No one touched John McCain. No one. Fred Thompson whacked Mike Huckabee a couple of times. Mitt Romney was nowhere to be seen.
McCain wins as the untouched front-runner. Fred for showing life. And Huck for handling some tough questions with grace.
Tags: Debates, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, McCain
The Rhode Island Secretary of State just released the list of filed delegates. Delegates then need to get signatures to get on the ballots. But… John McCain and Mike Huckabee filed 40 delegates. Fred Thompson 8. Mitt Romney 7. And Rudy Giuliani 0.
There are two stories here. The first one is that Romney’s delegate operation failed. They have the Governor, one of the delegates. The head of Students for Romney is one of the delegates. And that was all they could get. And this is a pro-choice, highly Italian state. Why didn’t they file?
This sounds like wheels coming off an organization.
Tags: Giuliani, Rhode Island, Romney
In March of this year the Boston Globe analyzed Mitt Romney’s economic record in Massachusetts:
On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.
They lost total jobs, ranking 3rd from the bottom:
While the number of employed people over age 16 in the United States rose by nearly 8 million, or close to 6 percent, between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. The aggregate number of people 16 and older either working or looking for work in Massachusetts fell over the Romney years.
They lost total population:
We were one of only two states to have experienced no growth in its resident labor force. Again, without the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on the dispersal of the Louisiana population, Massachusetts would have ranked last on this measure. The decline in the state’s labor force, which was influenced in large part by high levels of out-migration of working-age adults, helped hold down the official unemployment rate of the state. Between July 2002 and July 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came here to live. This high level of net domestic out-migration was equivalent to 3.5 percent of the state’s population, the third highest rate of population loss in the country. Excluding the population displacement effects of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana, Massachusetts would have ranked second highest on this measure. We were a national leader in exporting our population.
Does Romney want to take this nationwide?
Two days ago (technical problems delayed this) in Manchester, New Hampshire, I sat down with Steve Forbes, and we talked about his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, and his thoughts on the economic records of the other candidates. As a supporter of Rudy Giuliani’s he has the most to say about what he likes about Rudy, but it was interesting to me that he ripped pretty hard into Mitt Romney’s record.
The next step of the Presidential race will turn to Michigan and South Carolina. Michigan is a big northern state in, perhaps, the worst economic state in the country, the old rust belt. Voters are going to want to know what can be done for the economy. This is different than taxes, which was an important issue in New Hampshire. In Michigan, the question on voters’ mind will be "who will create jobs?" Mitt Romney’s record is weaker than is generally assumed. The Club for Growth is already up with ads attacking Huckabee, although I suspect that this is more press release. John McCain, as a Senator, has his voting record and new policy proposals to defend and propose. Erick and Neil have more on that.
South Carolina is more complicated. I will be back with more about that.
After John McCain’s comeback victory, the game is still on. For each of the candidates:
First, Mitt Romney must win in Michigan or drop out. He is going to have to talk about his business experience because of the weakness of his governing record. The clear rejection of his negative attacks means that he will probably have to go more positive. Romney’s long-term confidence can be seen in his dropping of South Carolina buys. If he performs in Michigan, he would be close to dark in South Carolina.
Second, John McCain will continue to be vulnerable on immigration, but exit polls in New Hampshire put that issue behind the economy, the war in Iraq, and the great struggle against terrorism. McCain has opened up a defense from Romney’s attack on his tax record with Senator Phil Gramm and Rep. Jack Kemp. Besides, it looks like the Wall Street Journal may play a little defense for him too. McCain is already the clear 2nd in South Carolina, and a bump from New Hampshire and, possibly Michigan, would likely tighten the race with Mike Huckabee there.
Third, Mike Huckabee. National observers were a little surprised by Mike Huckabee’s result in New Hampshire, but I don’t see a lot of coverage of it. I also think that he may perform better than people expect in Michigan, squeezing Mitt Romney from the right on social issues.
Fourth, Rudy Giuliani. We are just going to have to see what happens in Florida. It’s a gamble that they are taking. I am increasingly skeptical.
And, last, Fred Thompson. Ummmm. His last stand is in South Carolina. That seems calculated to take more votes out of Huckabee and Romney than a real pro-Fred strategy in itself. it is now clear that McCain will continue to have strength through South Carolina, regardless of Michigan. A Romney collapse would probably split the votes several different ways. It is hard to imagine how he would come in first. Or even second. Taking a last stand in a place in which 3rd is your most likely results seems…. odd.
In conclusion, this seems likea McCain-Huckabee race, with outside chances for Rudy and Mitt to have surprisingly strong showings.
Matt Dabrowski, a pollster and a reader, sent in a letter about what happened with the broken polling in New Hampshire
Just yesterday, some major media polls showed Barack Obama with a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton. But Clinton won the New Hampshire primary by at least 3%. At the same time, John McCain posted a much stronger lead over Mitt Romney than polling predicated.
The polls were dead wrong tonight. (And so was I. I told many of you that Barack Obama would sail through New Hampshire on his way to the presidency.)
Why? In effect, the pollsters double-counted New Hampshire independents.
