10:23 CST [Nate]: Unlike in Georgia, I don't see any reason for Democrats to fret here. LA-4 is pretty red, and the only poll of that race not released by a campaign had Fleming winning by 2. A big, blowout win might have meant something, but Fleming winning in a squeaker is pretty much par for the course. And as for William Jefferson ... I can't imagine that a lot of Democrats are going to miss him. Cao should be a fun guy to watch.
10:16 CST [Sean]: The AP hasn't called the 4th district, but congratulations to Anh "Joseph" Cao, who replaces William Jefferson with an upset win in a Democratic +28 PVI district, Louisiana's 2d. This gives Democrats an opportunity to re-take this overwhelmingly blue district in two years, and gets rid of a giant embarrassment.
10:13 CST [Nate]: I say "apparent" victory because provisional ballots are still outstanding, and because as we've seen in Minnesota, sometimes funny things happen once the precincts double-check and finalize their counts. Also, it's probably close enough to warrant a recount, although 356 votes out of ~90,000 cast is generally too many votes to hope to make up in a recount. But our tentative congratulations to John Fleming, who most likely will keep the district red.
10:04 CST [Nate]: And just like that, Bossier comes in and gives Fleming a 356-lead and apparent victory, as all precincts have reported.
10:02 CST [Nate]: Carmouche is not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination, as the entirety of the remaining vote is in Bossier County, which leans red. I'm now showing Carmouche winning by only 109 votes.
9:42 CST [Nate]: Cao would be the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress.
9:39 CST [Sean]: Carmouche looking solid: 1,853 votes with 90% in. With 54% in in the 2d district, Cao still looking strong to unseat the indicted Democrat. He leads by 3,453 votes.
9:31 CST [Nate]: OK, Carmouche held his own in last batch of ballots that came in from Bossier. Now projecting a win for him by around 1,400 votes.
9:28 CST [Sean]: With 29% in, Cao up 3,894 votes and 19%.
9:27 CST [Nate]: A bunch more vote in from Caddo, and Carmocuhe is now "only" winning there by 20 points. Good, but maybe not good enough. There are still quite a few more precincts to count in Caddo; the problem for Carmouche is that there are more precincts to count in neighboring Bossier county, which has gone heavily for Fleming thus far.
9:25 CST [Sean]: I haven't spent enough time in the car, let's have a Bayou recount. With 84% in, Carmouche leads by 2,295 votes.
9:21 CST [Nate]: Back to LA-4 for a moment: another way to look at this is simply to extrapolate out the results based on the percentage of precincts reporting so far in each parish. By that metric, I'm showing a Fleming (R) win by 659 ballots. Recount?!?
9:18 CST [Sean]: The Carmouche-Fleming results have stalled for a moment, but with 21% in, the Republican Cao still leads Freezer Cash Guy by over 1,100 votes and 10%, 53-43. If that holds it would be an upset, and one I suspect welcomed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
9:14 PM [Nate]: As of 9:05 PM, Democrat Paul Carmouche leads Republican John Fleming by 3.1 points in Louisiana's 4th Congressional District.
In order to get a rough sense for the nature of the parishes that have reported so far, I've been keeping track of Mary Landireu's performance performance in the senatorial election on November 4th.
Overall, I estimate that Landrieu won LA-4 by 2.9 points.
However, if we weight Landrieu's results on a parish-by-parish basis based on the number of ballots counted in the Carmouche-Fleming race so far, she won by 4.4 points. In other words, the parishes counted so far appear to be slightly bluer than the district as a whole.
An ominous sign for Carmouche: three parishes (Bienvile, Red River, Sabine) have counted all of their ballots so far; Carmouche has underperformed Landireu by about 10 points in each of those precincts.
On the other hand, Carmouche is from Shereveport in Caddo Parish, by far the largest Parish in the district. So far, Carmouche is crushing Fleming by 30 points in Caddo Parish, and has overperformed Landreiu, who won Caddo by 19 points. The key for Carmouche, then, is that he needs to continue to overperform Landrieu in Caddo, as it appears he will underfperform her on some other parts of the district.
9:10 CST [Sean]: Nate will explain in a moment, but some of Carmouche's better parishes are in, and while Carmouche has the lead now (by 1,747 votes with 62% in), it's far from clear he'll win.
9:06 CST [Sean]: With 57% in, Carmouche pushes the lead back over 2,000 votes and 3%. No change in the 2d district race.
9:00 CST [Sean]: When the very first precinct reported and 1% was in, it looked like a strong start for John Fleming, the Republican, in Louisiana's 4th district. But since those early moments when the polls closed an hour ago, the race has been neck and neck, with Democratic Party candidate Paul Carmouche edging into the lead. With 45% reporting, Carmouche's lead was just 318 votes. This is going to be an exciting finish.
In the first results in New Orleans's 2d district, Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao, bidding to be the first Vietnamese-American House member, held an edge in very early returns over the indicted Democrat, Cash Bricks Jefferson, a 450-vote lead with 4% in.
12.06.2008
Minnesota May Be Heading Toward Resolution -- In Court
@ 6:32 PM
Although the state of Minnesota has completed the first stage of its recount process, counting by hand each of more than 2.9 million ballots cast in the state's November 4 senatorial election, we are really no closer to knowing who the winner might be.
The quasi-official count provided by the Star Tribune shows Norm Coleman 192 votes ahead. This count, however, is not very useful. This is because it treats challenged ballots as nonvotes, essentially giving the benefit of the doubt to the challenger, when in fact the vast majority of challenges are liable to be rejected.
An alternative would be to add back in the number of challenged ballots made by the opponent to each candidate's vote total. As Norm Coleman has made more challenges than Al Franken, this would reduce Franken's deficit to 97 ballots. This measure too, however, suffers from a significant flaw. Namely, not all types of ballot challenges operate equally on an opponent's total; some types of challenges result in a deduction to the opponent's count, while others do not. Without having information on the types of challenges issued by either campaign, this measure too is ambiguous.
A third alternative is presented by the Franken campaign itself. This method assumes that all challenges will be rejected, and that the initial ruling of the local elections judge will prevail. Under this accounting, the Franken campaign claims to lead by the grand total of 4 ballots. In theory, this is the best way to do things; the vast majority of challenges almost certianly will be rejected by the Canvassing Board, and so to give the benefit of the doubt to the challenger -- as the Star Tribune count does -- does not make a lot of sense. Of course, it requires us to take the Franken campaign at its word, as it relies on information gathered by the campaign that is not available to the general public.
We have also, at various times, released the results of an inferential statistical model, which is described in some detail here and here. Various iterations of this model now project a net gain by Franken of somewhere between 132 and 227 ballots once challenged ballots have been processed. Given his initial deficit of 215 ballots, this implies that he'd finish somewhere between 83 ballots behind Norm Coleman and 12 ballots ahead of him:
On average, the various versions of model show Al Franken finishing 34 ballots behind Norm Coleman. However, the margins of error on the model are high -- at least +/-200 ballots -- and so they do not equate to much of an advantage for Coleman, perhaps implying that he is a 60/40 favorite to prevail once the challenged ballot process is complete.
None of these various estimates, however, account for two significant X-factors, one of which could potentially work to Coleman's benefit and the other to Franken's. The first X-factor is the disposition of ballots in Minneapolis's 3rd Ward, 1st Precinct, where 133 ballots have gone missing. As the votes in this precinct heavily favored Franken on November 4th, they would have a deleterious effect on Franken's total if not counted, harming him by a net of 46 votes. Minneapolis, however, is still looking for these ballots. In addition, even if the ballots are not found, the state could make a decision to accept the original results from this precinct -- or Franken could sue to try and motivate that result.
The second X-factor is rejected absentee ballots, which the Franken campaign has been trying to get counted. Although most rejected absentee ballots were discarded for perfectly valid reasons, some minority of them -- estimated at between 500 and 1,000 ballots by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie -- were rejected in error. These ballots have essentially never been counted, either during the initial count nor during the recount. The state has instructed local officials to sort through their absentee ballots, and identify those ballots that may have been rejected improperly, a potential first step to having such ballots counted. If such ballots are counted, they are likely to result in a net gain of 25 to 100 votes for Franken.
As you have probably inferred, if the current standing of the recount is Coleman +34 (as estimated by our statistical models), or Franken +4 (as estimated by the Franken campaign), then a swing of 46 ballots in Coleman's favor from Ward 3, or 25-100 ballots in Franken's favor from the rejected absentees, could quite easily be decisive.
The good news for the Franken campaign is they are arguing in each case for more rather than fewer ballots to be counted, a stance which is probably superior from a public perception standpoint. It is hard to make a compelling case, for instance, that Franken should be punished because Minneapolis misplaced some of their ballots, or that he should be punished because some absentee ballots were rejected erroneously and never counted in the first place.
Winning the battle of public perception, however, may not necessarily equate with winning such balltles in court. It is quite likely that if either the Ward 3 ballots or the absentees would alter the outcome of the election once all challenged ballots have been considered, the losing side will sue to seek the opposite outcome.
It is even possible that the US Senate itself will get involved, as under the Constitution, the Senate ultimately serves as judge and jury on adjudicating electoral disputes before its chamber. If, for instance, the state certifies Coleman as the winner by 20 votes, but the missing ballots from Ward 3 have not been counted, the Senate could decide to seat Franken -- or, as happened in the 1974 Senate Race in New Hampshire, to order a re-vote.
Minnesota's recount is a long way from over. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to predict the winner, I would tell you to shoot me.
The quasi-official count provided by the Star Tribune shows Norm Coleman 192 votes ahead. This count, however, is not very useful. This is because it treats challenged ballots as nonvotes, essentially giving the benefit of the doubt to the challenger, when in fact the vast majority of challenges are liable to be rejected.
An alternative would be to add back in the number of challenged ballots made by the opponent to each candidate's vote total. As Norm Coleman has made more challenges than Al Franken, this would reduce Franken's deficit to 97 ballots. This measure too, however, suffers from a significant flaw. Namely, not all types of ballot challenges operate equally on an opponent's total; some types of challenges result in a deduction to the opponent's count, while others do not. Without having information on the types of challenges issued by either campaign, this measure too is ambiguous.
A third alternative is presented by the Franken campaign itself. This method assumes that all challenges will be rejected, and that the initial ruling of the local elections judge will prevail. Under this accounting, the Franken campaign claims to lead by the grand total of 4 ballots. In theory, this is the best way to do things; the vast majority of challenges almost certianly will be rejected by the Canvassing Board, and so to give the benefit of the doubt to the challenger -- as the Star Tribune count does -- does not make a lot of sense. Of course, it requires us to take the Franken campaign at its word, as it relies on information gathered by the campaign that is not available to the general public.
We have also, at various times, released the results of an inferential statistical model, which is described in some detail here and here. Various iterations of this model now project a net gain by Franken of somewhere between 132 and 227 ballots once challenged ballots have been processed. Given his initial deficit of 215 ballots, this implies that he'd finish somewhere between 83 ballots behind Norm Coleman and 12 ballots ahead of him:
On average, the various versions of model show Al Franken finishing 34 ballots behind Norm Coleman. However, the margins of error on the model are high -- at least +/-200 ballots -- and so they do not equate to much of an advantage for Coleman, perhaps implying that he is a 60/40 favorite to prevail once the challenged ballot process is complete.
None of these various estimates, however, account for two significant X-factors, one of which could potentially work to Coleman's benefit and the other to Franken's. The first X-factor is the disposition of ballots in Minneapolis's 3rd Ward, 1st Precinct, where 133 ballots have gone missing. As the votes in this precinct heavily favored Franken on November 4th, they would have a deleterious effect on Franken's total if not counted, harming him by a net of 46 votes. Minneapolis, however, is still looking for these ballots. In addition, even if the ballots are not found, the state could make a decision to accept the original results from this precinct -- or Franken could sue to try and motivate that result.
The second X-factor is rejected absentee ballots, which the Franken campaign has been trying to get counted. Although most rejected absentee ballots were discarded for perfectly valid reasons, some minority of them -- estimated at between 500 and 1,000 ballots by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie -- were rejected in error. These ballots have essentially never been counted, either during the initial count nor during the recount. The state has instructed local officials to sort through their absentee ballots, and identify those ballots that may have been rejected improperly, a potential first step to having such ballots counted. If such ballots are counted, they are likely to result in a net gain of 25 to 100 votes for Franken.
