"A Tremulous Cadence"

It is altogether possible that Governor Martin O’Malley – Hillary or no Hillary - will receive a good look from Democratic activists in the early states, most notably Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Far from being a Celtic rock Dukakis, he has both a record of accomplishments and, importantly, a personality that could appeal to Democrats of varying ideological stripes.  This is important because, since 1976, the Democratic Party has tended to nominate candidates who are, at the very least, acceptable to the progressive and moderate constituencies who dominate the action in the presidential primaries and caucuses.  

Looking at the recent Democratic nominees who went on to become President:

1) In 1976, then-Governor Jimmy Carter cobbled together a coalition that included many liberal voters (who might have otherwise voted for Mo Udall or Fred Harris, to name a couple of the more prominent progressives in the field) as well as a number of moderate and conservative Democrats, despite the candidacies of the hawkish New Dealer Scoop Jackson and Governor George Wallace, among others. 

2) In 1992, then-Governor Bill Clinton welded together a campaign narrative that highlighted progressive solutions while using populist, and at times rather conservative, rhetoric.  With Brown firmly positioned on the left and Tsongas pushing a message of fiscal responsibility…and aided by the lack of serious alternatives (No Cuomo, No Nunn, No Gore, no Gephardt, No Jackson, etc…), Clinton crafted a winning coalition that was in a commanding position by March 17 (the date of the Illinois and Michigan primaries) and was on a virtual glide path to the nomination by April 28 (the day of the Pennsylvania primary).

3) Senator John Edwards, on paper, was best equipped to occupy this space going into the 2008 cycle.  However, Mr. “Two Americas” never quite got on-track.  Crushed between the Clinton machine (which was running closer to the political center) and the Obama movement (a conventionally left-of-center effort), he suspended his 2008 campaign by the end of January.  The progressive/populist energy that might have fueled an Edwards candidacy was largely absorbed by then-Senator Obama, whose positioning (and superior understanding of the Democratic delegate selection process) enabled him to defeat Senator Clinton and secure the nomination. 

So what is my point?  It is simply this:

1) If Hillary runs, voters in the early caucus and primary states are still going to consider alternatives.  Manchin is too conservative and Sanders is too liberal.  That leaves two possible Clinton alternatives in the  “sweet spot” – former Senator Webb and O’Malley.  And Webb is out there already.  Of course the entry of a Biden (unlikely if Hillary runs) or Warren (a possible game-changer) could disrupt this equation. 

2) If Hillary doesn’t run, the floodgates will open and there will be multiple candidates rushing to fill the progressive/populist (but with centrist appeal) void. O’Malley will be one of many such aspirants.

So O’Malley, by saying that he is “very seriously considering running in 2016” (a statement equally true if he uttered it in 2009) but also indicating that he will decide in the spring, is putting himself in a position where he will more likely be reacting to events, rather than shaping the world around him.  Which doesn’t seem very Presidential, if you ask this author. 

In short, he should be viewed as ramping up his efforts, rather than adopting what feels like a “let’s-wait-and-see” approach.  I know he says that Clinton’s decision will not impact his choice…but it sure seems like it.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

100% Positive

Comparative (some call it “negative”) campaigning has been with us since the early days of our Republic, even some of our Founders and their associates practiced it.  The first truly contested presidential elections under our Constitution – in 1796 and 1800 – were rife with vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations.  Rough and tumble politicking of the highest order. The Willie Horton ad, relatively speaking, was subtle and nuanced compared to some of the allegations that were printed in the newspapers of that era.   

So if you are opposed to comparative campaign tactics, you must be against the Founders and therefore, hate America. Commie swine!

Do I even need to write, “See what I did there?”

My point with this inelegant example is to recognize that pointing out the shortcomings of one’s political opponent(s) is generally well within the bounds of fair play in our democracy and that witless hand-wringing while bemoaning the so-called coarseness of modern elections is to miss the mark completely.

Don’t get it twisted, there were folks on both sides of the aisle, in Maryland, that engaged in comparative campaigning in 2014.  Sometimes it took the form of paid media, in other cases, attacks generated earned media.  In some communities, whisper campaigns via word-of-mouth or social media conveyed messages…information that wasn’t always grounded in that which the boffins call “facts.”  Sometimes attacks were cloaked as defensive statements.

So before one starts saying, “Golly gee, I reckon ‘negative’ campaigning doesn’t work.” Think again. You might not like it, and it might not appeal to “our better angels” but it serves a purpose…and it is often effective.  A back-and-forth on voting records and statements helps facilitate a free exchange of ideas and allows for the painting of more detailed portraits of those seeking public office.  Those on the receiving end may not appreciate the “warts and all” image of themselves, but it offers an electorate another way of thinking about someone who may represent them. 

