Episode 90: The GOP Awakens (2016)

Well I promised a brief look at the potential contours of, and possible candidates within, the 2016 GOP field, so here it goes:

First, my long-list contains 64 names.  Beyond the Heavyweights and several Contenders, it includes some complete non-starters, a few has-beens, and a couple of never-was types.  The most shocking element here is that the road to the Republican presidential nomination is so open that many of the lesser names could gaze into a mirror and say, without an excessive amount of self-delusion, “You know, I could pull 15,000 votes in Iowa and win a ticket to New Hampshire.”  And the mirror wouldn’t even laugh back.

Charlie Cook, the celebrated political analyst and prognosticator of the highest order (who, by the way, nailed the closeness of the MD gubernatorial race while some folks Who Shall Remain Nameless were saying that LG Anthony Brown had a 93% chance of victory), was recently quoted in The Kansas City Star as expecting the eventual GOP nominee to be a “tea party Senator or Governor from the Midwest.”

Actually that call isn’t as bold as it might seem.  If you winnow the list of names down to the 20 candidates most likely to run, and further assume that only around 12 of those will go as far as establishing an exploratory committee, there are multiple tea party-aligned Senators and heartland Governors in the mix [in boldface below].  Let’s assume the following field going into August of next year:

Senator Rand Paul (KY)

Senator Ted Cruz (TX)

Governor Bobby Jindal (LA)

Dr. Ben Carson (MD)

Governor Rick Perry (TX)

Former US Senator Rick Santorum (PA) or former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR)

Business Executive Carly Fiorina (CA)

Governor Chris Christie (NJ)

Former Governor Jeb Bush (FL) or (unlikely) former Governor Mitt Romney (MA)

Governor Scott Walker (WI)

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton (MD)

Possibly either Governor Mike Pence (IN) or Governor John Kasich (OH)

And a couple of others, such as a Congressman Peter King (NY) or Senator Bob Corker (TN)

Carson falls somewhere between Morry “The Grizz” Taylor and former Senator Fred Thompson on the Serious Candidate Spectrum.  Is he really running for a statewide office in Maryland?  For an appointment as Surgeon General? Stay tuned, as…

Wait. I am not done.  Bolton is one-note on defense and is no more than a Cabinet possibility at best.  If you assume the “others” will end up being “also-rans” then at least a third and possibly close to half of the Serious Candidates [in terms of likelihood of obtaining the nomination, not necessarily ability to govern] will be tea party Senators or Rust Belt Govs.

Oh did I forget Senator Marco Rubio (FL)?  No.   I think he will choose to take a pass and look for another opportunity down the road. I think he understands that the electorate likes to “fix” the perceived shortcomings of the current Administration.   Carter too soft, too bogged down in details?  Let’s get a tough talking, CEO-type in Reagan.  George HW Bush too out-of-touch with the problems of working families?  Let’s elect the populist from Arkansas who eats at McDonald’s. George W. Bush doesn’t have the intellectual heft? Let’s vote for the Brainiac Senator from Illinois.  Obama too cerebral/aloof, lacking a long history of building relationships with Congress?  Perhaps it’s time for someone who comes across as warmer, or someone who has been around the Establishment longer, a “Known Entity.”    Hmmm…

Of course this is all incredibly reductionist.  If I had to bet, I would say the Republican field will consist of six Serious possibilities after the Iowa caucuses (slightly more than the historical norm as I believe multiple campaigns will be prepping for a long, drawn-out process).  There will be two social conservatives, two more establishment types, Rand Paul and someone else, perhaps Fiorina.  In the end, I expect it will come down to a slog for delegates with perhaps as many as three Serious candidates competing until the end of the primary season.  The Establishment choice (Bush although I would keep an eye on Pence), Rand Paul and maybe someone who was accruing just enough Delegates along the way to prevent anyone else from obtaining a majority, someone who might use that clout at the Convention to get a spot on the ticket or at least be a king (or queen) maker.  Senator Cruz may be that third person in this scenario.  Oh for the joys of a Brokered Convention.  Let the political scientists dream!

Anyway, I am certain I will talk about the individual attributes and policy stances of all of these people, and others, over the course of the next 14 months or so.  Everyone is in their decision-making mode now.  Go/No Go.  Internal/family deliberations will conclude over the next few weeks.  I expect a couple candidates will announce early, in the first quarter of 2015, while most will state their intentions in April, May and early June of next year.

Just a bit of Hot Stove League speculation as we hurtle toward 1/1/15.   

Looking forward to focusing a bit more on state and local public policy issues in the coming weeks.

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.