The Huffington Post reports on a rise of conservative militia groups across the United States. "The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise" according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Politico blogger Ben Smith relays a story about Orly Taitz. Apparently "Obama was born in Kenya" is just the tip-of-the-iceberg among her many conspiracy theories!
Tom Schaller at FiveThirtEight.com blogs about the emerging Democratic dominance of State Legislatures.
And the latest Wall Street Journal economic survey finds that the majority of economists believe that the recession is over. They also believe that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be appointed to a second term by President Obama for his handling of the economic crisis.
And here is the roundup of last nights political jokes on late night comedy shows:
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
How is New Media Changing Politics?
Part 10 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”
Those who are highly engaged in the political realm hear a lot about the prospects of “New Media” everyday. But what role does New Media really have in politics? More importantly, how can New Media be used effectively by campaigns and politicians?
When people think of New Media, they often associate it with social networking - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - but in fact it encompasses much more than that. Resources such as YouTube, social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, etc.) and the blogosphere are some of the other important tools in the New Media hype. And all of these tools are becoming more and more important in politics.
For example, as newspapers fall by the wayside, campaigns are increasing their outreach to bloggers. As we noted in Part 6 of this series, campaigns can engage these citizen journalists by sending them interesting YouTube videos, news clips, and other online materials regarding the race. It helps build a relationship with friendly bloggers and that can help get your name and message out there the way you want it to.
Yet, much of the New Media world requires navigation on the part of the user. In other words, if a voter is not interested in the campaign, they’re not going to subscribe to an email list, become a fan on Facebook, or a follower on Twitter.
So why are these tools still important?
There is one important group of voters that are still going to follow the campaign with these tools - supporters. Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
Let’s use Twitter as an example. As we mentioned in our own Twitter study last month, the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
So we decided to do an analysis of the New Media strategies of the two main campaigns of the Virginia Gubernatorial race going on right now between Democrat Criegh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell.
Deeds has some Tweets and Facebook updates that supporters can use. He mostly uses the social networking tools to update supporters on where he’ll be speaking each day. Occasionally, he also throws in less useful updates.
Take these three Tweets (in chronological order) on August 1st:
And in the past two weeks, he has only posted one link outside of Twitter. On Facebook, his posts have been more relevant - he regularly posts videos, events, and news bits that will encourage supporters. Yet his outreach to them on Facebook is still a little weak - he has less than 10,000 supporters while McDonnell has over 16,000. He also has just more than half as many followers on Twitter as McDonnell.
In fact, McDonnell uses Facebook just as well - constantly linking to his website on updates, informing supporters about upcoming events, and posting even more videos and positive news stories as Deeds. On Twitter, McDonnell constantly links to videos, pictures, news stories, and other websites that will be of use to supporters - engaging them so they will be encouraged to help his campaign.
Obviously, it would be irresponsible to credit McDonnell’s lead on Deeds solely with his dominant social networking strategy, but it certainly helps.
Another favorite New Media tool has been YouTube. Although we were quick to criticize this video for its inaccuracies, it certainly served its purpose well - it engaged and encouraged like-minded Recovery Act opponents.
Of course, using New Media as effectively as it can be used takes a lot of work. Campaigns that actually have a New Media coordinator - whose sole responsibility is social networking, engaging bloggers, posting on sites such as YouTube and Flickr, social bookmarking, etc. - can have a tremendous advantage in fundraising, volunteer support, and even message delivery.
Yet there is still a danger to such a strategy.
Back in June we mentioned how a few GOP operatives and activists were stepping over the line with some of their Tweets. For example, Mike Green of the GOP firm Starboard Communications tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”
He later apologized - using two tweets to do so.
And nobody has been scrutinized for their use of New Media by the traditional media sources than Sarah Palin. Just last week she talked about an Obama “death panel” euthanizing her baby with Down Syndrome on a Facebook status update.
The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either.
And that’s another reason to have a special New Media coordinator rather than a candidate updating their New Media tools themselves - message discipline.
Like so many other advancements in campaign politics, just because the technology is changing doesn’t mean the basic principles are.
Well, we hope you’ve enjoyed “21st Century Campaigning” - it was certainly a pleasure to give our predictions and analysis of the changes happening in the political campaign world. Soon we’ll be starting a new series that should be fun: “Politics in the Movies”
Those who are highly engaged in the political realm hear a lot about the prospects of “New Media” everyday. But what role does New Media really have in politics? More importantly, how can New Media be used effectively by campaigns and politicians?
When people think of New Media, they often associate it with social networking - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - but in fact it encompasses much more than that. Resources such as YouTube, social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, etc.) and the blogosphere are some of the other important tools in the New Media hype. And all of these tools are becoming more and more important in politics.
For example, as newspapers fall by the wayside, campaigns are increasing their outreach to bloggers. As we noted in Part 6 of this series, campaigns can engage these citizen journalists by sending them interesting YouTube videos, news clips, and other online materials regarding the race. It helps build a relationship with friendly bloggers and that can help get your name and message out there the way you want it to.
Yet, much of the New Media world requires navigation on the part of the user. In other words, if a voter is not interested in the campaign, they’re not going to subscribe to an email list, become a fan on Facebook, or a follower on Twitter.
So why are these tools still important?
There is one important group of voters that are still going to follow the campaign with these tools - supporters. Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
Let’s use Twitter as an example. As we mentioned in our own Twitter study last month, the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
So we decided to do an analysis of the New Media strategies of the two main campaigns of the Virginia Gubernatorial race going on right now between Democrat Criegh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell.
Deeds has some Tweets and Facebook updates that supporters can use. He mostly uses the social networking tools to update supporters on where he’ll be speaking each day. Occasionally, he also throws in less useful updates.
Take these three Tweets (in chronological order) on August 1st:
“Today is Jerry Garcia's birthday. We turn to Workingman's Dead”
“At FedEx in hot anticipation of Sir Paul. Surrounded by good friends”
“Still waiting. @jbtaylor I like it all but I'm partial to the Revolver-Rubber Soul period for the Fab Four”
And in the past two weeks, he has only posted one link outside of Twitter. On Facebook, his posts have been more relevant - he regularly posts videos, events, and news bits that will encourage supporters. Yet his outreach to them on Facebook is still a little weak - he has less than 10,000 supporters while McDonnell has over 16,000. He also has just more than half as many followers on Twitter as McDonnell.
In fact, McDonnell uses Facebook just as well - constantly linking to his website on updates, informing supporters about upcoming events, and posting even more videos and positive news stories as Deeds. On Twitter, McDonnell constantly links to videos, pictures, news stories, and other websites that will be of use to supporters - engaging them so they will be encouraged to help his campaign.
Obviously, it would be irresponsible to credit McDonnell’s lead on Deeds solely with his dominant social networking strategy, but it certainly helps.
Another favorite New Media tool has been YouTube. Although we were quick to criticize this video for its inaccuracies, it certainly served its purpose well - it engaged and encouraged like-minded Recovery Act opponents.
Of course, using New Media as effectively as it can be used takes a lot of work. Campaigns that actually have a New Media coordinator - whose sole responsibility is social networking, engaging bloggers, posting on sites such as YouTube and Flickr, social bookmarking, etc. - can have a tremendous advantage in fundraising, volunteer support, and even message delivery.
Yet there is still a danger to such a strategy.
Back in June we mentioned how a few GOP operatives and activists were stepping over the line with some of their Tweets. For example, Mike Green of the GOP firm Starboard Communications tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”
He later apologized - using two tweets to do so.
And nobody has been scrutinized for their use of New Media by the traditional media sources than Sarah Palin. Just last week she talked about an Obama “death panel” euthanizing her baby with Down Syndrome on a Facebook status update.
The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either.
And that’s another reason to have a special New Media coordinator rather than a candidate updating their New Media tools themselves - message discipline.
Like so many other advancements in campaign politics, just because the technology is changing doesn’t mean the basic principles are.
Well, we hope you’ve enjoyed “21st Century Campaigning” - it was certainly a pleasure to give our predictions and analysis of the changes happening in the political campaign world. Soon we’ll be starting a new series that should be fun: “Politics in the Movies”
Top Stories: 8/11/09
Something new we're doing at WAYLA is a morning post that brings you the top headlines from around the best political blogs so you aren't lost and confused trying to find the best news everyday.
The Huffington Post reports on the Town Hall meeting Obama will hold himself, and preparing for possible disruptions.
At FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver makes a late-night post (after 2am - which explains why it was more goofy than usual) explaining the difference between single-payer health care and socialized medicine.
Politico's Scorecard blog reports on Gov. Corzine's (D-NJ) improving, but still poor, poll numbers, as well as a new ad released by the RGA.
And if you missed it last night, you have to see the Jon Stewarts take on the new turns in the healthcare debate:
The Huffington Post reports on the Town Hall meeting Obama will hold himself, and preparing for possible disruptions.
At FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver makes a late-night post (after 2am - which explains why it was more goofy than usual) explaining the difference between single-payer health care and socialized medicine.
Politico's Scorecard blog reports on Gov. Corzine's (D-NJ) improving, but still poor, poll numbers, as well as a new ad released by the RGA.
And if you missed it last night, you have to see the Jon Stewarts take on the new turns in the healthcare debate:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate | ||||
| ||||
Monday, August 10, 2009
How Can the Democrats Still Win On Healthcare?
Since we first posted on the disruptive town hall meetings back on Tuesday, the healthcare debate has only become more surreal - with arguments becoming more absurd and dialogue actually exploding into fist fights.For the past few years, healthcare has really been a major selling-point for Democrats - it helped them retake Congress in 2006 and expand their majority - and win the White House - in 2008.
But now we’re looking forward to 2010 and suddenly healthcare seems to be a weak selling point. Polls show that Americans still want healthcare reform - including a public option - but they don’t believe Democrats can pull it off.
The big reason has been the deficit.
Recent polls find that the ideas of the Democratic healthcare bills are still popular - for example, voters support a public option. Yet they also believe that the current legislation making its way through Congress will increase the size of the deficit - and they aren’t willing to support it if it does that.
Then there is the issue of quality.
In recent weeks, we’ve heard more and more absurd claims about what would happen to the quality of healthcare under a Democratic-led reform package. Former GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted this on Facebook last week:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Liberals love to point to such claims and laugh about how preposterous they are. In their defense, of course, these arguments are preposterous - the non-partisan watchdog FactCheck.org recently called such euthanasia claims flat-out “false.”
But they’re doing the job. A recent New York Times poll finds that 69% of Americans are worried that the current healthcare reform bills would result in a loss of quality for them personally if passed.
