Republican Delegate Math

Is the Republican nomination over? All the media reports, at least the ones I saw (NY Times, NPR) say it is. The conventional wisdom is that McCain has it locked up. Huckabee definitely has a steep uphill climb. McCain has 714 delegates, Huckabee 181. There are 1,184 delegates left, and Huckabee needs 1,010 more delegates to win--84.8% of the remaining delegates. That's undoable for a candidate who lacks a broader appeal, particularly in the "upscale demographics" as Michael Barone puts it.

However, Huckabee doesn't have to get 1,191 delegates--he just has to stop McCain from doing it. McCain needs 477 more delegates. The remaining calendar shows that if McCain wins all the rest of the contests this month, he could lock up the nomination officially on March 4 with Texas, Vermont, Ohio, and Rhode Island. McCain still has to campaign hard, in other words. I've long maintained the theory that the anti-McCain vote (conservative Republicans) is larger than the vote for him (liberal Independents) in the primary constituency, and that he would have a problem once Romney or Huckabee (and Thompson) quit. Now it looks like it is too late for this theory to prove good, and McCain will coast to the nomination. But I've always been skeptical of conventional wisdom, and expect some bumps along the way for McCain.

Here's Sound Politics:

Examine the county map results in the states where Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were bunched most closely of any of the primary contests: Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. Even while finishing 3rd, Romney ran well and often won in and around populations centers with growing suburbs and exurbs such as Atlanta, Nashville, and Kansas City. Conversely Huckabee lost badly in those same counties yet cleaned house in rural areas, where Romney often fared poorly. And McCain had more distributed support, consistently running first or second in every county, melding his unique coalition of moderates, national security conservatives, and as Patrick Ruffini has described it: older belligerent men. Both Romney and Huckabee supporters can make the claim that their candidate would have benefited from a clearer field at an earlier date. That's possible given the dramatic change it would offer to the overall race dynamic. It's not clear, however, that such a shift would have stopped McCain, even if the stark differences between Huckabee and Romney's bases of support could be bridged.

McCain did himself a lot of good with his CPAC speech. Anyone who watched the whole speech (rather than just the news reports that featured only the booing on immigration) will see that he won over the crowd. Of course, most people probably didn't do this, and rely on scattered media headlines only.

Making Sense of Super Duper Tuesday

First a word on the primary process. I've speculated here about the effect that frontloading would have on the presidential races, and was convinced that Super Duper Tuesday would be too big to matter. It turned out to be the opposite from what I thought--it didn't pick a nominee, not because the early states would have already decided it, but because they hadn't, and there wasn't enough time yet to sort things out. So the later states get to choose the nominee. Here's Marc Ambinder:

Had Michigan remained on Feb. 9 and Florida on March 4, their influence would have been considerable. Instead, their haste to go first wound up lessening their influence, rather than giving them a louder voice. Now, an array of new states and their tens of millions of voters will find their interests well represented in this campaign: Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania, whose voters go to the polls on April 22.

Now, what the heck happened on Super Duper Tuesday? Well first of all, Obama won 13 states, Clinton 8. (New Mexico's still up in the air.) Obama won 845 delegates, Clinton 836. Clinton has an overall delegate lead of 79, but this is due to her 83 delegate lead in superdelegates. The political markets thought it was a win for Obama.

Adam Nagourney parses the exit polls:

[O]ne of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.

The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

The Hillary voters mentioned, in other words, are more solidly reliable. They turn out to vote in greater numbers, except Hispanics. But the reason why I've consistently favored Hillary to win is because of her voting base, and why I was in for a huge shock with the Iowa results. I underestimated the enthusiasm on the ground for Obama with young voters generating actual caucus-goers. But I'm not surprised by the decision-timing statistic, at least in the abstract. I always thought the Clinton machine would be able to stage a comeback if needed in the states after Iowa and NH. But it was surprising given the recent press Obama was getting.

But there's other factors Nagourney doesn't mention at all: Obama does better with wealthier and better-educated voters, and they turnout in greater numbers. Clinton's voters have less income and less education, and these voters have lower turnout. Obama and Clinton split college grads in CA, but Obama beat her 2-to-1 with college-or-more voters in Missouri, and that's why he narrowly won. Similar story in New Mexico.

Nagourney continues:

Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

Ohio becomes crucial! When's the last time that happened? I'm sick and tired of the constant refrain of "the primary process is broken." A nationwide primary would be a disaster, and the current system is far preferable. As for rotating the early states, I think it's cool that Iowa and NH have a great tradition going, and that they are used to seeing presidential candidates every four years. What's wrong with having experienced voters decide? They don't decide anything, they just winnow the field of the terrible candidates. If you want your voice to be heard, then move there.

