of the white vote in the 2004 S.C. primary. Obama and Bill Clinton are focussing on the opposite demographic, leaving Edwards lots of room to focus on his base.
This could be somewhat hopeful thinking because it would make February 5 soooo interesting.
Monday, January 21, 2008
For those that didn't notice this when it was announced, it is a contest to guess the winners on the big U.S. primary day of February 5th.
The Nevada numbers are largely meaningless due to the blow out by Romney there. In South Carolina though, the exit polls tell an interesting story and paint us an interesting picture as we move on to Florida in the GOP race.
I predicted a margin of 37% for McCain (he won 33%), because I thought we would dominate among veterans and that there number would be, at least, as high as in the 2000 primary. However, veterans made up only 25% of the electorate (compared to 27% in 2000) and McCain got only 36% of the vote from them (compared with 48% in 2000, though it was only a two-way race then). His margin among veterans over Huckabee was only 36-29, a +4 improvement over his general score, a far cry from the +18 he had over Romney among veterans in Michigan.
Moreover, as in New Hampshire and Michigan, McCain's strength came from indpendents. Among registered Republicans, Huckabee won 32% to 31%. Among Indpendents, McCain won 42% to 25%. In Florida, the primary is closed and only Republicans will be allowed to vote.
My prelimary prediction therefore is that Huckabee will win the Florida primary. Why? Because there, unlike in other states, no only with McCain not be able to count on the support of independents, he will also have to compete with Giuliani for moderate Republicans.
Looking back to the Florida primary exit poll from 2000, we find that 58% of voters considered themselves either "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative". Among that group in South Carolina, McCain lost 35% to 26%. Moreover, Thompson is likely to drop out and (even though he may endorse McCain) his supporters are conservatives which will most likely go to Huckabee. Indeed, among the "very conservative" metric, Thompson placed second, ahead of both McCain and Romney.
In Florida, McCain will not only be battling Giuliani for moderates. Despite positioning himself as a "conservative" in contrast to his moderate-to-liberal record, Mitt Romney has done best among moderates in the previous contests.
If we assume that voting patterns by ideology hold up and that 60% of Thompson supporters go to Huckabee, 25% to McCain, 10% to Romney and 5% to Giuliani and assume that the ideological make up of the Florida primary will be the same as 2000, Huckabee would get 27% of the total vote in Florida will out gettting one vote from a moderate.
In 2000, Flordia Republicans broke down this way:
Very Liberal (VL) 2
Somewhat Liberal (SL) 6
Moderate (M) 34
Somewhat Conservative (SC) 38
Very Conservative (VC) 20
So Huckabee has essentially 58% of the voters to himself (more or less) while McCain, Giuliani and Romney will have to fight for the remaining 42% of voters.
This does not look promsing for anyone but Huckabee, especially if Thompson withdraws from the race.
Assuming Thompson is out, and omitting Paul, here is how I would paint Florida (subject to change):
Huckabee 33 (0VL + 0SL + 3M + 18SC + 12VC)
McCain 33 (0VL + 1SL + 15M + 12SC + 5VC)
Giuliani 18 (2VL + 5SL + 10M + 1SC + 0VC)
Romney 16 (0VL + 0SL + 6M + 7SC + 3VC)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Have fun watching day!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination and, if it is not him by some fluke, it will be Edwards, not Clinton.
John McCain will win the Republican nomination.
Why? History told us so.
Since the advent of conventions driven by primaries in 1972, there has been a common thread in non-incumbent elections; one for each party.
The Republicans have an establishment-backed frontrunner well in advance, he falters, then comes back and wins. The Demcorats have an establishment-backed frontrunner well in advance and, with the exception of Mondale, he or she falters and loses the nomination.
Let's take a walk back through memory lane of the contested nominations since 1972.
Republicans: Ford (1976 won, though many thought Reagan would over take him); Reagan (1980 won, but after Bush won the Iowa caucus it was over, besides, he was too old to win); Bush (1988 won, but after winning Iowa in 1980, he was thought to be toast for coming third there in 1988); Dole (1996 won, but after winning Iowa in 1988, he was thought to be toast there for coming third in 1996, plus he was too old to win); Bush (2000 won, but after losing New Hampshire by nearly 20 points, there was no hope to recover); McCain (2008 ?, but after blowing all of his money early and losing his staff, he was a done cause, plus he was too old to win)
Democrats: Muskie (1972 lost, to McGovern the left-winger); Jackson (1976 lost, to the unknown populist Carter); Mondale (1984 won, but almost was swept under by Hart); Hart (1988 lost, dropped out before the race even began which was won by Dukakis); Tsongas (1992 lost, Clinton came second in New Hampshire after slipping from second to eleventh in national polls and stole the momentum); Dean (2004 lost, after raising the most money and getting the endorsements of 2000 contenders Gore and Bradley and leading in all national polls by 20+ points over Wesley Clark with all others in single digits, lost Iowa to Kerry and the rest was history); Clinton (2008 ?, came third in Iowa and barely won New Hampshire, if she loses Nevada she almost certainly loses South Carolina putting her 1-3 on Tsunami Tuesday...)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Well Nevada is an interesting creature. They had their first ever caucus in 2004. Only the Democrats had a contest and they modelled their system after that of Iowa with viability thresholds and non-reportage of popular vote totals. In 2004, the caucus was relatively early but it was swamped by John M. Kerry (immediately after the Iowa caucus, Kerry briefly changed his middle name from "Forbes" to "Momentum"), who took 67% of the vote and 90% of the delegates. The are no figures for turnout, but estimates put it at 9000 people. There were about 366,700 registered Democrats, so that puts the turn out at 2% of eligible voters.
