Why Do Political Campaigns Still Use Yard Signs?

Part 1 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”


Since the beginning of American elections, there has been a presence of campaign images displayed to support a particular candidate or party. While it’s difficult to say for sure, modern yard signs may have been used as far back as the 1920s or earlier.

Yet in all this time there has been relatively little research done (with a few notable exceptions from pioneering grad students) on the effect yard signs have on a campaign's success.

Conventional wisdom - for many, at least - is that yard signs help build a candidate’s name recognition. They also, in theory, help a voter make a decision based on who’s lawn the yard sign is posted on (for example, if it is a conservative neighbor who has posted the sign, and the voter is conservative as well, he would likely feel comfortable voting for the candidate advertised in his neighbor’s yard).

This may be quite accurate for local races. The smaller the race, the greater the impact the sign might have. But for state and federal races, yard signs really don’t persuade many people. They’re actually very ineffective in those terms.

If you don’t believe it, ask yourself when was the last time you made a voting decision based off a yard sign. You probably never did.

And with yard signs being more expensive than canvassing, phone calls, and direct mail, it’s not likely that campaigns are going to rely on such “conventional wisdom” without doing a little cost analysis first. (e.g. How much money do we have? What can we spend it on to get the most number of votes per person?)

Ultimately yard signs - under most circumstances - just aren’t cost effective for these purposes.

Except campaigns still use yard signs.

If they can’t persuade voters, what reasons do campaigns have to use them?

There are a few different theories to answer that question.

One recent study by Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University finds that posting street signs which remind people to vote actually pushes higher voter turnout. This is something of an extension of an earlier study (Henson, 1977) that explored the relationship between yard signs and turnout in Omaha.

If higher prevalence of yard signs means higher turnout, then certainly the GOTV relevance would be a driving factor for campaigns to consider.

Except there’s no guarantee that higher turnout means more voters supporting your campaign. The liberal who occasionally forgets to vote may be reminded by a sign for a GOP candidate, or a conservative might remember thanks to a Democrat’s sign.

Some studies - as well as our own experiences - also find that yard signs can be very important for new candidates because their prevalence demonstrates the campaign’s ability to organize - something very important for their credibility.

Political campaigns might also be encouraged to produce yard signs because they’re so well grounded in American elections. In fact, a 1997 study (Kenny and McBurnett) says that in addition to television ads and other modern forms of campaigning, candidates will produce yard signs, bumper stickers, etc. because they also “let tradition guide them”.

But it’s not tradition for the sake of tradition is it?

Probably not. The truth is the prevalence of your yard signs vs. that of your opponent’s does have a meaningful impact. That’s because activists (the volunteers and donors) are very supportive of this tradition. If your campaign has fewer signs, they’ll be more discouraged about your prospects for victory, thus they’ll be less motivated to walk neighborhoods, make calls, or give money.

Additionally, the larger the campaign, the more some activists will want your sign in his or her yard - to the point that they’re willing to cover the cost. This was seen most recently in the 2008 presidential election when neither the Obama nor McCain campaigns were quite so willing to give out a lot of yard signs for free.

In fact, the Obama campaign went so far as to charge $5 for a sign, and people got them anyway - and in huge numbers. Obama was a particularly inspiring candidate and the laws of supply and demand allowed his campaign to charge for a product that would otherwise be completely free. Simply put, he was so inspiring that there was actually a demand for his yard signs - a demand you could put a price tag on…literally.

So just because a yard sign isn’t going to directly effect a voter’s decision (especially in the technology age of the most impressive television ads, web design, and mailers ever seen) they still hold a great importance. Sure, political professionals are adapting to new methods of campaigning, but the old ones still have value.

And that’s a good thing. For the political individual, yard signs are fun to put up on the lawn, and it would be a shame to see them go away.

It just wouldn’t be autumn in an even-number-year without them.


Come back for our Tuesday post on phone banking!

Does the Democratic Hierarchy Lack Diversity?

There’s an interesting new article in the latest edition of Campaigns and Elections, the insider magazine for political consultants. Even in the Obama era, the vast majority of consultants in the Democratic Party are still typically white men.

Despite a handful of firsts for African-American consultants over the past two decades—Minyon Moore’s post as political director of the DNC during the 1996 cycle, Donna Brazile’s elevation to campaign manager for Al Gore in 1999, Howard Dean’s naming of Cornell Belcher to the DNC’s top polling post in 2005—several of the black political consultants and operatives interviewed say they still often feel like a suspect class in the eyes of many major campaigns and by some in the party committees. Absent new efforts from within the Democratic Party and from within the black political community itself, they don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

The article explains that most jobs held by African-American strategists within the Democratic establishment are for ethnic-targeting pursuits, often for minority-majority districts. Yet “the reality for many black consultants, says Belcher, is that they can’t speak out against people they want to work for. Too much criticism of the party establishment and the consulting industry carries risks, especially for younger operatives hoping to build a name and a career.”

Furthermore, the American Association of Political Consultants says that of its 1,123 members, only about one-in-five are women.

Luckily, things do appear to be changing, and without any specific efforts to increase diversity on the part of the upper-levels of the Democratic hierarchy.

A new generation of African-American operatives has graduated from the Obama campaign. As they work their way into the elite levels of government and politics, many see a golden opportunity to diversify the top tier of the political industry.

“In the twenty years that I’ve been working in politics, I haven’t seen a time where we’ve had such a deep bench of African-American operatives who can work in politics,” says Steve Hildebrand, who is white and was Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2008.

Similarly, many in the first wave of black consultants (including Moore and Brazile) came out of the first Jesse Jackson campaign in 1984. With a successful campaign for the nation’s first black president, the advancement of African-American political workers might have another boost in years to come.

And with organizations like EMILY’s List recruiting progressive women for campaigns, the prevalence and prominence of women within the Democratic establishment of consultants may increase soon as well.

Still, some warn that the success of the Obama campaign might tame concerns of minority and female advancement in these ranks. After all, it was an incredibly diverse campaign, but it still had huge numbers of white men within it (granted, it was far more proportional to the demographical make-up of the U.S. than usual).

What’s more, relying on the Obama campaign might not be wise for diversifying the larger Democratic Party. As we mentioned in a previous post, many Obama operatives from 2008 are not so willing to work for politicians other than the current president.

Hopefully, though, the progress some see will continue.

Not too surprisingly, the article had a lot less to say about the demographical trends of GOP consultants.

We recommend reading the entire article here.

21st Century Campaigning: A New Series

Now that July has come, WAYLA is introducing its third series, “21st Century Campaigning!”

