On Friday evening Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker debated his opponent Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. It was the first of two debates held in the days leading up to the June 5th recall election that will determine Walker's fate and the fate of the recall. Walker entered Friday night's debate with an aggregate polling lead over Barrett of 50.4 percent to 45.4 percent. The final debate will be held on May 31st.
By all accounts both candidates held their own at the first debate, each occasionally landing punches, but neither coming out a clear victor. This bodes well for Walker who, in addition to his polling lead, has out-raised Barrett in Wisconsin by nearly 25 to 1. Both men have received considerable financial support from out-of-state interests.
In addition to battling the incumbent and being outspent by a considerable margin, Barrett has wrestled with another problem: a glaring lack of support from the DNC and the office of the President. Though the Barrett campaign has made clear that they would appreciate the support of the President, thus far Obama has done little more than issue statements of support. While the Obama administration supports Barrett's platform in principle, they are politically wary of lending the support the Barrett campaign desperately needs to close the gap with Walker. It is widely speculated that the President and his strategists fear
being tied to a possible Barrett loss in the Badger state when November
rolls around.
Though recent polls have shown Barrett shaving a few points off Walker's lead, Barrett faces an uphill battle in the next two weeks. Walker will continue to outspend him and without the pull of Presidential support, it seems likely that Walker's better-organized supporters will turn out more heavily than Barrett's supporters on June fifth.
Most observers are paying closest attention to the gubernatorial
contest, which plays to the national media and the national parties
as well. In the heat of the gubernatorial contest, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that several other elections are also at stake which mean nearly as much to Wisconsin as the headliner. Four seats in the state Senate are in play on June 5th; if the Democratic party takes just one they will regain control of the Senate, where 17 of the 33 seats are held by Republicans. Democratic control of the Senate in Wisconsin will make it much, much more difficult for Scott Walker to advance his controversial agenda, should he hold on to the governorship.
That said, a victory for Walker can be expected to embolden other states considering the pursuit of anti-union and anti-collective bargaining legislation. It will also have a carry-over effect to November, including the possibility, horrifying to Democrats though it may be, that Wisconsin is in play for the Presidential election.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Another Note on Polling
Alana Goodman has a post up at Commentary today in reaction to a recent Rasmussen poll. In it she asserts that President Obama has manufactured issues to distract from the economy and that this is hurting him with voters. She points out that the most recent Rasmussen poll shows Mitt Romney up 7%, 50 to 43. Goodman argues that issues like gay marriage are an attempt by the President to divert attention from the struggling economy and Mitt Romney's attempts to brush aside all other issues and focus directly on the economy are working. This, she says, is demonstrated in the polling numbers.
I find this perplexing, although not because of her argument about the issues; it is clearly to Romney's advantage to focus on the economy and Obama must make other arguments while the economy continues to struggle. Rather, I disagree with the polling numbers she chooses to support her theory.
As I have suggested previously, individual polling numbers can be very deceptive. The Rasmussen poll is notoriously inclined toward Republican candidates. While the race between Obama and Romney has unquestionably tightened in recent weeks, every polling aggregate that I have seen shows the President with a lead nationally, albeit a small one. The Rasmussen poll is clearly an outlier. At no point in the piece does Ms. Goodman take note of other polling or aggregate polling averages. Real Clear Politics has the average of seven different polls (including Rasmussen) available at its site; Obama leads Romney by 1.3% in that calculus, 46.7 to 45.4.
Pieces like this, on both the left and the right, seem designed to serve the political inclinations of their readership and do not leave readers more informed.
I find this perplexing, although not because of her argument about the issues; it is clearly to Romney's advantage to focus on the economy and Obama must make other arguments while the economy continues to struggle. Rather, I disagree with the polling numbers she chooses to support her theory.
As I have suggested previously, individual polling numbers can be very deceptive. The Rasmussen poll is notoriously inclined toward Republican candidates. While the race between Obama and Romney has unquestionably tightened in recent weeks, every polling aggregate that I have seen shows the President with a lead nationally, albeit a small one. The Rasmussen poll is clearly an outlier. At no point in the piece does Ms. Goodman take note of other polling or aggregate polling averages. Real Clear Politics has the average of seven different polls (including Rasmussen) available at its site; Obama leads Romney by 1.3% in that calculus, 46.7 to 45.4.
Pieces like this, on both the left and the right, seem designed to serve the political inclinations of their readership and do not leave readers more informed.
The Wisconsin Recall Election
The sprint to June 5th has begun. The fate of the Wisconsin recall of Governor Scott Walker will be determined in the next four weeks. Walker is challenged by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in a race that will be hard fought, very close and, by all accounts, one of the most expensive gubernatorial races in the history of the United States. A recent Marquette Law School poll puts Barrett ahead 47-46 among registered voters and Walker ahead 48-47 among likely voters.