And as the New York Times pollsters put it “over all, the poll portrays a nation torn by conflicting impulses and confusion.”
"In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system."
And when we look at the Republican arguments closer (increased deficits, loss of quality) and the impact they’re having (fear and confusion) we see a familiar trend: these are exactly the same circumstances that brought healthcare reform to fail in 1994.
By the way, it was the 1994 elections that gave rise to 12 years of GOP power in Congress. If the Democrats fail on healthcare reform again, they seriously risk losing a high number of seats in Congress.
So how can the Democrats still win on this issue?
So far, the Democrats have done a poor job addressing the points that Republicans are raising.
First they must address the issue of deficits. President Obama has repeatedly said that the bill he signs must be budget-neutral - in other words, it cannot increase the size of the federal deficit.
In fact, many Democrats occasionally point out that healthcare costs are a huge part of the deficit as it stands - and they’re right. To bring a little Econ 101 into the discussion, a public option would create a positive shift in the supply curve for health insurance - subsequently lowering prices.
And lower prices mean lower costs for the government. Currently the government faces the major challenge of paying for Medicare and Medicaid while healthcare costs are so high. Because these are nondiscretionary entitlement programs, the government must pay for them - and the most they can do to reduce the deficit here is to pay lower costs.
While that may not be enough to balance the budget, it will be a significant start. Democrats must convey one rather important point: without such cost-cutting reform, it will be impossible to balance the federal budget.
They also need to better address the fear of a loss of quality. The Democrats should stress that their plan would foster competition, thereby increasing the prevalence of preventative care - and that would, in turn, increase quality of healthcare.
Many have been making another important point that should be stressed on this note: while Americans are paying more for healthcare than any other country, we aren’t exactly healthier. Several developed countries with government options as well as countries with strictly nationalized health plans have significantly longer life expectancy rates than the U.S.
Of course, there will always be claims about forced euthanasia and the heartless bureaucrats of “Obama’s ‘death panel’” - but by turning attention to such outrageous arguments, Democrats can actually help Republicans continue to marginalize themselves.
Just look at some of the claims Republicans have made in the past week that liberal activists can point to…
From Minnesota Family Research Council president Tom Prichard:
“Some may ask what does God have to do with our health care system. For one, He’s created the government as an institution in society to do certain things. When we reject His design for government, in a sense, we’re rejecting Him.
In Obama’s worldview, our trust is in government not in God. A denial of how God designed and created our economic and social systems to actually work in the real world. The result? The abysmal failure of government control of health care in socialist models.”
Another right-wing activist group, Americans for Truth, recently sent out an email alert asking “Will ObamaCare Turn into Taxpayer-funded ‘Tranny-Care’?” - suggesting that the public option will be used (maybe or maybe not primarily) for sexual reassignment surgery.
Or we can look to more image-based attacks from the right. Rush Limbaugh recently stirred up controversy when he compared the Obama healthcare logo - featuring a caduceus - to Nazi images.
Some are already picking up on the importance of pointing out such radical attacks. In today’s edition of USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote a criticism of the methods used by reform opponents:
“…it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.”
And liberal bloggers can be some of the best sources of counter-attack - citing on-the-ground accounts of conservative bullying. Wisconsin’s Blogging Blue posted this threat sent to the SEIU after some its union members got in a scuffle with conservative activists last week:
"You socialist f—s have the nerve to say stop the violence at the town hall meetings when they weren’t violent until you p—ies showed up because your n—– leader obama said to?????? When we have ours in Racine, Wi, I want you there. I want one of your little b—– to put his hands on this Marine. I want one of you to look or talk to me wrong. I’ll be the last thing your ignorant faux body guards will remember for a very long time. You can f—ing guarantee that."
As the blogger jokingly writes: “nothing says ‘honest debate’ like foul language, threats of violence, and racial epithets.”
Still others are exposing conservative “grassroots” activists as astroturfers and GOP operatives. TalkingPointsMemo.com posted this local news report from Wisconsin over the weekend:
As we said on Tuesday, only time will tell if conservative activists can build momentum towards defeating healthcare with their antics - but some suggest that it could backfire.
If Democrats begin to address the claims that are scarring and confusing Americans while keeping up the pressure on activists - exposing them as either fringe radicals or astroturfers - chances are it very well could.
UPDATE: The White House is catching on. A new page at WhiteHouse.com directly addresses conservative criticisms of the reform plans with YouTube videos of the president's policy staff debunking the myths in the debate. Below is one of the several examples posted there:
Friday, August 7, 2009
Martinez Resigns in Florida - Who Will Crist Appoint?
Breaking news this morning: Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) is due to resign by the end of August according to several Republican sources in Washington.
The reason why has not yet been revealed. One comment under the Politico post on the resignation says "Where there's smoke there's fire?" But Martinez has been rumored to be interested in the presidential opening at Florida State University. However, he has denied the rumor in the past.
Either way, it came as a shock to many in the Republican community. One senior GOP operative in Florida says “This was a closely-held and guarded secret and came as a surprise to all of us.” Martinez apparently made the announcement to his legislative staff earlier this morning.
Of course, he already had announced he would be stepping down from the post last year. That prompted Governor Charlie Crist and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio to run for the GOP nomination for Martinez's seat.
When we broke the news on Twitter (about 45 minutes ago) one of our followers asked "Hello interm Senator Crist?"
As governor, Crist has the power to appoint the replacement Senator who will fill in for the duration of Martinez's term - and he very much has the power to appoint himself.
But according to the Scorecard blog:
Nonetheless, if he doesn't appoint himself, Crist would have to fill in the seat with someone he is sure would not gain any ambitions to hold the seat in 2010. Luckily for him, he has the rest of the month to make such a decision.
UPDATE #1: Apparently he cited "personal reasons" when he told his staff he was resigning.
UPDATE #2: Martinez had sent a letter to friends that thanks his supporters and touts his work on helping "families struggling to keep their homes" and his opposition to oppression in Cuba.
From the letter:
He will also be holding a press conference at 3:00pm EST from Orlando.
UPDATE #3: Some are suggesting Crist could appoint his primary opponent - Marco Rubio - to fill the spot and then compete with the interim senator for the 2010 election.
In a statement, Rubio said Crist needs to take "great care" in his decision:
But Florida's GOP operatives are saying that Crist is likely to appoint one of three top Republicans: former FL Secretary of State Jim Smith, FL GOP Chair Jim Greer, or - the most named individual - former U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL). They also say none of these individuals would try to compete with Crist come 2010.
UPDATE #4: Gov. Crist will NOT appoint himself. He told reporters that much as he was boarding a plane to Tampa this morning.
UPDATE #5: Much thanks to our Twitter friend, @NJDemocrat, for finding this bit of information:
UPDATE #6: Still no verification on who Crist will appoint, and still no word on why Martinez is stepping down. It could very well be another scandal. We'll find out in about an hour and a half from Martinez.
Still nothing found on when exactly we'll see a Crist press conference.
UPDATE #7: Remember when Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was pressured to pick an African American candidate because President-elect Obama was the only black Senator? Well, it seems that a similar pressure may begin in Florida.
From the AP:
UPDATE #8: On that last note, another name has been added to Crist's short list - former Gov. Bob Martinez (R-FL). Not related to the outgoing senator, Bob Martinez has not been in office since 1991. He went on to serve in the first Bush Administration as Drug Czar, and since then has been consulting law firms. He is 74-years-old.
UPDATE #9: Cristian Camera of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has an interesting take on the resignation, as reported by the National Review:
Martinez has that Hispanic credential and Connie Mack and Jim Greer certainly fit the conservative credentials. No sign when we'll find out.
But Martinez is expected to speak to the press any moment now.
UPDATE #10: Martinez has just wrapped up a rather short press conference announcing his intention to resign. He read straght from the letter that was leaked to the press this morning (see Update 2) and - when asked - said he was leaving for no other reason than to "move on with the rest of my life."
He said he has no specific plans as far as what he'll do next, but it will be in the private sector.
There's no reason not to expect that there's something else going on here. No one simply leaves such a high public office for no reason but to "move on" in life. We'll see where this goes in the days to come.
UPDATE #11: In a press statement, Crist did not say who he would be appointing - only that it would be a placeholder. He said his selection will be made in coming weeks.
And evidently former Senator Connie Mack is NOT on the shortlist. According to the updated article on Politico:
So unless some breaking news about a Martinez scandal comes up in the next few hours - which may be a little unlikely for a summer Friday afternoon - this should probably be the last update of the day.
The reason why has not yet been revealed. One comment under the Politico post on the resignation says "Where there's smoke there's fire?" But Martinez has been rumored to be interested in the presidential opening at Florida State University. However, he has denied the rumor in the past.
Either way, it came as a shock to many in the Republican community. One senior GOP operative in Florida says “This was a closely-held and guarded secret and came as a surprise to all of us.” Martinez apparently made the announcement to his legislative staff earlier this morning.
Of course, he already had announced he would be stepping down from the post last year. That prompted Governor Charlie Crist and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio to run for the GOP nomination for Martinez's seat.
When we broke the news on Twitter (about 45 minutes ago) one of our followers asked "Hello interm Senator Crist?"
As governor, Crist has the power to appoint the replacement Senator who will fill in for the duration of Martinez's term - and he very much has the power to appoint himself.
But according to the Scorecard blog:
"National and Florida Republican sources say it's near-certain that Crist will not appoint himself, and instead is expected to appoint a placeholder to fill the seat through the 2010 election.
Taking the seat now and leaving Tallahassee early would risk hurting his solid political standing, Crist allies say, and is unnecessary given his strong positioning to claim the seat next year."
Nonetheless, if he doesn't appoint himself, Crist would have to fill in the seat with someone he is sure would not gain any ambitions to hold the seat in 2010. Luckily for him, he has the rest of the month to make such a decision.
UPDATE #1: Apparently he cited "personal reasons" when he told his staff he was resigning.
UPDATE #2: Martinez had sent a letter to friends that thanks his supporters and touts his work on helping "families struggling to keep their homes" and his opposition to oppression in Cuba.
From the letter:
"My priorities have always been my faith, my family and my country and at this stage in my life, and after nearly twelve years of public service in Florida and Washington, it's time I return to Florida and my family. I look forward to continuing to be an active and constructive voice on issues vital to Florida and our nation, and being an active member of Florida's Republican Party."
He will also be holding a press conference at 3:00pm EST from Orlando.
UPDATE #3: Some are suggesting Crist could appoint his primary opponent - Marco Rubio - to fill the spot and then compete with the interim senator for the 2010 election.