Every few days we’ll bring you a new post as part of this ten-part series on campaign tactics and methods that drive a successful election effort. The topics will include…

• Phone Banks
• Small vs. Large Races
• Fundraising
• Campaign Ads
• Public Relations
• Polling
• Voter ID
• Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV)
• New Media Strategies

In the age of “on-demand” where the consumer - or for our purposes, the voter - has more control of what he/she sees than ever, how do campaigns convince Americans to vote for them? With campaign finance reform, how can they still raise money? With the decline of landline telephones and newspapers, how are political professionals transitioning from conventional campaigns to 21st Century ones?

These will be the tough questions we ask throughout the series. We'll look at the histories of these different campaign strategies and dive in to how American politics is adapting to the ever-changing world.

Join us Friday for our first topic: Yard Signs!

Political Fundraiser Ends in Chaos!

There’s a bizarre new story out of Cardiff, California today. Last night at a house party fundraiser for Francine Busby - a Democratic candidate for California’s 50th Congressional District - police not only arrested the host and a guest, but pepper-sprayed several attendees.

From what it looks like, this is how it all started: a conservative next-door neighbor started shouting “disparaging remarks” about Busby and gays earlier in the evening (the host, Shari Barman, is openly gay and lives with her partner, Jane).

Then the neighbor called the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department at 9:33 PM to issue a noise complaint, telling the deputy that a loudspeaker and cheering was keeping him awake. Of course, the microphone Busby used to speak to the guests had been off for over an hour, and all other neighbors in the area said they didn’t hear anything (including one who slept through the fundraiser, and another who had her windows open).

Soon enough, the Sheriff’s deputies arrived on the scene and confronted Barman about the noise complaint.

“When [Deputy Marshall] Abbott arrived, [Sgt. Thomas] Yancey said, he told Barman about the complaint, and she uttered an expletive about a neighbor. Abbott asked Barman for her birth date so he could issue a noise warning, but Barman refused to give it, he said.

Barman tried to walk away, Yancey said, and Abbott grabbed her. The guests took Barman away, and Abbott used pepper spray on them. In the chaos, someone kicked the emergency response team member, a woman who is 5-foot-2, Yancey said.

‘He was pepper-spraying the faces of anyone who tried to talk to him,’ Busby said. ‘People were stunned. It was something that none of us has experienced.’

In her statement, Barman said she asked the deputy why he needed her birth date, because he knew her name and where she lived.

‘He told me I was under arrest, grabbed my right arm, twisted it behind me and threw me on the ground,’ she said.”

So they called dispatch and soon enough they had six more patrol cars and a helicopter for backup!

In defense of the excessive response, Yancy told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the deputies felt threatened with so many guests in the house. “We don't like people standing behind us – we have tasers, guns, clubs,” he said.

Barman was “arrested and jailed on suspicion of battery on a peace officer, and resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.” One guest, Pam Morgan, “was arrested and taken to the Encinitas Sheriff's Station, where she was cited for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.”

Now the story gets kind of political.

Busby told the press that she would demand an explanation from the Sheriff’s Department for their actions. Yancy responded, saying “If Francine Busby was there, why not take a leadership role, step up, and nip this thing in the bud?” Busby shot back, saying she couldn’t really intervene because the deputies were pepper-spraying the crowd indiscriminately.

Finally, in an update this morning, the Sheriff’s Department released a statement saying they would conduct an internal affairs investigation.

Now, anyone who has ever attended a small house party fundraiser will understand just how crazy this story really is. The house is typically packed with happy, middle-aged donors who come to see their candidate speak and socialize with one another. According to the reports, this one was no different.

Except that it ended with the host being arrested and dozens of guests getting pepper-sprayed or tazed.

But it does speak truth to a simple concept - political activists (who make up the bulk of these sorts of fundraisers) have very strong feelings about their beliefs. That’s why the conservative neighbor went so far as to call the cops on the liberals, and why the liberals refused to comply with the normal procedure for such a complaint.

We can’t even imagine the headache this story will cause the Busby campaign staff.

Who Are You Looking At in 2012? - Results

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey! We got a lot of interesting perspectives and predictions for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

The winner, at 18%, was Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. According to one respondent, “Palin is the front runner, since [the GOP] didn't have a really great speaker during the Republican Convention, [there is] no way of gauging the possibilities.”


A sudden surprise front-runner was former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) who lately has been making a surge in media coverage. Yesterday on Meet the Press he told David Gregory he was not considering another presidential campaign, but according to Politico today, “many of his loyalists expect one and remain at the ready for 2012.”

Romney also made a point of criticizing Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for his recently-revealed affair with a woman in Argentina. He said that governors must be held to a “higher standard” because “the culture of the nation” can be hurt by their failings. It certainly seems like something a Republican presidential candidate would say in order to appeal to the culturally conservative base in preparation for a primary.

In fact, everything about his spotlight appearances cry “campaign.” From the first Politico article:

Whenever Romney has a major TV appearance or pens an opinion piece, a PAC staffer, Will Ritter, circulates the news to an e-mail list of the former governor’s extended political family…

…When Romney does a high-profile Sunday show like he did yesterday, for example, that means that former communications aides such as Matt Rhoades and Kevin Madden will join PAC spokesman and longtime adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to help prepare their old boss, either in person or over the phone. When he’s delivering a speech, as he did earlier this month on national security, other former campaign officials such as media consultants Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens are brought in.

And Romney is looking good within the Republican Party. Many see him as a good pro-business candidate that can legitimately attack the Obama economic strategy.

But Romney isn’t the only one reaching out to the media. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who tied for a surprising last place in our poll, has also been making headlines in political circles.

He recently made his own criticisms of Sanford on CNN.



And he made sure to let the nation know that he was ready to certify Al Franken as Minnesota’s Democratic Senator once the state’s high court issued their ruling. This should help him with his credentials as being less partisan. In fact, one of Pawlenty’s major selling points will be that he isn’t so in-line with the far-right - thus he’s electable. That could be a major plus in a Republican primary in 2012.

All-in-all, these media outreach efforts are right out of the traditional presidential campaign playbook. In a 1972 memo to then-Governor Jimmy Carter, aide Hamilton Jordan wrote

“[I]t is necessary that we begin immediately to generate favorable stories and comments in the national press…Once your name begins to be mentioned in the national press, you will not lack for invitations and opportunities to speak in major groups and conventions…[The press’s] recognition and acceptance of your candidacy as a viable force with some chance of success could establish you as a serious contender worthy of financial support from major part contributors.”

Other names that came out of the survey were Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) (if the GOP is ready for a minority candidate), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who one respondent said was one of the only Republicans on-message at the moment), House Minority Leader John Boehner, and former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-WI) who ran in 2008.