Of course serious money is spent by campaigns in an effort to showcase/position their candidate in the most favorable light possible, and they will get miffed because comparative communications efforts require the expenditure of additional time and resources, both of which are precious, to ensure that the voters are hearing “our” story about our candidate as opposed to “their” narrative about our candidate.

Academic arguments can discuss the impact of such campaigns on political efficacy and voter turnout.  That subject will not be addressed here today. 

My point is that those on high horses tend to dismount quickly when it becomes advantageous for them/their political party to engage in such practices. So the “holier-than-thou” attitude gets very tiring, very fast…and often precedes behavior that could best be described as hypocritical. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Surface Tension: A Topline Post Election Wrap-Up

There will be time for a deep dive into the numbers.  Now is not the moment.  Here are some initial observations regarding last night’s Election results:

The recent high-water mark for a Maryland gubernatorial race is Governor Martin O’Malley’s 56.2% in his 2010 re-election bid.  (Side note: what is he going to say in Des Moines? In Cedar Falls? In Sioux City?).   In 2006, he won with 52.7% and four years prior to that, the Democratic nominee for Governor obtained only 47.68% of the statewide vote.

My point is that Maryland has witnessed some competitive Governor’s races, four of the last six being won by single-digit margins. So even with the demographic trends of recent years, the 2014 gubernatorial election was unlikely to be a cakewalk. But any serious Democratic nominee for that office would have to be considered a significant favorite going into a general election contest.

Yet Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown lost, to a B-tier Republican candidate.  I believe this occurred because:

1)   Maryland was not immune from the Democratic shellacking that occurred nationwide.

2)   Biography aside, his campaign was uninspiring.  Yes, I was a Mizeur voter in the primary but I cast my ballot for Brown in the general; even though the campaign didn’t communicate much in the way of a positive rationale for such an act.

3)   Democratic turnout in MD was lower than expected. I don’t have the final or even penultimate numbers in front of me, but there was an enthusiasm/activation gap…and the Republicans ran a stronger than expected GOTV operation.  Also, the GOP brand seems to have recovered a bit from the earlier post-Bush 43 years, even though voters still show high dissatisfaction levels with both parties and with the both the President and Congress.

4)   “Articulation”-oriented campaign (covered elsewhere in this blog) can be tough.  You find yourself running against your opponent and the perceived sins of the affiliated incumbent administration.  I don’t believe the Brown campaign pulled together a truly compelling/cohesive narrative when discussing the O’Malley record.

Senator Allan Kittleman, apparently Howard County Executive-elect, would have been Governor-elect had he tossed his hat into that ring instead.  I am guessing he knows I am right on this matter.

How bad was it for Democrats locally?  Congressman Cummings' GOP opponent garnered 43.89% of the vote in the Howard County portion of the 7^th Congressional District and said opponent would, charitably, be called a perennial candidate. 

It appears as though Jon Weinstein pulled off a victory in Councilmanic District 1, a true swing constituency.  How did he accomplish this? I believe he did an excellent job of localizing the election, framing the race on local issues and concerns.  That appealed to a majority of voters in the First.

I still maintain that Courtney Watson ran a strong campaign for County Executive.  Look, had they not attempted to reposition Kittleman, he probably would have won with 55% of the vote in an election cycle such as this.  The comparative effort was necessary and generally decently executed.  Moreover, Watson provided numerous reasons to vote for her, not just against Kittleman.  She had a good narrative but it just wasn’t enough in a Rejection Election cycle (you can read more about that concept here: http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/7278/).

The biggest bummer of the evening, for me, was 9B.   From a technical perspective, it would be hard to find a Maryland campaign better run than Tom Coale’s.  Running a positive citizen-neighbor-legislator style effort that was focused on local issues and finding practical solutions for the present and the future…it simply wasn’t enough to overcome a well-known GOP opponent in a highly competitive single-member House of Delegates district.

On the Howard County Board of Education, the results were not a huge surprise.  I voted the Apple Ballot because I believe they would have been an effective team.  In terms of intensity, I was primarily concerned with electing Altwerger (who won) and Beams (who did not…which was very disappointing).  That said, I am not displeased that Christine O’Connor won a seat.  I was not thrilled when she allied herself with Mike Smith, that decision dropped her to the fifth position on my list, but she was in the running for a while.  And thank goodness that neither Smith nor Dyer finished in the top four.