In a statement, Rubio said Crist needs to take "great care" in his decision:
"Florida deserves an interim senator who will go to Washington and serve as a true check on President Obama's push for more wasteful government spending, government-run health care and cap-and-trade," Rubio said. "The last thing Florida needs is a U.S. senator that will stand with President Obama instead of challenging the wrong direction he is leading our country and offering constructive conservative solutions moving forward."
But Florida's GOP operatives are saying that Crist is likely to appoint one of three top Republicans: former FL Secretary of State Jim Smith, FL GOP Chair Jim Greer, or - the most named individual - former U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL). They also say none of these individuals would try to compete with Crist come 2010.
UPDATE #4: Gov. Crist will NOT appoint himself. He told reporters that much as he was boarding a plane to Tampa this morning.
UPDATE #5: Much thanks to our Twitter friend, @NJDemocrat, for finding this bit of information:
Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint former Secretary of State Jim Smith to the spot through 2010.
"It's a done deal," said former House Speaker John Thrasher, an Orange Park Republican close to Martinez.
Smith had supported Tom Gallagher in the 2006 governor's race over Crist. But he's been a jack-of-all trades as a Florida public official, serving as a Democratic attorney general, a Democratic candidate for governor, and Republican secretary of state -- twice.
Crist, who is expected to appoint Smith today, and former House Speaker Marco Rubio are vying for the GOP nomination for the Senate seat.
"He'll be a caretaker," Thrasher said of Smith. "But he's got a great record of public service in this state."
UPDATE #6: Still no verification on who Crist will appoint, and still no word on why Martinez is stepping down. It could very well be another scandal. We'll find out in about an hour and a half from Martinez.
Still nothing found on when exactly we'll see a Crist press conference.
UPDATE #7: Remember when Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was pressured to pick an African American candidate because President-elect Obama was the only black Senator? Well, it seems that a similar pressure may begin in Florida.
From the AP:
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said she hoped Crist would appoint a Hispanic to follow in Martinez's footsteps, "possibly new blood, maybe not somebody who's been in office but maybe someone who is from the private sector."
Martinez's resignation leaves just one Hispanic in the Senate, Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
UPDATE #8: On that last note, another name has been added to Crist's short list - former Gov. Bob Martinez (R-FL). Not related to the outgoing senator, Bob Martinez has not been in office since 1991. He went on to serve in the first Bush Administration as Drug Czar, and since then has been consulting law firms. He is 74-years-old.
UPDATE #9: Cristian Camera of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has an interesting take on the resignation, as reported by the National Review:
"Governor Crist and Senator Martinez are strong political allies. I have no doubt in my mind this early resignation is a move that was agreed to by Crist and Martinez to somehow benefit Crist’s candidacy. Expect Crist’s choice of a replacement to be a carefully calculated move to benefit him. Possibly a Hispanic and/or a strong conservative to shore up his conservative credentials to the base."
Martinez has that Hispanic credential and Connie Mack and Jim Greer certainly fit the conservative credentials. No sign when we'll find out.
But Martinez is expected to speak to the press any moment now.
UPDATE #10: Martinez has just wrapped up a rather short press conference announcing his intention to resign. He read straght from the letter that was leaked to the press this morning (see Update 2) and - when asked - said he was leaving for no other reason than to "move on with the rest of my life."
He said he has no specific plans as far as what he'll do next, but it will be in the private sector.
There's no reason not to expect that there's something else going on here. No one simply leaves such a high public office for no reason but to "move on" in life. We'll see where this goes in the days to come.
UPDATE #11: In a press statement, Crist did not say who he would be appointing - only that it would be a placeholder. He said his selection will be made in coming weeks.
And evidently former Senator Connie Mack is NOT on the shortlist. According to the updated article on Politico:
"In an interview with the Miami Herald, Mack said that Crist had previously approached him about filling a vacanacy if Martinez resigned, and he said he was not interested."
So unless some breaking news about a Martinez scandal comes up in the next few hours - which may be a little unlikely for a summer Friday afternoon - this should probably be the last update of the day.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
What Will GOTV Look Like Ten Years From Now?
Part 9 of our 10-part series: 21st "Century Campaigning"
Get-Out-the-Vote (or GOTV) operations have changed dramatically in the last ten years, and – chances are – they’ll change even more in the next ten.
GOTV has always existed in some form or another throughout American electoral history. But modern GOTV methods really began to take shape across the pond. In the United Kingdom’s 1945 general election, Labour Party MP Ian Mikardo and his campaign developed a system in which the Reading constituency he represented was canvassed for Voter ID. The campaign then generated lists of supporters called “Reading sheets” for volunteers to remind to vote on Election Day.
The Reading System also began a GOTV tactic known in the U.S. as “poll watching” – in which campaign workers watch to make sure that voters identified as supporters have made it to the polls already and can be crossed off the list. If not, they get reminded to vote again.
In the United States, national GOTV operations really started to be noticed by the media following the 2000 general election. It was a year where the vote between Al Gore and George W. Bush was so close that getting supporters to the polls could make all the difference in many states.
That fact prompted the GOP to make important strides in the way GOTV was to be done in the future. They developed a new system they labeled “the 72-Hour Program” for the 2002 midterm elections.
From a 2003 Washington Post article on the new program’s implementation:
It paid off. In the subsequent 2002 and 2004 elections the GOP significantly drove up turnout among the Republican-friendly Evangelical community and scored some important victories for their party.
Still, the efficacy of such extensive GOTV programs is of considerable debate. Yale University has devoted an entire website to research done on the effectiveness of GOTV operations.
And Democratic strategist Mark Mellman argues that putting such weight on GOTV really only makes a difference when a race comes down to a couple thousand votes or so.
From a 2006 piece he wrote for The Hill:
With this idea in mind, how will campaigns adjust their GOTV strategy so it only counts if a race is going to be close? How will they plan such an important operation ahead of time if they don’t even know if it will be worth it?
And if these questions don’t make campaigns rethink how they do GOTV, maybe some recent trends will.
As we mentioned in our post on Monday, early voting might change a lot of campaign strategy in the next few elections. In fact, when polls showed then-Senator Barack Obama with a substantial edge among early voters, we commented on the importance behind the Obama campaign’s efforts.
But if campaigns are going to devote time and energy to such a “Get-Out-the-Early-Vote” operation, what will that look like? Will they rely on more time-effective methods to convince folks who were already going to vote for them to do it early – methods such as email, robo-calls, text-messages, and direct mail? Or will they actually redirect volunteers from important Voter ID operations to make calls and canvass these supporters?
Ultimately, these aren’t questions that can be answered yet with any certainty – but they are questions that campaigns will have to answer for themselves in the next ten years.
The only thing that is certain is that GOTV will continue to evolve and is likely to look much different in 2020 from what it looked like in 2008.
Get-Out-the-Vote (or GOTV) operations have changed dramatically in the last ten years, and – chances are – they’ll change even more in the next ten.
GOTV has always existed in some form or another throughout American electoral history. But modern GOTV methods really began to take shape across the pond. In the United Kingdom’s 1945 general election, Labour Party MP Ian Mikardo and his campaign developed a system in which the Reading constituency he represented was canvassed for Voter ID. The campaign then generated lists of supporters called “Reading sheets” for volunteers to remind to vote on Election Day.The Reading System also began a GOTV tactic known in the U.S. as “poll watching” – in which campaign workers watch to make sure that voters identified as supporters have made it to the polls already and can be crossed off the list. If not, they get reminded to vote again.
In the United States, national GOTV operations really started to be noticed by the media following the 2000 general election. It was a year where the vote between Al Gore and George W. Bush was so close that getting supporters to the polls could make all the difference in many states.
That fact prompted the GOP to make important strides in the way GOTV was to be done in the future. They developed a new system they labeled “the 72-Hour Program” for the 2002 midterm elections.
From a 2003 Washington Post article on the new program’s implementation:
The 72-Hour Project was born of necessity after the 2000 election, when Republicans discovered that Democrats had done a better job of getting their voters to the polls in one of the tightest presidential races in history.
With prodding from White House senior adviser Karl C. Rove, White House political director Ken Mehlman and RNC Deputy Chairman Jack Oliver, the party undertook a top-to-bottom review of its get-out-the-vote operation, poured more than $1 million into more than 50 experiments to test how best to reach out to voters and then methodically set about implementing their findings in the midterm campaigns.
It paid off. In the subsequent 2002 and 2004 elections the GOP significantly drove up turnout among the Republican-friendly Evangelical community and scored some important victories for their party.
Still, the efficacy of such extensive GOTV programs is of considerable debate. Yale University has devoted an entire website to research done on the effectiveness of GOTV operations.
And Democratic strategist Mark Mellman argues that putting such weight on GOTV really only makes a difference when a race comes down to a couple thousand votes or so.
From a 2006 piece he wrote for The Hill:
“Experiments on turnout by [famed political scientists] Alan Gerber and Donald Green suggest that the most effective means of increasing turnout raise it by less than 10 percent — and that’s for people who get canvassed in person. None of this is to suggest that GOTV efforts are not valuable. When 2000 or 200 votes decide an election there is no question that GOTV efforts can make all the difference in the world. But again, that is simply not the case that is being argued by GOP operatives.
Can’t micro-targeting help them achieve spectacular successes? Anyone who has ever modeled data knows there is much more salesmanship than science in Republican claims about these efforts. Our firm and others on the Democratic side have been using these models for half a dozen years or more and we know they can make our efforts much more efficient; expand our GOTV and persuasion universes; and provide message guidance. So when races are otherwise marginal, the lift models provide can make all the difference between winning and losing. But no model is going to turn what would otherwise be a 5-point loss into a victory.”
With this idea in mind, how will campaigns adjust their GOTV strategy so it only counts if a race is going to be close? How will they plan such an important operation ahead of time if they don’t even know if it will be worth it?
And if these questions don’t make campaigns rethink how they do GOTV, maybe some recent trends will.
As we mentioned in our post on Monday, early voting might change a lot of campaign strategy in the next few elections. In fact, when polls showed then-Senator Barack Obama with a substantial edge among early voters, we commented on the importance behind the Obama campaign’s efforts.
“The real advantage of having supporters vote early is that the campaign can focus more time and energy on supporters that vote less frequently (because they are less politically engaged) in the final 72 hours.
So have early voting laws made October a month long GOTV period? It would certainly appear so, as this tactic is sure to be used in presidential campaigns to come.”
But if campaigns are going to devote time and energy to such a “Get-Out-the-Early-Vote” operation, what will that look like? Will they rely on more time-effective methods to convince folks who were already going to vote for them to do it early – methods such as email, robo-calls, text-messages, and direct mail? Or will they actually redirect volunteers from important Voter ID operations to make calls and canvass these supporters?