Unlike the Iowa caucus, where one must be a registered Democrat but can change their registration at the caucus site, in Nevada the only people who can registered on site are unregistered voters, changing the registration, unless done weeks in advance, is not an option.
The moral of the story? Polls are largely meaningless. Who will participate? No one knows. Only registered Democrats can participate, but 98% of them of never participated in a presidential preference caucus before and will be totally unfamiliar with the concept of, rather than taking five minutes to go in a booth and vote, taking an hour or two and go into a room in a local school or fire hall and stand with a group of people they may or may not know supporting their candidate while getting the evil eye from people they may or may not know supporting another candidate.
Obama and Clinton have been campaigning the hardest here, while Edwards has focussed on South Carolina. However, Edwards has now returned to the state and is doing a non-stop push until Saturday. Polls, which are meaningless, show a three-way race.
Each candidate has pros:
- Obama has been endorsed by the important Culinary Workers Union which represents most of the workers on the Las Vegas strip and whose members have the unique right of being able to caucus outside of their home precincts due to special caucus sites being set up at nine casinos on the strip. The importance of this union cannot be overrated. First, they will have the majority of their members at work and able to caucus at work. Second, in August, when their endorsement was expected to be for either Clinton or Edwards and Obama wasn't thought to be in the running, his campaign said: "Whoever gets the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, more than likely, is going to win Nevada."
- Clinton may have lost her lead among Blacks, but her lead among Hispanics remains very strong. Nevada is over 22% Hispanic. Bill Clinton carried this state twice, despite the fact that it regularly went Republican both before and after.
- Edwards surprised a lot of people by surging in the polls that have been done out here since Iowa vs. his pre-Iowa numbers. I think I have the explanation. No one in Nevada really knows how to work a caucus and be successful because they've never done it before. That is no one, except for John Edwards' campaign team. Back in August, Edwards moved a number of his Nevada staff to Iowa, now, these folks familiar with Nevada, have just been on the frontlines in Iowa and have returned to Nevada with lessons learned. This may explain his uptick in polls and may give him a secret weapon on caucus day.
And that was just the confusion surrounding the Democratic caucus! The Republican caucus is both more and less confusing. More confusing in that, though the Democrats have only done this once before and only 2% of their voters particpated, the Republicans have never done it. Less confusing in that the Republican contest in South Carolina is the same day and the Republicans are focussing 99.9% of their efforts there.
That said, Mitt Romney has, like in Wyoming but to a lesser extent, put more resources in here than the other candidates. Moreover, his fellow Mormons make up 12% of voters here and that will likely be a boost to him. He was also endorsed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the largest paper in the state, this morning. Therefore it is hard to imagine him not taking a win. For Mike Huckabee, this could be the first state where he doesn't place third or better; I can't imagine that his strong religious creds and opposition to gambling would play well in and around Sin City. Moreover, unlike Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, he hasn't campaigned here.
As I mentioned in my Democratic analysis, I don't think the polls are very helpful and, indeed, while the two new polls on the Democratic side do at least agree with each other, on the Republican side they are totally inconsistent.
One poll has McCain up by 4 over Giuliani with Romney in fourth, while the other has Romney in the lead up by 7 over McCain! The variations are insane: Romney (28 vs 15), McCain (21 vs 22), Giuliani (11 vs 18), Huckabee (8 vs 16), Thompson (13 vs 11), Paul (9 vs 6).
These polls were both conducted after New Hampshire but before Michigan so, one might assume, they overstate McCain's strength and understate Romney's. One might also assume that McCain and Thompson have more consistent support because they didn't fluctuate much between polls. One might assume.
So, I am going to go way out on a limb here and predict the following:
Notice the cop out with three way tie for third!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
I doubt I will be even close to being a contender, but if you like the blog, take a second to go vote so I am not totally embarrased!
Here is the exit poll from the 2004 Democratic primary.