At some point, I am going to talk about people who sought public office this cycle that were unsuccessful...but who should run again.  But I am too cranky to write about 2016 or 2018 right now.  Let’s call it a post.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Vote Democratic

Entrenched, conservative interests in America have often condemned, or at least looked warily upon, citizen activism.  In the early days of our Republic, they castigated those who participated in “self-created societies.”  They believed that the people’s voice on affairs of state should be expressed primarily when casting ballots for public office, and infrequently (and quietly) otherwise.

These societies facilitated the ability of citizens to discuss public policy matters; and to organize.  Our first party system evolved out of these debates.

Our Republic, our Democracy, has changed a great deal since the Washington Administration.  Parties have appeared and vanished, issues have risen, been resolved, or transformed, rights have been recognized, extended and curtailed.

With that said, I would maintain that one animating principle remains constant…the interests of a conservative elite who wish to preserve their socioeconomic clout.  Not every conservative is so motivated; nor is every member of the elite conservative.  The point is that there are many who belong to a class that could best be described using Teddy Roosevelt’s classic phrase, “malefactors of great wealth.”  And, many elements of this particular grouping seem to have found a home in today’s Republican Party.

If voter turnout was 100% in Maryland, the forces allied with these reactionary interests would be in full retreat.  They rely upon a combination of citizen disinterest, and generous financial contributions to like-minded candidates and organizations, to advance their agenda.  Sometimes they can cloak their plans under the guise of fair-sounding populist verbiage.  When they have a losing hand, they go on the offensive in the hope of sowing fear and confusion.

That is why it is so important for the average citizen to participate in the electoral process.  It offers an opportunity to rebuke the narrow interests of this conservative elite while ensuring that the voice of the people will be heard, and not just during election season.

Chances are, if you are reading these words, you have already cast your ballot or you plan to do so via absentee or at the polls on Election Day.  This post serves as a reminder then, for you to talk with your friends and family members who may be occasional voters.  Ask them: who do you think wants you to vote and who do you think wants you to “forget” to vote…and why?   Which party and candidates best represent your values, and which are more inclined to work against them?

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

An Older Prediction - Time to Get your Stats On

Taken from a Facebook note I wrote & posted on November 2, 2012.  Such a simpler time...now  with an update in the post-script!
  

The 2012 Presidential Election: My Prediction

November 2, 2012 at 3:21pm

Election predictions, essentially, are a parlor game.  That said, if you are in the campaign industry, are fortunate enough to get it right, and enough people know that you got it right, you can wear that laurel wreath as a symbol of your political genius for a decade. (For those in the industry, you know who I am talking about...no names please).

In some election cycles, calling winners and losers at this stage of the game, the weekend before Election Day, is relatively easy.  At this point, former Vice President Mondale knew he wasn’t going to defeat President Reagan.  Senator McGovern knew that he wasn’t going to deny President Nixon a second term.  I am quite certain that Judge Parker looked at the map when he was running against President Theodore Roosevelt and said the 1904 equivalent of “Gentlemen, I am hosed.”

In other cycles, including some recent presidential elections, the outcome was far more uncertain.  Both 2000 and 2004 fell into that category.

Bear in mind, a national presidential election is really 51 state elections (or 50 states + DC if you want to get technical about it).  Electoral college votes determine the winner of the election and they are awarded on a winner-take-all basis.  Win a state by a million votes?  Congratulations, you receive 100% of the electoral votes for that state (we can discuss Maine and Nebraska later, I am making a point here).  Defeated in a state by one vote?  Too bad, because the winner just won 100% of the electoral votes for that state. Loser.

In short, small differences in one or a handful of states can determine the outcome.

Everyone knows that a flip of just 269 votes in Florida would have tipped the election from Governor Bush to Vice President Gore in 2000.  Common knowledge.

Fewer people know just how close 2004 was.  To this day, I am convinced that Senator Kerry’s flip-flop gaffe cost him the election.  Some people know that if 59,300 votes in Ohio flipped from President Bush to Kerry (only one percent of the state vote and .048% of the national vote), then John Kerry would have been our nation’s 44th President.  Fewer still are aware that a flip of even fewer votes (18,776 or .015359% of the national vote) would have sent the election to the House of Representatives.  This would have been accomplished by the following flips in three states:

Nevada 10,751 votes from Bush to Kerry (5 electoral votes)
Iowa 5,030 votes from Bush to Kerry (7 electoral votes)
New Mexico: 2,995 votes from Bush to Kerry (5 electoral votes)

So by a relatively small percentage of the vote in three states, 17 electoral votes would have gone from Republican to Democratic, resulting in a 269 – 269 tie and a nation full of Constitutional scholars debating “Does our Presidential Selection Process Work?”  (Note: this assumes that the Democratic elector who voted for Edwards, and I wonder how that Minnesota elector feels about that today, would have cast their ballot for Kerry instead of playing around).