As you have probably inferred, if the current standing of the recount is Coleman +34 (as estimated by our statistical models), or Franken +4 (as estimated by the Franken campaign), then a swing of 46 ballots in Coleman's favor from Ward 3, or 25-100 ballots in Franken's favor from the rejected absentees, could quite easily be decisive.
The good news for the Franken campaign is they are arguing in each case for more rather than fewer ballots to be counted, a stance which is probably superior from a public perception standpoint. It is hard to make a compelling case, for instance, that Franken should be punished because Minneapolis misplaced some of their ballots, or that he should be punished because some absentee ballots were rejected erroneously and never counted in the first place.
Winning the battle of public perception, however, may not necessarily equate with winning such balltles in court. It is quite likely that if either the Ward 3 ballots or the absentees would alter the outcome of the election once all challenged ballots have been considered, the losing side will sue to seek the opposite outcome.
It is even possible that the US Senate itself will get involved, as under the Constitution, the Senate ultimately serves as judge and jury on adjudicating electoral disputes before its chamber. If, for instance, the state certifies Coleman as the winner by 20 votes, but the missing ballots from Ward 3 have not been counted, the Senate could decide to seat Franken -- or, as happened in the 1974 Senate Race in New Hampshire, to order a re-vote.
Minnesota's recount is a long way from over. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to predict the winner, I would tell you to shoot me.
Louisiana's 4th, 2008's Final Contested Election
@ 12:00 PM
Today, Louisiana holds two elections, one a foregone conclusion and the other a toss-up. In New Orleans, corrupt Democratic Congressman William Jefferson should coast to re-election. In the 4th Congressional District (the northwest section that includes Shreveport), Republican Rep. Jim McCrery is retiring, and the Democrat, Paul Carmouche, faces Republican John Fleming.
The race isn't high profile, and after talking with a number of Obama organizers on runoff night in Georgia, it seems roughly half were aware it was even taking place. The DCCC has staffed up the contest, but this is definitely not an Obama operation.
At The Next Right, Sean Oxendine writes that today is the real test to see what judgments we can begin making about pre- and post-election Obama coattails.
Oxendine's point is that Democrats won special elections in Louisiana's Sixth and Mississippi's First districts earlier this year, both of which were surprises and both of which represent roughly similar partisan makeup (they lean clearly Republican). Though not a southern contest, Dems also won Illinois' red 14th district in the special election for Dennis Hastert's seat. If Carmouche wins, it's the same trend as those pre-election races. If Fleming wins, then cue the conclusions that the honeymoon is over, voters are already voting to limit Democratic power, November 4 was about Obama and not Democratic v. Republican parties generically.
If Carmouche can't win, one fair conclusion we could make is that Republicans have gone back to winning conservative southern districts in special elections (it's R +7 PVI). If Carmouche pulls it off -- and there is scant polling in this race to indicate which way it will go -- then Republican woes in winning seats they should win continues.
Regardless of what happens, the truth is that the way Obama governs over the next two years is going to determine much more about who succeeds or fails in the 2010 midterms than we can project from the Chambliss-Martin and Carmouche-Fleming runoffs. Whether Democrats pick up 22 or 21 seats this cycle in the House, it is still a very strong result, particularly coming off 30 seats in 2006. Republicans who want to chalk that up to "the media" or "Obama's celebrity" will not have that type of denial challenged by Democrats who would like to see Republicans in the wilderness for as long as possible.
Note: In Ohio's 15th, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy suffered a setback in her race against Republican Steve Stivers, when the all-Republican Supreme Court voted 4-2 to strike down Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's directive to count 1,000 provisional ballots. We should have some results this afternoon now that 27,000 provisional ballots can be counted in the race that Stivers leads by 149. The 1,000 ballots in dispute had been improperly signed on the outside of the envelope or signed in the wrong place, or not signed at all. So they were tossed.
The race isn't high profile, and after talking with a number of Obama organizers on runoff night in Georgia, it seems roughly half were aware it was even taking place. The DCCC has staffed up the contest, but this is definitely not an Obama operation.
At The Next Right, Sean Oxendine writes that today is the real test to see what judgments we can begin making about pre- and post-election Obama coattails.
Oxendine's point is that Democrats won special elections in Louisiana's Sixth and Mississippi's First districts earlier this year, both of which were surprises and both of which represent roughly similar partisan makeup (they lean clearly Republican). Though not a southern contest, Dems also won Illinois' red 14th district in the special election for Dennis Hastert's seat. If Carmouche wins, it's the same trend as those pre-election races. If Fleming wins, then cue the conclusions that the honeymoon is over, voters are already voting to limit Democratic power, November 4 was about Obama and not Democratic v. Republican parties generically.
If Carmouche can't win, one fair conclusion we could make is that Republicans have gone back to winning conservative southern districts in special elections (it's R +7 PVI). If Carmouche pulls it off -- and there is scant polling in this race to indicate which way it will go -- then Republican woes in winning seats they should win continues.
Regardless of what happens, the truth is that the way Obama governs over the next two years is going to determine much more about who succeeds or fails in the 2010 midterms than we can project from the Chambliss-Martin and Carmouche-Fleming runoffs. Whether Democrats pick up 22 or 21 seats this cycle in the House, it is still a very strong result, particularly coming off 30 seats in 2006. Republicans who want to chalk that up to "the media" or "Obama's celebrity" will not have that type of denial challenged by Democrats who would like to see Republicans in the wilderness for as long as possible.
Note: In Ohio's 15th, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy suffered a setback in her race against Republican Steve Stivers, when the all-Republican Supreme Court voted 4-2 to strike down Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's directive to count 1,000 provisional ballots. We should have some results this afternoon now that 27,000 provisional ballots can be counted in the race that Stivers leads by 149. The 1,000 ballots in dispute had been improperly signed on the outside of the envelope or signed in the wrong place, or not signed at all. So they were tossed.
12.05.2008
Quick Thoughts from Kansas
@ 1:48 PM
Six points of general consensus among the reporters, strategists and analysts that were present at the Dole Institute.
1. Obama will have a relatively long honeymoon period, and the public will be inclined to be relatively sympathetic toward him.
1a. The Democrats' largest problem is with the public perception of their Congressional leadership.
2. Obama, politically speaking, has handled his transition very well. The Republicans on the panel felt extremely reassured by appointments like Jim Jones and Robert Gates. This bought Obama a huge amount of political capital.
3. The Republican bench is relatively inadequate at the present time in terms of candidates for national office.
3a. On the other hand, the 2012 Presidential cycle is already being looked at as something of a lost cause. Some of the stronger candidates -- both known and unknown -- might want to wait until 2016 to run.
3b. In the long-term, the future of the party probably lies in governor's offices. If the Republicans are smart, this may be their major focus in 2010-12, as opposed to the Congress and even perhaps the Presidency.
4. Sarah Palin is, for the time being, the public face of the Republican Party.
4a. This is not necessarily a good thing for the Republican Party.
5. The compressed primary calendar is problematic.
5a. The compressed primary calendar is unlikely to change.
6. Obama ran the best campaign we have seen in a generation.
1. Obama will have a relatively long honeymoon period, and the public will be inclined to be relatively sympathetic toward him.
1a. The Democrats' largest problem is with the public perception of their Congressional leadership.
2. Obama, politically speaking, has handled his transition very well. The Republicans on the panel felt extremely reassured by appointments like Jim Jones and Robert Gates. This bought Obama a huge amount of political capital.
3. The Republican bench is relatively inadequate at the present time in terms of candidates for national office.
3a. On the other hand, the 2012 Presidential cycle is already being looked at as something of a lost cause. Some of the stronger candidates -- both known and unknown -- might want to wait until 2016 to run.
3b. In the long-term, the future of the party probably lies in governor's offices. If the Republicans are smart, this may be their major focus in 2010-12, as opposed to the Congress and even perhaps the Presidency.
4. Sarah Palin is, for the time being, the public face of the Republican Party.
4a. This is not necessarily a good thing for the Republican Party.
5. The compressed primary calendar is problematic.
5a. The compressed primary calendar is unlikely to change.
6. Obama ran the best campaign we have seen in a generation.
Fridays with Ziegler
@ 9:10 AM
You remember him.. I taped an episode of the B-Cast with him on Friday. It's entertaining stuff, if you can ignore the occasional problems with audio quality.
EDIT: Some people are reporting problems with the video loading automatically, so I'm going to remove the embedded player ... instead, you can find the segment here
EDIT: Some people are reporting problems with the video loading automatically, so I'm going to remove the embedded player ... instead, you can find the segment here
12.04.2008
Who Are The Swing Senators?
@ 8:15 AM
Note: Today and tomorrow I will be participating in the 2008 Post-Election Conference at the Dole Institute at the University of Kansas. That means that posting times may be a little bit slow/irregular/nonexistent, but hopefully I'll have lots of good insights for you guys upon my return.
With Jim Martin's loss in Georgia, we now know that the Democrats will not achieve a 60-seat senatorial caucus once the 111th Congress convenes next month. In practice, however, the line between 59 (or 58) votes and 60 was never so bright as it seemed. Moderate Republicans are an endangered species these days, but there are still a few of them left, as well as several other quasi-moderates who either get along with Obama or are under some form of electoral pressure in their home states. Conversely, there are more than a couple of Democrats in the chamber whose votes Obama can't take for granted.
In practice, there will be a group of four or five senators in each party who line up just to either side of the 60-seat threshold and will find that they're suddenly very much in demand. If Obama's approval ratings are strong, he should have little trouble whipping the couple of Republican votes he needs into shape, and should clear 60 comfortably on key issues. But, if Obama proves to be unpopular, there remain enough conservative, red-state Democratic senators to deny him a simple majority on key issues, much less 60 votes.
Let's start with the Republicans, ranking the senators based on their likelihood of crossing party lines to vote with Obama. We'll begin counting upward from the number 59, which assumes that Norm Coleman will win the recount in Minnesota, and that the first Republican vote that Obama gets is his 59th overall. If Al Franken wins instead, add one to each of the numbers below.
This ordering is based on a combination of objective and subjective considerations, and should be considered rough -- among other things, it will diverge based on the particular issue at hand.
Swing Republicans
59. Snowe (ME). Obama won Maine by 18 points, making it the bluest state to be home to a Republican senator -- and in fact, it has two of them. Per Voteview, Olympia Snowe is incrementally more liberal than Susan Collins; she's also up for re-election two years sooner. It will be very interesting to see how the two of them will legislate under an Obama administration.
60. Collins (ME). See above.
61. Specter (PA). Under re-election pressure in a state that Obama carried by double digits. Mitigating factor: possible that he'll be under pressure from the right too in the form of a primary challenge.
62. Lugar (IN). On good terms with Obama, who (barely) won his state. Voteview has him becoming slightly more liberal over the past several Congresses.
63. Voinovich (OH). Under serious re-election pressure. Has often been moderate -- or even slightly left of center -- on pocketbook issues, and increasingly so on other ones.
...the preceding five senators will be under the most pressure to side with a popular Obama, but several others may come into play on occasion:
64. Coleman (MN). If he beats Franken by 50 votes or something, will that chasten him into being more bipartisan? Possibly not, but he's been relatively moderate, and Minnesota remains a solidly blue state.
65. Hagel (NE). Friendly with Obama, has no problem bucking his party, but this vote may be largely confined to foreign policy. [Ed. -- oops]
65. McCain (AZ). Hard to know where his headspace will be for a variety of reasons, particularly as he's legislated all over the spectrum (from authentically moderate to strongly conservative) in different Congresses. Obama may have sent him something of an olive branch by appointing Janet Napolitano, his potential rival in 2010, to head of Homeland Security.
66. Grassley (IA). Up for re-election -- although he'll probably win easily if he doesn't retire. Still, something like an aging Supreme Court justice, Grassley has moderated in recent years, particularly on good government issues. Iowa is turning bluer.
67. Murkowski (AK). Up for re-election in 2010, although it's unclear if she'll face a serious challenge. Pro-choice. At heart, her politics might not be that different than Snowe or Collins, although she faces less electoral pressure to moderate.
68. Gregg (NH). Fairly conservative really, but under significant enough re-election pressure that he may assist Obama outside of his hallmark issue of taxation.
69. Bond (MO). See above, although Bond's bugaboos are in foreign policy rather than fiscal policy.
Others to watch: Hatch (UT), Martinez (FL), Johanns (NE)
Swing Democrats
It would not surprise me if we see a bit of cross-over between the parties this year -- that is, if a Republican like Olympia Snowe winding up with a more liberal voting record than a Democrat like Mary Landrieu.
For this group, we'll count downward from 58.