Ultimately, these aren’t questions that can be answered yet with any certainty – but they are questions that campaigns will have to answer for themselves in the next ten years.
The only thing that is certain is that GOTV will continue to evolve and is likely to look much different in 2020 from what it looked like in 2008.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Sad and Strange History of the John Ensign Scandal
When it was first revealed that Senator John Ensign (R-NV) had had an affair with a former campaign staffer, many in the political realm thought his legislative career might survive the scandal. Politico even suggested that with a quick apology and ending the conversation about the affair - much like Senator David Vitter (R-LA) did - he could continue in the Senate without needing much further damage control.
But over the past month, more and more revelations about the affair have come to light - and it all looks worse and worse for Ensign.
To really understand just how tangled and twisted the entire ordeal was - or, perhaps, is - one needs to see the entire history of the scandal. Luckily for us, the Las Vegas Sun has done a very good job chronicling the story.
The Affair Itself
Ensign began his extramarital affair with Cindy Hampton - the treasurer for his campaign committee and Battle Born PAC, as well as his wife’s good friend - in December 2007 after months of “having feelings” for her. She was receiving about $1,900 a month for those two positions until her salary doubled as the affair began.
Meanwhile, Hampton’s husband Doug was working as an administrative assistant to the Senator on the government side (where he was - for those interested - making over $13,000 a month).
But it was sort of an on-again off-again affair. Apparently it stopped in February when Ensign admitted to Doug that he made a mistake and “vowed to change” - but Doug needed to move on.
February - April 2008
Ensign asked his political consultant - Mike Slanker - to hire Doug at his firm, November Inc. Slanker - who apparently had no knowledge of the affair yet - agreed without much thought.
But a few weeks later, Ensign’s wife, Darlene, called Slanker to let him in on everything. Slanker confronted Ensign about it at his office at the NRSC (Note: while Ensign was the Chair of the NRSC, Slanker’s wife, Lindsay, was its Finance Director). He took Doug Hampton off Ensign’s hands, knowing the two couldn’t really work together anymore.
But here’s the real kicker - the reason Ensign was so desperate to get Doug a new job was so he could go back to pursuing Cindy. The affair continued.
Severance, Gift, or Bribe?
Cindy - like her husband - also left Ensign’s employ at the end of April that year. As a severance from the campaign and PAC committees she received $25,000.
As if that wasn’t a significant amount of cash, Ensign’s parents gave Cindy another $96,000 as a “gift”. Actually, it was technically several gifts, as they wrote a series of checks to make sure they wouldn’t have to pay a gifts tax.
When the story was uncovered this year - over a year since the Hamptons stopped working for the Nevada Senator - ethics groups including Citizens for Responsibility filed complaints arguing that the gift was indeed an undocumented severance pay to the Hamptons.
But what is truly interesting is the fact that this looks so much like a pay-off. When the affair was revealed, Doug Hampton said that he was entitled to “millions” for what the Senator had done to him. Although it cannot be proved (and there’s actually evidence to the contrary) Ensign claimed Doug was blackmailing him.
Besides, who would be more inclined to bribe his way out of a sex scandal than an important Republican Senator with presidential ambitions? Even if the gift was not explicitly a bribe, it sure had the feel of one.
It All Comes Out
Sometime after the affair finally ended (around August 2008) and after Doug left November Inc. (a fascinating email exchange shows that Doug was concerned about his role there while Ensign was a client) Doug Hampton decided to bring it all out.
His course of action was a little peculiar. He sent an email to former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) - of all people - with an attached document that spelled out the nature of the scandal. He said in the email that he had met Santorum a few times, and while the former Pennsylvania Senator might not remember him, he had a great respect for his integrity.
More importantly, Santorum had become a contributor for Fox News.
Now, what Santorum was supposed to do with that information is a little confusing. This is what Hampton writes at the end of the message:
And no one knows exactly what happened after that, but in the end it was Ensign who called a news conference and was the first to explain the affair to the press and public.
In the end, he lost several aids (including his Chief-of-Staff) and any chance of becoming President.
Weird Religious Twists
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the story is the involvement of a group known as “The Family” - a Christian fundamentalist organization and powerful lobby group that houses influential people - including dozens of members of Congress - at its headquarters on C Street.
Writer Jeff Sharlet - who recently published a book on The Family - explains the organization as such:
Ensign was living there in February last year during his affair. Apparently Doug went to the group to explain what was happening and they told Ensign to end it.
One member of Congress living with The Family that purportedly told Ensign to end the affair was Sen. Tom Colburn (R-OK). Colburn had denied knowing about the affair and - once this part of the story broke - refused to speak about his discussion because he was counseling Ensign “as a physician [he’s an OB-GYN] and as an ordained deacon.”
More simply put, The Family observes a “code of silence” as part of its intense secrecy (a secrecy that seems to rival that of the Freemasons).
The only public activity The Family engages in is The Fellowship’s (their broader organization’s) National Prayer Breakfasts.
In fact, Hampton cites the National Prayer Breakfasts in his email to Santorum, reminding the former Senator that they sat together at one when Santorum was a speaker for the event.
And the emails themselves are filled with religion. In Slanker’s email to Hampton, he tells his new employee that “God has put [me and Lindsay] in this place to help and love”.
Hampton’s reply expands on religion even more:
Ensign’s Future
Since the news of the affair broke, Ensign’s approval rating has dropped 22% and his disapproval rating has risen 20%.
While voters seemed divided in the mid-July survey over whether or not he should run for re-election, the Nevada electorate does seem to take some of the more revealing details of the scandal “very seriously” - and of these details, the newer fact that he fired his staffer in order to pursue the man’s wife is not among them. Nor is there any mention of Ensign's involvement in the strange, egotistical, fundementalist secret society.
As of now he plans to run for re-election. But that election won’t be until November of 2012. The question we’ll have to wait and see for an answer is “will they remember?”
But over the past month, more and more revelations about the affair have come to light - and it all looks worse and worse for Ensign.
To really understand just how tangled and twisted the entire ordeal was - or, perhaps, is - one needs to see the entire history of the scandal. Luckily for us, the Las Vegas Sun has done a very good job chronicling the story.
The Affair Itself
Ensign began his extramarital affair with Cindy Hampton - the treasurer for his campaign committee and Battle Born PAC, as well as his wife’s good friend - in December 2007 after months of “having feelings” for her. She was receiving about $1,900 a month for those two positions until her salary doubled as the affair began.
Meanwhile, Hampton’s husband Doug was working as an administrative assistant to the Senator on the government side (where he was - for those interested - making over $13,000 a month).
But it was sort of an on-again off-again affair. Apparently it stopped in February when Ensign admitted to Doug that he made a mistake and “vowed to change” - but Doug needed to move on.
February - April 2008
Ensign asked his political consultant - Mike Slanker - to hire Doug at his firm, November Inc. Slanker - who apparently had no knowledge of the affair yet - agreed without much thought.
But a few weeks later, Ensign’s wife, Darlene, called Slanker to let him in on everything. Slanker confronted Ensign about it at his office at the NRSC (Note: while Ensign was the Chair of the NRSC, Slanker’s wife, Lindsay, was its Finance Director). He took Doug Hampton off Ensign’s hands, knowing the two couldn’t really work together anymore.
But here’s the real kicker - the reason Ensign was so desperate to get Doug a new job was so he could go back to pursuing Cindy. The affair continued.
Severance, Gift, or Bribe?
Cindy - like her husband - also left Ensign’s employ at the end of April that year. As a severance from the campaign and PAC committees she received $25,000.
As if that wasn’t a significant amount of cash, Ensign’s parents gave Cindy another $96,000 as a “gift”. Actually, it was technically several gifts, as they wrote a series of checks to make sure they wouldn’t have to pay a gifts tax.
When the story was uncovered this year - over a year since the Hamptons stopped working for the Nevada Senator - ethics groups including Citizens for Responsibility filed complaints arguing that the gift was indeed an undocumented severance pay to the Hamptons.
But what is truly interesting is the fact that this looks so much like a pay-off. When the affair was revealed, Doug Hampton said that he was entitled to “millions” for what the Senator had done to him. Although it cannot be proved (and there’s actually evidence to the contrary) Ensign claimed Doug was blackmailing him.
Besides, who would be more inclined to bribe his way out of a sex scandal than an important Republican Senator with presidential ambitions? Even if the gift was not explicitly a bribe, it sure had the feel of one.
It All Comes Out
Sometime after the affair finally ended (around August 2008) and after Doug left November Inc. (a fascinating email exchange shows that Doug was concerned about his role there while Ensign was a client) Doug Hampton decided to bring it all out.
His course of action was a little peculiar. He sent an email to former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) - of all people - with an attached document that spelled out the nature of the scandal. He said in the email that he had met Santorum a few times, and while the former Pennsylvania Senator might not remember him, he had a great respect for his integrity.
More importantly, Santorum had become a contributor for Fox News.
Now, what Santorum was supposed to do with that information is a little confusing. This is what Hampton writes at the end of the message:
“It is my strong request we speak prior to you calling John but I realize I cannot control what you choose to do with the information…Your wisdom, counsel and insight would be greatly appreciated…as well as your help to resolve this terrible cover up.”
And no one knows exactly what happened after that, but in the end it was Ensign who called a news conference and was the first to explain the affair to the press and public.
In the end, he lost several aids (including his Chief-of-Staff) and any chance of becoming President.
Weird Religious Twists
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the story is the involvement of a group known as “The Family” - a Christian fundamentalist organization and powerful lobby group that houses influential people - including dozens of members of Congress - at its headquarters on C Street.
Writer Jeff Sharlet - who recently published a book on The Family - explains the organization as such:
“The Family began with this idea that God does not work through churches but rather through those whom The Family calls the “New Chosen.” They believe they’re chosen by God. They can’t be expected to pray with the rest of us. They need to pray in private with people of equal status.
When you join one of these prayer groups, you give these men veto power over your life, over every aspect of your life. Wives involved with The Family have said, “In my husband’s life, his brothers come first, I come second.”
Ensign was living there in February last year during his affair. Apparently Doug went to the group to explain what was happening and they told Ensign to end it.
One member of Congress living with The Family that purportedly told Ensign to end the affair was Sen. Tom Colburn (R-OK). Colburn had denied knowing about the affair and - once this part of the story broke - refused to speak about his discussion because he was counseling Ensign “as a physician [he’s an OB-GYN] and as an ordained deacon.”
More simply put, The Family observes a “code of silence” as part of its intense secrecy (a secrecy that seems to rival that of the Freemasons).