In any event, 2004, based solely on the criteria of the percentage of the national vote that, if flipped, would have changed the outcome, was the sixth closest presidential election ever.  It was even closer than the fabled Truman – Dewey showdown of 1948.

Percentage of the National Vote Difference (flip from eventual winner to eventual loser) from smallest to largest percentage for the seven closest presidential elections:


1. 2000 (Bush vs. Gore) - .00025% (269 votes flip in Florida & Gore wins)
2. 1884 (Cleveland vs. Blaine) - .0052% (524 votes flip in New York & Blaine wins)
3. 1876 (Hayes vs. Tilden) - .00529% (445 votes flip in South Carolina & Tilden wins)
4. 1916 (Wilson vs. Hughes) - .00923% (1,711 votes flip in California & Hughes wins)
5. 1960 (Kennedy vs. Nixon) - .01052% (7,245 votes flip in four states to Nixon & the election goes to the House) or .01777% (12,236 votes flip in five states & Nixon wins outright).
6. 2004 (Bush vs. Kerry) - .01535% (18,776 votes flip in three states & the election goes to the House) or .04848% (59,300 votes flip in Ohio & Kerry wins outright).
7. 1948 (Truman vs. Dewey) - .02564% (12,487 votes flip in two states & the election goes to the House) or .06016% (29,294 votes flip in three states & Dewey wins outright).

Yes, I spent part of a vacation in 2010 working out the math for every presidential election. Everyone has hobbies...

I know, enough history already. So, let’s turn to 2012.

First, I believe that both President Obama and former Governor Romney start off with a base of around 125 electoral votes.  Remember, it takes 270 electoral votes to win.

If either Obama or Romney were to lose one of the states in their “core” (for example, if Obama lost California or if Romney was defeated in Texas), then do not expect a long night, as a landslide is about to occur.  In which case, many pollsters should be drummed out of the industry.  This scenario is unlikely to happen.

There is a second tier of states for each candidate where an upset is very unlikely, but possible.  For Obama, this would be a state such as New Mexico.  For Romney, it would be South Carolina.  Adding such states up with the mortal-lock states, you end up with around 180 electoral votes apiece.


There is a third tier, which is small for both Romney and Obama, where they have a lead but could lose.  Minnesota & Oregon for Obama and Arizona for Romney fit this bill.  If you add up the electoral votes in this category, the President is right around 200 electoral votes and Romney is slightly above 190.  Overall, it is still very close.

This race fundamentally comes down to 11 (and most likely nine) states: Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan.  These states, primarily the first nine, will play an out-sized role in determining if Obama will be re-elected or if Romney will become the 45th President.

I expect that certain states that voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 will end up in the Republican column in 2012.  I do not believe the President will win any states that voted for McCain in 2008.   That, combined with reapportionment, gives Mr. Romney a much better shot at 270 compared to the previous Republican presidential nominee.

That said, I expect that President Obama will win both Pennsylvania and Michigan, putting him 237 electoral votes, 33 short of victory.

I predict that the President will win in Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia.  Moreover, I predict that Romney is likely to carry Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa.

Turning to the two states that factor in performance at the congressional district level when awarding electoral votes, assuming that both Maine Congressional districts vote for Obama and that Romney wins all of the Congressional districts in Nebraska, that works out to 278 electoral votes for President Obama and re-election…and 260 electoral votes for Mitt Romney and a return to the private sector.

More important than the prediction is the possibility that only a small number of votes will determine who wins the Presidency.  In short, vote.

Post-script:

So yes, I called it conservatively for President Obama - who captured 332 electoral votes compared to 206 for Romney, definitely out-performing my projected outcome.  Call me a pessimist.

But with a flip 214,764 votes in four states...Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire, Romney would have obtained 270 EVs, just enough to win.  That number of popular votes may sound like a sizable number, and it is...but it represents a mere .166% of the popular votes cast for President that year.  Thus, it was the 15th closest Presidential election in U.S. history, based on my "vote flip" model.  In short, looking at relatively recent presidential election cycles, it was closer than the 1992 election (19th overall) and not as close as the 1976 election (11th overall).

Just some fun facts on a Saturday afternoon.  Not that I am thinking about 2016.  Not at all.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.