58. Landrieu (LA). Always a problem for Democrats on key votes. LA is trending red.Endorsed Clinton. [Ed: A Landrieu staffer wrote me to clarify that Landrieu did NOT endorse Clinton. We regret the error.]
57. Pryor (AR). Is slightly more popular than Landrieu and also slightly more liberal, but the same basic story applies. Arkansas is one of the few states moving in the wrong direction for Democrats, and Pryor never really showed any signs of warmth toward Obama.
56. Nelson (NE). By most statistical methodologies, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber. However, he endorsed Obama early. I think Obama will have fewer near-term problems with the Midwestern blue dogs than the Southern ones.
55. Lincoln (AR). More liberal by some margin than Mark Pryor, but she's up for re-election in 2010, and Obama may have reverse coattails in Arkansas. If Mike Huckabee enters the race against her, look out.
...that group of four senators represent Obama's most significant problems, but he'll have several others that he needs to keep an eye on:
54. Lieberman (CT). Who knows. My hunch is that he'll want to start getting back in Democrats' good graces, but this is a man who likes the spotlight and blockading legislation is a good way to accomplish that. Still, fundamentally he remains fairly liberal outside the sphere of national security.
53. Dorgan (ND). Dorgan endorsed Obama early, but he just ain't all that liberal.
52. Conrad (ND). See above. Perhaps slightly more liberal than Dorgan on issues like energy.
51. Baucus (MT). His proactive health care proposal suggests he may be more comfortable than he once was with progressive policy, but will be a problem on some issues like the environment.
50. Tester (MT). Only endorsed Obama very late in the process, and not as liberal as the netroots think. That Montana nearly went blue may relieve some pressure.
49. Byrd (WV). Warm relations with Obama, but could potentially buck him on cultural issues.
48. Webb (VA). Never really got on the Obama bandwagon and has his idiosyncratic streak.
47. Salazar (CO). One of the few Democrats under re-election pressure, although it's mitigated by the fact that Obama is more popular in Colorado than he is.
Others to Watch: Hagan (NC), Rockefeller (WV), Warner (VA)
The takeaway here is that although political capital is important to any president, it may be particularly so for Obama given the present configuration of the Senate and the fact that he appears to have a fair amount he actually wants to get accomplished.
With Jim Martin's loss in Georgia, we now know that the Democrats will not achieve a 60-seat senatorial caucus once the 111th Congress convenes next month. In practice, however, the line between 59 (or 58) votes and 60 was never so bright as it seemed. Moderate Republicans are an endangered species these days, but there are still a few of them left, as well as several other quasi-moderates who either get along with Obama or are under some form of electoral pressure in their home states. Conversely, there are more than a couple of Democrats in the chamber whose votes Obama can't take for granted.
In practice, there will be a group of four or five senators in each party who line up just to either side of the 60-seat threshold and will find that they're suddenly very much in demand. If Obama's approval ratings are strong, he should have little trouble whipping the couple of Republican votes he needs into shape, and should clear 60 comfortably on key issues. But, if Obama proves to be unpopular, there remain enough conservative, red-state Democratic senators to deny him a simple majority on key issues, much less 60 votes.
Let's start with the Republicans, ranking the senators based on their likelihood of crossing party lines to vote with Obama. We'll begin counting upward from the number 59, which assumes that Norm Coleman will win the recount in Minnesota, and that the first Republican vote that Obama gets is his 59th overall. If Al Franken wins instead, add one to each of the numbers below.
This ordering is based on a combination of objective and subjective considerations, and should be considered rough -- among other things, it will diverge based on the particular issue at hand.
Swing Republicans
59. Snowe (ME). Obama won Maine by 18 points, making it the bluest state to be home to a Republican senator -- and in fact, it has two of them. Per Voteview, Olympia Snowe is incrementally more liberal than Susan Collins; she's also up for re-election two years sooner. It will be very interesting to see how the two of them will legislate under an Obama administration.
60. Collins (ME). See above.
61. Specter (PA). Under re-election pressure in a state that Obama carried by double digits. Mitigating factor: possible that he'll be under pressure from the right too in the form of a primary challenge.
62. Lugar (IN). On good terms with Obama, who (barely) won his state. Voteview has him becoming slightly more liberal over the past several Congresses.
63. Voinovich (OH). Under serious re-election pressure. Has often been moderate -- or even slightly left of center -- on pocketbook issues, and increasingly so on other ones.
...the preceding five senators will be under the most pressure to side with a popular Obama, but several others may come into play on occasion:
64. Coleman (MN). If he beats Franken by 50 votes or something, will that chasten him into being more bipartisan? Possibly not, but he's been relatively moderate, and Minnesota remains a solidly blue state.
65. McCain (AZ). Hard to know where his headspace will be for a variety of reasons, particularly as he's legislated all over the spectrum (from authentically moderate to strongly conservative) in different Congresses. Obama may have sent him something of an olive branch by appointing Janet Napolitano, his potential rival in 2010, to head of Homeland Security.
66. Grassley (IA). Up for re-election -- although he'll probably win easily if he doesn't retire. Still, something like an aging Supreme Court justice, Grassley has moderated in recent years, particularly on good government issues. Iowa is turning bluer.
67. Murkowski (AK). Up for re-election in 2010, although it's unclear if she'll face a serious challenge. Pro-choice. At heart, her politics might not be that different than Snowe or Collins, although she faces less electoral pressure to moderate.
68. Gregg (NH). Fairly conservative really, but under significant enough re-election pressure that he may assist Obama outside of his hallmark issue of taxation.
69. Bond (MO). See above, although Bond's bugaboos are in foreign policy rather than fiscal policy.
Others to watch: Hatch (UT), Martinez (FL), Johanns (NE)
Swing Democrats
It would not surprise me if we see a bit of cross-over between the parties this year -- that is, if a Republican like Olympia Snowe winding up with a more liberal voting record than a Democrat like Mary Landrieu.
For this group, we'll count downward from 58.
58. Landrieu (LA). Always a problem for Democrats on key votes. LA is trending red.
57. Pryor (AR). Is slightly more popular than Landrieu and also slightly more liberal, but the same basic story applies. Arkansas is one of the few states moving in the wrong direction for Democrats, and Pryor never really showed any signs of warmth toward Obama.
56. Nelson (NE). By most statistical methodologies, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber. However, he endorsed Obama early. I think Obama will have fewer near-term problems with the Midwestern blue dogs than the Southern ones.
55. Lincoln (AR). More liberal by some margin than Mark Pryor, but she's up for re-election in 2010, and Obama may have reverse coattails in Arkansas. If Mike Huckabee enters the race against her, look out.
...that group of four senators represent Obama's most significant problems, but he'll have several others that he needs to keep an eye on:
54. Lieberman (CT). Who knows. My hunch is that he'll want to start getting back in Democrats' good graces, but this is a man who likes the spotlight and blockading legislation is a good way to accomplish that. Still, fundamentally he remains fairly liberal outside the sphere of national security.
53. Dorgan (ND). Dorgan endorsed Obama early, but he just ain't all that liberal.
52. Conrad (ND). See above. Perhaps slightly more liberal than Dorgan on issues like energy.
51. Baucus (MT). His proactive health care proposal suggests he may be more comfortable than he once was with progressive policy, but will be a problem on some issues like the environment.
50. Tester (MT). Only endorsed Obama very late in the process, and not as liberal as the netroots think. That Montana nearly went blue may relieve some pressure.
49. Byrd (WV). Warm relations with Obama, but could potentially buck him on cultural issues.
48. Webb (VA). Never really got on the Obama bandwagon and has his idiosyncratic streak.
47. Salazar (CO). One of the few Democrats under re-election pressure, although it's mitigated by the fact that Obama is more popular in Colorado than he is.
Others to Watch: Hagan (NC), Rockefeller (WV), Warner (VA)
The takeaway here is that although political capital is important to any president, it may be particularly so for Obama given the present configuration of the Senate and the fact that he appears to have a fair amount he actually wants to get accomplished.
12.03.2008
Missing Ballots in Minneapolis?
@ 9:15 PM
The latest drama in the Minnesota recount is taking place in the 1st Precinct of the 3rd Ward of the city of Minneapolis, where officials identified 133 fewer ballots in their re-count today than had been recorded on election day. As this particular precinct voted heavily for Franken, who nearly doubled Norm Coleman's vote total there on November 4, a reduction in the ballot count there would be a significant detriment to him, which the St. Paul Pioneer Press estimates as a net loss of 36 ballots.
City elections officials initially claimed that no ballots were in fact missing -- rather, they believed that some ballots were double-counted on election day. From the Pioneer Press article:
However, there is another way to test Reichert's hypothesis. Reichert appears to be claiming that any ballots with any write-in votes for any office were segregated, and that such ballots were mistakenly counted twice on Election Day. If this were the case, then it would have one distinct fingerprint. In particular, the number of write-in ballots for each office on the ballot would be an even number. (The algebra, in case this isn't intuitive: Let's say that of the 129 ballots that contain write-ins for any office, x of them contain write-ins for County Commissioner, where x is a positive integer. If you've double-counted those ballots, you'll wind up with 2x write-ins for that office. Since any positive integer multiplied by 2 results in an even number, the number of write-in ballots you record for that office must be even).
For quite a number of offices in this particular precinct, however, the number of write-in ballots recorded on Election Day was an odd number. For instance:
It would also stand to reason that if ballots containing write-ins were counted twice, there would be an unusually high number of write-ins in Precinct 1. However, this doesn't happen to be true. In Precinct 1, 10 of the 2026 votes tabulated for President were write-ins, or 0.49%. In the other eight precincts in Ward 3, a total of 58 of the 12,023 ballots tabulated for President were write-ins, or 0.48%. Or, we can look at an office with a higher rate of write-ins, such as "Soil & Water Supervisor, District 1". In Ward 1, 39 of the 1050 ballots cast for this office were write-ins, or 3.71%. In the other eight precincts, 200 of 6,360 ballots cast for this office were write-ins, or 3.14%. The number of write-in ballots in Precinct 1 appears to be very normal, not the high numbers we'd expect such ballots were counted twice.
To her credit, Reichert now appears to be backing off the double-counting theory. And it looks, frankly, like the ballots have in fact been misplaced. The Uptake got a chance to look at registration tables for Precinct 1, and found the following:
It looks more likely than not that 133 ballots have in fact gone missing; I have no idea what happens if they cannot be found.
City elections officials initially claimed that no ballots were in fact missing -- rather, they believed that some ballots were double-counted on election day. From the Pioneer Press article:
Elections officials in Minnesota's largest city today discovered that one precinct came up 133 ballots short of election day totals, resulting in a net loss for Democratic challenger Al Franken of 36 votes.You may already notice one small discrepancy here. The recount identified 133 fewer ballots than had been processed on election day. Reichert thinks that the culprit is ballots with write-in candidates, of which there were 129. The number 133 is close to the number 129, but it isn't 129 exactly.
The development wipes away what had been a boon for Franken in his bid to overtake Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, after Ramsey County officials found an additional 37 votes for Franken from a Maplewood precinct on Tuesday.
Minneapolis elections director Cindy Reichert said she believes the error occurred when election judges at the precinct on election night mistakenly ran ballots with write-in candidates through a counting machine twice. There were 129 such ballots.
Reichert said although the numbers do not match exactly, she is confident that that's what happened and will report those numbers to the Secretary of State's Office
However, there is another way to test Reichert's hypothesis. Reichert appears to be claiming that any ballots with any write-in votes for any office were segregated, and that such ballots were mistakenly counted twice on Election Day. If this were the case, then it would have one distinct fingerprint. In particular, the number of write-in ballots for each office on the ballot would be an even number. (The algebra, in case this isn't intuitive: Let's say that of the 129 ballots that contain write-ins for any office, x of them contain write-ins for County Commissioner, where x is a positive integer. If you've double-counted those ballots, you'll wind up with 2x write-ins for that office. Since any positive integer multiplied by 2 results in an even number, the number of write-in ballots you record for that office must be even).
For quite a number of offices in this particular precinct, however, the number of write-in ballots recorded on Election Day was an odd number. For instance:
Office Write-InsNote also that for a couple of offices, there was exactly one write-in vote recorded. If you've in fact counted all ballots containing write-ins twice, how can you end up with exactly one write-in for a particular office?