The only public activity The Family engages in is The Fellowship’s (their broader organization’s) National Prayer Breakfasts.
In fact, Hampton cites the National Prayer Breakfasts in his email to Santorum, reminding the former Senator that they sat together at one when Santorum was a speaker for the event.
And the emails themselves are filled with religion. In Slanker’s email to Hampton, he tells his new employee that “God has put [me and Lindsay] in this place to help and love”.
Hampton’s reply expands on religion even more:
“To give you an update, the Lord has recently introduced [me and Cindy] to a new counselor…With a lot of hard work on our parts, the counselors help and guidance from the Lord I believe we are headed in the right direction.
…I want you to know that my intent was to reveal or discuss what God is teaching me about the leader he is calling me to be knowing the terrible husband and person I have been…”
Ensign’s Future
Since the news of the affair broke, Ensign’s approval rating has dropped 22% and his disapproval rating has risen 20%.
While voters seemed divided in the mid-July survey over whether or not he should run for re-election, the Nevada electorate does seem to take some of the more revealing details of the scandal “very seriously” - and of these details, the newer fact that he fired his staffer in order to pursue the man’s wife is not among them. Nor is there any mention of Ensign's involvement in the strange, egotistical, fundementalist secret society.
As of now he plans to run for re-election. But that election won’t be until November of 2012. The question we’ll have to wait and see for an answer is “will they remember?”
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Will Healthcare Reform Survive the Tea-Baggers in August?
“It is proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by a mob”- Seneca (1st Century A.D.)
As Congress prepares for the August recess, President Obama has advised his fellow Democrats to go home to their districts and defend the healthcare reform bills making their way through the legislative process.
But as Democrats are finding out, a mass of anti-reform conservatives are out there disrupting town hall meetings intended to defend reform measures to local constituents.
Here are just a few videos making their way around the internet…
Of course, they are trying to produce an image of overwhelming disapproval of any healthcare reform - as if all Americans were opposed to it. Obviously, this is not the case.
As Nate Silver pointed out this morning, the majority of party-identified Americans are still Democrats - but proportionally, the GOP is much more energized in the current healthcare debate.
As he writes in the post:
“…the Democrats don't have a mass movement right now. They have an electorate that's maybe 60 percent unaware of the threat that things like health care are under in Washington, 20 percent aware but burned out or ambivalent, and 10 percent both aware and engaged but busy fighting with one another. That doesn't leave very many Democrats left to stand up and shout back.”
And while the conservative movement in town hall meetings appears to be very grassroots, it is - in fact - nothing more than astroturf.
The liberal group Think Progress recently obtained (and released) a memo from a conservative group linked to FreedomWorks, which is business-funded and helped organize the April 15 tea party protests. The memo lays out a game-plan for disrupting town hall meetings.
From the memo:
“Our objective was to ‘pack the hall’ with as many people [as possible] ready to challenge [Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)], put him on the defensive, and give him a reality check … organizing about 30 people and we spread out among the crowd of about 150 people in the hall. We used some techniques early on which immediately made Himes uncomfortable…
…Questions should be prepared … The questions should contain facts and numbers (which are embarrassing and damning to the Congressman’s record)…
…You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
The 10-page document also includes a list of prepared questions to use and ways to coordinate a mass turnout.
Will it work?
Time will only tell, but the news media has already picked up on the disruptions at these town hall meetings. Some think this strategy could backfire - only emboldening Democrats to push for reform - others think it’s a genius way to halt progress by swaying public opinion to mob mentality and scaring politicians.
As former Bush advisor Mark McKinnon says, “town halls have become town hells.”
Democratic members of Congress might want to just scrap town hall meetings this month, but as political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson tells Politico “The more intelligent alternative is to take the extensive network the Obama campaign developed and send all of those people to town halls.”
That could mean heated shouting matches between liberals and conservatives at town-hall meetings and one intense August recess.
UPDATE: The DNC has released a new web ad in response to the recent "mob" strategies, pinning them directly with the GOP.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Why Campaigns Ask You Who You’re Voting For
Part 8 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”
Have you ever received a phone call from a political campaign asking you to name the man or woman you’re supporting in an upcoming election? Have you ever worked on or volunteered for a campaign and had to make such a call?
If the answer is “yes” you’ve no doubt wondered why. After all, one’s vote is traditionally thought of as a private decision - a guarantee of the blind ballot. Yet campaigns have a very good reason to ID voters. In fact, they have three very good reasons for doing so.
1) Knowing Where You Are
Ideally, a campaign will identify over half of the electorate (in a two-way race) as strongly supporting their candidate. If this can be achieved, you know you’re going to win even before Election Day. If you have no idea how many voters are supporting you, chances are that means you’re going to lose.
Watching the polls is helpful to get a rough idea of your support - but it is not 100% accurate. Additionally, you cannot track each individual voter. That means that come time for the Get-Out-the-Vote operation (or GOTV) you won’t know exactly who to remind to vote.
2) Laying a Foundation for Your Party
Politics doesn’t stop after one election - it doesn’t stop at all. When you can identify which politicians a particular voter is supporting you can get a good idea of how they will vote in the future. Only a small fraction of the electorate are truly “swing” voters - most will vote for candidates in one particular party the great majority of the time.
By identifying these voters the party can determine how likely they are to support future candidates. This helps these future campaigns plan how they allocate their resources. If a particular voter is identified as a strong Democrat or Republican there is no point in sending them a piece of mail, giving them a phone call, or sending volunteers to their house to try to persuade them. If they’re identified as a swing voter, they are certain to get more contact with the campaign.
Additionally, precincts that have over 65% of the electorate identified as strongly Democratic (in the case of Democratic campaigns) will be covered tooth-and-nail come GOTV time. Every house in such precincts will be hit before the polls close on Election Day. This tactic is designed to drive as much support to the polls as humanly possible for the party.
3) Solidifying Their Support
One of the most significant phenomena in politics is how voters will commit to supporting a particular candidate once they’ve said they support him or her. By neglecting a Voter ID program, a campaign risks losing voters that lean toward its candidate before Election Day. By calling or canvassing these voters and getting them to say out-loud that they support your candidate, they become much more likely to follow through when they head to the polls.
Where’s the evidence?
In 2008, President Obama won his bid for the White House because his campaign rigorously tracked where they were in swing states, used the Democratic Party’s existing infrastructure and information to plan the optimal use of resources, and convinced voters that leaned towards his candidacy to follow through by voting for him. In the end, the Obama campaign had contacted about 37% more voters than the McCain campaign, and Voter ID is by far the most important tactic in voter contact
But 2008 was important for another reason - namely the use of Voter ID in early voting trends. Early voting increased significantly last year, and it had a major impact on how the rest of the campaign was run. By identifying which voters had already submitted a ballot, campaigns were able to devote more time and energy to those who were waiting until the end.
That means saving time by not trying to persuade early voters to support your candidates or reminding them to head to the polls on Election Day. With the saved time, the campaigns were able to focus on voters known to be undecided going into the last few days of the race.
Early voting is becoming more and more popular, and it will be interesting to watch as it continues in the future. Needless to say, campaigns prefer early voting because early voters probably weren’t persuadable to begin with, and it allows the campaign to be more efficient in its outreach activities.
This trend certainly appears to be the most important aspect of future Voter ID operations.
Have you ever received a phone call from a political campaign asking you to name the man or woman you’re supporting in an upcoming election? Have you ever worked on or volunteered for a campaign and had to make such a call?If the answer is “yes” you’ve no doubt wondered why. After all, one’s vote is traditionally thought of as a private decision - a guarantee of the blind ballot. Yet campaigns have a very good reason to ID voters. In fact, they have three very good reasons for doing so.
1) Knowing Where You Are
Ideally, a campaign will identify over half of the electorate (in a two-way race) as strongly supporting their candidate. If this can be achieved, you know you’re going to win even before Election Day. If you have no idea how many voters are supporting you, chances are that means you’re going to lose.
Watching the polls is helpful to get a rough idea of your support - but it is not 100% accurate. Additionally, you cannot track each individual voter. That means that come time for the Get-Out-the-Vote operation (or GOTV) you won’t know exactly who to remind to vote.
2) Laying a Foundation for Your Party
Politics doesn’t stop after one election - it doesn’t stop at all. When you can identify which politicians a particular voter is supporting you can get a good idea of how they will vote in the future. Only a small fraction of the electorate are truly “swing” voters - most will vote for candidates in one particular party the great majority of the time.
By identifying these voters the party can determine how likely they are to support future candidates. This helps these future campaigns plan how they allocate their resources. If a particular voter is identified as a strong Democrat or Republican there is no point in sending them a piece of mail, giving them a phone call, or sending volunteers to their house to try to persuade them. If they’re identified as a swing voter, they are certain to get more contact with the campaign.
Additionally, precincts that have over 65% of the electorate identified as strongly Democratic (in the case of Democratic campaigns) will be covered tooth-and-nail come GOTV time. Every house in such precincts will be hit before the polls close on Election Day. This tactic is designed to drive as much support to the polls as humanly possible for the party.
3) Solidifying Their Support
One of the most significant phenomena in politics is how voters will commit to supporting a particular candidate once they’ve said they support him or her. By neglecting a Voter ID program, a campaign risks losing voters that lean toward its candidate before Election Day. By calling or canvassing these voters and getting them to say out-loud that they support your candidate, they become much more likely to follow through when they head to the polls.Where’s the evidence?
In 2008, President Obama won his bid for the White House because his campaign rigorously tracked where they were in swing states, used the Democratic Party’s existing infrastructure and information to plan the optimal use of resources, and convinced voters that leaned towards his candidacy to follow through by voting for him. In the end, the Obama campaign had contacted about 37% more voters than the McCain campaign, and Voter ID is by far the most important tactic in voter contact
But 2008 was important for another reason - namely the use of Voter ID in early voting trends. Early voting increased significantly last year, and it had a major impact on how the rest of the campaign was run. By identifying which voters had already submitted a ballot, campaigns were able to devote more time and energy to those who were waiting until the end.
That means saving time by not trying to persuade early voters to support your candidates or reminding them to head to the polls on Election Day. With the saved time, the campaigns were able to focus on voters known to be undecided going into the last few days of the race.
Early voting is becoming more and more popular, and it will be interesting to watch as it continues in the future. Needless to say, campaigns prefer early voting because early voters probably weren’t persuadable to begin with, and it allows the campaign to be more efficient in its outreach activities.
This trend certainly appears to be the most important aspect of future Voter ID operations.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Today's Post Moved...
Sorry to those of you who were expecting Part 8 of 21st Century Campaigning.
Due to a schedule change, we'll bring you that post on Monday.