We’ve already discussed Jindal’s chances in previous posts. He may have to secure his popularity with his Louisiana constituency first. Although the other three candidates are possibilities, we’re not putting much weight behind their chances. Gingrich and Thompson both left their political careers a while ago and they both have sex-scandal skeletons in their own closets. Boehner probably won’t run seeing as he already has a powerful position in the House.

Several respondents said they had “no idea” - it’s far too early to tell. That’s probably a good answer. A couple mentioned General David Patraeus. The General would certainly be a strong candidate (in theory) for a GOP primary, but it is definitely unlikely that he would leave the military for a political stint.

Outside of our survey there are other names being thrown around, including former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) who recently replaced Sanford as Chair of the Republican Governors Association.

It’s no surprise that most of the names being mentioned are governors. Republicans in Congress are particularly unpopular these days and historically governors have had an easier time in the presidential field because of the lack of a voting record to attack.

Huckabee and Daniels may have an especially good chance. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus in 2008 and is a recognizable figure in national politics. His populist message and program at Fox News give him ample opportunity to succeed with the conservative base. Daniels, though not well-known outside his own state, has an acceptable record as governor and - unlike many Republicans - hasn’t yet given Democrats much to attack him on. Thune may have difficulty with name recognition, but his ties in Washington would be useful. Barbour is unlikely to make it outside Mississippi, however, because he is a former tobacco lobbyist.

Another surprise from our survey was the frequent mention of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as a Vice Presidential candidate. He is called a “rising-star” who is on-message and speaks well to the base. He also is known for introducing Republican solutions so the GOP does not appear to be the “Party of No.” As a Congressman, he probably wouldn’t be a viable presidential candidate (House members seldom are) but he is frequently mentioned in the national press and couldn’t refuse the opportunity to be on the ticket if he is asked. Dick Cheney even mentioned him in a recent interview - before any other Republican - as a young, talented politician who gives the party hope.

Thanks again in taking part in the survey! As 2012 comes closer we’ll keep up-to-date and look back at these results and our own analysis.


UPDATE: An interesting new Pew Poll finds that two of the previously mentioned Republicans - Palin and Gingrich - are fairly popular within the party, but extremely divisive otherwise. A third - Romney - is fairly popular overall, but just less than a third of respondents could not say whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of him yet.

Needless to say, these results are good for Palin and Gingrich as far as primary prospects go - as long as electability isn't a principle concern to the GOP base - but not so much when it comes to a General Election. The public's opinion of Romney will no doubt further develop as the 2012 race comes closer.

Michael Jackson: "I Never Get Into Politics"

That’s what the late King of Pop told Ebony magazine back in 1992 - he just wasn’t political. Of course, by the end of his life, it wasn’t quite by choice. In 2004, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus wouldn’t even meet with him when he asked.

As USA Today reported at the time:

"They had turned down his request to attend its meeting Wednesday, saying they were too busy dealing with legislative issues affecting black Americans."

No wonder his friend, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said yesterday that many who were lionizing him in death wouldn’t even go near him for the past seven years.

But in his glory days Michael was a more visible figure, greeted by and playing for presidents. He received awards and honors from Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He played the Clinton Inauguration alongside Bob Dylan, Elton John, and Stevie Nicks.


But despite a DNC fundraising concert he played in 2002 (where he helped raise $2.5 million for voter registration efforts) Jackson never did get very partisan. Of the two icons that passed away yesterday, it was Farrah Fawcett who actually contributed to a political campaign.

Of course, that didn’t stop the 24-hour “all politics all the time” news networks from covering Michael’s death as the only story last night.


What else are we looking at?

As it turns out, the Mark Sanford press conference on Wednesday had one noticeable mishap. The conservative Fox News identified him as a Democrat in their coverage. We wish we could say it was a normal error, but given their track record in journalism, it’s hard to be sure.

The conservative interest group, Club for Growth, is running a new campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). Although they need approval from the FEC first, they’re trying to get their members to demand refunds for their Specter contributions. Specter’s GOP opponent, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is a former president of the Club for Growth.

It’s well known that Washington DC can get way too hot during the summer, and the White House Press room can be the most heated place in the city. So White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs cooled off yesterday by allowing members of the press corps dunk him for charity.



It was all part of the White House luau yesterday, where President Obama had members of Congress over for quite the picnic.



Finally, don’t forget to take part in our survey: Who Are You Looking At in 2012! Tell us who you think will be the Republican nominee to take on Obama. Email your thoughts to Dave@HogensenStrategies.com. It’s fast, easy, and fun - but your predictions are due Monday.

What Sanford Supporters Are Saying

A few quotes from the wall on the “Mark Sanford for President 2012” group on Facebook:

“Sorry but I cant be a part of this anymore.”

“…If you can't be trusted by your wife, why should I trust you as president? The libs are gonna eat this up. I am really blown away by this...I really thought he had more integrity than that.”

“Thanks for nothing [expletive]. You screw every principle of the party.”

“Damn you”

“dumb[expletive]”

“He was out cheating on his wife. Leaving this group now....”

And from multiple fans: “See ya”

A lot of them also say they’re now looking at former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NV), a libertarian-minded fiscal hawk who’s getting some notoriety from the Ron Paul folks.

Then there was the blogger at www.Sanford2012.org who last night could only say “Well, I was wrong about Sanford, that’s for sure. I’ll post more later tonight…I’m going to take some time to clear my mind.”

If anyone still thinks the “Mainstream Media” (or “Drive-By Media” if you’re a Rush Limbaugh fan) is particularly brutal to Republicans, just look at how average folks using “New Media” are reacting.

By the way, don’t forget to participate in our post-Sanford-scandal survey: Who Are You Looking At in 2012!

Who Are You Looking At in 2012?

It’s been quite a week or so.

First Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) admitted he had an affair last year and he resigned his post as Chair of the Senate GOP Policy Committee. Then yesterday it turned out that Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) bizarre disappearance was due to an affair with a woman in Buenos Aires.


Just like that, two major contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination are almost definitely out of the running.

So who’s left to take on President Obama?

We want to know who YOU think will be the Republican nominee in the next presidential contest!


Email us at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com with the name of the GOP candidate you think will face Obama (barring any more sex scandals) and a short analysis that explains your prediction.

Then we’ll post the results on Monday right here at WAYLA so you can see what other political enthusiasts are thinking.

It’s fast, easy, and fun - so why not?

Is Bachmann Underestimating the Availability of Public Information?

Our colleagues at 3rd Coast Research, a Democratic consulting firm based in Chicago, recently did a great blog post on Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) comments on the U.S. Census.

In a recent Washington Times article, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that she was so worried that information from next year's U.S. Census will be abused that she will not fill it out beyond very minimal information. She said, "I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." Bachmann added that the questions in the Census survey had become "very intricate, very personal."