Essential video

This is a fascinating panel discussion to watch. There's audio problems for the first minute only.

Looking back at Iowa, forward to NH

The youngest candidate won on both sides in the Iowa caucuses. Obama and Huckabee offered platforms of change within their respective parties. A quote from Fred Thompson in tonight's debate sums it up: "We had some folks vote in Iowa, and now everyone suddenly comes out talkin' about change."

Huckabee calmly handled a heckler today. He continues to embrace the change mantle. This from the Politico:

“I think the Republican Party needs some repair,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.”

During back-to-back interviews on Fox and ABC's "This Week," this year’s Cinderella candidate complained that the Bush administration ignored recommendations by Pentagon brass to send more troops to Iraq after the initial invasion.

He also questioned the administration’s embrace of harsh interrogation methods. And he took a veiled shot at the White House for offering overly rosy economic assessments after unemployment rose last month.

In addition, Huckabee suggested Bush is in bed with the tax lobby in Washington. “His commission [to reform the tax code] was essentially a group of tax lobbyists,” the former governor declared in response to a question about his support for a national sales tax — a sales tax the president’s commission condemned.

Here's what I find noteworthy in the exit polls from Iowa. Here's the "most important issue" percentages for Huckabee, Romney and McCain (% of the total, the marginals are in parentheses):

Immigration (33) -- Iraq War (17) --Economy (36)

Huckabee: 36--33--34
Romney: 30--17--25
McCain: 4--25--11

Romney voters thought domestic issues were more important than Iraq. McCain voters were the opposite. Huckabee voters were even between them.

McCain won NH in 2000. But it's a different era now, and the state has different demographics. From the Dallas Morning News:

New Hampshire, once among the reddest states in the country, has undergone an elephantine demographic shift since its last hotly contested presidential primary, with an influx of new voters that could turn the outcome of both races Tuesday.

The Granite State gained 207,000 new residents between 2001 and 2005 – including about 90,000 who moved over the border from Massachusetts, according to a recent report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. During the same period, 188,000 people left the state.

The turnover, along with anti-war feelings, has muddied the small state's political tableau. Democrats swept statewide elections in 2006, winning control of the Legislature and governor's office for the first time since 1911.

[...]

"New Hampshire loves comeback stories," said Mr. Keough, a former gubernatorial candidate.

Mr. McCain, 71, polls best among GOP voters who have lived in the state longer than 20 years, according to a recent Boston Globe poll. Mr. Romney was favored, 36 percent to 27 percent, among Republicans who have been in the state fewer than 10 years.

On the Democratic side, 58% of Iowan caucus-goers were married, 42% unmarried. The 3 top candidates were tied with married voters, but Obama cleaned everyone's clock with the unmarried caucus-goers; they're what propelled him to victory. He won 43% of them, to only 24% for Hillary and 17% for Edwards. Part of this is youth--Obama won 57% of voters age 17-29, and 42% of those 30-44. Younger voters are of course less likely to be married. They're also more likely to be more liberal, and Obama cleaned the other candidate's clock amongst self-identified liberals.

Clinton's campaign has now acknowledged that it will lose South Carolina. They could just be lowering expectations, as the polls are running even. But if black voters turn to Obama, then Hillary's toast, since they are expected to be around half of the voters in that primary. New Hampshire is thus very, very important for Hillary. After NH there's Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, and then Super-Duper Tuesday. Michigan is no contest on the Democratic side, as Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot there, and the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates. Hillary had an 8-point lead in Nevada around Christmas, and she still maintains a big lead in Florida. There's not a whole lot of time before Super-Duper Tuesday. The Obama enthusiasm could still be rolling by then, especially if he wins NH.

Iowa even more important

The Politico has an article on the increasing importance of Iowa to Democrats. I've talked before about Super-Duper Tuesday becoming too big to matter, and it seems that this is becoming the case, as frontloading has made the early primaries/caucuses more important, not less.

Here's the points made in the article. First of all, the level of activity for Democratic candidates is enormous--96 total campaign posts open in the state. Second, six candidates are campaigning heavily in the state: Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd. The conclusion is that Democrats are not focusing on larger states at the expense of Iowa; the article names Iowa as "the central battle of the Democratic primary."