Here is the exit poll from the 2000 Republican primary.
As I wrote the other day, I think it is premature to write John Edwards off. After looking at the exit poll from 2004, I think that that is moreso the case.
In 2004, Edwards won the primary by 45% to 30%. I had assumed that his lead was fairly consistent among both White and Black voters and that he would take a big hit as virtually 100% of the Black vote seems destined to split between Obama and Clinton. However, that's not the case. Though he won the state by 15% in 2004, he actually won among Whites by 25% and among Blacks by only 3%. Indeed, he lost among Black men (Kerry won by 4%) while doing alright among Black women (he won by 9%). The primary was 51% White and 47% Black.
If Edwards lost every single Black vote he won in 2004, but held the White vote, he would still get 23%. In the meantime, Edwards has been in South Carolina virtually full time since the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8 and will continue to focus there until the S.C. Democratic primary on Jan. 26. Polls suggest, despite his being largely absent from the action there, that he will do well in Nevada. It is possible he could pull off a second place finish there which would give him some much needed momentum. It is far too early to make a Democratic prediction in South Carolina in this dynamic race, but it is easy to see a scenario where the votes are split three ways and any of the big three could sneak up the middle.
Now, on to the Republican race which is THIS SATURDAY, Jan. 19.
There was no measure of how many veterans participated in Iowa, but McCain, despite finishing fourth overall, placed a strong second among those who thought Iraq was the most important issue (8% behind the winner, a +13 improvement) and essentially a three-way tie for first on terrorism (4% behind the winner and 2% behind the runner-up, a +17 and +10 improvement respectively), his relative standings in general: 21% behind the winner, 12% behind second. All issue categories were carried by overall winner, Huckabee. (CNN Entrance Poll)
Like in Iowa, there was no veterans measure in NH, but McCain placed stronger in the Iraq (won by 18%, +13 improvement over his general margin) and terrorism (won by 16%, +11 improvement) issue measures again. (CNN Exit Poll)
In Michigan, McCain won among veterans by 9% despite losing the primary by 9% (a +18 improvement). Again, looking at the issues, he won Iraq by 10% and tied on terrorism: a +19 and +9 improvement respectively. (CNN Exit Poll)
As we head to South Carolina, both Huckabee and Romney suffer big deficits on the major issues that play in that state. Back in 2000, when McCain's campaign was neutered by a loss in the primary there, Bush beat McCain by 11%. However, McCain won among veterans by 1% (a +12 improvement) after suffering massive personal attacks that he is not seeing this time around. Veterans made up 27% of voters in the 2000 primary. (Exit Poll from 2000)
The most recent polls show McCain and Huckabee duking it out for first place and Romney and Thompson duking it out for third place. There has been some movement to Thompson in recent polls, at Huckabee's expense while Romney, despite his loses in Iowa and New Hampsire and his going off of the air in South Carolina, has held relatively steady.
The current poll average has McCain 26, Huckabee 23, Romney 15, Thompson 11. Romney will get some boost out of his Michigan win and return to the airwaves here. It will come largely from Huckabee; however I think Huckabee will make up that loss as I think Thompson will fade in his favour. Despite having the state all to himself since Iowa, Thompson's standing in the most recent Rasmusen tracking poll is 16%, up only four points from their poll before the Iowa caucus. On momentum, over the same period, McCain is up 16 and will now be putting in a final massive campaign push over the next four days. In 2000, the whole of the South Carolina establishment was against him, today, McCain houses the vast majority of elected Republicans in his campaign. In New Hampshire and Michigan, McCain did not enjoy nearly as much establishment support as he will in South Carolina.
I predict a fairly substantial McCain win in South Carolina, with a respectable third place for Romney. Thompson will be very embarrassed and drop out.
*this may sound high, but it assumes a 55% support from veterans and a 30% support from non-veterans based on their turnout in 2000, which I think may actually be a low ball
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
It looks now like a battle royale between Huckabee and McCain in South Carolina and a likely Romney win in Nevada going into Florida.
But again, as I've stressed over and over, I think the big story is just how far Giuliani has fallen. It is incredible how much support he has left on the table.
In Iowa he always ran in the low teens and ended up with 4%. In New Hampshire he often ran near 20 and got around 10. In Michigan, he often led polls and what is happening right now? He is fighting for sixth place with UNCOMMITTED. In fact the closest race tonight is between Giuliani and uncommitted. Unbeliveable I think.
If Giuliani gets essentially single digits in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Nevada and never does better than fourth and regularly does worse than Ron Paul will it be possible for him to be taken seriously?
I can understand skipping Iowa, though he never formally skipped it. But he could have easily held third in NH and he could have fought in Michigan for a strong third or possible second. And he could have won Nevada. I think that this was a ludicrously weak strategy.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Romney's campaign rested wholly on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which he lost, albeit by narrow margins. Tomorrow, in the state he was born and raised, he has his last, best chance to save his campaign.