So 3rd Coast Research completed a hypothetical census survey for the Congresswoman using publicly available information. Overall, they were able to answer 80% of the census survey for Bachmann with sources such as Lexis Nexis, the Almanac of American Politics, and Google.

Additionally, they found that an additional 5% of the survey could have been completed if they had bothered to make the 391 mile trip from Chicago to the Washington County Assessor office in the Twin Cities suburb of Woodbury (something they would have certainly done if they were working for Bachmann’s opponent). And using interviews and court record requests, they easily could have obtained much more useful information on the Congresswoman.

As 3rd Coast points out

The process used to complete the survey is standard in any opposition research process, and has no doubt been repeated for Rep. Bachmann several times.

Not only was it ridiculous for Bachmann to assume that her privacy would be better protected if she answered only a few questions for the Census, but it was a very telling simulation on the availability of public information.

Furthermore it demonstrates just how effective and important opposition research is for a campaign. It’s typically not too difficult to collect and can go a long way towards better knowing your opponent. Using the information can be helpful, depending on what you reveal, but in order to even make that decision you must have the research done first.

What Will Be the Political Impact of Sanford’s Disappearance?

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from South Carolina.

As you may have heard by now, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) is missing - or at least was missing and will resume his duties tomorrow.

Apparently he left South Carolina on Thursday after losing his battle with the State Legislature to block stimulus funds from being spent. Sanford has long argued that South Carolina should not accept money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

So without telling his family, security detail, or Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, Sanford left for the Appalachian Trail to hike and “write something”.

The Vote Blog at the Christian Science Monitor also pointed out that Sanford’s disappearance to the hiking trail coincidentally happened during Naked Hiking Day - when some hiking enthusiasts go nude for the summer solstice. We won’t make any speculations as to that coincidence.

His wife also told the press yesterday that she was not worried and Sanford just “wanted some space to get away from the kids.”

He had no communication with anyone in South Carolina until today. Finally, law enforcement officials (or someone) tracked his cell phone and found it was somewhere outside Atlanta. Then he called his Chief-of-Staff today to “check-in” and the Chief-of-Staff presumably told him what a panic he had stirred.

Now the Los Angeles Times is asking “did the governor’s walk in the woods doom his presidential hopes?”

It was definitely a strange thing for a sitting governor to do: taking off without telling anyone exactly where he was going or for how long. Also strange is the fact that he was trying to “get away from the kids” during Fathers Day Weekend.

As one blogger wrote today:

“A governor cannot just disappear. He has a state to, you know, govern…[that’s] especially important if Sanford is serious about having presidential ambitions. A president cannot just leave suddenly, to go on a hiking trip. Can you imagine the ads his opponents will run? Images of people in a panic, ‘where is Sanford??’ followed by a shot of Humpty Dumpty Sanford taking a hike, with a silly grin on his face.”

We couldn’t agree more - regardless of whether or not you think it was a bad decision because he was neglecting his duties, you have to agree it was a dumb move politically. Just like Sen. Ensign’s (R-NV) recent sex-scandal did in his presidential ambitions, this episode of Stanford’s will be impossible to forget. Even if the typical voter forgets (if they even heard about it) political professionals will not.

Also interesting is how this will affect South Carolina politics.

From an article in Politico:

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, [a Republican], who was elected separately from Sanford, issued a statement to POLITICO after a day of frenzied national speculation about the governor’s whereabouts.

Bauer said he called Sanford’s office Monday and requested an “immediate phone conversation with the governor.”

“That request was denied because the governor’s chief of staff does not know where the governor is, and has not communicated with the governor since he left South Carolina last Thursday,” Bauer said. “I cannot take lightly that his staff has not had communication with him for more than four days, and that no one, including his own family, knows his whereabouts.”

Meanwhile, state Senator Jake Knotts (R-Lexington) told The State that he called the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) [which acts as Sanford’s security service] and confirmed that the governor “has frequently been eluding SLED agents and disappearing at odd times.”

But these GOP reactions have sharp political motives behind them.

From yesterday’s article in The Hill:

Sanford allies say his enemies — most notably Bauer and…Knotts — are simply taking advantage of an opportunity to get under the governor's skin, and that Sanford has a habit of going underground when he takes time away from the office.

Knotts has been a long-time critic of Sanford, and Bauer intends to run for governor once Sanford’s term-limit is up while Sanford appears to be supporting another Republican.

Like in many states - though it is seldom admitted - the dominant party in the Palmetto State is divided into camps. It appears the Sanford Camp of the South Carolina GOP is in a bit of an awkward position after this extraordinary lapse in political judgment.


UPDATE: In another bizarre twist to this story, it turns out that Sanford was in Buenos Aires, Argentina. That's right - while everyone thought, and told us, he was hiking in the Appalachian Trail he had actually gone that old South American way.


UPDATE #2: Another shocking twist to this continually developing story. It turns out that Sanford was having an affair with a woman he knew from Argentina!

From Politico:

“I have been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with what started out as a dear, dear friend from Argentina,” Sanford said.

“I’m a bottom line kind of guy I’m just gonna lay it out. It’s gonna hurt and I’m going to let the chips fall where they may,” Sanford said.

Sanford apologized to his wife, Jenny, and his children. “To Jenny, anybody who has observed her over the last 40 year of my life knows how closely she has stood by my side in campaign, after campaign, after campaign,” he said.

“I’ve let down a lot of people, and that’s the bottom line,” he said.

Like Ensign just a few days before him, we can say with virtually-complete certainty that Sanford has truly lost all hope for furthering his political career and making it to the White House in 2012.

Campaign Updates (6/22/09)

Florida

Will Marco Rubio turn out to be the GOP’s Barack Obama? Carlos Watson of MSNBC seems to think so, and Rubio could not have asked for a better introduction to a national audience.




California

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is expected to announce he will run for governor of California any minute now. He will soon be on CNN’s “Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer. Be sure to watch it.


Connecticut

Entrenched Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is getting help from his longtime friend, Sen. Ted Kennedy. The new ad Kennedy cut should help with Dodd’s poor standing back home.



Dodd has been speaking on Kennedy’s behalf as the healthcare debate has moved forward in Washington, and the two politicians have been good friends since they entered the Senate together as young men over 30 years ago.


Iran

Last week we speculated the likelihood that Iran’s recent elections were fraudulent. At the time we couldn’t find any definitive evidence either way. Now there are new studies out that find certain election results to be more than a little fishy.

The first comes from upcoming NYU political scientists Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco who find that the frequencies of certain digits at various polling places in Iran are extremely unlikely to be accurate. Overall, they say that the way Ahmadinejad won only has a one-in-two-hundred chance of being legitimate.