Soil & Water Supervisor, District 1 39
Associate Justice - Supreme Court 4 11
Judge - Court of Appeals 9 9
Judge - Court of Appeals 15 5
Judge - 4th District Court 1 5
Judge - 4th District Court 4 5
Judge - 4th District Court 9 7
Judge - 4th District Court 10 3
Judge - 4th District Court 19 3
Judge - 4th District Court 30 1
Judge - 4th District Court 36 3
Judge - 4th District Court 42 1
Judge - 4th District Court 46 3
Judge - 4th District Court 56 3
Judge - 4th District Court 58 7
Judge - 4th District Court 60 3
Judge - 4th District Court 61 3
Judge - 4th District Court 62 7
It would also stand to reason that if ballots containing write-ins were counted twice, there would be an unusually high number of write-ins in Precinct 1. However, this doesn't happen to be true. In Precinct 1, 10 of the 2026 votes tabulated for President were write-ins, or 0.49%. In the other eight precincts in Ward 3, a total of 58 of the 12,023 ballots tabulated for President were write-ins, or 0.48%. Or, we can look at an office with a higher rate of write-ins, such as "Soil & Water Supervisor, District 1". In Ward 1, 39 of the 1050 ballots cast for this office were write-ins, or 3.71%. In the other eight precincts, 200 of 6,360 ballots cast for this office were write-ins, or 3.14%. The number of write-in ballots in Precinct 1 appears to be very normal, not the high numbers we'd expect such ballots were counted twice.
To her credit, Reichert now appears to be backing off the double-counting theory. And it looks, frankly, like the ballots have in fact been misplaced. The Uptake got a chance to look at registration tables for Precinct 1, and found the following:
1,047 voters signed in on the roster.That is, a total of 2,029 voters either signed in on the registered voter roster in this precinct, registered in person on Election Day (Minnesota is one of the few states that allows you to do this), or sent in absentee ballots. This closely matches the 2,028 votes recorded in the precinct's November 4 count, but does not so closely match the 1,896 ballots that were identified in the recount today.
932 additional voters registered in person on Election Day.
35 absentee ballots were accepted in this precinct by the city.
15 absentee ballots were accepted in this precinct by the county.
TOTAL: 2,029 voters cast legal ballots (2,028 votes are recorded on the machine tape).
TODAY: 1,896 ballots were included in the recount.
It looks more likely than not that 133 ballots have in fact gone missing; I have no idea what happens if they cannot be found.
Did Mel Martinez Just Do the GOP a Favor?
@ 1:39 PM
Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a top potential target for Democrats in 2010, announced yesterday that he will not seek a second term. Florida thus joins Delaware and Kansas -- where Sam Brownback is also expected to retire, possibly in preparation for a gubernatorial run -- as probable open-seat races in the 2010 cycle.
Wise observers like Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling are already concluding that this is in fact good news for the GOP. Martinez' approval ratings are marginal; a Quinnipiac poll last month pegged his numbers at 42% approve and 33% disapprove, and a Strategic Vision poll was broadly similar -- 47% approve, 41% disapprove. Public Policy Polling, whose approval ratings can be idiosyncratic, had more pessimistic numbers: 23% approve, 37% disapprove. On average, that works out to 37% approve, 37% disapprove, or almost exactly breakeven.
There are no hard and fast rules about this, because approval ratings depend heavily on question wording and are often not directly comparable to one another, but from having studied these numbers in the 2006 and 2008 cycles, the following general rules of thumb apply:
-- If the average of candidate's net approval ratings (his approval rating less his disapproval rating) is +20 or better, he is usually on track to win re-election in the absence of significant game-altering events. Caveat: significant game-altering events occur more often that you might think for US Senators, especially two years out from an election. Probability of retaining seat: 90-100%.
-- If the average of a candidate's net approval ratings are +10 to +20, it may be possible to defeat him with a superior campaign (Kay Hagan, 2008) and/or in a wave election (Democrats, 1994) without specific, game-altering events, although the odds are usually against it. Probability of retaining seat: 70-95%.
-- If the average of a candidate's net approval ratings are in the single digits -- +1 to +9 -- he is significantly vulnerable, and may be anywhere from a modest favorite to a slight underdog depending on the strength of the opposition. Probability of retaining seat: 45-75%.
-- If the average of a candidate's approval ratings are even or negative, he is usually no better than a toss-up against well-organized opposition, and often somewhat worse. Probability of retaining seat: 25-50%.
Martinez' numbers had placed him right on the brink of the third and the fourth categories, implying that he was about even-money to retain his seat. Can his potential Republican replacements do better than that?
It depends, of course, on just who those replacements are. Generally, one of the big advantages that incumbents have -- even relatively unpopular ones -- is that they have an easy time raising funds; pretty much every incumbent senator running for re-election in 2008 had at least $5 million in his pocket, with the exception of a couple in non-competitive races in small states. New candidates rarely have access to that kind of capital.
...unless, of course, they are brand names like Jeb Bush, who is reportedly contemplating a run for Martinez' seat. Bush left office in 2006 with approval ratings in the +20 range; they may have diminished slightly since then as a result of Bush Fatigue, but Floridians have little problem distinguishing Jeb from George W., even if that's less true of the rest of the country. Bush, should he choose to run, will have most of the advantages that an incumbent usually has: capital, name recognition, organization, enough stature to deter primary challengers.
That is not to suggest that Bush would have a cakewalk into the Senate. He has his own baggage, and would be a fundraising magnet for Democrats. The most expensive senate race in 2006 was Hillary Clinton's in New York, which brought in a collective total of about $40 million, and the most expensive in 2008 was Norm Coleman's in Minnesota, which brought in a collective total of $35 million. Bush vs X. might be somewhere in that territory or even higher -- perhaps as high as $50 million -- and would almost certainly set the record for an open seat race.
Nevertheless, I think Martinez probably did do the Republicans a favor if their candidate winds up being Bush -- or Charlie Crist, who like Bush could run with most of the advantages of an incumbent. If it is anyone other than those two specifically, on the other hand, the fundraising and organizational strength is a lot to give up. Moreover, the presence of an open seat may be more attractive to prospective Democratic challengers. Florida CFO Alex Sink, who was reportedly about to pull out of a prospective senate run in 2010, is now reconsidering, according to Marc Ambinder. It is hard to imagine a Robert Wexler not thinking long and hard about wanting to stick it to Bush.
The most cautious way to put it is this: Florida was one of the top two senate races in the country before Martinez' announcement, and although the parameters now look a little different, it remains one of the top two now.
Wise observers like Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling are already concluding that this is in fact good news for the GOP. Martinez' approval ratings are marginal; a Quinnipiac poll last month pegged his numbers at 42% approve and 33% disapprove, and a Strategic Vision poll was broadly similar -- 47% approve, 41% disapprove. Public Policy Polling, whose approval ratings can be idiosyncratic, had more pessimistic numbers: 23% approve, 37% disapprove. On average, that works out to 37% approve, 37% disapprove, or almost exactly breakeven.
There are no hard and fast rules about this, because approval ratings depend heavily on question wording and are often not directly comparable to one another, but from having studied these numbers in the 2006 and 2008 cycles, the following general rules of thumb apply:
-- If the average of candidate's net approval ratings (his approval rating less his disapproval rating) is +20 or better, he is usually on track to win re-election in the absence of significant game-altering events. Caveat: significant game-altering events occur more often that you might think for US Senators, especially two years out from an election. Probability of retaining seat: 90-100%.
-- If the average of a candidate's net approval ratings are +10 to +20, it may be possible to defeat him with a superior campaign (Kay Hagan, 2008) and/or in a wave election (Democrats, 1994) without specific, game-altering events, although the odds are usually against it. Probability of retaining seat: 70-95%.
-- If the average of a candidate's net approval ratings are in the single digits -- +1 to +9 -- he is significantly vulnerable, and may be anywhere from a modest favorite to a slight underdog depending on the strength of the opposition. Probability of retaining seat: 45-75%.
-- If the average of a candidate's approval ratings are even or negative, he is usually no better than a toss-up against well-organized opposition, and often somewhat worse. Probability of retaining seat: 25-50%.
Martinez' numbers had placed him right on the brink of the third and the fourth categories, implying that he was about even-money to retain his seat. Can his potential Republican replacements do better than that?
It depends, of course, on just who those replacements are. Generally, one of the big advantages that incumbents have -- even relatively unpopular ones -- is that they have an easy time raising funds; pretty much every incumbent senator running for re-election in 2008 had at least $5 million in his pocket, with the exception of a couple in non-competitive races in small states. New candidates rarely have access to that kind of capital.
...unless, of course, they are brand names like Jeb Bush, who is reportedly contemplating a run for Martinez' seat. Bush left office in 2006 with approval ratings in the +20 range; they may have diminished slightly since then as a result of Bush Fatigue, but Floridians have little problem distinguishing Jeb from George W., even if that's less true of the rest of the country. Bush, should he choose to run, will have most of the advantages that an incumbent usually has: capital, name recognition, organization, enough stature to deter primary challengers.
That is not to suggest that Bush would have a cakewalk into the Senate. He has his own baggage, and would be a fundraising magnet for Democrats. The most expensive senate race in 2006 was Hillary Clinton's in New York, which brought in a collective total of about $40 million, and the most expensive in 2008 was Norm Coleman's in Minnesota, which brought in a collective total of $35 million. Bush vs X. might be somewhere in that territory or even higher -- perhaps as high as $50 million -- and would almost certainly set the record for an open seat race.
Nevertheless, I think Martinez probably did do the Republicans a favor if their candidate winds up being Bush -- or Charlie Crist, who like Bush could run with most of the advantages of an incumbent. If it is anyone other than those two specifically, on the other hand, the fundraising and organizational strength is a lot to give up. Moreover, the presence of an open seat may be more attractive to prospective Democratic challengers. Florida CFO Alex Sink, who was reportedly about to pull out of a prospective senate run in 2010, is now reconsidering, according to Marc Ambinder. It is hard to imagine a Robert Wexler not thinking long and hard about wanting to stick it to Bush.
The most cautious way to put it is this: Florida was one of the top two senate races in the country before Martinez' announcement, and although the parameters now look a little different, it remains one of the top two now.
Saxby Shows Republicans The Way Forward?
@ 2:37 AM
I tend to think that we should not be too dismissive of Saxby Chambliss's win in Georgia tonight. Although the outcome was expected, and although runoffs and special elections sometimes behave in idiosyncratic ways, moving from a 3-point margin of victory on November 4 to a 15-point margin of victory a month later is a significant accomplishment.
Unfortunately, nobody conducted an exit poll of this race, which makes the postmortem a little bit more difficult to conduct. From early voting statistics, it appears that African-American turnout was substantially lower, which no doubt was a significant factor in Martin's defeat, as roughly 55 percent of his vote on November 4 came from black voters. If black turnout was closer to the 25 percent of the electorate that it was in 2004 rather than the 28 percent of the electorate that it was on November 4, that would cost Martin a net of about 4 points, implying a loss of about 7 points. If it was closer to the 22 percent of the electorate that turned out to vote early, that would have cost Martin a net of 8-9 points, implying a loss of 11-12 points.
But while proportionately lower black turnout tells part of the story, Chambliss also appeared to gain with white voters. In certain ways, this is an awkward time for a Democrat to be running for office. On the one hand, with the imminent end of George W. Bush's term in office, and the fact that Barack Obama has effectively been serving as shadow president -- Obama is generating between two and three times as much news coverage as Bush according to Google traffic metrics -- it has already become harder for Democrats to pin our country's problems on the Republicans. Yes, Bush did damage to the Republican brand that will last for years to come, but it's the Obama brand that's strong more so than the generic Democratic one. On the other hand, because Obama hasn't actually been in office, the Democrats do not yet have any accomplishments to point to. The Democratic message in 2010 will essentially be one of two things...
1. Obama's accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let's give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,
2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn't accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests ... let's put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.
...neither of those messages really work at the present time -- they require the first couple of political hands to be played out, and right now the dealer is still shuffling the cards.
The other noteworthy thing about Chambliss' post-November 4th campaign is that he ran fairly hard toward the center. Chambliss cut three new ads for the runoff; one was a positive spot that stressed his experience and bipartisanship, the second was a warm and fuzzy and almost completely apolitical Thanksgiving's greetings message, and the third was a contrast spot that accused Martin and Obama of wanting to increase taxes. This was fairly harmless stuff, not the sort of thing that raises liberal ire nor that associates Chambliss with the Rovian wing of the Republican party. Yes, some of the 527 and RSCC spots were a lot uglier and harder-hitting, but Chambliss cannot wholly be blamed for those, and the spots emanating from the campaign itself were fairly toned down and nonpartisan -- a far cry, certainly, from the ugly ads that Chambliss ran against Max Cleland in 2002.