John McCain is now leading in almost all national polls after nearly tying for third in Iowa despite not putting in a real effort there and winning New Hampshire. If McCain wins in Michigan tomorrow (where he also won in 2000), he would be a likely winner in South Carolina (where he runs a close second in most polls) and an almost sure win in Florida (where he already leads the polls). If he managed to win New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida back-to-back (far from a sure thing), the race would be all over but the crying.
Mike Huckabee's campaign, despite a really, really impressive third place win in New Hampshire, has been deemed by the media to be one that can only win in the Religious South. Michigan has been deemed a two-man race between Romney and McCain. If Huckabee were to win here, it would give him more momentum than any candidate has ever carried out of a state ever anywhere and he would sweep South Carolina putting him on strong footing in Florida.
I honestly believe that the race could go any of those ways. However, here is my prediction:
McCain will win thanks to the support of independents and also Democrats who will largely be disinterested in their uncontested contest. That may give him something of a hollow victory allowing Huckabee to carry the day in South Carolina but it will still put the nail into Romney's coffin.
On the Democratic side the following options will be on the ballot: Hillary Clinton, the withdrawn Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and "uncommitted". It is expected to be a race between Clinton and "uncommitted" with supporters of Obama and Edwards encouraging folks to vote for the latter and the state party pushing it as an option to keep turnout up. It should go to Clinton quite easily. My prediction would be:
There will be several levels of entry in this contest:
- easy: Predict which order (1st, 2nd, etc) the candidates will finish, in terms of total number of delegates won on Feb 5, for each party. For each correct candidate you get 5 points and a bonus of 50 points for a correct party set. Maximum number of points would be 155, minimum 0.
- medium: Predict the percentage of delegates won (+/- 5%), for each candidate in each party. For each correct candidate you get 10 points and a bonus of 200 points for a correct party set. Maximum number of points would be 510, minimum 0.
- hard: Predict the top three candidates for each party in each state. For every correct first place finish, you get 50 points, for each incorrect first place finish, you lose 20. For each correct second place finish, you get 30 points, for each incorrect second place finish you lose 10. For each correct third place finish, you get 20 points, for each incorrect third place finish, you lose 5. Maximum number of points would be 4300, minimum -1505.
- really, really hard: Predict the percentage of popular vote won (+/- 5%), for each candidate, in each party, in each state. For each correct candidate you get 50 points, for each incorrect candidate you lose 30 points. Maximum number of points would be 11800, minimum -7080
THERE WILL BE ONE WINNER, it is up to contestants to determine their level of risk and enter one of the four contests, however only one winner will be declared based on the total number of points. The winner will be entitled to a link* at the top right of this website for at least one year. And bragging rights! (*within reason; I will not link to illegal, explicit or questionable sites)
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONTEST there are 11 candidates, 5 Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama) and 6 Republicans (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson). Any other candidates whose names appear on primary or caucus ballots of states will be ignored. Should any of these candidates drop out, their names will almost certainly remain on ballots and will still be considered for the contest.
TO ENTER THE CONTEST post a comment to this thread or send an email. Entries by anonymous posting cannot be accepted as it will be impossible to determine authentically who the winner is. To enter by commenting, please use a blogger account or include your email address. If you wish to remain anonymous, you may do so by e-mailing me and I will guard your anonymity. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here is the run down of states that are voting and what is at stake on a state-by-state basis:
Alabama primariesTOTAL DELEGATES AT STAKE:
- Democrats: 60 delegates, of which 52 will be elected that day, are chosen by proportial representation; Primary open to all voters
- Republicans: 48 delegates, of which 45 will be elected that day, chosen on a quasi-winner-take-all basis (winner-take-all if the winner gets more than 50% of the vote, if not the winner and other candidates with 20+% split the delegates); Primary open to all voters
- Democrats: 18 delegates, of which 13 will be chosen that day, are chosen in a similar fashion to Iowa with a 15% viability threshold; Only registered Democrats can particpate but you can change your registration at the voting site
- Republicans: 29 delegats, of which 26 will be chosen that day, awarded by proportional reperesentation; Only registered Republicans can particpate but you can change your registration at the voting site
- Democrats: 67 delegates, of which 56 will be chosen that day; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 53 delegates, of which 50 will be chosen that day, winner-take-all by district (24) and state wide (26); Only registered Republicans can vote
- Democrats: 47 delegates, 35 of which will be chosen that day, awarded by proportional representation to candidates receiving greater than 15%; Primary open to all voters
- Republicans: 34 delegates, 31 of which will be chosen that day, distict delegates (12) awarded by winner-take-all, the balance of delegates (19) awarded by giving one delegate to each candidate receiving 10% or better and the balance to the winner; Primary open to all voters
