If it's news but doesn't matter, is it really news?
Romney plus RNC raised $100 million in July while Obama plus DNC raised $75 million. Does that matter? No.
Look ... both sides are going to have far more to spend than they need and, given that only a few states are actually in play, that money will be so concentrated on those states that the saturation point will be reached even earlier.
How the two sides are spending their money is a different question. The Obama campaign has been investing more heavily in their ground game by opening more offices, hiring more staff, and investing in GOTV efforts. The Romney campaign has emphasized advertising to a greater degree. It isn't black and white obviously as both sides have enough money to conduct both an air war and a ground war. But the differing emphases are pronounced enough that it could make a difference. I really don't know which side is making the better bet empirically. But I will say I generally think the Obama team is the smarter and more experienced group of the two.
Showing posts with label ground game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ground game. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
What is Wisconsin's Message?
I didn't catch the name of the analyst on MSNBC last night who made this general point that I think is correct: Walker surviving the recall is very bad from a policy perspective but there was certainly a lot of bad news for Mitt Romney in electoral terms.
After hearing this, I quickly flipped over to CNN to hear Gloria Borger making the opposite case for the electoral message. Borger argued that Wisconsin was a test-run for the Republican ground game for the Fall and Walker's victory means their ground game is in great shape.
I'll outline this more in full below but the short version is that Gloria Borger is just dead wrong as the exit poll numbers revealed very, very bad numbers for Mitt Romney. Now, the longer explanation.
I have been ranting quite a bit about how many pundits insist on calling Pennsylvania a swing state when it just isn't. See here, here, and here for examples. And, by the way, there's a new poll out in Pennsylvania this morning that has Obama up by 12 there. Since some have complained that I need to stop ranting about that, perhaps I should re-focus my rants on Wisconsin ... which is also not all that swing-statish. Let's go to the tape:
Obama won Wisconsin by 14 in 2008. Kerry eked out a victory by less than half a point in 2004. Gore won Wisconsin but the margin was even closer in 2000. But, unlike Pennsylvania, which Republicans last won (narrowly) in 1988, you have to go all the way back to 1984 (almost 30 years) to find a Republican candidate who won in Wisconsin. I must admit, I found it curious that Jim Messina recently put out a video from Obama HQ indicating that the Obama campaign sees Wisconsin as a tossup. In the video, Messina discusses the electoral map and puts 243 electoral votes (solidly or leaning) in Obama's column with 191 for Romney and he points to 8 states for a total of 104 electoral votes in the tossup column ... including Wisconsin. Take a look at Pollster.com's latest trend estimate on Wisconsin:
There have been 16 publicly-released polls of the Obama/Romney trial heat in Wisconsin in 2012. One has them tied and one has Romney ahead by 1 (back in mid-January). The rest have Obama ahead by 4 to 17 points. The three most recent polls are all of likely voters and they have Obama ahead by 8, 6, and 10 points respectively. Finally, last night's exit pollsters asked respondents how they would vote in the presidential race in the Fall and Obama was ahead by 7 points.
So, if I'm right that Wisconsin is not as much of a swing state as everyone seems to be saying, why did Walker survive? There are two reasons both of which are pointed out by a very smart piece by First Read this morning. On turnout, Gloria Borger is right that Republicans turned out a lot of voters ... but so did Democrats. First Read provides turnout numbers for the 2012 Recall, the 2010 race that first elected Walker, and for the 2008 presidential race in Wisconsin:
2012: 2,503,745 (Walker 1,331,076- Barrett 1,158,337)
2010: 2,160,832 (Walker 1,128,941- Barrett 1,004,303)
2008: 2,983,417 (Obama 1,677,211- McCain 1,262,393)
Turnout was better last night than in 2010 but not as good as 2008. The better the turnout, the better the Democrats will do. The exit polls last night suggest Obama would win by 7 with last night's turnout. Turnout in November is likely to be closer to 2008 levels than last night's levels. Putting all that together, I think Obama's 7 point lead in last night's exit probably has some upside for November.
The second thing First Read points out about Walker's victory last night is that exit pollsters asked respondents about the legitimacy of the recall mechanism. 60% of respondents said that recalls are only legitimate for official misconduct. Another 10% said that recalls are NEVER appropriate. So, 70% of voters just didn't think this was an appropriate way to deal with policy differences. Now, Scott Walker will ignore those numbers and claim a mandate but the reality is that that means a very small number of voters did not approve of Walker's position on unions but voted to keep him in office anyway. He survived the recall because of a coalition of voters who agree with him on his changes to labor laws (52% according to the exit polls) and voters who disagree with him but think the recall is not an appropriate mechanism.
One thing First Read got wrong in their analysis was this line:
And, since they mentioned Iowa ... well, I'll have more to say on that at another time.
After hearing this, I quickly flipped over to CNN to hear Gloria Borger making the opposite case for the electoral message. Borger argued that Wisconsin was a test-run for the Republican ground game for the Fall and Walker's victory means their ground game is in great shape.
I'll outline this more in full below but the short version is that Gloria Borger is just dead wrong as the exit poll numbers revealed very, very bad numbers for Mitt Romney. Now, the longer explanation.