There will be no other post today.
Due to a schedule change, we'll bring you that post on Monday.
There will be no other post today.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Healthcare, Beer, and Birthers
It’s Thursday, July 30, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:
If yesterday’s Blue Dog compromise on the House healthcare bill has done anything, it’s probably further confused members of Congress. Many say that neither they, nor most anyone else, can really understand the full scope of the reform package. Now, as the August recess looms for them, Democrats and Republicans are wondering how to frame their message on the bill to their constituents for a month back home.
Though it’s not too surprising, this year’s Democratic gubernatorial candidates - incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Virginia candidate Creigh Deeds - are taking very different approaches to how they use President Obama’s support. Corzine is invoking Obama in a central role to his campaign - headlining rallies and fundraisers - while Deeds is using Obama to encourage liberal supporters, but not to engage his more conservative general electorate.
In light of the recent Crowley-Gates controversy and the Sotomayor hearings, Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Lacewell have an excellent discussion on the state of race relations.
Speaking of the Crowley-Gates controversy, it’s going to be “Red, Light, and Blue” today at the White House “Beer Summit” as President Obama hopes to help resolve their differences. Professor Gates will be drinking Red Stripe lager, Officer Crowley will be sipping on a Blue Moon, and President Obama will have a Bud Light.
As you might imagine, the high-profile event has sparked frenzy over what beer is provided. Yuengling tells Politico that they should be the beer of the event because "Yuengling is proud to be recognized as America's Oldest Brewery. Family owned and operated since 1829, we've been a part of conflict resolution for over 180 years!"
Meanwhile, Sierra Nevada argues “We believe that we are the perfect fit for the matter at hand, and a great choice to represent and facilitate the resilience and understanding of the American people. Sierra Nevada [can] reinforce the idea that whether black or white, rich or poor, we are all first and foremost Americans. American citizens should support American beer. Think global, drink local.”
Miller Coors LLC decided not to press for their products, simply saying “It's widely known that for ages people have sat down together over a beer to resolve differences and disputes. We're happy to know that beer continues to be a beverage that brings people together for fellowship and one of our beers may be considered. Regardless of the pick, it's good news for our industry that beer will be shared for this lighthearted moment.”
Next up is the gift that just wont stop giving to Democrats - the birther issue. While it’s largely seen as a fringe movement, a few citizen journalists have discovered just how reluctant GOP members of Congress are to refute them.
Finally, what’s the newest political sensation on the internet? It might be this bizarre new video series by The Gregory Brothers - a band that uses Auto-Tune (a piece of technology that keeps singers in key) to review the news. You have to see this…
If yesterday’s Blue Dog compromise on the House healthcare bill has done anything, it’s probably further confused members of Congress. Many say that neither they, nor most anyone else, can really understand the full scope of the reform package. Now, as the August recess looms for them, Democrats and Republicans are wondering how to frame their message on the bill to their constituents for a month back home.
Though it’s not too surprising, this year’s Democratic gubernatorial candidates - incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Virginia candidate Creigh Deeds - are taking very different approaches to how they use President Obama’s support. Corzine is invoking Obama in a central role to his campaign - headlining rallies and fundraisers - while Deeds is using Obama to encourage liberal supporters, but not to engage his more conservative general electorate.
In light of the recent Crowley-Gates controversy and the Sotomayor hearings, Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Lacewell have an excellent discussion on the state of race relations.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Speaking of the Crowley-Gates controversy, it’s going to be “Red, Light, and Blue” today at the White House “Beer Summit” as President Obama hopes to help resolve their differences. Professor Gates will be drinking Red Stripe lager, Officer Crowley will be sipping on a Blue Moon, and President Obama will have a Bud Light.
As you might imagine, the high-profile event has sparked frenzy over what beer is provided. Yuengling tells Politico that they should be the beer of the event because "Yuengling is proud to be recognized as America's Oldest Brewery. Family owned and operated since 1829, we've been a part of conflict resolution for over 180 years!"
Meanwhile, Sierra Nevada argues “We believe that we are the perfect fit for the matter at hand, and a great choice to represent and facilitate the resilience and understanding of the American people. Sierra Nevada [can] reinforce the idea that whether black or white, rich or poor, we are all first and foremost Americans. American citizens should support American beer. Think global, drink local.”
Miller Coors LLC decided not to press for their products, simply saying “It's widely known that for ages people have sat down together over a beer to resolve differences and disputes. We're happy to know that beer continues to be a beverage that brings people together for fellowship and one of our beers may be considered. Regardless of the pick, it's good news for our industry that beer will be shared for this lighthearted moment.”
Next up is the gift that just wont stop giving to Democrats - the birther issue. While it’s largely seen as a fringe movement, a few citizen journalists have discovered just how reluctant GOP members of Congress are to refute them.
Finally, what’s the newest political sensation on the internet? It might be this bizarre new video series by The Gregory Brothers - a band that uses Auto-Tune (a piece of technology that keeps singers in key) to review the news. You have to see this…
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How Bad Will 2010 Be for Democrats?
Over the past few months, we’ve noted some signs of trouble for Democrats across the country - in New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, and more. Lately there has been a good deal of discussion in the news about the possibility of a 2010 GOP comeback.
It wouldn’t be an unfamiliar phenomenon - midterm elections are often bad for the party in power. In fact, the party in control of the White House has seen a net loss of Congressional seats in (at least) 14 of the last 17 midterm elections.
Politico this morning refers to the landscape as “perilous” for Democrats, suggesting a landslide backlash to the newly empowered party.
Much of the economic arguments put forward by the GOP do appear to be sticking. Polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly worried about the national debt and the effectiveness of the stimulus package passed earlier this year. Republicans, to the credit of their political savvy, have continued to press on this issue.
In fact, it’s becoming such an effective message for them that the Democratic National Committee is now responding with country-wide ads attacking GOP leaders.
Will it really be that bad for the Democrats next year?
If this year’s state elections in New Jersey and Virginia can offer any insight, the answer would certainly appear to be “yes” - and it’s only becoming more and more evident. Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is trailing Republican challenger Chris Christie by a 50% - 36% margin according to a Public Policy Polling survey released yesterday.
Meanwhile, in Virginia, state Sen. Criegh Deeds (D-Bath) continues to fall short of the former Republican Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, by something along the lines of three to six percentage points. This comes despite a Deeds lead a little more than a month ago.
And gubernatorial polls across the country seem to favor the GOP for 2010. Democratic governors Bill Ritter of Colorado and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin both have approval ratings in the low 40s and are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Once-popular Democratic governors Ted Strickland of Ohio and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania aren’t doing so hot either. Strickland is neck-and-neck with his GOP opponent for next year and Rendell’s approval rating is in the 30s.
Even in the “super-liberal” states like New York and Massachusetts, the Democratic governors are underperforming in the polls. Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) is facing a 52% disapproval rating, while Gov. David Patterson (D-NY) is likely to face an uphill battle in a primary, if not a general election as well. (Rumor has it that Rudy Giuliani is thinking about a Patterson challenge - he was reportedly overheard talking about it to Rep. Pete King (R-NY).)
It makes sense too: all of these governors are facing budget crises that came with an unexpectedly strong recession. To make up for the shortfalls they’ve had to cut services and raise fees or taxes - it’s sort of been an impossible predicament for them. State Legislatures may also see some shifts towards more GOP control.
But what about federal races?
The 2010 congressional races might actually be an entirely different story. There's been a strong push to regain seats for Republicans against Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Travis Childers (D-MS), Walt Minnick (D-ID), and Harry Teague (D-NM).
They've also been targeting Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Arlen Specter (D-PA) and the open seats in Deleware and Illinois as well.
But despite their efforts, the Democrats might get the best of the GOP.
As Nate Silver wrote on Monday:
In fact, Congressional Quarterly indicates that the Democrats might pick up 3 seats in the House against Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA) - who beat the palpably corrupt William Jefferson of New Orleans in a run-off last year - and in two open seats. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is vacating his mildly-Democratic seat to run for Senate while Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) is leaving his to run for governor.
The toss-ups CQ identifies are Minnick, freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD), and the newly open seat of Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) who was chosen by Obama to be Secretary of the Army.
Meanwhile, there are four GOP-held Senate seats that will be open next year: in Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Ohio - all of which are likely to be competitive. Even if the Republicans manage to pick up a couple of seats (such as those in Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut or Colorado) they’re still likely to be matched - or close-to-matched - with Democratic pick-ups.
So why won’t Democrats do as bad at the federal level?
Despite their gains in convincing the public they’re better at handling wasteful spending and taxes, the majority of Americans still don’t trust the GOP. According to a GWU poll released today, “likely voters in the 2010 congressional elections lean towards the Democrats by 43 percent to 40 percent with 17 percent undecided.”
Among their findings:
One of the most important findings was that “Fifty-seven percent said Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress should get a year to see if the programs they have put in place really make a difference while 33 percent believe enough time has passed to render judgment.”
In a very similar finding a few months ago, 50% of respondents to one survey said they would give the Obama Administration 18 months for the economy to turn around before judging the effectiveness of his economic policies. Furthermore, the vast majority of economists (about 95%) predict the recession to be over by then.
And that’s just a few months before the 2010 midterm elections.
So don’t be surprised if Democrats lose some gubernatorial offices this year and next, but don’t expect any big Congressional surge for the GOP - at least not yet.
Also, for a great interactive map of Congressional seats up next year, click here.
UPDATE: A new SurveyUSA poll finds Deeds trailing McDonnell by a much more significant margin: 55% - 40%.
It wouldn’t be an unfamiliar phenomenon - midterm elections are often bad for the party in power. In fact, the party in control of the White House has seen a net loss of Congressional seats in (at least) 14 of the last 17 midterm elections.
Politico this morning refers to the landscape as “perilous” for Democrats, suggesting a landslide backlash to the newly empowered party.
…the possibilities GOP officials now imagine are a dramatic shift from the bleak prospects that the 2010 midterm elections presented for the party at the beginning of the year…
…There’s a sense building among Republicans that 2010 is going to be a far better political environment than 2008 or 2006,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayers. “Part of that is because we have a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled Senate and House that are promoting fiscally dangerous policies for the future of the country. Part of it is we don’t have the burden of Iraq as we did in 2006 and don’t have the economy on the Republicans’ watch as we had in 2008.”
Much of the economic arguments put forward by the GOP do appear to be sticking. Polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly worried about the national debt and the effectiveness of the stimulus package passed earlier this year. Republicans, to the credit of their political savvy, have continued to press on this issue.
In fact, it’s becoming such an effective message for them that the Democratic National Committee is now responding with country-wide ads attacking GOP leaders.