The second study comes from the Institute of Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in the UK. The most glaring problem they notice is that two entire provinces reported turnouts of over 100% - and they were both Ahmadinejad-supportive.

They also found that…

“In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.”

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com wonders if these new concessions by the Ayatollah's government about voting irregularities are the first sign that Ahmadinejad could get thrown under the bus.

Democrats and Republicans Getting Mixed News

It’s Friday, June 19, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

Things are looking good for Democrats in Pennsylvania. A new Rasmussen poll finds that both incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and his possible primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) lead former Rep. Pat Toomey (D-PA) in hypothetical 2010 Senate race match-ups. Specter leads by a 50% - 39% margin, while the less-known Sestak is ahead of Toomey 41% - 35%.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds finds himself behind GOP nominee Bob McDonnell by just a point (45% - 44%). This is an improvement for Deeds since just two months ago when McDonnell led 38% - 31%. Now, with 11% of Virginia voters undecided, it’s going to be a very close race.

But Republicans are also gaining some ground. In New Jersey, for example, the Republican Governors Association is putting their money into two new ads attacking the relatively unpopular incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ). We’ll be sure to bring you those ads as soon as they’re released.

Luckily for Corzine, he has much more money than opponent Chris Christie, and can saturate the expensive New York City and Philadelphia media markets. Overall, that will make for a very costly and very negative race. According to Patrick Murray of the Monmouth University Polling Institute “New Jersey has a history of nasty races [and] this could potentially go down as the nastiest.”

And the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) reported today an intake of $4.5 million for the month of May. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) - conversely - raised a meager $3.45 million. Of course, about $1 million raised by the NRSC was a simple transfer of resources from the Republican National Committee fund. Nevertheless, the DSCC is still $4.17 million in debt, while the NRSC is now debt-free.

Finally, you’ve probably heard about Sen. Barbra Boxer’s (D-CA) frustration with General Michael Walsh calling her “ma’am” instead of “Senator” - which the GOP is now jumping all over - but believe us, that is nothing compared to this:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One last thing: if you’re in the Milwaukee area on Sunday, join us at noon at South Shore Park for HSG’s second annual summer party! HSG is the parent company for WAYLA and we’d love to see you there.

Is Twitter’s Role in Iran Being Overblown?

Following the presidential elections in Iran last week, protests have broken out in the streets for at least 5 days now with no real end in sight. What is truly remarkable about the situation is how much credit Twitter - the new-media social networking website - has been given for this “revolution”.

It is true that Twitter has been a uniquely accessible service for the protesters. While the government - in an effort to crack down on the information leaving Iran - has been slowing internet connection and removing websites such as Facebook, Twitter has been okay because it is so compatible with SMS text messaging. Furthermore, as cell phone reception is turned off in some areas, Twitter feeds can still be updated by “relay” websites.


But the Iran-Twitter fascination grew even more when the U.S. State Department announced that they asked Twitter to postpone some scheduled maintenance because, as Secretary Clinton says, “keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize.”

She also added, humorously, “I wouldn't know a twitter from a tweeter, but apparently it is very important.”

So of course it wasn’t long before some in the media said that the State Department controls Twitter. The operators of the social networking service responded saying:

“When we worked with our network provider yesterday to reschedule this planned maintenance, we did so because events in Iran were tied directly to the growing significance of Twitter as an important communication and information network…

…It's humbling to think that our two-year old company could be playing such a globally meaningful role that state officials find their way toward highlighting our significance. However, it's important to note that the State Department does not have access to our decision making process. Nevertheless, we can both agree that the open exchange of information is a positive force in the world.”

But is Twitter really that significant in Iran’s protests?

The simple answer is “not really” - its role is being overblown by American media which are (for the most part) doing a particularly poor job covering the developments in Iran.

From an article in the Washington Post:

It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.

"Twitter's impact inside Iran is zero," said Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles. "Here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look...you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves."

And as Thomas Friedman points out in his recent New York Times column:

“…the Islamists and their regimes have a trump card: guns. Guns trump cellphones. Bang-bang beats tweet-tweet. The [only reason the] Sunni Awakening in Iraq succeeded because the moderates there were armed.”

And if you look at opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Twitter feed (as of noon EST today) he only has about 15,000 followers - a small fraction of the number of protesters right now - and as you would probably imagine, many of those followers are from places other than Iran.


What the American fascination with Twitter in these protests has produced is suspicion on the part of the Iranian regime. The government of Iran now blames “intolerable” American meddling in their domestic affairs for the current demonstrations - exactly what President Obama was trying to avoid! As much as we Americans want to reject it, the actions taken by our State Department do give some weight to that argument.

What is much more interesting about Twitter is not the impact it has in Iran, but rather the impact it has in American politics.

A few weeks ago, we mentioned how RNC New Media Director Todd Herman tweeted “new racism = no better than old” in reference to Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Despite the fact that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was trying to stay away of accusing her of racism, the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric found its way onto Twitter.

Now Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker finds a slew of tweets made by GOP activists and operatives that keep them anywhere but on-message.

Take this recent tweet by Mike Green of Starboard Communication, a Republican consulting firm: “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”

It wasn’t long before Green apologized - using two tweets - for his comment.

"I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE COMMENTS I MADE ON TWITTER YESTERDAY. I MADE A MISTAKE.

I REALIZE THAT MY COMMENTS WERE HURTFUL, WRONG AND HAVE NO PLACE IN CIVIL DISCOURSE."

As Hertzberg points out, a simple “I made a mistake” would have sufficed, but the relatively long apology (for Twitter) was probably something his firm made him do.

Then there’s Rusty DePass, a GOP county chairman from South Carolina, who posted a rather crude update on Facebook referring to an escaped gorilla from a local zoo: “I’M SURE IT’S JUST ONE OF MICHELLE [OBAMA]’S ANCESTORS—PROBABLY HARMLESS.” In his less sincere apology, he told the press “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest…the comment was hers, not mine” (referring to her belief in evolution).

New media can be extremely useful to political campaigning (which is why we use Twitter, follow us at www.twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog) because it’s cheap and it reaches out to a broad audience that is no longer interested in seeing political TV ads or mailers. But it’s also creating problems with keeping operatives and activists on message - an incredibly important component of campaigns.

Of course, you can see more debate about the relevance of Twitter in Iranian politics by going to this article at TechPresident.com. But make no mistake about it, Twitter is going to play a much larger role (even if it’s less reported on) in the United States - especially come 2010.

In Politics, Money Makes All the Difference

It has been remarkable following gay rights issues in Washington over the past 48 hours. The White House has announced that President Obama will be signing an executive order sometime today to extend federal employee benefits to same-sex couples. Yet it all started because of a gay-oriented fundraiser that several gay activists and bloggers became upset about.