Yes, also, Chambliss may have gotten some mileage out of the argument that his election would block the Democrats from gaining 60 senate seats, but even this message was somewhat cautiously framed -- as delivered, for instance, by Sarah Palin:
Famous last words, but I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan. Certainly, there will be more than a few exceptions, and just as certainly, it may all be done through gritted teeth -- like that Simpsons episode where Itchy and Scratchy sit on the porch and pour one another lemonade. But if the Republicans have realized that it doesn't help their cause to constantly be behaving like assholes, then bully for them.
Unfortunately, nobody conducted an exit poll of this race, which makes the postmortem a little bit more difficult to conduct. From early voting statistics, it appears that African-American turnout was substantially lower, which no doubt was a significant factor in Martin's defeat, as roughly 55 percent of his vote on November 4 came from black voters. If black turnout was closer to the 25 percent of the electorate that it was in 2004 rather than the 28 percent of the electorate that it was on November 4, that would cost Martin a net of about 4 points, implying a loss of about 7 points. If it was closer to the 22 percent of the electorate that turned out to vote early, that would have cost Martin a net of 8-9 points, implying a loss of 11-12 points.
But while proportionately lower black turnout tells part of the story, Chambliss also appeared to gain with white voters. In certain ways, this is an awkward time for a Democrat to be running for office. On the one hand, with the imminent end of George W. Bush's term in office, and the fact that Barack Obama has effectively been serving as shadow president -- Obama is generating between two and three times as much news coverage as Bush according to Google traffic metrics -- it has already become harder for Democrats to pin our country's problems on the Republicans. Yes, Bush did damage to the Republican brand that will last for years to come, but it's the Obama brand that's strong more so than the generic Democratic one. On the other hand, because Obama hasn't actually been in office, the Democrats do not yet have any accomplishments to point to. The Democratic message in 2010 will essentially be one of two things...
1. Obama's accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let's give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,
2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn't accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests ... let's put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.
...neither of those messages really work at the present time -- they require the first couple of political hands to be played out, and right now the dealer is still shuffling the cards.
The other noteworthy thing about Chambliss' post-November 4th campaign is that he ran fairly hard toward the center. Chambliss cut three new ads for the runoff; one was a positive spot that stressed his experience and bipartisanship, the second was a warm and fuzzy and almost completely apolitical Thanksgiving's greetings message, and the third was a contrast spot that accused Martin and Obama of wanting to increase taxes. This was fairly harmless stuff, not the sort of thing that raises liberal ire nor that associates Chambliss with the Rovian wing of the Republican party. Yes, some of the 527 and RSCC spots were a lot uglier and harder-hitting, but Chambliss cannot wholly be blamed for those, and the spots emanating from the campaign itself were fairly toned down and nonpartisan -- a far cry, certainly, from the ugly ads that Chambliss ran against Max Cleland in 2002.
Yes, also, Chambliss may have gotten some mileage out of the argument that his election would block the Democrats from gaining 60 senate seats, but even this message was somewhat cautiously framed -- as delivered, for instance, by Sarah Palin:
Senator Chambliss ... he's got that strong independent spirit that we need in DC. [...] He doesn't just run with the Washington herd. Folks, with just one party in control of the House and the Senate and the White House, we need now more than ever public servants who will think for themselves. And faced now with a steep Democratic majority in Congress, Saxby isn't going to be an easy 'yes' vote, and he's not going to be an automatic 'no' vote -- he's going to vote his conscience and do what is right for Georgia and what is right for America.Palin then goes on to cite some of the usual Republican talking points about taxes, the Second Amendment, energy independence, victory in Iraq, and the sanctity of life, but her tone is very different than when she was campaigning on behalf of John McCain: less personal, less sanctimonious, less reactionary, less dumbed-down.
Famous last words, but I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan. Certainly, there will be more than a few exceptions, and just as certainly, it may all be done through gritted teeth -- like that Simpsons episode where Itchy and Scratchy sit on the porch and pour one another lemonade. But if the Republicans have realized that it doesn't help their cause to constantly be behaving like assholes, then bully for them.
12.02.2008
Georgia Senate Runoff Liveblog
@ 7:33 PM
9:04 EST [Nate]: A disappointing night for Democrats. On November 4th, Democrats became the de facto ruling party ... circa 2006 or so, the Dems got very good at figuring out what sort of messaging works when you're in the minority, but that's very different from the sort of messaging you have to do when you're in the majority. There's going to be a temptation in some circles to write this one off to poor African-American turnout or whatever, and that certainly is a large portion of the story. But I think the Democrats need to think carefully about what went wrong here as they begin to gear up for 2010.
9:01 EST [Sean]: CNN has called the race. We think when it's all said and done Martin will lose by around 10 points. We're headed over to the Martin gathering, that'll do it for me tonight.
8:54 EST [Sean]: There just aren't enough votes in DeKalb. Saxby Chambliss will win re-election.
8:40 EST [Sean]: From where I sit, this is looking pretty pessimistic for Jim Martin. The gap is 250,000 votes with over 1,000,000 in. We know that Fulton County hasn't reported the heavy African-American precincts yet, but I'm also surprised the race hasn't been called yet.
8:40 EST [Nate]: Well, I'll say this ... this race looks to be sufficiently nonclose that Obama is looking fairly smart for staying away from the state.
8:33 EST [Nate]. Most of Cobb County in ... Chambliss won by 10.9 points on Election Day, winning by 27.6 points tonight. And turnout is fairly high there. Now, it may be the case that even within a given county, the more rural, redder areas tend to report first ... but ... frankly, I'm not sure why this hasn't gotten called yet.
8:29 EST [Nate]: But even in DeKalb, Martin's margins are materially off what they were on Election Day. On the other hand, turnout looks to be at a pretty good clip there.
8:23 EST [Sean]: DeKalb is coming in. About 14% of the precincts are in, and Martin gained 20,000 votes back.
8:20 EST [Sean]: The numbers look ominous from what's in. On the other hand, DeKalb and Fulton aren't in, and we're hearing that there are good numbers there. If the gap gets to be 200,000 before those counties report, however, that's probably all she wrote for Martin.
8:19 EST [Nate]: Sean should have more detail in a moment, but the reason this hasn't gotten called yet is because there's basically nothing in from the Democrat-heavy counties in Atlanta or the black belt. Martin, however, is going to need to do a lot better in those counties than he is elsewhere in the state, overperforming his November 4 margins and/or getting proportionately greater turnout than Martin is getting in red counties. But we're in hail mary territory at this point, at least from where I sit.
8:01 EST [Nate]: I haven't found a single county with a significant percentage of the vote in where Chambliss isn't performing better than he did on November 4. This looks like a 14 point win for him or something.
7:54 EST [Nate]: Gwinnett County: Chambliss won by 10.8 points on November 4, winning by 28.9 points so far tonight. Don't see how in the world this is happening for Martin.
7:50 EST [Sean]: For those following on the Georgia Secretary of State's site, those numbers can appear to be fully in (i.e., 7 out of 7 precincts reporting), and may still change. So keep an eye on that.
7:45 EST [Sean]: Per reports in the field, long lines in Savannah were only just finishing up.
7:44 EST [Nate]: You're in a better position than I am to know, Sean, but this looks like a good night for Chambliss so far. Take Whitfield County, for instance, which has 12 of its 25 precincts counted so far. Chambliss won that county by 31.3% on November 4, but he's winning it by 40.6% so far tonight. Those results appear to be fairly typical. If you're really scraping for good news for Martin, turnout is pretty light in Whitfield at least, extrapolating out less than 40% of November 4's numbers.
7:39 EST [Sean]: As of three weeks ago, 174 unpaid veteran Obama organizers were in the state, and more flooded the state in the final days. Estimates put the number of experienced Obama organizers at over 300.
7:33 EST [Sean]: The polls have closed in Georgia, including in two Fulton County that stayed open half an hour later. In the very earliest returns Saxby Chambliss has opened with a large percentage lead. That might hold, but until we get Fulton and DeKalb results we're not going to know for sure.
9:01 EST [Sean]: CNN has called the race. We think when it's all said and done Martin will lose by around 10 points. We're headed over to the Martin gathering, that'll do it for me tonight.
8:54 EST [Sean]: There just aren't enough votes in DeKalb. Saxby Chambliss will win re-election.
8:40 EST [Sean]: From where I sit, this is looking pretty pessimistic for Jim Martin. The gap is 250,000 votes with over 1,000,000 in. We know that Fulton County hasn't reported the heavy African-American precincts yet, but I'm also surprised the race hasn't been called yet.
8:40 EST [Nate]: Well, I'll say this ... this race looks to be sufficiently nonclose that Obama is looking fairly smart for staying away from the state.
8:33 EST [Nate]. Most of Cobb County in ... Chambliss won by 10.9 points on Election Day, winning by 27.6 points tonight. And turnout is fairly high there. Now, it may be the case that even within a given county, the more rural, redder areas tend to report first ... but ... frankly, I'm not sure why this hasn't gotten called yet.
8:29 EST [Nate]: But even in DeKalb, Martin's margins are materially off what they were on Election Day. On the other hand, turnout looks to be at a pretty good clip there.
8:23 EST [Sean]: DeKalb is coming in. About 14% of the precincts are in, and Martin gained 20,000 votes back.
8:20 EST [Sean]: The numbers look ominous from what's in. On the other hand, DeKalb and Fulton aren't in, and we're hearing that there are good numbers there. If the gap gets to be 200,000 before those counties report, however, that's probably all she wrote for Martin.
8:19 EST [Nate]: Sean should have more detail in a moment, but the reason this hasn't gotten called yet is because there's basically nothing in from the Democrat-heavy counties in Atlanta or the black belt. Martin, however, is going to need to do a lot better in those counties than he is elsewhere in the state, overperforming his November 4 margins and/or getting proportionately greater turnout than Martin is getting in red counties. But we're in hail mary territory at this point, at least from where I sit.
8:01 EST [Nate]: I haven't found a single county with a significant percentage of the vote in where Chambliss isn't performing better than he did on November 4. This looks like a 14 point win for him or something.
7:54 EST [Nate]: Gwinnett County: Chambliss won by 10.8 points on November 4, winning by 28.9 points so far tonight. Don't see how in the world this is happening for Martin.
7:50 EST [Sean]: For those following on the Georgia Secretary of State's site, those numbers can appear to be fully in (i.e., 7 out of 7 precincts reporting), and may still change. So keep an eye on that.
7:45 EST [Sean]: Per reports in the field, long lines in Savannah were only just finishing up.
7:44 EST [Nate]: You're in a better position than I am to know, Sean, but this looks like a good night for Chambliss so far. Take Whitfield County, for instance, which has 12 of its 25 precincts counted so far. Chambliss won that county by 31.3% on November 4, but he's winning it by 40.6% so far tonight. Those results appear to be fairly typical. If you're really scraping for good news for Martin, turnout is pretty light in Whitfield at least, extrapolating out less than 40% of November 4's numbers.
7:39 EST [Sean]: As of three weeks ago, 174 unpaid veteran Obama organizers were in the state, and more flooded the state in the final days. Estimates put the number of experienced Obama organizers at over 300.
7:33 EST [Sean]: The polls have closed in Georgia, including in two Fulton County that stayed open half an hour later. In the very earliest returns Saxby Chambliss has opened with a large percentage lead. That might hold, but until we get Fulton and DeKalb results we're not going to know for sure.
Georgia Senate Runoff 6:45 PM EST Update
@ 6:45 PM
7:25 PM EST [Nate]: So far, Chambliss appears to be overperforming his November 4 margins in the few counties that have precincts reporting results, although those precincts may be non-representative and/or consist of absentee ballots.
6:45 PM EST [Sean]: Quick update.
We're hearing that there are lines in Athens (home of the University of Georgia) in Democratic counties. We also hear DeKalb has been doing particularly well. The staff here is dialing voters in the last-minute push.
For the Obama organizers around the country who could not make it here to Georgia, there is a special tool that field staff created to help make dials into Georgia.
Over 25,000 calls have been made via this tool, and we can say that Ohio's staff has been called out for "weak sauce." After ten calls, one reaches "Data Intern" status. 25 calls, and you reach "Yard Sign" level. The 20-ish labels escalate on perceived value and/or badassery. Right now, "Rahm Emanuel" is the top level. (Some people have resumes out.)
We'll start liveblogging in a few minutes.