- Democrats: 441 delegates, 370 of which will be chosen that day, awarded by proportional representation to candidates receiving greater than 15%; Registered Democrats and those registered as "decline to state" can participate
- Republicans: 173 delegates, 170 of which will be chosen that day, winner-take-all by district (159) and state wide (11); Only registered Republicans can vote
- Democrats: 71 delegates, 55 of which will be chosen that day, awarded by proportional representation; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 46 delegates, 43 of which will be chosen that day, delegates are not bound but a presidential preference poll will be held (similar to Iowa and Maine); Only registered Republicans can vote
- Democrats: 60 delegates, 48 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 30 delegates, 27 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all; Only registered Republicans can vote
- Democrats: 23 delegates, 10 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 18 delegates, 15 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all; Only registered Republicans can vote
- Democrats: 103 delegates, 87 of which will be chosen that day, awarded proportionally to those getting more than 15%; Primary open to all voters
- Republicans: 72 delegates, 69 of which will be chosen that day, winner-take-all by district (39) and state wide (30); Primary open to all voters
- Demcorats: 23 delegates, 18 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all; Caucus open to all voters
- Republicans do not vote until May 27
- Democrats: 185 delegates, 100 of which will be chosen that day, winner take all by district, state-wide delegates chosen by proportional representation; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 70 delegates, 67 of which will be chose that day, winner take all; Primary open to all voters
- Democrats: 40 delegates, none of which will be chosen that day as this is a first step to larger processes similar to Iowa, for all intentes and purposes however this will set the dominoes in motion to chose 32 delegates, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; Only registered Democrats can participate
- Republicans vote on February 9
- Democrats: 121 delegates, of which 81 will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; Only registered Democrats can participate
- Republicans: 40 delegates, of which 37 will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; Only registered Republicans can participate
- Democrats: 88 delegates, of which 72 will be chosen that day; all registered voters can participate
- Republicans: 41 delegates, 38 of which will be chosen that day, delegates are not bound but a presidential preference poll will be held (similar to Iowa and Maine);
- Democrats: 88 delegates, of which 72 will be chosen that day; all registered voters can participate
- Republicans: 58 delegates, of which 55 will be chosen that day, winner-take-all by district (27) and state wide (28); all registered voters can participate
- Democrats vote on June 3.
- Republicans: 25 delegates, of which 22 will be chosen that day, winner-take-all; caucus is closed to all but Republican party office holders
New Jersey primaries
- Democrats: 127 delegates, of which 93 will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; Only registered Democrats can participate
- Republicans: 52 delegates, of which 49 will be chosen that day, winner-take-all; Only registered Republicans can participate
New Mexico caucus
- Democrats: Technically a caucus (because the election is overseen by the party and not the state), the media has deemed it a primary because absentee and advanced voting are permitted. 38 delegates, 26 of which will be chosen that day; Only registered Democrats can particpate
- Republicans vote on June 3.
New York primaries
- Democrats: 280 delegates, of which 232 will be chosen that day; Only registered Democrats can vote
- Republicans: 101 delegates, 98 of which will be chosen that day, winner-take-all; Only registered Republicans can vote
North Dakota primaries
- Democrats: 21 delegates, 17 of which will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15% unless one candidate gets 66% in which case it becomes winner-take-all; All registered voters can participate
- Republicans: 26 delegates, all of which will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15% unless one candidate gets 66% in which case it becomes winner-take-all; All registered voters can participate
- Democrats: 47 delegates, 38 of which will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; Only registered Democrats can participate
- Republicans: 41 delegates, 38 of which will be chosen that day, winner-take-all by district (15) and state wide (23); Only registered Republicans can particpate
- Democrats: 85 delegates, of which 68 will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15%; All registered voters can participate
- Republicans: 55 delegates, of which 52 will be chosen that day, proportional representation for those getting at least 15% unless one candidate gets 66% in which case it becomes winner-take-all; All registered voters can participate
- Democrats: 29 delegates, 23 of which will be chosen that day; Registerd Democrats and independents can particpate
- Republicans: 36 delegates, 33 of which will be chosen that day, winner-take-all; Only registered Republicans can participate
West Virginia convention
- Democrats vote on May 13.
- Republicans: 30 delegates, 18 of which will be chosen that day at a central convention that all registered Republicans can attend, 9 additional delegates will be chosen at the May 13 primary, winner-take-all
Sources: CQ Politics Primary Guide, New Mexico Democratic Party, electionprojection.com
- Democrats: 1598
- Republicans: 1009
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I've thought before and figured it was worth writing down that my prediction is that, should Obama win the Democratic nomination, Daschle would be his running mate.