It wasn’t long before several prominent gay rights advocates - including a leader from the Human Rights Campaign - pulled out of an Organizing for America fundraiser featuring Vice President Biden because the administration had thus far made no move to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.


Much of it stems from a Justice Department brief filed in California recently that not only defended DOMA, but drew parallels between the gay marriage case before the court and several possible precedent cases involving incestuous marriages.

From a Politico update yesterday:

"I will not attend a fundraiser for the National Democratic Party in Washington next week when the current administration is responsible for these kind of actions," [activist David] Mixner wrote of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act that drew a parallel between same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage. "How will they ever take us seriously if we keep forking out money while they harm us? For now on, my money is going to battles within the community such as the fight in Maine or the March on Washington! I am so tired of being told by Democratic operatives to 'suck it up' because so many other profound issues are at stake."

It was a good idea - not only is the LGBT community a critical base of support for Democrats, but they are a generally wealthy one.

Suddenly the Obama folks were caught off guard. DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, scrambling to come up with a quick response, could only say “If this debacle of a brief represented the president's views, I'd boycott too,” and then sent an email that not only said “So...counterintuitive as it may feel at this moment...come to DC for our dinner June 25, and hear what the Vice President of the United States has to say as he joins Governor Kaine and Governor Dean and Barney Frank and others in celebrating Gay Pride” but also reassured the recipients that there would be protesters outside the event!

Finally - out of nowhere - the White House made it clear last night that Obama would introduce basic benefits of domestic partnerships to LGBT federal employees.

Of course, the benefits cannot include some health and pension benefits due to DOMA restrictions - which the White House says Obama wants Congress to overturn - and so the decision received mixed reactions.

Now, this is not to say that the decision to create domestic partnerships for federal employees was based solely on dollars and cents. It is certainly the President’s wish to extend gay rights, and we can expect a move on issues such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, and repealing DOMA in the future.

But the fact that the economy, health care, and other issues have been priorities (that could be derailed if the administration was to upset the GOP with gay rights issues) has stalled the President from making this move so far.

It looks like this serious uproar from gay rights advocates (and more importantly, donors) just got the ball rolling.

Campaign Updates (6/16/09)

WAYLA has decided to start bringing you periodic updates of campaigns and elections. Today we’ll look at some Senate race developments here in the U.S. as well as the presidential election in Iran.


Pennsylvania

Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey has had an impressive few weeks with money, as it turns out, according to his campaign announcements on Monday. Not only has he brought on state GOP fundraisers Amy Petraglia and Carey Dunn to his campaign, but also his opponent’s former Finance Director, Louisa Boyd. She left Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) after he switched parties back in April.

Additionally, Toomey has now raised $1 million. While it’s still less than Specter (who has $6.7 million cash-on-hand) it’s still an impressive milestone. It’s also important to mention that Specter may have to take on Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) - who currently has $3.3 million cash-on-hand in his federal account) in a primary. Primaries cost money too, and this one might bring down Specter’s (or Sestak’s) budget while Toomey can continue to raise money.


Florida

Conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today announced his endorsement of Marc Rubio for the 2010 Florida Senate race. DeMint chose not to endorse the NRSC’s pick - Gov. Charlie Crist - because the popular governor is too moderate.


Yet despite the backing of conservative activists and DeMint, Rubio is still trailing Crist in money and the polls. A recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, finds Crist ahead with primary voters about 54% - 23%.

On the other side of the spectrum, Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) made it official that he will not pursue the Senate seat, and joined fellow south-Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL) in endorsing Miami’s Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL). Meanwhile, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) is talking about running for that seat herself.


Arkansas

Another Republican has joined the race to take Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D-AR) seat. Tom Cox, a conservative activist who ran his state’s Tea Party protests, announced his candidacy on Monday. He will join state Senator Kim Hendren and businessman Curtis Coleman in a primary.

One thing that could hurt his candidacy: last year federal authorities raided his boating business and arrested 15 illegal immigrants. He told the Associated Press he had "every reason to believe [the workers] were legal and they were wonderful employees." Explaining that to GOP Primary voters in Arkansas might be difficult.


Iran

Continuing to follow the Iranian presidential election closely, we did a post yesterday in which we found no conclusive evidence that the election was either rigged or clean. Although it felt like a tough point to make with how the Iranian opposition supporters are reacting (and now how some GOP politicians are reacting) the bloggers at FiveThirtyEight.com apparently agree with us - for the most part.

On Saturday, Nate Silver argued that the statistical analysis trying to prove a rigged election is not very compelling. Then on Sunday he posted the results of the election by province and used his own analysis to argue again that the results are ambiguous to charges of rigging. Finally, on Monday he suggested that voter intimidation may have been a bigger factor in Ahmadinejad’s victory than fraudulent ballot counting. Of course, in that Monday post he was largely refuting the very poll we referred to in our own post.


Meanwhile, Renard Sexton argued that while the analysis of election-rigging is inconclusive, he points out some fishy numbers coming out of Tehran. Not only is Ahmadinejad’s vote percentage outside of a statistical trend, but he defeated reformist Medhi Karroubi (note: NOT the main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi) by some unlikely margins. Today, Sexton commented on the announced recount by the Guardian Council and the proposed re-vote, and what course of action would be best depending on what dirty election tricks actually took place.


For all these stories and more, stay tuned.

Fallout of the Iranian Elections

Typically the elections we focus on are all in the United States, but following the highly contentious election in Iran recently, we felt it would be good to give some insight on that democratic dysfunction.

Among reports of voter fraud, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote in a statement Sunday “Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.”

Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday there was “some real doubt” as to the election’s legitimacy while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the election a “sham” in a Fox News interview today.

Was the election stolen?

Unfortunately, there were no international vote monitors to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the election results, but certainly things look a little fishy.

It was considered by most election analysts to be a close election, but official results find incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won with over 62% of the vote - a landslide victory.

It was also an unusually big race. There was an 80% turnout on Election Day and polls had to stay open for an extra 4 hours to make sure everyone could vote. The campaigns spent millions of dollars (possibly more than $100 million) making it the most expensive in Iran’s history. They also took a cue from the Obama campaign with new methods of voter contact and ended up sending over 110 million text messages per day by then end of the race.

But polling was often unreliable because both campaigns used internal or friendly polling as propaganda. One of the only truly independent polls - conducted by ABC/BBC pollsters in mid-May - found Ahmadinejad leading main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi by a 34% - 14% margin with 27% undecided.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered the Guardian Council to investigate claims of voter fraud. Yet the Guardian Council answers to the Ayatollah who has already confirmed the results of the election twice - thus they’re unlikely to disagree with him.