6:45 PM EST [Sean]: Quick update.
We're hearing that there are lines in Athens (home of the University of Georgia) in Democratic counties. We also hear DeKalb has been doing particularly well. The staff here is dialing voters in the last-minute push.
For the Obama organizers around the country who could not make it here to Georgia, there is a special tool that field staff created to help make dials into Georgia.
Over 25,000 calls have been made via this tool, and we can say that Ohio's staff has been called out for "weak sauce." After ten calls, one reaches "Data Intern" status. 25 calls, and you reach "Yard Sign" level. The 20-ish labels escalate on perceived value and/or badassery. Right now, "Rahm Emanuel" is the top level. (Some people have resumes out.)
We'll start liveblogging in a few minutes.
Franken's Good Day Shifts Odds on Recount
@ 5:44 PM
Since our post earlier this afternoon suggesting that Norm Coleman was the slight favorite to win the recount, Al Franken has gotten three pieces of good news which cloud the picture and may tilt the probabilities in his favor.
The first is that, according to TPM's Eric Kleefeld, the Franken campaign estimated that it was just 50 ballots behind as of this morning, assuming that all challenges will be rejected. This standard is different from the one the Secretary of State uses, as the Secretary of State treats all challenged ballots as nonvotes until they are addressed by the Canvassing Board, effectively allowing either campaign to deduct votes from the opponent's total by challenging legal ballots. However, since the vast majority of such challenges will be rejected, the Franken campaign's standard is probably more reasonable.
I have also had conversations with senior Franken officials and been quoted similar numbers, and believe there is strong reason to regard the Franken campaign's claims as credible -- they are tracking every challenged ballot in every precinct, and have far more information about the nature of ballot challenges than is publicly available. (The Coleman campaign likely has such information too, but have been less forthcoming about it). In addition, being about 50 ballots behind at this stage would also be more consistent with the consensus of our statistical models, which suggested that while Franken probably remained behind, the race was much closer than it appeared to be from the Secretary of State's count.
The second piece of cheery news for Franken is that officials in Ramsey County have "discovered" a stack of 171 ballots that were never counted in the first place; those ballots returned a net of 37 votes for Franken. This is a very big deal; a net gain of 37 votes makes a huge amount of difference in a race that could easily be decided by a small, double-digit margin. If the 37-vote gain in added to the 50-vote margin that the Franken campaign estimated that it trailed by at the start of the day, that would put them just 13 votes behind with 8-9 percent of the state's votes still left to be counted. That is to say, according to the Franken campaign's methodology, the race will likely be effectively tied as we head toward the challenge stage of the recount process.
The final piece of news is that the Canvassing Board has instructed county officials to sort through rejected absentee ballots, and identify those ballots which did not appear to have a valid reason for rejection. This is potentially (although far from certainly) a precursor to those ballots actually being counted, a process which we estimated would result in a net gain of 25 to 100 votes for Franken (the Franken campaign believes a similar number of ballots are at stake).
All in all, it is suddenly much more difficult to make the case that Coleman is the favorite in the recount. If the absentee ballots wind up being counted, the opposite may in fact be true.
The first is that, according to TPM's Eric Kleefeld, the Franken campaign estimated that it was just 50 ballots behind as of this morning, assuming that all challenges will be rejected. This standard is different from the one the Secretary of State uses, as the Secretary of State treats all challenged ballots as nonvotes until they are addressed by the Canvassing Board, effectively allowing either campaign to deduct votes from the opponent's total by challenging legal ballots. However, since the vast majority of such challenges will be rejected, the Franken campaign's standard is probably more reasonable.
I have also had conversations with senior Franken officials and been quoted similar numbers, and believe there is strong reason to regard the Franken campaign's claims as credible -- they are tracking every challenged ballot in every precinct, and have far more information about the nature of ballot challenges than is publicly available. (The Coleman campaign likely has such information too, but have been less forthcoming about it). In addition, being about 50 ballots behind at this stage would also be more consistent with the consensus of our statistical models, which suggested that while Franken probably remained behind, the race was much closer than it appeared to be from the Secretary of State's count.
The second piece of cheery news for Franken is that officials in Ramsey County have "discovered" a stack of 171 ballots that were never counted in the first place; those ballots returned a net of 37 votes for Franken. This is a very big deal; a net gain of 37 votes makes a huge amount of difference in a race that could easily be decided by a small, double-digit margin. If the 37-vote gain in added to the 50-vote margin that the Franken campaign estimated that it trailed by at the start of the day, that would put them just 13 votes behind with 8-9 percent of the state's votes still left to be counted. That is to say, according to the Franken campaign's methodology, the race will likely be effectively tied as we head toward the challenge stage of the recount process.
The final piece of news is that the Canvassing Board has instructed county officials to sort through rejected absentee ballots, and identify those ballots which did not appear to have a valid reason for rejection. This is potentially (although far from certainly) a precursor to those ballots actually being counted, a process which we estimated would result in a net gain of 25 to 100 votes for Franken (the Franken campaign believes a similar number of ballots are at stake).
All in all, it is suddenly much more difficult to make the case that Coleman is the favorite in the recount. If the absentee ballots wind up being counted, the opposite may in fact be true.
Georgia Senate Runoff 5 PM EST Update
@ 5:00 PM
It's runoff day here in Georgia, and we're ensconced in Jim Martin's boiler room. Polls close in two hours, and we'll find out shortly who has more mojo bragging rights, Sarah Palin or Ludacris. The weather is great and the ballot is short, with only this race and a Public Service Commission race.
Yesterday we learned that the Martin contact rate during GOTV has been impressively high, with up to 1,000 contacts for 1,500 attempts. According to that source, who knows numbers from working through previous Georgia Democratic voter files, this is just a stunning improvement. What those numbers imply is that the influx of organization will allow for the efficient channeling of volunteer dials and knocks. Where labor fills in, the campaign knows who and where the voters are. Unlike the Obama emphasis on early voting, the Martin campaign did not do a gigantic absentee push, instead opting for a big December 2 turnout.
As of last night, according to Martin spokesman Matt Canter, 2,500 volunteers had signed up for the online neighbor-to-neighbor phonebanking tool. Word is that this number has been smashed, beginning early this morning. In addition to and separate from the online phonebanking volunteers (from anywhere), 3,200 on-ground volunteers have deployed around the state for Runoff Day knocking and calling.
Among other tasks, right now, the boiler room is fielding reports about what percent of turf has been canvassed in various areas. The field teams pipeline up their data -- such and such number of calls, such and such percent of walk packets have been walked -- and the field team makes decisions about whether and where to reallocate canvassers.
The voter protection group is busy in another wing of the boiler room location, and the word is things have gone fairly smoothly today. Reports this morning about the Secretary of State's website being briefly down (polling locations are on the site) were handled, and the website has been up and running since the reports.
The candidate himself has been busy with radio and TV appearances today, and we caught up to him briefly at the IBEW union hall just south of downtown Atlanta this afternoon, where at least 100 workers were busy doing Runoff Day GOTV.
We'll have an update in a bit and as things happen. We're being somewhat careful about what we report, as boiler room is delicate and unusual access and we're handling it accordingly. (They made sure to say that if you're in Georgia and reading this now and haven't voted, go vote and come back and read later.)
Yesterday we learned that the Martin contact rate during GOTV has been impressively high, with up to 1,000 contacts for 1,500 attempts. According to that source, who knows numbers from working through previous Georgia Democratic voter files, this is just a stunning improvement. What those numbers imply is that the influx of organization will allow for the efficient channeling of volunteer dials and knocks. Where labor fills in, the campaign knows who and where the voters are. Unlike the Obama emphasis on early voting, the Martin campaign did not do a gigantic absentee push, instead opting for a big December 2 turnout.
As of last night, according to Martin spokesman Matt Canter, 2,500 volunteers had signed up for the online neighbor-to-neighbor phonebanking tool. Word is that this number has been smashed, beginning early this morning. In addition to and separate from the online phonebanking volunteers (from anywhere), 3,200 on-ground volunteers have deployed around the state for Runoff Day knocking and calling.
Among other tasks, right now, the boiler room is fielding reports about what percent of turf has been canvassed in various areas. The field teams pipeline up their data -- such and such number of calls, such and such percent of walk packets have been walked -- and the field team makes decisions about whether and where to reallocate canvassers.
The voter protection group is busy in another wing of the boiler room location, and the word is things have gone fairly smoothly today. Reports this morning about the Secretary of State's website being briefly down (polling locations are on the site) were handled, and the website has been up and running since the reports.
The candidate himself has been busy with radio and TV appearances today, and we caught up to him briefly at the IBEW union hall just south of downtown Atlanta this afternoon, where at least 100 workers were busy doing Runoff Day GOTV.
We'll have an update in a bit and as things happen. We're being somewhat careful about what we report, as boiler room is delicate and unusual access and we're handling it accordingly. (They made sure to say that if you're in Georgia and reading this now and haven't voted, go vote and come back and read later.)
Clinton's Appointment Triggers Game of Electoral Chairs in New York
@ 4:12 PM
With yesterday's confirmation that Hillary Clinton will leave her senate seat to become the next Secretary of State, New Yorkers now find themselves in the unusual position of having both their senate seats and their governor up for re-election in 2010. In addition, residents of New York City will have a mayoral election in 2009.
The coincidence of so many seats being up for election at once could have implications for the appointment that current governor David Paterson chooses to make for Clinton's junior senate seat. In particular, Clinton's Class 1 senate seat might be less vulnerable than it ordinarily might be to either a primary or a general election challenge because of the presence of the gubernatorial race. This is because, between the gubernatorial race and the Class 1 senate seat, the gubernatorial race is probably the more desirable position. For one thing, in a large-population state like New York, being the governor is probably a higher prestige and more powerful position than being a US Senator -- this is particularly so for Republican candidates, who would probably have to serve in the Senate as members of the minority party. For another, Clinton's seat is subject to re-election again in 2012, which means that the winner of the seat is guaranteed only a two-year term.
Thus, if Paterson wanted to appoint a relatively green candidate to the Senate with relatively low statewide name recognition -- say a minority like NY-12's Nydia Velázquez or Buffalo mayor Byron Brown -- this might be a good opportunity to do so, as the governor's race might protect them from facing some of the strongest Republican or Democratic opposition. Velázquez or Brown -- both capable politicians -- would then have built up experience, fundraising networks and the like for a potentially more vigorous challenge in 2012.
On the other hand, Paterson is not exactly a neutral party in all of this, as he himself intends to run for re-election in 2010. The Democratic candidate he has most to fear is Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is the plurality choice to fill Clinton's senate seat and who could very easily mount a primary challenge against Paterson should he not be appointed to the Senate. Although Paterson and Cuomo are friendly, the New York Times has suggested that Cuomo is mounting a stealth PR campaign for the senate seat, and would appear to be very much interested in it.
Early polls show Paterson leading Cuomo among Democratic primary voters in the governor's race; on the other hand, Paterson's approval ratings are tepid, and the situation in New York can be considered volatile because of the evolving implications of the financial crisis in the state.
Complicating matters further is the presence of the New York City mayoral race, which goes up for election again next year. Michael Bloomberg somewhat controversially succeeded in getting the City Council to reverse the city's term limits law, allowing him to run for a third term, a decision which is now subject to a legal challenge. Should the legal challenge prevail, should Bloomberg decide that he doesn't want to run for a third term after all, or should Bloomberg run for mayor and be defeated, he too could become a candidate for either the Senate or the governorship; polls show he and Paterson running about even for the latter position.
Our uninformed guess is that Paterson will see the writing on the wall and decide to appoint Cuomo. If Cuomo is a free agent and elects to run for governor, he is a double-edged threat to Paterson. Not only might Cuomo succeed in primarying Paterson out, but even if he were to fail, the prospect of a bloody and expensive primary battle might encourage Rudy Giuliani and possibly Bloomberg to enter the governor's race, considerably complicating Paterson's task in November.
The one person who would appear to be completely safe in all of this is Chuck Schumer, whose Class 3 senate seat will also be up for re-election in 2010. Credible opponents would be insane to challenge Schumer, whose approval ratings are high and who is among the top fundraisers in the chamber, when they could instead take a whack at either the quasi-incumbent Paterson or whichever quasi-incumbent Paterson appoints to fill the Clinton seat.