Certainly, a lot has been made of Mitt Romney's losses in Iowa and New Hampshire after out-working and out-spending his competitors. However, it is worse than that. Despite starting earlier than most rivals and spending WAY more than them, Romney has never held a lead in national polls and has rarely placed second - he's often, even when his campaign was running without several stumbles, run 4th or 5th. His whole campaign was founded, very publicly, on the notion that he would win BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire and that that would give him the momentum to over take the four rivals which most Americans prefer to him. Now he hasn't even won one of the two "must wins". Worst yet, of the many Massachusettes politicians who have sought the presidency Romney becomes the first of either party to lose the New Hampshire primary when not running against an incumbent president.
JFK won it in 1960, Cabot Lodge won it in 1964, Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992 and Kerry in 2004. New Hampshirites are like New Brunswickers watching ATV News from Halifax - they hear more about Boston politics than their own. For a guy who was governor of Mass until Jan 2007 to lose the New Hampshire primary is totally unprecedented and ought to be reported.
I've already made reference to Giuliani in my post-mortems on Iowa and New Hampsire but it is worth underlining.
Giuliani has been given a free ride because he was never expected to win the early states but there is a difference between "not winning" and "being totally obliterated".
In virtually every poll of Iowa until the second week of December. Giuliani polled in the double digits and in third place or better. Three weeks later he placed sixth with 4% of the vote, Ron Paul having beaten him by a two-to-one margin.
In New Hampshire he invested heavily both in terms of time and money and was, again until mid-December, doing well in polls. Even better than in Iowa. He got second or third in all polls and was in the high teens. A few weeks later, he barely eked out fourth place beating Ron Paul 9% to 8%.
Now the campaign moves on to Michigan, where Giuliani until recently often led polls. Now he has abandoned the state as hopeless and would be lucky to get 4th. In Nevada, the story is similar. In South Carolina, he used to be competitive and will now, almost certainly, get 5th at best.
Giuliani always had a focus on later states and was never expected to compete for the win in the early ones. BUT he was also not expected to be competing with Ron Paul for last place. To this, more attention ought to be paid.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
So I just finished writing up a post about how Edwards shouldn't be written off yet and then I did my semi-regular read of NB bloggers. Over on Eugene's site, I noticed the ABC Match-O-Matic to indentify one's presidential preference.
It turns out I'm an Edwards guy. Who knew? I was for Biden and now I am confused. If I were a New Hampshire-ite, I would have voted for McCain but mainly because I am now indifferent about who gets the Democratic nomination, think McCain would probably be the best of the Republicans and I would have really wanted to make sure Romney lost.
Anywho, I am for Edwards (who I like at times) first, Clinton (who I think I am leaning to now) second and Richardson (who I can't stand) third.
But, as Wolf would say, "take a look at this":
2004: Edwards finishes second in the Iowa caucuses, moves on to New Hampshire and finishes fourth with 12% of the vote. He goes on to win South Carolina and tie Oklahoma and wins no other primaries but is deemed the second most successful candidate for the year.
2008: Edwards finishes second in the Iowa caucuses and moves on to New Hampshire and finishes third with 17% of the vote.
Edwards is doing better so far in 2008 than he did in 2004. It is very premature to write him off. Though Edwards certainly faces challenges, a Clinton rebound in South Carolina following her New Hampshire win could transform that into a three-way race and Edwards would only need 33% to win (in 2004, he carried it with 45%). Clinton and Obama are fighting out in Nevada until the Jan. 19 caucus before focussing their efforts on South Carolina which votes Jan. 26. Edwards will be there full time for an extra 10 days. It is not hard to imagine Edwards pulling out a win if it is a three way contest. Then what happens? Going into Tsunami Tuesday it would be Clinton and Obama with 2 and 1 wins or 1 and 2 wins respectively and Edwards with 1 win. How is that not a three-way race? And, unlike in 2004, when Edwards petered out because there was a clear frontrunner for voters to rally behind, if Clinton and Obama are fighting it out nationally on Feb. 5, Edwards could focus on industrial states and Southern states with smaller Black populations and probably carry as many as the big two. Then the nomination could go any of three ways as the later primaries are sorted out.
The media should have learned in Iowa and New Hampshire not to get ahead of themselves. Edwards is certainly running third, but he is still in the running.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Because I like to predict things and I hate being wrong (as I always am), I've agreed in the hopes that I can temper my disappointment by being less wrong than some of you!
Watch for the Tsunami Tuesday Test to be posted in the next few days. If you have ideas for format and prizes, please let me know either in the comments or by e-mailing me at email@example.com.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Clinton may not hold on to her lead but she will do much better than I predicted and win or lose will rightfully be able to call herself the "comeback kid" as her husband famously did in 1992 when he finished a surprisingly strong second.