I have been ranting quite a bit about how many pundits insist on calling Pennsylvania a swing state when it just isn't. See here, here, and here for examples. And, by the way, there's a new poll out in Pennsylvania this morning that has Obama up by 12 there. Since some have complained that I need to stop ranting about that, perhaps I should re-focus my rants on Wisconsin ... which is also not all that swing-statish. Let's go to the tape:
Obama won Wisconsin by 14 in 2008. Kerry eked out a victory by less than half a point in 2004. Gore won Wisconsin but the margin was even closer in 2000. But, unlike Pennsylvania, which Republicans last won (narrowly) in 1988, you have to go all the way back to 1984 (almost 30 years) to find a Republican candidate who won in Wisconsin. I must admit, I found it curious that Jim Messina recently put out a video from Obama HQ indicating that the Obama campaign sees Wisconsin as a tossup. In the video, Messina discusses the electoral map and puts 243 electoral votes (solidly or leaning) in Obama's column with 191 for Romney and he points to 8 states for a total of 104 electoral votes in the tossup column ... including Wisconsin. Take a look at Pollster.com's latest trend estimate on Wisconsin:
There have been 16 publicly-released polls of the Obama/Romney trial heat in Wisconsin in 2012. One has them tied and one has Romney ahead by 1 (back in mid-January). The rest have Obama ahead by 4 to 17 points. The three most recent polls are all of likely voters and they have Obama ahead by 8, 6, and 10 points respectively. Finally, last night's exit pollsters asked respondents how they would vote in the presidential race in the Fall and Obama was ahead by 7 points.
So, if I'm right that Wisconsin is not as much of a swing state as everyone seems to be saying, why did Walker survive? There are two reasons both of which are pointed out by a very smart piece by First Read this morning. On turnout, Gloria Borger is right that Republicans turned out a lot of voters ... but so did Democrats. First Read provides turnout numbers for the 2012 Recall, the 2010 race that first elected Walker, and for the 2008 presidential race in Wisconsin:
2012: 2,503,745 (Walker 1,331,076- Barrett 1,158,337)
2010: 2,160,832 (Walker 1,128,941- Barrett 1,004,303)
2008: 2,983,417 (Obama 1,677,211- McCain 1,262,393)
Turnout was better last night than in 2010 but not as good as 2008. The better the turnout, the better the Democrats will do. The exit polls last night suggest Obama would win by 7 with last night's turnout. Turnout in November is likely to be closer to 2008 levels than last night's levels. Putting all that together, I think Obama's 7 point lead in last night's exit probably has some upside for November.
The second thing First Read points out about Walker's victory last night is that exit pollsters asked respondents about the legitimacy of the recall mechanism. 60% of respondents said that recalls are only legitimate for official misconduct. Another 10% said that recalls are NEVER appropriate. So, 70% of voters just didn't think this was an appropriate way to deal with policy differences. Now, Scott Walker will ignore those numbers and claim a mandate but the reality is that that means a very small number of voters did not approve of Walker's position on unions but voted to keep him in office anyway. He survived the recall because of a coalition of voters who agree with him on his changes to labor laws (52% according to the exit polls) and voters who disagree with him but think the recall is not an appropriate mechanism.
One thing First Read got wrong in their analysis was this line:
Wisconsin still looks a lot more Pennsylvania (a state floating between Lean Dem and Toss-up) than Iowa (which is a battleground where Obama has some work to do)Yes, Wisconsin looks a lot like Pennsylvania but Pennsylvania is NOT "floating between Lean Dem and Toss-up." Pennsylvania is hovering around "Likely Dem" and Wisconsin is certainly at least leaning towards the President.
And, since they mentioned Iowa ... well, I'll have more to say on that at another time.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Minority Voter Registration
The Washington Post reports that voter registration is down among minorities and it is particularly the case among Latinos. The story speculates that a big part of the reason is the weak economy which leads many poor voters to move and thus, no longer be registered at their new address. Indeed, registration rates are down significantly among whites as well but the problem is greater among minority voters since the poor are disproportionately Black and Latino.
Compounding the problem is new strict voter registration and voting laws in many states including Florida and Ohio. So the Obama campaign's efforts to identify, register, and get these voters to the polls may be less effective than in 2008.
Obviously, this presents an important challenge to the Obama campaign in a tight race. How big of a problem is it? Here's a few thoughts:
1) I have said many times that I think the ground game is less important than most people believe and I've specifically said I think the ground game is least important in a high-profile election (like a presidential) with high levels of voter turnout (like a presidential). See here for a recent post on this subject. One reason I think the ground game is not so important is that both sides employ a ground game so unless there is a significant asymetry of resources, they cancel each other out. If either side has an advantage in 2012, it is clearly Obama's campaign. So, Obama will likely make up some ground (pardon the pun) in the ground game.
2) The article points out that voter registration is down among whites as well. The Obama campaign does not have to get minority registration exactly where it was in 2012. They just have to get it to the point where it is not off by more than registration among whites.