The coincidence of so many seats being up for election at once could have implications for the appointment that current governor David Paterson chooses to make for Clinton's junior senate seat. In particular, Clinton's Class 1 senate seat might be less vulnerable than it ordinarily might be to either a primary or a general election challenge because of the presence of the gubernatorial race. This is because, between the gubernatorial race and the Class 1 senate seat, the gubernatorial race is probably the more desirable position. For one thing, in a large-population state like New York, being the governor is probably a higher prestige and more powerful position than being a US Senator -- this is particularly so for Republican candidates, who would probably have to serve in the Senate as members of the minority party. For another, Clinton's seat is subject to re-election again in 2012, which means that the winner of the seat is guaranteed only a two-year term.
Thus, if Paterson wanted to appoint a relatively green candidate to the Senate with relatively low statewide name recognition -- say a minority like NY-12's Nydia Velázquez or Buffalo mayor Byron Brown -- this might be a good opportunity to do so, as the governor's race might protect them from facing some of the strongest Republican or Democratic opposition. Velázquez or Brown -- both capable politicians -- would then have built up experience, fundraising networks and the like for a potentially more vigorous challenge in 2012.
On the other hand, Paterson is not exactly a neutral party in all of this, as he himself intends to run for re-election in 2010. The Democratic candidate he has most to fear is Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is the plurality choice to fill Clinton's senate seat and who could very easily mount a primary challenge against Paterson should he not be appointed to the Senate. Although Paterson and Cuomo are friendly, the New York Times has suggested that Cuomo is mounting a stealth PR campaign for the senate seat, and would appear to be very much interested in it.
Early polls show Paterson leading Cuomo among Democratic primary voters in the governor's race; on the other hand, Paterson's approval ratings are tepid, and the situation in New York can be considered volatile because of the evolving implications of the financial crisis in the state.
Complicating matters further is the presence of the New York City mayoral race, which goes up for election again next year. Michael Bloomberg somewhat controversially succeeded in getting the City Council to reverse the city's term limits law, allowing him to run for a third term, a decision which is now subject to a legal challenge. Should the legal challenge prevail, should Bloomberg decide that he doesn't want to run for a third term after all, or should Bloomberg run for mayor and be defeated, he too could become a candidate for either the Senate or the governorship; polls show he and Paterson running about even for the latter position.
Our uninformed guess is that Paterson will see the writing on the wall and decide to appoint Cuomo. If Cuomo is a free agent and elects to run for governor, he is a double-edged threat to Paterson. Not only might Cuomo succeed in primarying Paterson out, but even if he were to fail, the prospect of a bloody and expensive primary battle might encourage Rudy Giuliani and possibly Bloomberg to enter the governor's race, considerably complicating Paterson's task in November.
The one person who would appear to be completely safe in all of this is Chuck Schumer, whose Class 3 senate seat will also be up for re-election in 2010. Credible opponents would be insane to challenge Schumer, whose approval ratings are high and who is among the top fundraisers in the chamber, when they could instead take a whack at either the quasi-incumbent Paterson or whichever quasi-incumbent Paterson appoints to fill the Clinton seat.
Statistical Models Now Show Coleman as Slight Favorite
@ 1:58 PM
With in excess of 90 percent of Minnesota's votes now having been recounted, our statistical models now show Norm Coleman as the favorite to retain his senate seat, although with a high degree of uncertainty and without accounting the effects of potential rejected absentee ballots.
The basic process behind our projections is as follows: using precinct-level returns available from the Minnesota Secretary of State, we use regression analysis attempt to predict the number of ballots that a candidate has gained or lost in a given precinct based on the number of challenges issued by he and his opponent, and his share of the vote in the pre-recount stage of the process. Then, we set the number of challenges to zero in the regression equation, which ideally represents the state that occurs once all ballot challenges have been considered by the state's canvassing board later this month.
I am now running eight separate versions of the model based on various permutations of assumptions that one can make about how to build the model. Specifically (and feel free to skip this description if you don't care about the technicalities):
Here are the results:
This should not be interpreted to mean, however, that Franken only has a 1 in 8 chance of defeating Coleman. Given the high degrees of uncertainty and ambiguity implied by the models, they would suggest that Franken has roughly speaking somewhere between a 25% chance and a 50% chance of overtaking Coleman depending on which model is selected.
In addition, the models do not consider the potential impact of rejected absentee ballots, which the Franken campaign is still attempting to get counted. If Franken is able to get such ballots counted -- and there is a strong chance that he will -- they will likely be worth a net of somewhere between 25 and 100 votes to him. In this eventuality, the race should probably be considered a toss-up.
UPDATE: Since several people have asked, the Daily Kos diary suggesting that Franken is "leading" the recount is grossly misleading. In the most literal sense, Franken has indeed won the plurality of ballots counted so far in the re-count -- but he also won a plurality of ballots from those same precincts on Election Day, because they tended to come from slightly bluer precincts than the state as a whole. As the outstanding (mostly red-leaning) precincts are counted again, Coleman will gain ground and almost certainly overtake Franken in the Secretary of State's total; the question then is what will become of all the challenged ballots, which is what the statistical model is trying to address.
The basic process behind our projections is as follows: using precinct-level returns available from the Minnesota Secretary of State, we use regression analysis attempt to predict the number of ballots that a candidate has gained or lost in a given precinct based on the number of challenges issued by he and his opponent, and his share of the vote in the pre-recount stage of the process. Then, we set the number of challenges to zero in the regression equation, which ideally represents the state that occurs once all ballot challenges have been considered by the state's canvassing board later this month.
I am now running eight separate versions of the model based on various permutations of assumptions that one can make about how to build the model. Specifically (and feel free to skip this description if you don't care about the technicalities):
'Gross' models evaluate each candidate's results individually, e.g. how much Franken gains in the absolute count. 'Net' models evaluate how much Franken gains relative to Coleman, without worrying about the absolute count. 'Simple' models include a maximum of three variables (plus a constant term): Franken's share of the two-way vote in that precinct, the frequency of challenges initiated by Coleman, and the frequency of challenges initiated by Franken. 'Complex' models account for two-way and three-way interactions (where statistically significant) between these independent variables. The regression is weighted either based on the number of votes tabulated in that precinct ('Straight'), or based on the square root of the number of votes in that precinct ('Root'). In all models, variables are dropped if not statistically significant at the 95 percent certainty level.The reason I'm including these different versions is because the models are not especially precise, and so we want to get some sense for how robust they are. The margins of error on the models are high -- at least +/- 200 votes, and sometimes more depending on the complexity of the model.
Here are the results:
Type Depth Weight Franken Coleman Change ResultAll eight versions of the model show Franken gaining significant ground in the recount, from a net of 80 votes to a net of 218. Since Coleman led by 215 votes in the state's certified, pre-recount tally, however, only one of the eight models now shows Franken gaining enough votes to overtake Coleman, and then only by 3 ballots.
Gross Simple Straight +581 +454 F +127 C +88
Gross Simple Root +639 +544 F +95 C +120
Gross Complex Straight +545 +327 F +218 F +3
Gross Complex Root +584 +447 F +107 C +108
Net Simple Straight -- -- F +128 C +87
Net Simple Root -- -- F +80 C +135
Net Complex Straight -- -- F +209 C +6
Net Complex Root -- -- F +125 C +90
This should not be interpreted to mean, however, that Franken only has a 1 in 8 chance of defeating Coleman. Given the high degrees of uncertainty and ambiguity implied by the models, they would suggest that Franken has roughly speaking somewhere between a 25% chance and a 50% chance of overtaking Coleman depending on which model is selected.
In addition, the models do not consider the potential impact of rejected absentee ballots, which the Franken campaign is still attempting to get counted. If Franken is able to get such ballots counted -- and there is a strong chance that he will -- they will likely be worth a net of somewhere between 25 and 100 votes to him. In this eventuality, the race should probably be considered a toss-up.
UPDATE: Since several people have asked, the Daily Kos diary suggesting that Franken is "leading" the recount is grossly misleading. In the most literal sense, Franken has indeed won the plurality of ballots counted so far in the re-count -- but he also won a plurality of ballots from those same precincts on Election Day, because they tended to come from slightly bluer precincts than the state as a whole. As the outstanding (mostly red-leaning) precincts are counted again, Coleman will gain ground and almost certainly overtake Franken in the Secretary of State's total; the question then is what will become of all the challenged ballots, which is what the statistical model is trying to address.
12.01.2008
Clinton's Fresh Start
@ 11:27 PM
While we continued to tour Georgia, the dominant political news of the day was the official announcement from Barack Obama that he will nominate Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Regardless of one's opinion of the pick, it's clear Clinton has a golden opportunity here to refresh her image not only within the Democratic Party, but with the country as a whole.
Her future presidential ambition is now inextricably bound to Barack Obama's success as President. From Obama's perspective, harnessing that energy to work in his favor was apparently worth the risk of the horrendous message discipline the Clinton machine brings with it wherever it goes. At first blush, it wouldn't seem like a position endlessly scrutinized by foreign governments would be the ideal place for a political group that cannot keep a secret.
But most Democrats seem willing to give Obama's judgment in the matter the benefit of the doubt. In a battle between skepticism of Clinton and trust of Obama, right now most of Obama's supporters who mistrust Clinton seem willing to trust Obama's judgment.
Not that they have a choice. Obama's the boss.
In other news, with Janet Napolitano's expected successful appointment to Homeland Security, Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer will take the vacant governor's seat. Hillary Clinton's Senate seat will be appointed by Democratic Governor David Paterson. This is the third Democratic Senate seat that needs to be filled. Ted Kaufman will replace Joe Biden in Delaware, and in Illinois Rod Blagojevich will name a replacement for Barack Obama.
Her future presidential ambition is now inextricably bound to Barack Obama's success as President. From Obama's perspective, harnessing that energy to work in his favor was apparently worth the risk of the horrendous message discipline the Clinton machine brings with it wherever it goes. At first blush, it wouldn't seem like a position endlessly scrutinized by foreign governments would be the ideal place for a political group that cannot keep a secret.
But most Democrats seem willing to give Obama's judgment in the matter the benefit of the doubt. In a battle between skepticism of Clinton and trust of Obama, right now most of Obama's supporters who mistrust Clinton seem willing to trust Obama's judgment.
Not that they have a choice. Obama's the boss.
In other news, with Janet Napolitano's expected successful appointment to Homeland Security, Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer will take the vacant governor's seat. Hillary Clinton's Senate seat will be appointed by Democratic Governor David Paterson. This is the third Democratic Senate seat that needs to be filled. Ted Kaufman will replace Joe Biden in Delaware, and in Illinois Rod Blagojevich will name a replacement for Barack Obama.
Ludicrous
@ 4:53 PM
Bright and early on a chilly morning in Augusta, a crowd of just under 3,000 lined up to see Sarah Palin stump for Saxby Chambliss, her first stump appearance since the presidential race ended nearly four weeks ago.
Palin implored the crowd to vote for Saxby, "not just for Georgia" but for Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest of the country. Checks and balances in Washington, Palin argued, are what is "needed for our democracy."
Balance of power is the argument, and as the attack ads saturate Georgia airwaves, Palin's crowd cheered for her noticeably lucid argument that supporting Saxby Chambliss meant one critical vote for policies the Republican base holds dear. While sending Rudy Giuliani to north Georgia might have been questionable, any time you can get 3,000 to come out on a cold weekday morning in a smaller part of the state for a runoff election, it's wise to take that opportunity.
We're here in the Gwinnett Center in the midst of Palin's 4th appearance of the day (stops in Savannah and Perry -- near Macon -- preceded this gathering). Roughly 4,000 appear to have gathered, including Ralph Reed and at least two girls with tiaras, and we'll append pics for you in an update later. Palin's address this afternoon is degrees more impassioned and powerfully delivered than her relatively quick remarks in Augusta.
Palin also showed a wry sense of humor that made the audience chuckle when she said that to raise taxes right now "would be ludicrous," an allusion to rapper Ludacris' appearance at the state Capitol on behalf of Jim Martin later today. It's a good sign for Martin, at least, that the word is out. (Gillian is particularly excited to see T.I., who is rumored to appear as well.)
Josh Putnam has an excellent analysis of the final early voting numbers here, and points out that African-American vote stayed 22.5% on early voting of 491,540. That represents a tough hill for Martin to climb on Election Day.
The feeling we've gotten as we've stopped into Martin field offices around the state these past few days is that it's been only the final week where the Obama field troops have felt like they've seen the voter contact and GOTV numbers move to where they're happy. We may have understated the Obama field presence. The Suwanee (Gwinnett County) office alone has 31 Obama organizers. While that is larger than typical for Martin offices dispersed around the state, it should give you an idea of how determined the field focus is.