A revitalized Clinton campaign, especially if she can win Nevada, will make for an interesting split in South Carolina that could potentially allow Edwards to win in a three-way contest there.
Edwards will be "disappointed" with his 17% according to CNN but it is actually an impressive showing. Unlike in Iowa, NH has always been considered a Clinton-Obama race with Edwards a non-player. In 2004, riding far more hype coming out of Iowa than this year, Edwards placed fourth with 11% and went on to with in South Carolina. A second place finish in Iowa, followed by a 50% improvement over his 2004 showing in New Hampshire may not be enough to set Edwards up to win, but it certainly is the best he could have realistically hoped for.
On the Republican side, again I am amazed by the poor showing of Giuliani. He was never expected to win New Hampshire, but for a long time he was considered a realistic contender for second. Like in Iowa, until a month ago, Giuliani was never lower than 3rd in polls. He finished Iowa in a distance 6th and tonight he is in the fight of his life for 4th with Ron Paul and will likely place 5th after college towns come in later in the evening.
In Michigan, he may, if he's lucky, get 3rd but will almost certainly get 4th or less in South Carolina and a win in Florida for him, to me, now sounds like a joke. After all this, I don't see how he recovers for Feb 5 espeically with McCain in the race who will do well in California and other moderate states.
Clinton's impressive comeback tonight - even if she ends up behind by a few points - is exactly what she needed to recover and more than I and most expected. Watch for her to win Nevada and all but tie in South Carolina as a result.
On Friday, I posted my post-Iowa predictions for New Hampshire. At the time, people were fairly skeptical of my prediction that Obama would score a double digit win tonight but, if polls are to be believed, he will do just that. On the Republican side, it doesn't appear that McCain will beat Romney by as large of a margin as I imagined, but I am not sure if polls have quite picked up the fallout from Romney's poor performance in the widely watched ABC/WMUR debate on Saturday night.
I stand by my predictions. Have fun tonight!
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Hunter (!?) 1
I doubt this will get much coverage or give Romney much of a boost but it is interesting that Huckabee seems to have gotten no boost there from his Iowa win.
Friday, January 04, 2008
However, it could be an interesting storyline. Romney did invest some time there so, will it pay off? If he wins there can he use that to stop some of the hemmoraging from Iowa? If Huckabee wins there after, I'm assuming, not having even campaigned there for a day, is that a harbinger of things to come?
Or is, as the press seems to have assumed, Wyoming irrelevant?
Twenty-four days ago, I made my New Hampshire predictions with the caveat that they were routed in my Iowa predictions being accurate. Now I will give you a bit of a post-mortem on my thoughts on Iowa and then revisit predictions for New Hampshire.
Today, as I predicted, the fifth and sixth place finishers in Iowa have dropped out, however I didn't have the fifth one predicted correctly. Despite my high hopes, Joe Biden failed to get traction and won about 1% of the delegates to county conventions. I think he, and the other lower-tier candidates, were swamped by the massive turnout. In 2004, turnout for the Democrats was a record 140,000. Last night that record was obliterated with 240,000. This made reaching the 15% viability threshold much more difficult. As I explained yesterday, if you get 14% in a caucus, you actually get 0 while if you get 15%, you get 15%. Assuming uniform increases in turnout, if you pulled 15 people to a 2004 meeting with 100 attendees, you would have been viable. In 2008, that same meeting would have swollen to 170 attendees and 26 supporters would have been required to be viable. I wonder in how many cases Biden and others missed viability by just a hair due to higher turnouts?
Anyway, on to the big fish. Barack Obama surprised the hell out of me with a big win. Kudos to his team who have huge bragging rights today. On the Republican side, Huckabee had faith in the faithful and that paid for him in spades, the Republican race also set new records for turnout, largely driven by high numbers of evangelical Christians. Romney's loss by a large margin there spells big trouble for his campaign in my view.
Giuliani's numbers need to be given attention. He campaigned in Iowa with about the same effort as John McCain, one might argue even a bit harder than McCain, yet McCain beat him there by a margin of four-to-one. If you look at a chart of poll averages all year, Giuliani was always in third or better until mid-December yet on January third he finished a distant sixth.
On to New Hampshire
On the Republican side, my prediction changes, but only by small shifts. McCain will still win by a large margin. However, I now believe that Huckabee, tied for third in most polls here already, will surge to a virtual tie for second by edging Romney out slightly in the high teens. Giuliani's disasterous showing in Iowa will make it a tough fight for him for fourth with Paul. As I predicted earlier, I imagine Hunter will drop out or at least be totally irrelevant. Thompson will be going directly to South Carolina without passing go, totally ignoring New Hampshire and probably Michigan and Nevada. His numbers in New Hampshire will reflect that.