Will it really be that bad for the Democrats next year?
If this year’s state elections in New Jersey and Virginia can offer any insight, the answer would certainly appear to be “yes” - and it’s only becoming more and more evident. Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is trailing Republican challenger Chris Christie by a 50% - 36% margin according to a Public Policy Polling survey released yesterday.
Meanwhile, in Virginia, state Sen. Criegh Deeds (D-Bath) continues to fall short of the former Republican Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, by something along the lines of three to six percentage points. This comes despite a Deeds lead a little more than a month ago.
And gubernatorial polls across the country seem to favor the GOP for 2010. Democratic governors Bill Ritter of Colorado and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin both have approval ratings in the low 40s and are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Once-popular Democratic governors Ted Strickland of Ohio and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania aren’t doing so hot either. Strickland is neck-and-neck with his GOP opponent for next year and Rendell’s approval rating is in the 30s.
Even in the “super-liberal” states like New York and Massachusetts, the Democratic governors are underperforming in the polls. Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) is facing a 52% disapproval rating, while Gov. David Patterson (D-NY) is likely to face an uphill battle in a primary, if not a general election as well. (Rumor has it that Rudy Giuliani is thinking about a Patterson challenge - he was reportedly overheard talking about it to Rep. Pete King (R-NY).)
It makes sense too: all of these governors are facing budget crises that came with an unexpectedly strong recession. To make up for the shortfalls they’ve had to cut services and raise fees or taxes - it’s sort of been an impossible predicament for them. State Legislatures may also see some shifts towards more GOP control.
But what about federal races?
The 2010 congressional races might actually be an entirely different story. There's been a strong push to regain seats for Republicans against Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Travis Childers (D-MS), Walt Minnick (D-ID), and Harry Teague (D-NM).
They've also been targeting Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Arlen Specter (D-PA) and the open seats in Deleware and Illinois as well.
But despite their efforts, the Democrats might get the best of the GOP.
As Nate Silver wrote on Monday:
The Democrats currently have a 78-seat margin in the House of Representatives. That means they could lose a net of 38 seats (half of 78, less one) and still control a majority of the chamber.
CQ Politics, which does terrific work, has identified 59 competitive races involving Democratic Representatives. Conversely, there are 41 competitive races involving Republican Representatives.
At first, this math looks pretty decent for the Democrats. If each side won one-half of the other's competitive seats, the Democrats would lose a net of 9 seats, and their majority would be reduced from 78 seats to 60…
…Of course, in both 1994 and 2006, the opposition party was tremendously well organized. We've seen nothing as smart as the Contract with America that the Republicans put together before 1994, and nothing as impressive as the 50-state strategy that the Democrats had working for them in 2006. On the contrary, the Republicans have something of a power vacuum and weren't done any favors by the McCain campaign, which put little emphasis on ground game and did not help to develop the party's voter lists. Also, the Democrats have pretty significantly outfundraised Republicans in House races so far, which is a pretty good leading indicator.
In fact, Congressional Quarterly indicates that the Democrats might pick up 3 seats in the House against Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA) - who beat the palpably corrupt William Jefferson of New Orleans in a run-off last year - and in two open seats. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is vacating his mildly-Democratic seat to run for Senate while Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) is leaving his to run for governor.
The toss-ups CQ identifies are Minnick, freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD), and the newly open seat of Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) who was chosen by Obama to be Secretary of the Army.
Meanwhile, there are four GOP-held Senate seats that will be open next year: in Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Ohio - all of which are likely to be competitive. Even if the Republicans manage to pick up a couple of seats (such as those in Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut or Colorado) they’re still likely to be matched - or close-to-matched - with Democratic pick-ups.
So why won’t Democrats do as bad at the federal level?
Despite their gains in convincing the public they’re better at handling wasteful spending and taxes, the majority of Americans still don’t trust the GOP. According to a GWU poll released today, “likely voters in the 2010 congressional elections lean towards the Democrats by 43 percent to 40 percent with 17 percent undecided.”
Among their findings:
Reflecting findings of other polls, 48 percent viewed congressional Republicans unfavorably while 37 percent saw them in a positive light. Democrats were seen favorably by a bare 46 percent to 44 percent ratio…
…Rating congressional Republicans and Democrats on a range of issues, voters trusted Democrats more than Republicans on overhauling health care (51 percent to 30 percent), on promoting energy independence (49 percent to 33 percent), defending middle class values (48 percent to 35 percent), "sharing your values" (42 percent to 40 percent) and honesty (38 percent to 27 percent). Republicans topped Democrats on controlling wasteful spending (41 percent to 33 percent), holding down taxes (53 percent to 29 percent) and promoting a strong national defense (53 percent to 33 percent)…
…The poll said that 53 percent believe congressional Republicans are blocking change and still supporting former President Bush's policies while 41 percent disagreed.
One of the most important findings was that “Fifty-seven percent said Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress should get a year to see if the programs they have put in place really make a difference while 33 percent believe enough time has passed to render judgment.”
In a very similar finding a few months ago, 50% of respondents to one survey said they would give the Obama Administration 18 months for the economy to turn around before judging the effectiveness of his economic policies. Furthermore, the vast majority of economists (about 95%) predict the recession to be over by then.
And that’s just a few months before the 2010 midterm elections.
So don’t be surprised if Democrats lose some gubernatorial offices this year and next, but don’t expect any big Congressional surge for the GOP - at least not yet.
Also, for a great interactive map of Congressional seats up next year, click here.
UPDATE: A new SurveyUSA poll finds Deeds trailing McDonnell by a much more significant margin: 55% - 40%.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
How Does Polling Affect Political Campaigns?
Part 7 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”
You’ll often hear politicians claim that they don’t pay attention to the polls - especially politicians who are behind in them. But that notion is typically just political rhetoric. Even if the candidate is ignoring the polls, his or her campaign staff and consultants do not.
Campaigning is both an art and a science: there are aspects that require inherent political savvy, talent, and creativity, and then there are aspects that need to be measured empirically - a necessity for winning a race. Polling is in the latter category. Watching and even taking polls helps a campaign track where they are and where they need to go.
But aren’t polls often inaccurate?
No poll is perfect, but political scientists and junkies as well as campaigners do a lot to figure out which polls are best to look at.
Nate Silver - the author of the popular blog FiveThirtyEight.com - is one such political junkie. During the 2008 presidential campaign he was able to determine Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s chances of winning by using a very in-depth system of poll analysis.
As he found in April last year, not only do all polls suffer the normal sampling error (usually below 4%) but also from what he calls a “Pollster-Introduced Error” (or “PIE”) - an error of poor methodology. For example, how a question is asked can lead a respondent to say something different than they would if the question was put to them another way. In fact, there is an entire science behind that concept.
Another problem that arises is who is asking the question. For example, a poll by Fox News is likely to demonstrate a conservative politician or stance being more popular than, say, a New York Times survey would. This is because a pollster that identifies himself as being with Fox News is more likely to have a liberal voter hang-up on him, whereas a New York Times pollster would be more likely to have a conservative voter hang-up on him.
Similarly, a campaign’s internal surveys are likely to be more skewed towards their particular candidate than an independent poll would. Even when the campaign outsources the job to a polling firm - which they almost always do - the poll is likely to suffer from a larger PIE than an external survey.
Still, internal polls are important because they can be used to gather data that an independent survey might not. Smaller races (in fact, most anything smaller than a targeted Senate race) are particularly dependent on these additional data because independent pollsters do not pay as much attention to their races.
Aren’t those internal surveys just “push-polls” though?
A campaign will track polls carefully to see how they’re doing - an important way to empirically determine whether their strategy is working or not. But in order to figure out what strategy needs to be employed in the first place - specifically the candidate’s message - a survey will be taken early-on in the campaign to test the waters of the electorate.
These “message-testing” surveys are very different from “push-polls” because they are meant to legitimately plan a campaign message, platform, and image of the candidate. Push-polls are intended to directly influence the opinion of the respondent under the disguise as a message-testing survey.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research explains how a respondent can tell the difference:
In 1996, citing the increasing practice of push-polling, the American Association of Political Consultants publicly condemned the tactic and required its members to abstain from it under the AAPC’s Code of Ethics.
But the concept of push-polling really became famous in 2000 during the GOP presidential primaries. Karl Rove encouraged the Bush campaign to wage a push-poll against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in South Carolina. The pollsters asked respondents if they were aware that - among other negative and untrue things - McCain was the father of an illegitimate black child. The incident was so appalling and became so famous that little of the practice has been seen since.
So how is the 21st Century changing the effect of polling on campaigns?
While modern opinion polls have been around since George Gallup tracked the 1936 re-election of FDR, in the last few years they have become increasingly significant with the rise of bloggers.
One such blog is RealClearPolitics.com, which in 2000 began compiling polls of the close presidential contest between Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX) and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN). As time passed they would update the outlook of the election with the RCP Poll Average. It was a helpful way for the average political junkie to look at where the candidates were at without worrying too much about the number differences between multiple surveys.
Next in that tradition was FiveThirtyEight.com. Founded in 2008 by Silver - a former baseball statistician - it was able to track where the candidates were at even better. 538 was able to analyze the polls by weighing them, tracking them by state, and using complicated math that the typical American (and even most folks in campaign politics) wouldn’t understand. With the internet providing the opportunity for this blog, millions of Americans were able to see Silver’s rolling predictions.
So on Election Day, when - according to Silver - McCain had roughly a 1% chance of winning, it was really no surprise that Obama could declare victory that night. In fact, it was such a long-shot for McCain to win that the 538-reading Obama supporter had nothing to worry about.
And that’s exactly the point.
Campaigns have had to tell their supporters for years not to pay attention to the polls. If their supporters are taking polls seriously, it means that they’ll either figure their candidate has it in the bag (if he/she is ahead) or that their candidate doesn’t have a chance.
Similarly, in 2004, many criticized the national news media for releasing exit polls mid-way through Election Day. Sen. John Kerry was ahead in the presidential election according to the exit polls, and that may have encouraged Bush supporters to get to their polling-places before they closed and for Kerry supporters to not bother.
Luckily for Obama in 2008, most of his supporters were pretty skeptical of the polls as well as 538’s findings. Not only did they make sure to vote, but they continued the campaign’s GOTV activities like the election could come down to one vote.
But with 538’s analysis being so sophisticated and so incredibly accurate, such blogs pose a real problem for campaign workers. With the information so readily accessible in the internet age, it can go a long way towards influencing supporters. If your candidate’s scientifically-measured chances of winning are so high (or conversely, so low) then why bother volunteering or giving money?