The pattern started with Carter. Since then every candidate to win Iowa on the Democratic side has won the nomination, with two exceptions, 1988 and 1992. The last one was of course due to the state being ceded to the favorite son Tom Harkin. In 1988 a candidate from a neighboring state, Dick Gephardt, beat Paul Simon and Dukakis as he was expected to do, and the media story was Pat Robertson's finish over George H. W. Bush. The big mo will go to whoever wins Iowa this time, since everyone's campaigning heavily and it's up in the air (59% in the latest poll said they might vote for someone else).

Verging on a national primary

Michigan has now bumped its primary up to January 15!

Mark Shields has a great column on this front-loading of the primary process. He points out that a national primary can only help the candidates who can raise the big bucks. Shields makes a great point when he writes:

With no small states like Iowa and New Hampshire at the very outset, totally absent from the nominating process will be "retail" politics, which requires presidential candidates to campaign person-to-person and to answer questions from ordinary Americans who are shopkeepers, teachers and homemakers. There is something profoundly democratic about a would-be president shivering in the frozen pre-dawn hours to shake the hands and ask for the votes of blue-collar workers.

This change will thrill the political handlers, who cannot control the risks of press coverage of their candidates' unscripted encounters with actual voters.

Dispel all illusions: Once the winnowed field of presidential candidates leaves New Hampshire, voters will see candidates only on TV, landing on airport tarmacs or being interviewed in studios.

This is not what we want as a nation, to please the political handlers by reducing everything to carefully scripted messages. There's absolutely no way to gauge the character of the candidate if you have no chance to meet him. And even though very few of us are able to meet presidential candidates, we can at least rely on the ordinary people in Iowa and New Hampshire to do that for us and give us their input. "When everyone is super, then no one will be." If everyone sells their stocks or houses at the same time, the price plummets and it's a buyers market. Every state cannot be first without the virtues of the present system being lost.

Campaign strategy, some random notes

The Republicans have not yet been campaigning in Nevada.

Romney and Giuliani have been spending lots of cash in Florida.

Uncertainty reigns for candidates due to Florida moving up its primary date.

There also might be a straw poll in Florida for Democrats in October.

Clinton and Romney at this point look like the favorites in NH, but only 10% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans have made up their minds so far in NH.

An op-ed in the Washington Times advises Fred Thompson to skip Iowa and even NH and concentrate on SC, California, Florida, and Georgia.

The Hispanic vote

In the front page of the Sunday New York Times there's a piece about the importance this year of Hispanic voters in the Democratic primary. Here's the meat of the article:

In the last presidential election, Hispanic voters accounted for a significant part of the overall Democratic primary electorate in California (16 percent), New York (11 percent), Arizona (17 percent) and Florida (9 percent), all states that will hold primaries by Feb 5. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster hired by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to study Hispanic voting trends, said: “The Hispanic vote has never been all that important in the presidential primary process in the United States. But that will change in 2008.”

The Times story offers no evidence for why this change will occur. It takes the "scramble for Hispanic support" for granted, and spends the rest of the article talking about the various candidates.

To my thinking there is a real shift in California moving up the primary calendar. California has more than one-forth of all the Hispanics in the US (Half of all Hispanics live in two states: California and Texas), and it is now on Super Duper Tuesday. (The primary calendar for 2008 is below.) This makes courting this voting bloc in such an important state so much more significant. But that's not due to any shift in voting demographics.

Its pretty common to overplay the Hispanic vote. Bill Schneider has this to say in the Atlantic online, for example:

The minority population of the United States is now just over 100 million, according to Census Bureau estimates. That's one-third of the country. The largest minority? Hispanics—44 million, compared with 40 million African-Americans. The fastest-growing minority? Hispanics. Their population has increased by more than 25 percent since 2000.

We can break this down, however, with some numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center. In 2004, Hispanics numbered 41.3 million people. Of this total, 14.1 million were under 18, 11 million were not citizens, leaving only 16 million eligible voters, of which 7.5 million actually voted. Hispanic turnout was 47% in 2004. Calculating the number of Hispanics who vote is very trickly business, but the percentage of the electorate who was Hispanic has been roughly the same in federal elections since 2000.

The potential is there for a significant shift in American politics when Hispanics vote in higher numbers. That will happen with continued immigration, and inculturation resulting in higher Hispanic turnout. But it is still a matter for the future, not yet the present.

One last note: Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. There's a good article on the Hispanic vote in 2004, debunking the myth that Bush won 44% of Hispanics in his reelection. It was really more like 32%--the traditional 2-to-1 Democratic to Republican ratio. (The Pew Hispanic center estimated 40%.)