3) It's early May and most voters, particularly Democratic voters, have not had a reason to engage in the campaign yet. Obama himself has done very little official campaigning. Since minority voters are disproportionately Democratic, it is not surprising we see lower voter registration rates. There was no competitive primary to get registered to vote in in most states. These voters will engage when there is a close race in which to participate. The Fall will provide that opportunity.
In short, I wouldn't panic about all this just yet. If the numbers are the same on October 1, I'd get a little more worried then but that's 5 months off.
Compounding the problem is new strict voter registration and voting laws in many states including Florida and Ohio. So the Obama campaign's efforts to identify, register, and get these voters to the polls may be less effective than in 2008.
Obviously, this presents an important challenge to the Obama campaign in a tight race. How big of a problem is it? Here's a few thoughts:
1) I have said many times that I think the ground game is less important than most people believe and I've specifically said I think the ground game is least important in a high-profile election (like a presidential) with high levels of voter turnout (like a presidential). See here for a recent post on this subject. One reason I think the ground game is not so important is that both sides employ a ground game so unless there is a significant asymetry of resources, they cancel each other out. If either side has an advantage in 2012, it is clearly Obama's campaign. So, Obama will likely make up some ground (pardon the pun) in the ground game.
2) The article points out that voter registration is down among whites as well. The Obama campaign does not have to get minority registration exactly where it was in 2012. They just have to get it to the point where it is not off by more than registration among whites.
3) It's early May and most voters, particularly Democratic voters, have not had a reason to engage in the campaign yet. Obama himself has done very little official campaigning. Since minority voters are disproportionately Democratic, it is not surprising we see lower voter registration rates. There was no competitive primary to get registered to vote in in most states. These voters will engage when there is a close race in which to participate. The Fall will provide that opportunity.
In short, I wouldn't panic about all this just yet. If the numbers are the same on October 1, I'd get a little more worried then but that's 5 months off.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Romney's Ground Game
There's an interesting piece by Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed out today pointing out the way in which a small number of Romney staffers have gone from state to state helping Romney win key primaries. The downside, according to Miller, is that when the primary ends, the staffers leave little behind and so the Romney campaign will effectively be starting from scratch in terms of their ground operation in many states.
Jon Keller and I have had a long-running argument about the importance of the ground game. To put it in the simplest terms, I have argued that the ground game is meaningful in primaries and caucuses, particularly early contests like Iowa, but it is far less important in the general election. I don't argue it is totally irrelevant. In a very tight contest, like say Indiana in 2008, where one campaign (Obama) has a very strong field operation and the other campaign (McCain) has a very poor field operation, the ground game can be the difference. It probably was in Indiana in 2008 and perhaps also in North Carolina. But beyond those somewhat rare situations, the ground game doesn't matter because 1) almost all voters have clear impressions and opinions about the candidates and are going to vote (or not) on that basis and 2) the benefits of the ground game of national level campaigns cancel one another out to a large degree.
The article by Miller is essentially disputing point #2 and Keller would argue I'm at least underestimating the role ground operations can play in shaping voter's opinions and that I'm underestimating the importance of GOTV efforts like the effort of the Bush campaign in Ohio in 2004.
If I'm wrong, Miller's article is certainly bad news for Romney and it is absolutely the case that the Obama campaign has the advantage of a stronger operation at the grassroots generally that has remained in place from 2008 and has been building strength in recent months.
One flaw in my side of the ongoing argument with Keller is that, while I acknowledge the importance of the ground game in a state that is close, we don't know ahead of time which states will be so close as to allow the ground game to make a difference. North Carolina seems a good bet. Ohio and Florida are possibilities. But will Obama have a big enough ground game advantage in these particular states by the Fall to make that difference? I doubt it.
Jon Keller and I have had a long-running argument about the importance of the ground game. To put it in the simplest terms, I have argued that the ground game is meaningful in primaries and caucuses, particularly early contests like Iowa, but it is far less important in the general election. I don't argue it is totally irrelevant. In a very tight contest, like say Indiana in 2008, where one campaign (Obama) has a very strong field operation and the other campaign (McCain) has a very poor field operation, the ground game can be the difference. It probably was in Indiana in 2008 and perhaps also in North Carolina. But beyond those somewhat rare situations, the ground game doesn't matter because 1) almost all voters have clear impressions and opinions about the candidates and are going to vote (or not) on that basis and 2) the benefits of the ground game of national level campaigns cancel one another out to a large degree.
The article by Miller is essentially disputing point #2 and Keller would argue I'm at least underestimating the role ground operations can play in shaping voter's opinions and that I'm underestimating the importance of GOTV efforts like the effort of the Bush campaign in Ohio in 2004.
If I'm wrong, Miller's article is certainly bad news for Romney and it is absolutely the case that the Obama campaign has the advantage of a stronger operation at the grassroots generally that has remained in place from 2008 and has been building strength in recent months.
One flaw in my side of the ongoing argument with Keller is that, while I acknowledge the importance of the ground game in a state that is close, we don't know ahead of time which states will be so close as to allow the ground game to make a difference. North Carolina seems a good bet. Ohio and Florida are possibilities. But will Obama have a big enough ground game advantage in these particular states by the Fall to make that difference? I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