That will be the challenge for campaigns in the future.
“21st Century Campaigning” returns Friday with Voter ID!
You’ll often hear politicians claim that they don’t pay attention to the polls - especially politicians who are behind in them. But that notion is typically just political rhetoric. Even if the candidate is ignoring the polls, his or her campaign staff and consultants do not.
Campaigning is both an art and a science: there are aspects that require inherent political savvy, talent, and creativity, and then there are aspects that need to be measured empirically - a necessity for winning a race. Polling is in the latter category. Watching and even taking polls helps a campaign track where they are and where they need to go.
But aren’t polls often inaccurate?
No poll is perfect, but political scientists and junkies as well as campaigners do a lot to figure out which polls are best to look at.
Nate Silver - the author of the popular blog FiveThirtyEight.com - is one such political junkie. During the 2008 presidential campaign he was able to determine Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s chances of winning by using a very in-depth system of poll analysis.
As he found in April last year, not only do all polls suffer the normal sampling error (usually below 4%) but also from what he calls a “Pollster-Introduced Error” (or “PIE”) - an error of poor methodology. For example, how a question is asked can lead a respondent to say something different than they would if the question was put to them another way. In fact, there is an entire science behind that concept.
Another problem that arises is who is asking the question. For example, a poll by Fox News is likely to demonstrate a conservative politician or stance being more popular than, say, a New York Times survey would. This is because a pollster that identifies himself as being with Fox News is more likely to have a liberal voter hang-up on him, whereas a New York Times pollster would be more likely to have a conservative voter hang-up on him.
Similarly, a campaign’s internal surveys are likely to be more skewed towards their particular candidate than an independent poll would. Even when the campaign outsources the job to a polling firm - which they almost always do - the poll is likely to suffer from a larger PIE than an external survey.
Still, internal polls are important because they can be used to gather data that an independent survey might not. Smaller races (in fact, most anything smaller than a targeted Senate race) are particularly dependent on these additional data because independent pollsters do not pay as much attention to their races.
Aren’t those internal surveys just “push-polls” though?
A campaign will track polls carefully to see how they’re doing - an important way to empirically determine whether their strategy is working or not. But in order to figure out what strategy needs to be employed in the first place - specifically the candidate’s message - a survey will be taken early-on in the campaign to test the waters of the electorate.
These “message-testing” surveys are very different from “push-polls” because they are meant to legitimately plan a campaign message, platform, and image of the candidate. Push-polls are intended to directly influence the opinion of the respondent under the disguise as a message-testing survey.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research explains how a respondent can tell the difference:
Identifying Advocacy Calls Made Under the Guise of Research
Political telemarketing calls, when disguised as research, may sometimes be difficult to differentiate from a legitimate survey. Here are characteristics that will usually indicate to a respondent that the call is not a legitimate survey.
-One or only a few questions are asked, all about a single candidate or a single issue.
-The questions are uniformly strongly negative (or sometimes uniformly positive) descriptions of the candidate or issue.
-The organization conducting the calls is not named, or a phony name is used.
-Evasive answers are given in response to requests for more information about the survey.
In addition, the following characteristics will indicate to journalists, reporters, and survey professionals that a telephone call is not a legitimate survey.
-The number of people called is very large, sometimes many thousands.
-The calls are not based on a random sample.
-It is difficult to find out which organization conducted the interviews.
[Identifying]…Message Testing
… One way to tell is that message-testing surveys exhibit the characteristics of a legitimate survey, such as:
-At the beginning of the call, the interviewer clearly identifies the call center actually making the calls. (However, legitimate political polling firms will often choose not to identify the client who is sponsoring the research, be it a candidate or a political party, since that could bias the survey results.)
-The interview contains more than a few questions.
-The questions usually ask about more than one candidate or mention both sides of an issue.
-Questions, usually near the end of the interview, ask respondents to report demographic characteristics such as age, education level, and party identification.
-The survey is based on a random sample of voters.
-The number of respondents falls within the range of legitimate surveys, typically between 400 and 1500 interviews.
In 1996, citing the increasing practice of push-polling, the American Association of Political Consultants publicly condemned the tactic and required its members to abstain from it under the AAPC’s Code of Ethics.
But the concept of push-polling really became famous in 2000 during the GOP presidential primaries. Karl Rove encouraged the Bush campaign to wage a push-poll against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in South Carolina. The pollsters asked respondents if they were aware that - among other negative and untrue things - McCain was the father of an illegitimate black child. The incident was so appalling and became so famous that little of the practice has been seen since.
So how is the 21st Century changing the effect of polling on campaigns?
While modern opinion polls have been around since George Gallup tracked the 1936 re-election of FDR, in the last few years they have become increasingly significant with the rise of bloggers.
One such blog is RealClearPolitics.com, which in 2000 began compiling polls of the close presidential contest between Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX) and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN). As time passed they would update the outlook of the election with the RCP Poll Average. It was a helpful way for the average political junkie to look at where the candidates were at without worrying too much about the number differences between multiple surveys.
Next in that tradition was FiveThirtyEight.com. Founded in 2008 by Silver - a former baseball statistician - it was able to track where the candidates were at even better. 538 was able to analyze the polls by weighing them, tracking them by state, and using complicated math that the typical American (and even most folks in campaign politics) wouldn’t understand. With the internet providing the opportunity for this blog, millions of Americans were able to see Silver’s rolling predictions.
So on Election Day, when - according to Silver - McCain had roughly a 1% chance of winning, it was really no surprise that Obama could declare victory that night. In fact, it was such a long-shot for McCain to win that the 538-reading Obama supporter had nothing to worry about.
And that’s exactly the point.
Campaigns have had to tell their supporters for years not to pay attention to the polls. If their supporters are taking polls seriously, it means that they’ll either figure their candidate has it in the bag (if he/she is ahead) or that their candidate doesn’t have a chance.
Similarly, in 2004, many criticized the national news media for releasing exit polls mid-way through Election Day. Sen. John Kerry was ahead in the presidential election according to the exit polls, and that may have encouraged Bush supporters to get to their polling-places before they closed and for Kerry supporters to not bother.
Luckily for Obama in 2008, most of his supporters were pretty skeptical of the polls as well as 538’s findings. Not only did they make sure to vote, but they continued the campaign’s GOTV activities like the election could come down to one vote.
But with 538’s analysis being so sophisticated and so incredibly accurate, such blogs pose a real problem for campaign workers. With the information so readily accessible in the internet age, it can go a long way towards influencing supporters. If your candidate’s scientifically-measured chances of winning are so high (or conversely, so low) then why bother volunteering or giving money?
That will be the challenge for campaigns in the future.
“21st Century Campaigning” returns Friday with Voter ID!
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Blagojevich Ripple Effect
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Illinois.
To appreciate the full magnitude of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s scandal and impeachment, one must see just how big of a stir he’s created in his state’s political scene.
With his attempt to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat and his subsequent removal from office, he is leaving at least 15 seats potentially open for intense battles across the state - including the Governor’s office, the U.S. Senate seat and a plethora of State Senate, State House, and local seats as well.
To get an idea of what’s happening, let’s first look at his seat.
On the Democratic side alone, he’s left his former Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn vulnerable to a probable primary challenger, State Comptroller Dan Hynes. Right there we see both the Lt. Governor’s office open up, as well as the State Comptroller’s. Looking to move up the political ladder, Democratic State Representatives Arthur Turner, Mike Boland, and David Miller have all suggested they might run for higher office in 2010.
The full chart of the contenders coming as a result of the gubernatorial race is far too large to complete.
On the GOP side, two State Senators and two local government leaders have at least hinted at seeking these two statewide offices.
Then there’s the U.S. Senate seat, where the Blagojevich-appointed incumbent, Roland Burris, will not seek an election. The seat has already attracted State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias to leave his post, and he may be joined by other Democrats soon, such as Chris Kennedy (son of RFK) and Urban League President Cheryle Jackson.
With the Treasurer spot open, Democrats Kip Kirkpatrick and Robin Kelly (the second-in-command) appear to be seeking the post. Meanwhile, GOP State Sen. Dan Rutherford will leave his seat open to do the same.
On the Republican side of the Senatorial race, the much-talked about U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) will be vacating his seat for a GOP primary against three others, including Eric Wallace and former Judge Don Lowery. Vying to replace Kirk: on the Democratic side will be former candidate Dan Seals, State Sen. Michael Bonds, and State Rep. Julie Hamos. Two businessmen will fight for the GOP nomination.
The only sign of stability after 2010 is the Attorney General spot. Incumbent AG Lisa Madigan (D-IL) was encouraged by many supporters to seek either the Governor’s mansion or the Senate seat. In the end she decided to seek re-election where she is.
To appreciate the full magnitude of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s scandal and impeachment, one must see just how big of a stir he’s created in his state’s political scene.
With his attempt to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat and his subsequent removal from office, he is leaving at least 15 seats potentially open for intense battles across the state - including the Governor’s office, the U.S. Senate seat and a plethora of State Senate, State House, and local seats as well.
To get an idea of what’s happening, let’s first look at his seat.
On the Democratic side alone, he’s left his former Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn vulnerable to a probable primary challenger, State Comptroller Dan Hynes. Right there we see both the Lt. Governor’s office open up, as well as the State Comptroller’s. Looking to move up the political ladder, Democratic State Representatives Arthur Turner, Mike Boland, and David Miller have all suggested they might run for higher office in 2010.
The full chart of the contenders coming as a result of the gubernatorial race is far too large to complete.
On the GOP side, two State Senators and two local government leaders have at least hinted at seeking these two statewide offices.
Then there’s the U.S. Senate seat, where the Blagojevich-appointed incumbent, Roland Burris, will not seek an election. The seat has already attracted State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias to leave his post, and he may be joined by other Democrats soon, such as Chris Kennedy (son of RFK) and Urban League President Cheryle Jackson.
With the Treasurer spot open, Democrats Kip Kirkpatrick and Robin Kelly (the second-in-command) appear to be seeking the post. Meanwhile, GOP State Sen. Dan Rutherford will leave his seat open to do the same.
On the Republican side of the Senatorial race, the much-talked about U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) will be vacating his seat for a GOP primary against three others, including Eric Wallace and former Judge Don Lowery. Vying to replace Kirk: on the Democratic side will be former candidate Dan Seals, State Sen. Michael Bonds, and State Rep. Julie Hamos. Two businessmen will fight for the GOP nomination.
The only sign of stability after 2010 is the Attorney General spot. Incumbent AG Lisa Madigan (D-IL) was encouraged by many supporters to seek either the Governor’s mansion or the Senate seat. In the end she decided to seek re-election where she is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