It will take a huge final-day push to overcome the early lead. A PPP poll released today says that Chambliss led 58-41 among early voters. If that poll is true and early voting turns out to be 25% of the runoff vote (i.e., runoff voting turns out to be roughly 2 million, or roughly half of November 4's total), then Martin will need to win 53-47 tomorrow to edge Chambliss in the race.
The frustrating thing about projecting a runoff is that few know what will happen. Polling models are hard to trust, given the small number of data points and unpredictability of enthusiasm. Right now we know that the early voting black vote is great news for Saxby Chambliss, and we know from observation that the Martin ground game is far more robust, far more experienced and far more intense, which is great news for Jim Martin.
Palin implored the crowd to vote for Saxby, "not just for Georgia" but for Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest of the country. Checks and balances in Washington, Palin argued, are what is "needed for our democracy."
Balance of power is the argument, and as the attack ads saturate Georgia airwaves, Palin's crowd cheered for her noticeably lucid argument that supporting Saxby Chambliss meant one critical vote for policies the Republican base holds dear. While sending Rudy Giuliani to north Georgia might have been questionable, any time you can get 3,000 to come out on a cold weekday morning in a smaller part of the state for a runoff election, it's wise to take that opportunity.
We're here in the Gwinnett Center in the midst of Palin's 4th appearance of the day (stops in Savannah and Perry -- near Macon -- preceded this gathering). Roughly 4,000 appear to have gathered, including Ralph Reed and at least two girls with tiaras, and we'll append pics for you in an update later. Palin's address this afternoon is degrees more impassioned and powerfully delivered than her relatively quick remarks in Augusta.
Palin also showed a wry sense of humor that made the audience chuckle when she said that to raise taxes right now "would be ludicrous," an allusion to rapper Ludacris' appearance at the state Capitol on behalf of Jim Martin later today. It's a good sign for Martin, at least, that the word is out. (Gillian is particularly excited to see T.I., who is rumored to appear as well.)
Josh Putnam has an excellent analysis of the final early voting numbers here, and points out that African-American vote stayed 22.5% on early voting of 491,540. That represents a tough hill for Martin to climb on Election Day.
The feeling we've gotten as we've stopped into Martin field offices around the state these past few days is that it's been only the final week where the Obama field troops have felt like they've seen the voter contact and GOTV numbers move to where they're happy. We may have understated the Obama field presence. The Suwanee (Gwinnett County) office alone has 31 Obama organizers. While that is larger than typical for Martin offices dispersed around the state, it should give you an idea of how determined the field focus is.
It will take a huge final-day push to overcome the early lead. A PPP poll released today says that Chambliss led 58-41 among early voters. If that poll is true and early voting turns out to be 25% of the runoff vote (i.e., runoff voting turns out to be roughly 2 million, or roughly half of November 4's total), then Martin will need to win 53-47 tomorrow to edge Chambliss in the race.
The frustrating thing about projecting a runoff is that few know what will happen. Polling models are hard to trust, given the small number of data points and unpredictability of enthusiasm. Right now we know that the early voting black vote is great news for Saxby Chambliss, and we know from observation that the Martin ground game is far more robust, far more experienced and far more intense, which is great news for Jim Martin.
11.30.2008
Obama's Organizers in Georgia, But Not Obama
@ 3:40 PM
The general is away, but the troops are at battle. If Barack Obama isn't coming to rain-soaked Georgia, his ground organization is very much here. In addition to the existing Georgia organizing infrastructure that has stayed on board, at least fifty outside organizers showed up in Georgia within a few days of November 4. The mission: to help Democrat Jim Martin in his U.S. Senate runoff against incumbent Saxby Chambliss. More organizers arrive each day. They're young -- but they're veterans -- and they've jumped right in.
In other parts of the country, including northern and southern California, Obama organizers run phone banks into Georgia on Martin's behalf. So many organizers have flooded in that in Savannah yesterday, the candidate himself mistook us for organizers and thanked us for coming down.
Ohio's organizers, in particular, have a special relationship with Georgia. When Obama pulled a number of his staff out of Georgia during the general election, a large percentage of that group headed to the Buckeye state, and anyone in that category has returned on paid staff under Georgia's Campaign for Change.
Martin has ground to make up in the race; on November 4, Chambliss narrowly missed the 50% mark that would have given him an outright win. Instead, Chambliss and Martin will vie on Tuesday for one of the two undecided Senate seats in a runoff election that has drawn larger-than-usual national attention due to still-live Democratic hopes to reach a symbolic 60-seat caucus.
Barack Obama's choice not to visit the state personally has come under criticism. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich have all visited the state for Chambliss, and Sarah Palin will be stumping four times for the Republican on Runoff Eve. Jim Martin has had Al Gore and Bill Clinton stump for him, but the big missing name is Obama.
Different theories abound, but the simplest explanation is Obama is unwilling to squander any perception of strength this immediately into his term as President. (Technically, Obama will be sworn in January 20, 2009, but nobody disputes that an impotent George Bush has essentially curled into a fetal ball in the face of the massive economic crisis and that Obama is acting as de facto President.) Fairly or unfairly, if Martin fails to pull off the upset in red Georgia, Obama's "mandate" would come under question. It's a hard risk-reward calculus, especially for a Martin team that believes an Obama appearance would be extremely helpful, but it's the reality.
At the human level, there is almost a wistful, gravitational pull for many of these organizers in returning to a race. To work on the Obama campaign, these folks had to disconnect from their previous lives. Friendships, relationships, and other plans all took a backseat to the single-minded mission to elect Barack Obama. Plugging back into the world, especially when job plans for most of these twenty-somethings are uncertain, is a difficult task. While the pride is evident, conversations with many of these organizers reveals a strange sense of feeling lost, untethered from an all-consuming routine. So when organizers hear other organizers are coming to Georgia, it's a form of therapeutic reunion for many, much like a reunion of military veterans. Unless you've been through it, it's hard to explain.
The Martin campaign has 25 field offices in the state, which is the same number of offices Chambliss has. We visited the Savannah offices Friday night and yesterday, and the organizing edge goes to Martin. On Friday night, the Chambliss office was open but empty, and a couple of dialers worked on Saturday around noon.
As Gillian Bergeron, Obama's deputy field director in Colorado and our special photographer for this trip, snapped away, the cordial Chambliss staff subtly joined the volunteers to add perception to a larger phone bank. In reality, there were three dialing volunteers while we were there. The operation was phone calls; Martin's operation in Savannah was doorknocking, following a morning rally at the ILA Hall.
Polling in the runoff -- notoriously unreliable since nobody knows what turnout model to predict -- seems to peg the race at two or three points in Chambliss' favor. Chambliss, who finished three points ahead of Martin on November 4, remains the favorite. Still, Chambliss votes trailed McCain votes by nearly 182,000 on Election Day, while Martin votes trailed Obama votes by nearly 87,000.
This can be interpreted in one of two ways. One way is that not much enthusiasm exists for Chambliss within his own base, that nearly 9% of McCain voters were there to vote for President only (compared with under 5% of Obama voters who didn't also vote for Martin, with cross-ticket voters canceling each other out). Maybe this reflects a larger apathetic stance among Republicans toward Chambliss.
The other way to interpret the numbers is that Martin needed Obama on the ballot to get a higher percentage of his votes, and that without Obama there to inspire Democratic turnout, particularly among African-American voters, Martin will lose by a wider margin. In other words, Chambliss may have had higher dropoff from McCain, but he is less dependent on McCain's coattails than is Martin.
Whatever turns out to be the case, at the close of early voting Wednesday, according to the Secretary of State's office 345,564 had voted, and 22.5% of those votes were African-American, an ominous dropoff from the 34.5% of black early voters for the general election.
Still, according to Georgia Democratic Party spokesman Martin Matheny, thousands of volunteers were hard at work across the state knocking doors in the rain and making phone calls on Jim Martin's behalf. The lines on Election Day will be much shorter than during the general election, given the much shorter ballot, and Democrats here think that most of its voters are going to turn out on Runoff Day itself.
Lots of unknowns in rainy Georgia. We'll be bringing you a few more updates in the next two days, so stay tuned.
In other parts of the country, including northern and southern California, Obama organizers run phone banks into Georgia on Martin's behalf. So many organizers have flooded in that in Savannah yesterday, the candidate himself mistook us for organizers and thanked us for coming down.
Ohio's organizers, in particular, have a special relationship with Georgia. When Obama pulled a number of his staff out of Georgia during the general election, a large percentage of that group headed to the Buckeye state, and anyone in that category has returned on paid staff under Georgia's Campaign for Change.
Martin has ground to make up in the race; on November 4, Chambliss narrowly missed the 50% mark that would have given him an outright win. Instead, Chambliss and Martin will vie on Tuesday for one of the two undecided Senate seats in a runoff election that has drawn larger-than-usual national attention due to still-live Democratic hopes to reach a symbolic 60-seat caucus.
Barack Obama's choice not to visit the state personally has come under criticism. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich have all visited the state for Chambliss, and Sarah Palin will be stumping four times for the Republican on Runoff Eve. Jim Martin has had Al Gore and Bill Clinton stump for him, but the big missing name is Obama.
Different theories abound, but the simplest explanation is Obama is unwilling to squander any perception of strength this immediately into his term as President. (Technically, Obama will be sworn in January 20, 2009, but nobody disputes that an impotent George Bush has essentially curled into a fetal ball in the face of the massive economic crisis and that Obama is acting as de facto President.) Fairly or unfairly, if Martin fails to pull off the upset in red Georgia, Obama's "mandate" would come under question. It's a hard risk-reward calculus, especially for a Martin team that believes an Obama appearance would be extremely helpful, but it's the reality.
At the human level, there is almost a wistful, gravitational pull for many of these organizers in returning to a race. To work on the Obama campaign, these folks had to disconnect from their previous lives. Friendships, relationships, and other plans all took a backseat to the single-minded mission to elect Barack Obama. Plugging back into the world, especially when job plans for most of these twenty-somethings are uncertain, is a difficult task. While the pride is evident, conversations with many of these organizers reveals a strange sense of feeling lost, untethered from an all-consuming routine. So when organizers hear other organizers are coming to Georgia, it's a form of therapeutic reunion for many, much like a reunion of military veterans. Unless you've been through it, it's hard to explain.
The Martin campaign has 25 field offices in the state, which is the same number of offices Chambliss has. We visited the Savannah offices Friday night and yesterday, and the organizing edge goes to Martin. On Friday night, the Chambliss office was open but empty, and a couple of dialers worked on Saturday around noon.
As Gillian Bergeron, Obama's deputy field director in Colorado and our special photographer for this trip, snapped away, the cordial Chambliss staff subtly joined the volunteers to add perception to a larger phone bank. In reality, there were three dialing volunteers while we were there. The operation was phone calls; Martin's operation in Savannah was doorknocking, following a morning rally at the ILA Hall.
Polling in the runoff -- notoriously unreliable since nobody knows what turnout model to predict -- seems to peg the race at two or three points in Chambliss' favor. Chambliss, who finished three points ahead of Martin on November 4, remains the favorite. Still, Chambliss votes trailed McCain votes by nearly 182,000 on Election Day, while Martin votes trailed Obama votes by nearly 87,000.
This can be interpreted in one of two ways. One way is that not much enthusiasm exists for Chambliss within his own base, that nearly 9% of McCain voters were there to vote for President only (compared with under 5% of Obama voters who didn't also vote for Martin, with cross-ticket voters canceling each other out). Maybe this reflects a larger apathetic stance among Republicans toward Chambliss.
The other way to interpret the numbers is that Martin needed Obama on the ballot to get a higher percentage of his votes, and that without Obama there to inspire Democratic turnout, particularly among African-American voters, Martin will lose by a wider margin. In other words, Chambliss may have had higher dropoff from McCain, but he is less dependent on McCain's coattails than is Martin.
Whatever turns out to be the case, at the close of early voting Wednesday, according to the Secretary of State's office 345,564 had voted, and 22.5% of those votes were African-American, an ominous dropoff from the 34.5% of black early voters for the general election.
Still, according to Georgia Democratic Party spokesman Martin Matheny, thousands of volunteers were hard at work across the state knocking doors in the rain and making phone calls on Jim Martin's behalf. The lines on Election Day will be much shorter than during the general election, given the much shorter ballot, and Democrats here think that most of its voters are going to turn out on Runoff Day itself.
Lots of unknowns in rainy Georgia. We'll be bringing you a few more updates in the next two days, so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