It’s tough to say whether the results truly reflected the will of the people. Much of the race came down to a class struggle, with the poor supporting the populist Ahmadinejad and the middle and upper class elites supporting Mousavi. Iran currently has a 12.5% unemployment rate and about 20% of Iranians live under the poverty line.

This would suggest that perhaps the results of the election are more legitimate than Americans believe. In fact, Iran has long been one of the few countries in the Middle East with a well-functioning democratic system - even if it’s only partially democratic.

Still, Mousavi was complaining about the prospects of voter fraud before Election Day, and with no independent international verifiers, it cannot be confirmed.

Now Iran is posed to lose their democratic privileges altogether. The ongoing protests could easily be seen as a direct challenge to the Ayatollah’s rule. As a result, police have beaten and even killed rioters while opposition leaders have been imprisoned.


Ultimately, we have to reiterate the written statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All we can really say about it is that we obviously hope “that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.”

Campaign Politics Here and Abroad

It’s Friday, June 12, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

The Service Employees International Union is making a rather strange move to press Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) into supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of sending their new mailer against him to his constituents in Louisiana, they’ve been sending it to his friends and his part-time neighbors in Alexandria, VA - one former staffer even received it in North Carolina.

Democrats in Wisconsin have some good news and some bad news to talk about at their State Convention tonight. A new DailyKos poll finds that despite the fact that many Democratic politicians aren’t viewed so favorably there – Sen. Russ Feingold being the major exception – the Badger State would still choose them over Republicans in 2010.

Just next door, the Minnesota Senate race from last year takes another interesting turn. A Ramsey County court ruled yesterday that (soon-to-be-former) Sen. Norm Coleman owes (soon-to-be) Sen. Al Franken nearly $95,000 in court fees for continuing to make appeals. The question now is whether this race will ever actually end.

Meanwhile, it’s Election Day in Iran! Some analysts say it’s so close that Iran ’09 could be just like Florida ’00. Let’s hope not. The elections are being extended to make sure everyone has the chance to vote, so it looks like it will stay reasonably clean, although the challenger is very worried about rigging.

Plus journalist and political scientist Stephen Kinzer says this democratic practice could bring America and Iran closer together.

For more coverage of the Iranian election, visit the special Huffington Post page.

Is There a Way to Defend the Electoral College?

Two weeks ago today we did a post on how the Democrats may be falling short in Colorado. One topic of the post was how the Democratically-controlled state Senate approved a bill to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

Here’s what we said:

“Other issues mentioned above are going to be equally unpopular. The Electoral College issue, for example, is one that probably doesn’t sit well with voters. The state Senate approved a bill to join the [NPVIC], in which a state’s electoral votes would go to the overall national winner of a presidential race. Once enough states join the compact to reach 270 votes, the compact would go into effect. Because Colorado is a smaller state, they would effectively get less say in a presidential contest. Besides, a good communications director can easily argue that the bill is taking the vote away from Coloradans, and make a GOP political gain.”

To our surprise, that paragraph drew a bit of criticism from two comments. One commenter complained that “the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.”

Actually, it’s more like once every 18 presidential elections. From the time George Washington was elected in 1789 there have been 56 presidential elections and the Electoral College winner has lost the popular vote 3 times. These presidents who lost the popular vote were Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and - most famously - George W. Bush in 2000.

(We should also point out that it is popularly believed that the same happened with John F. Kennedy in 1960. In fact, Kennedy won the popular vote by a mere 115,000 votes nationally. We’re not going to get into the allegations of vote theft here.)

We should make it clear that in our post we were not discussing the merits of the Electoral College or the NPVIC, but rather discussing the political side effects of trying to change the system - i.e., what it would do to the public opinion of Democrats in Colorado.

Nonetheless, the merits of the Electoral College and NPVIC is an interesting topic, so we figured we’d devote a post to the subject.


It is easy for liberals - like ourselves - to criticize the Electoral College (all three presidents that lost the popular vote were Republicans) but we think we should look at it from a more neutral position and give both sides of the argument.


Reasons to Oppose the Electoral College

Let’s see what else our commenters said...

“The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.”

We’re not going to fact check this, but from what we would expect this is probably true (or at least reasonably close to being accurate). The fact that many big states like California, Texas, New York, etc. are almost completely ignored during a presidential race is troubling to the average democratically-minded American (note the small “d” in democratic).

This is certainly a reason to draw concern. It seems almost morally wrong for such states to be ignored. In principle, they should receive their due attention from the presidential campaigns.

What else?

“[A] recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%...”

This is true. The poll the commenter refers to finds that a whopping majority of Americans would support a direct popular vote. And although there was a noticeable partisan divide, even 60% of Republicans support this theoretical election system.

Furthermore, the 68% support for a national direct popular vote in Colorado seems to hinder our argument from the previous post. We’ll return to that point later.

Finally…

“The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.”

Absolutely true. Just take the 2008 campaign in Nebraska, for example. For most of the state, very little effort was put in to winning it from either side because McCain was pretty certain to win there. Yet in the 2nd Congressional District - which is pretty much just Omaha - the Obama campaign was determined to win. After putting money and operatives into the city they picked up one electoral vote from Nebraska.

Nebraska is one of the only two states in the union that currently divides its electoral votes - the other being New Hampshire. Of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, two go to the overall state winner, and the other three go to the winner by congressional district. If they did not do this, the Obama campaign would have never put any serious resources or effort into the state because they knew they wouldn’t be able to win outside Omaha. So why would they bother?


Reasons to Support the Electoral College

In response to the argument that candidates don’t focus on enough states under the present system, the first thing an Electoral College advocate would say in rebuttal is that states should simply use their freedom to divide their electoral votes. In fact, many states have done this at different times in American history but have chosen not to today.

The Electoral College advocate might also argue that this method of choosing a president is grounded in the Constitution, thus cannot legally be ignored. Of course, if the NPVIC is adopted by enough states for it to go into effect, approved by Congress, and signed into law, it would be completely legitimate constitutionally.

His or her best argument would probably be that a national election is just too big for a direct popular vote. There actually may be something to this.

Presidential campaigns are divided on a state-by-state basis structurally. You are essentially running a unique campaign in every state, all held together by a relatively small national team. Frankly, nobody in campaign politics knows how to run a campaign bigger than a statewide race in California because no one has ever had to run a race bigger than that - and the Golden State only makes up about 12% of the U.S. population.

A nationally-run race would be a campaign manager’s worst nightmare. The Electoral College helps them keep it at a truly state-by-state basis because winner-take-all would be far too much for a campaign to organize on a national level.