In U.S. history only two governors have been recalled: Lynn Frazier, Governor of North Dakota in 1921; and Gray Davis, Governor of California in 2003, who was replaced by the actor Arnold Schwartzenegger. The Wisconsin race carries with it implications on both the state and national levels.
On the state level, if Walker holds on to the governorship, it will be a tremendous blow to organized labor. Walker has already reduced the collective bargaining rights of public sector union employees, resulting in massive protests in the capitol last year. Though his campaign insists it is not his policy, there appears to be some evidence that Walker, reaffirmed by a recall election win, would push to further draw down union power and possibly make Wisconsin a "right -to-work" state.
Barrett, though not the first choice of labor advocates in the Democratic primary, now has the full support of labor in the state and the nation. All elements of the Democratic party appear to have united solidly behind Barrett in an attempt to defeat Walker. If elected, Barrett has vowed to restore collective bargaining rights and protect public service unions from any attempts to erode their standing.
On the national level, many see the Wisconsin recall election as a microcosm of the greater battle in economic policy between the model favored by the Congressional Republican party and that supported by the Democratic party.
As a result of the importance both parties attach to the Wisconsin recall, massive amounts of money have poured into the Walker and Barrett campaigns in the form of both direct contributions and super-PAC money. The campaign finance watchdog group The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimates that total spending on the June 5th election will be over $60 million dollars and could well be closer to $80 million. Much of this money, for both sides, comes from out-of-state support. For Walker, it is estimated that more than two thirds of his financial support comes from interests outside Wisconsin.
A Walker victory could encourage other governors, such as Chris Christie in New Jersey and John Kasich in Ohio, who support similar anti-union policies, much smaller government and fewer public sector employees.
On the other hand, a Barrett victory would indicate strong support for unions and the role of government in the economy. A win in Wisconsin would affirm the belief that Americans see unions as a critical component of the middle class.
The next four weeks in Wisconsin deserve close attention and the result on June 5th will be an early leading indicator for the national election in November for President and for the toss-up seats in the House and Senate. Whichever party wins in Wisconsin will use that victory as a weapon to attack the policies of their opposition.
In U.S. history only two governors have been recalled: Lynn Frazier, Governor of North Dakota in 1921; and Gray Davis, Governor of California in 2003, who was replaced by the actor Arnold Schwartzenegger. The Wisconsin race carries with it implications on both the state and national levels.
On the state level, if Walker holds on to the governorship, it will be a tremendous blow to organized labor. Walker has already reduced the collective bargaining rights of public sector union employees, resulting in massive protests in the capitol last year. Though his campaign insists it is not his policy, there appears to be some evidence that Walker, reaffirmed by a recall election win, would push to further draw down union power and possibly make Wisconsin a "right -to-work" state.
Barrett, though not the first choice of labor advocates in the Democratic primary, now has the full support of labor in the state and the nation. All elements of the Democratic party appear to have united solidly behind Barrett in an attempt to defeat Walker. If elected, Barrett has vowed to restore collective bargaining rights and protect public service unions from any attempts to erode their standing.
On the national level, many see the Wisconsin recall election as a microcosm of the greater battle in economic policy between the model favored by the Congressional Republican party and that supported by the Democratic party.
As a result of the importance both parties attach to the Wisconsin recall, massive amounts of money have poured into the Walker and Barrett campaigns in the form of both direct contributions and super-PAC money. The campaign finance watchdog group The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimates that total spending on the June 5th election will be over $60 million dollars and could well be closer to $80 million. Much of this money, for both sides, comes from out-of-state support. For Walker, it is estimated that more than two thirds of his financial support comes from interests outside Wisconsin.
A Walker victory could encourage other governors, such as Chris Christie in New Jersey and John Kasich in Ohio, who support similar anti-union policies, much smaller government and fewer public sector employees.
On the other hand, a Barrett victory would indicate strong support for unions and the role of government in the economy. A win in Wisconsin would affirm the belief that Americans see unions as a critical component of the middle class.
The next four weeks in Wisconsin deserve close attention and the result on June 5th will be an early leading indicator for the national election in November for President and for the toss-up seats in the House and Senate. Whichever party wins in Wisconsin will use that victory as a weapon to attack the policies of their opposition.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
More on Bin Laden
I would like to pick up on an interesting observation from Michael Smerconish today. He points out that the Obama administration's success in the capture/killing of Osama bin Laden greatly weakens one of the most prominent arguments against Barack Obama, whether it is voiced by members of the Republican party or more generally. This is the argument that President Obama is an outsider, "not one of us." This attitude is defined by the ongoing birth certificate argument as well as the "is Obama really a Christian?" question and its related response, "I take him at his word," so often heard from Republican pundits and members of Congress.