How does this work? In order to survey likely voters, pollsters ask a series of "screener" questions. Here is how one public pollster, American Research Group (ARG), asks their screener:
"Would you say that you definitely plan to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary, that you might vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary, or that you will probably not vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary?"
Typically, pollsters treat each party separately when conducting primary polls. One survey will poll the Republican primary (and all non-Republicans will be screened out), and a separate survey will poll the Democrats (and vice versa). This is the case for two reasons. First, most states don’t have open primaries, so cross-party voting isn’t a concern. Second is cost, doubly true in internal campaign polling. It would be a waste of money for, e.g., Chris Dodd to poll Republican primary voters.
Several well-regarded campaign pollsters will travel to South Carolina tomorrow to find themselves in hot water with their campaign managers.
So let’s think this through. Pollster X conducts his survey in the Republican primary. Independents are allowed into the poll, while Democrats are not. Then Pollster X conducts his survey among Democrats. Independents are allowed into the poll a second time, while Republicans are not.
This is the polling equivalent of being allowed to vote twice. You create a situation where a voter would say this: "Well, if you were asking me about the Republican primary, I’d vote for McCain. But since you’re asking me about the Democratic primary, I’ll vote for Obama." In fact, it creates the bizarre possibility that the same individual New Hampshire voter could be literally polled twice.
It comes down to what we call "sampling error." Since the same Independents were allowed into both surveys, the poll’s sample didn’t look like the actual primary electorate. The 10-point Obama lead was only a paper lead — those were actually McCain voters who were erroneously allowed into the Democratic primary polls.
Should pollsters have known this would happen? I’d argue yes. We knew that both Obama and McCain both had wide support among Independents. At first glance, none of the pollsters realized this and changed their models accordingly.
One proper way to screen would have been something like this:
"Q1. Would you say that you definitely plan to vote in the primary, that you might vote in the primary, or that you will probably not vote in the primary?
Q2. Do you plan to vote in the Republican presidential primary, or the Democratic presidential primary?"
Notice that every likely voter is allowed into the poll, and then pushed into the appropriate primary. No segment of the population has the possibility of entering both primaries.
We desperately need to re-think our turnout models in the future, or we will continue to struggle with open primaries, early voting, etc., etc…
Tags: New Hampshire, Polls
New Hampshire had the potential to be another passion versus organization fight. John McCain has had amazing events overflowing with people. Mitt Romney not so much, with some evidence of Massachusetts astroturf.
The polls seemed to settle on a 3-5 margin for McCain. Normally, I would have added another point or two to Romney’s numbers because Romney’s campaign is almost certainly doing better GOTV. But not today. Not with this turnout. Listening to one of the cable stations, one analyst said that the leading campaigns don’t really think that they need to do their own turnout. It is happening for them.
Returning to the numbers, Secretary of State Bill Gardner predicted 500k votes, substantially more than the 2006 general election numbers. The 2006 general election numbers, at least nationwide, suggested that hard GOP voters, which polls suggest Romney and McCain are splitting with, in some polls, a slight advantage to Romney. I remember the RNC’s spin that if they turnout 80% of the 2004 base in 2006, they would win the election. They achieved their goals, but the Dems did so much better. Left-leaning independents and Democrats turned out at record numbers.
I am trying to figure out where the rest of the turnout is coming from. One option is right-leaning independents, which would be a good sign for McCain. Are hard Republicans really expanding the universe? Are there really Democrats and lefty-independents who want to vote now who didn’t want to vote in 2006? I have trouble seeing how this isn’t good for McCain. The passion seen in his events may be replicated at the polls today. Check out this coverage from the Boston Globe:
"It has been steady heavy all day," said Herb Pence, a church volunteer who has worked on election day at least a dozen times. "It wasn’t intense like this before — on both sides, Republican and Democrat." …
The turnout in Manchester’s First Ward appeared to be especially high for those who have not participated before: while there was a significant line for "registered voters" in the church basement, the line for "new voters" was far longer, snaking around the stairs.
The only other theory than a boom for McCain is a boom for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. Many state party officials except Paul and Huckabee to place above Giuliani tonight.
Tags: McCain, New Hampshire
When I pulled into the Hooksett polling place around 6:30 AM, I came into a traffic jam. It was 15 minutes before I could get to a parking spot. Simply put, turnout was huge. The Union-Leader reports massive turnout. The Secretary of State has predicted a 500k turnout, and three or four campaigns are using this for their turnout model. Last night, talking to some state party officials, they pointed out that 417k people voted in the high-turnout 2006 general election. I am watching MSNBC right now and Chuck Todd semi-predicted even higher. If, as the Union-Leader reported, over 10% of the voters are new-registrants, it could be even higher.
At the polling places that I have seen, Obama, McCain, and Clinton have volunteers at polling places. No Romney or Rudy people. (although one place had a parked truck with a big Romney sign on it) Chatting with the Obama and Clinton people on the ground, they made it clear that they were rooting for Romney because they felt like they could beat him.
Watching the results tonight will be interesting.
Tag: New Hampshire
My 2008 Ticker