More on that point is the money issue. It is true that presidential campaigns spend virtually all of their money in just 16 (or so) states - but in 2008 the two major presidential campaigns spent approximately a combined billion dollars. That’s not including what was spent by the DNC, RNC, and countless number of issue advocacy groups that spent their own money in support of Obama and McCain. So, theoretically (if the campaigns have to focus resources on all 50 states and not 16) under a popular vote system, the two major campaigns would be spending about $1.5 billion each - if not more - while the parties and advocacy groups would spend an uncountable number of dollars.

It might actually be a big boost to our GDP, but Americans are already concerned that this country spends too much on political campaigns as it is.

Are these the reasons why so many states have not passed the NPVIC?

There are actually more practical political reasons why the NPVIC has only passed in 5 of the 50 states.

First of all, let’s look back to Colorado. If they were to pass the NPVIC they would effectively get less say because they’re a smaller state. The reason is because the number of electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of U.S. Senators and Representatives in their Congressional delegation. A state like Colorado - with 10 electoral votes - effectively gets more say (proportionally) in a presidential race than California - with 55 electoral votes - because the two votes each get automatically for their Senators has a bigger impact in Colorado per resident. It is likely that the 68% of Coloradans that support the NPVIC don’t realize this, or haven’t really thought about it enough.

The bigger states, conversely, are often dominated by one party in their State Legislatures (Democrats in California and Illinois, Republicans in Texas). These politicians know that more votes are basically guaranteed to go to their own party’s nominee with a winner-take-all Electoral College system than with a popular vote system.

Finally, the battleground states have no real incentive to change the system because they like the special attention they get. This is the same reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are determined to remain the first two states during the presidential primary season.

We hope we’ve given you a good overview of the arguments for and against the Electoral College - especially the arguments defending it, since so few seem to be willing to make them. Ultimately it’s for you to decide whether you agree with the system or not. There are certainly good reasons to support the NPVIC, but as is the case with any debate, there are reasons not to support it too hastily.

Virginia Primary Wraps Up - On to the General for Deeds

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Virginia.

Yesterday, state Senator R. Creigh Deeds overcame Brian Moran and former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe to become the Democratic nominee for governor of Virginia.

It was truly remarkable because Deeds was definitely the dark horse for most of the race. Only recently did he surge ahead of his more well known opponents. In the end he crushed them - he earned about 50% of the vote to McAuliffe’s 26% and Moran’s 24%.

Several factors went into his victory.


1) Moran attacked McAuliffe to death, and took himself down in the process...

Just take this Moran ad attacking McAuliffe for his days as a businessman:

"The press on Terry McAuliffe's insider deals: McAuliffe has made a fortune investing, sometimes in companies that went bust, laid off thousands and drained employee savings. Barack Obama ran against exactly the kind of big-money politics that McAuliffe represents."

That’s a pretty serious attack, and it was definitely going to hurt McAuliffe considering the economic pain Americans are feeling. Yet, it also made Moran look like a pretty hardcore mudslinger - something that most voters are usually turned off to.

It created a void for Deeds to fill.


2) Deeds was able to take votes from Moran and McAuliffe in Northern Virginia...

This was huge. Not only was Deeds able to secure 800 of the 830 votes in his rural home county, but he was able to make huge gains in the DC suburbs - the Moran and McAuliffe turf. The unofficial results from Fairfax County, for example, show Deeds won with about 49.5% of the vote compared to 29.1% for Moran and 21.4% for McAuliffe.

Many in the press attribute this to Deeds’ endorsement from The Washington Post about three weeks ago. It’s the paper they read in the DC suburbs in Virginia and it came out at the perfect time - just as Deeds was picking up momentum.


3) The fact that McAuliffe is a political super-star hurt him in the end...

Make no mistake about it - McAuliffe’s name recognition, fundraising advantage, and relationship with the Clintons were huge benefits at first. With national connections and their donor lists, McAuliffe raised about $7 million over the course of his campaign - compare that to Moran’s $3.8 million and Deeds’ $3.4 million.

Additionally, McAuliffe had no problem getting former President Bill Clinton to stump for him and cut a radio ad. While it all helped McAuliffe initially - see the graph posted on Friday - he could not maintain his lead.

This simple reason is that he never took a real interest in Virginia politics until he saw the governor’s seat open up, and Virginians recognized that. Furthermore, he had the same problem that his ally Hillary Clinton had when he was her presidential campaign chairman - she represented old politics at a time when Americans wanted a fresh face. Virginians did not want a Clinton-era figure in their governor's mansion.

Besides, as many of us know, campaign people like ourselves (and McAuliffe) make terrible politicians. We know the game so well we don’t look like real people to the voters, and they don’t want to vote for a politician like that.

Instead, Virginians chose an “aww, shucks” candidate from rural Virginia. He was more conservative on social issues than McAuliffe and Moran - which should have hurt him in the metropolitan area around Washington - and was generally seen as more folksy and likeable.

All in all, many Virginians believed that Deeds would be more in line with the Warner-Kaine tradition of Democratic governors in the Commonwealth. Warner and Kaine were popular because they were moderates in an extremely purple state - specifically among Democrats because they could rely on these candidates to win against more far-right Republicans. Electability was probably the number one factor in Deeds’ victory.


On to the General Election!

McAuliffe and Moran immediately endorsed Deeds. That’s important because Deeds is going to need to raise money from their donors fast to catch up to the well-financed Republican, Bob McDonnell.

Meanwhile, you can already tell the Deeds and McDonnell campaigns have begun doing their Tully charts, figuring out the best message to use for the general election. In his victory speech last night, Deeds told supporters "we move into the general election, where Virginia either moves forward in the legacy of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine or backward toward the disastrous economic and social agenda of Bob McDonnell and George W. Bush."

The Republicans haven’t really found their argument against Deeds yet, but we can expect to see it develop in the next few days. Over the course of the primary, the Virginia GOP largely attacked McAuliffe, figuring their old foe would sweep up a nomination. It seems that the recent Deeds surge caught them off-guard.

So who do we think will win?

Some are already pointing to another race Deeds and McDonnell fought against each other - the 2005 race for Virginia Attorney General. McDonnell won the election by just 323 votes out of about 2 million - and he had a 2-1 cash advantage over the Democrat.

A recent survey of Democratic primary voters found that 59% will definitely support Deeds in the November election - including 55% of Republicans who crossed-over since McDonnell was unopposed in the Republican primary.


Meanwhile, a SurveyUSA poll last week found that if Deeds was the nominee, he would be tied with McDonnell with 43% each.

So at this point in the campaign it is just about impossible to say who will win in November, but because Virginia has been such a critical state for Democrats in recent years (and the fact that virtually nothing else is happening in campaign politics in 2009) we’ll be keeping a close eye on the Commonwealth in the months to come.

So stay tuned.