So my Republican prediction would be:
Watch for Romney to start running hard today in Michigan in terms of money and advertising. He learned last night that money can't buy a small state like Iowa and that is why he will be badly beaten in New Hampshire as well. Michigan, his home state where his father was a popular governor, will be where he takes his last stand on January 15. His hope will be that, despite McCain's win there in 2000, his name recognition and his ability to spend infinity dollars on television advertisements there will allow him to eke out a win and get back into the game. If Romney can't win New Hampshire or Michigan, he will have no option but to drop out.
The Democratic race is also very interesting. I have never given Barack Obama much of a chance in this race. I must now retract that; he is a very serious player for the nomination. Clinton must win or virtually win New Hampshire now in order to survive in my view. If she trails Obama by substantially less than the 9% she lost by in Iowa, she can channel her husband's claim to a comeback and maybe recover. However, if she loses by a similar or greater margin, I would say it is all over but the crying.
In recent polls, Obama and Clinton have been close in New Hampshire and he has even led in some, and this is without the surge that will come from last night's victory. New Hampshire's debate on Saturday will be critical for her.
However, I think that she is in a lot of trouble. Couple that with the Democratic history of never electing its frontrunners and I predict the following for New Hamphire.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
For the first time since 1928, neither a president or vice-president is seeking the nomination of his party and the race is wide open. We will almost certainly see a long, competitive race on the Republican side and could well see one on the Democratic side as well.
Tonight, in Iowa, any of three Democrats could easily win and any of two Republicans. Just five days from now, we'll see another race in New Hampshire where there will be a competitive race for the Republicans and, depending on how things go tonight, most likely one for the Democrats.
Four weeks ago today, I made some predictions for Iowa and I have posted a scorecard on the right side of the site which I'll update tonight or tomorrow morning. A number of the predictions I made at the time (a win by Edwards and Romney) were contrary to the then conventional wisdom but do seem more likely now; though anything remains possible. I am still confident in all of my predictions except that I expect McCain will do better than sixth on the Republican side, though I do not think he will claim third place as a number of folks are now predicting.
Have fun watching, I know I will.
ONE MORE THOUGHT:
I've been blathering on about my support of Joe Biden since last January. I have predicted him to finish with a "solid" fourth place in Iowa. For months now Biden has been slowly rising from the lower tier to what I call the middle tier. The lower tier - Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel - tend to be within the margin of error of 0%. The upper tier - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - tend to be in the double digits. I think that there is also a middle tier - consisting of Biden and Bill Richardson - who, though longshots, at least have a measure of support that cannot be written off as polling error. In Iowa, Richardson leads Biden barely in a poll average, while he leads Biden by a larger margin in New Hampshire and Biden leads nationally. However, I predict Biden will beat Richardson in Iowa by a substantial margin.
A few weeks ago, I wrote, tongue-in-cheek, that Biden could win Iowa. Though that was not a very serious projection, I do think he will emerge tonight closer to the top tier than to the bottom. Why? Biden and Richardson may well have their support bunched together in a state-wide average, but my read is that Biden has pockets of strong support while Richardson has thin support spread across the state.
In the Iowa caucus, Democrats will gather in 1784 different meetings to vote. In each meeting if a candidate gets 15% of the vote, he gets 15% of the delegates to the county convention (the measure used when results are tabulated tonight). However, if he gets 14%, he gets 0 delegates. This is called viability. In a given meeting, if a candidate doesn't have 15% support, his supporters have to make a second choice. So, I suspect there will be a lot of meetings where Richardson will get 5-10% and no delegates, while Biden will get only 2 or 3% in some meetings and 20% in others, thus giving him more delegates. Think of it the context of the Canadian election in 1993. The PCs beat the Reform Party in the popular vote, but because Reform's support was concentrated, they got 26 times as many seats.
An interesting thing I observed from Ben Smith on New Year's Day is that a post-Iowa debate will likely only include the top four finishers from Iowa. If that means a Clinton-Obama-Edwards-Biden debate, things could turn out quite well for Biden. As I wrote over on Ben's blog:
Interesting. This WMUR debate could prove to be huge for Biden. Presuming he places fourth inA third place showing in New Hampshire by Biden could set him up to win the Nevada Caucus which could set him up to win the South Carolina primary. I know, I know, an unlikely scenario, but I've gotta hold out hope.
NHIowa (typo correction) and Richardson doesn't meet the 5% threshold (not sure on this one?) it could make him a player. It is widely agreed that Biden is the best debater in the field but he usually is lumped with the also-rans in terms of time alottment and post-debate coverage. If the debate only consists of he and the "big three" and he cleans their clocks I don't think it would be unreasonable to imagine him surging to third which would make him THE story coming out of NH would it not?
Here are number ranges from my gut today routed in my earlier predicitions...