Today has seen a withdrawal from the outrage displayed by the Romney camp yesterday on the subject. In the coming weeks and months, expect Governor Romney and his surrogates to revert to their previous tactic of avoiding any discussion of bin Laden altogether. They will continue to recognize that this is a losing issue for them and will try to shift the political narrative back to the economy. Do not expect the Obama campaign to stop pushing the bin Laden narrative; it is a winning topic and they know it.
Today has seen a withdrawal from the outrage displayed by the Romney camp yesterday on the subject. In the coming weeks and months, expect Governor Romney and his surrogates to revert to their previous tactic of avoiding any discussion of bin Laden altogether. They will continue to recognize that this is a losing issue for them and will try to shift the political narrative back to the economy. Do not expect the Obama campaign to stop pushing the bin Laden narrative; it is a winning topic and they know it.
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Bin Laden Question
The recent one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, coupled with the formal launch of President Obama's 2012 campaign, has produced a great deal of controversy. Many Republican politicians and strategists have suggested that the President is taking too much credit for bin Laden's death and manipulating it for political gain. John McCain went so far as to claim President Obama is "shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act."
The President and his advisers have responded by questioning whether a Mitt Romney Presidency would have acted in such a decisive manner, citing past Romney statements that bin Laden's capture should not be a dominant foreign policy objective.
Meanwhile, Brian Williams is interviewing the President in a one-year retrospective on the events that led to bin Laden's death.
Clearly, there is much disagreement over whether the bin Laden saga is fair political game in the 2012 campaign. This disagreement falls almost perfectly along partisan lines.
There is little doubt that the President's call to send the Navy Seals in to Pakistan was based on less than perfect intelligence that bin Laden was there. Had things gone wrong, the failed mission would have dealt a crippling political blow and would most probably have cost Obama any chance at reelection in 2012. This position is beyond dispute and is supported by analysts on both sides of the political spectrum. The political costs were, potentially, enormous; it follows that the political rewards are not only great but relevant to 2012 as well.
The Obama team will no doubt continue to use bin Laden as a key feature of their 2012 game plan. They should. Reactions from Republicans like John McCain sound, from my vantage point, like the complaints of a party that knows it is exposed on this issue. I suspect that part of the vehemence of this outcry stems from the Republican party's reluctance to take a backseat on foreign policy. Whatever the hue and cry, Osama bin Laden's capture and death is a political strength for the President in the 2012 campaign.
The President and his advisers have responded by questioning whether a Mitt Romney Presidency would have acted in such a decisive manner, citing past Romney statements that bin Laden's capture should not be a dominant foreign policy objective.
Meanwhile, Brian Williams is interviewing the President in a one-year retrospective on the events that led to bin Laden's death.
Clearly, there is much disagreement over whether the bin Laden saga is fair political game in the 2012 campaign. This disagreement falls almost perfectly along partisan lines.
There is little doubt that the President's call to send the Navy Seals in to Pakistan was based on less than perfect intelligence that bin Laden was there. Had things gone wrong, the failed mission would have dealt a crippling political blow and would most probably have cost Obama any chance at reelection in 2012. This position is beyond dispute and is supported by analysts on both sides of the political spectrum. The political costs were, potentially, enormous; it follows that the political rewards are not only great but relevant to 2012 as well.
The Obama team will no doubt continue to use bin Laden as a key feature of their 2012 game plan. They should. Reactions from Republicans like John McCain sound, from my vantage point, like the complaints of a party that knows it is exposed on this issue. I suspect that part of the vehemence of this outcry stems from the Republican party's reluctance to take a backseat on foreign policy. Whatever the hue and cry, Osama bin Laden's capture and death is a political strength for the President in the 2012 campaign.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Polling
As the Obama/Romney head-to-head match up develops, a new poll (or several new polls) comes out nearly every day. With each new poll articles from political trend watchers and journalists alike appear predicting alternatively good things or trouble for one of the candidates. These articles tend to beget more articles on whatever trend the poll may have identified as well as coverage on the daily television news programs. This generally goes on for the length of the news cycle; that is, until the next poll comes out a day or two later.
The astute political observer, however, must approach these polls with caution and know when and where to recognize an outlier from a poll that may have real relevance. Nate Silver at 538 has a great, in-depth piece on how to watch polls in the months leading up to November. It is recommended reading for anyone with an interest in the 2012 races, particularly the Presidency. What follows is my concise reader's guide to polling analysis.
Polling organizations inherently carry some kind of bias; they poll certain groups of people, sometimes more from one side of the political spectrum than the other. The manner in which the polling questions are posed can also affect the result. A poll that begins with a negative premise built into the questions asked can expect a more negative response than questions parsed more moderately. These inherent biases mean that some polls give results that fluctuate considerably from the established norms of polling on a certain topic.
Therefore, it is critical to look at averages of several similar polls to get a more accurate reading on what direction the political wind is blowing. Aggregate polling information is easily available from many sources in the internet age, RCP, for example, posts daily numbers that combine information from several polls in several categories (i.e. approval rating; Obama v. Romney; likeability, etc.). Looking carefully at polling information can help identify outliers and tone down excitement over surprising numbers that may, in fact, mean very little.
The astute political observer, however, must approach these polls with caution and know when and where to recognize an outlier from a poll that may have real relevance. Nate Silver at 538 has a great, in-depth piece on how to watch polls in the months leading up to November. It is recommended reading for anyone with an interest in the 2012 races, particularly the Presidency. What follows is my concise reader's guide to polling analysis.
Polling organizations inherently carry some kind of bias; they poll certain groups of people, sometimes more from one side of the political spectrum than the other. The manner in which the polling questions are posed can also affect the result. A poll that begins with a negative premise built into the questions asked can expect a more negative response than questions parsed more moderately. These inherent biases mean that some polls give results that fluctuate considerably from the established norms of polling on a certain topic.
Therefore, it is critical to look at averages of several similar polls to get a more accurate reading on what direction the political wind is blowing. Aggregate polling information is easily available from many sources in the internet age, RCP, for example, posts daily numbers that combine information from several polls in several categories (i.e. approval rating; Obama v. Romney; likeability, etc.). Looking carefully at polling information can help identify outliers and tone down excitement over surprising numbers that may, in fact, mean very little.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The VP Game
On Monday Mitt Romney's campiagn announced that Beth Myers, a long time aide very close to Romney personally, will conduct the search for a Vice Presidential nominee. Among the candidates expected to receive consideration are freshman Senator and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio from Florida; Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell; Wisconsin congressman and architect of the eponymous plan, Paul Ryan; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie; and Rob Portman, also a freshman Senator, from Ohio.
There has been and continues to be much speculation about the VP position. It's an appealing theme for the press: the "who will be the nominee" game. It is fairly likely it will come down to one of the above, though a sleeper candidate is always possible.
Please note the lack of any women on the above list. Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, and Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire, have been mentioned but appear unlikely for personal and/or political reasons.
My early prediction is Portman, coined the "do no harm candidate" by Larry Sabato. While not as energetic or exciting to the base as Rubio or as blustery as Christie, Portman, if chosen, would bring reliable conservative bona fides from a critical swing state to the ticket. Though the power of a VP nominee to swing his/her state in a national election is probably limited, such influence cannot hurt, particularly if Ohio proves to be a very tight race in November. Portman's fiscal credentials are strong; he was George W. Bush's director of the Office of Management and Budget in 2006 and 2007 and before that U.S. Trade Representative. The Romney campaign knows that the winning narrative for them is to focus above all else on the economy and Portman can play an effective supporting role in that drama as it plays out. Portman represented Ohio in the House for 12 years before going to work in the Bush administration so he brings political experience to the table. By all accounts he is without any disqualifying weaknesses. After the hurly-burly of the primaries, with the nomination all but sewn up, Romney needs the kind of quality and consistency in his Vice Presidential nominee that Portman can provide.
I expect the Romney campaign to hold off on announcing their choice for some time. There is little political advantage to making the choice quickly and giving the Obama reelection team more time to plan and attack. When that time does arrive, however, I believe we will see a Romney/Portman ticket in 2012.
There has been and continues to be much speculation about the VP position. It's an appealing theme for the press: the "who will be the nominee" game. It is fairly likely it will come down to one of the above, though a sleeper candidate is always possible.
Please note the lack of any women on the above list. Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, and Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire, have been mentioned but appear unlikely for personal and/or political reasons.
My early prediction is Portman, coined the "do no harm candidate" by Larry Sabato. While not as energetic or exciting to the base as Rubio or as blustery as Christie, Portman, if chosen, would bring reliable conservative bona fides from a critical swing state to the ticket. Though the power of a VP nominee to swing his/her state in a national election is probably limited, such influence cannot hurt, particularly if Ohio proves to be a very tight race in November. Portman's fiscal credentials are strong; he was George W. Bush's director of the Office of Management and Budget in 2006 and 2007 and before that U.S. Trade Representative. The Romney campaign knows that the winning narrative for them is to focus above all else on the economy and Portman can play an effective supporting role in that drama as it plays out. Portman represented Ohio in the House for 12 years before going to work in the Bush administration so he brings political experience to the table. By all accounts he is without any disqualifying weaknesses. After the hurly-burly of the primaries, with the nomination all but sewn up, Romney needs the kind of quality and consistency in his Vice Presidential nominee that Portman can provide.
I expect the Romney campaign to hold off on announcing their choice for some time. There is little political advantage to making the choice quickly and giving the Obama reelection team more time to plan and attack. When that time does arrive, however, I believe we will see a Romney/Portman ticket in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)