Some Race Results Matter More Than Others

By Stuart Rothenberg

This year, it’s harder than ever to distinguish what really matters from what doesn’t. Special situations are adding to the confusion, as is a fickle public, which is showing a willingness to change its positions in the blink of an eye.

In Hawaii’s special Congressional election to fill the opening created by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Republican Charles Djou certainly looks headed for an upset victory over two Democrats, former Rep. Ed Case, who has already represented the other half of the state in Congress, and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who has been described by the local media as “the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment.”

With Djou leading in polls and local Democrats unable to agree to support a single candidate in the election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has announced that it won’t spend any more resources on the race, which it now thinks is unwinnable.

That’s a stunning decision given the Democratic nature of the district, but it reflects the DCCC’s frustration with the race — and particularly with the state’s two Senators, who remain bitter about Case’s 2006 Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Daniel Akaka and have refused to encourage Hanabusa to exit the race.

Since the two Democrats are effectively dividing the Democratic vote and allowing Djou to win with far less than a majority of the vote, the outcome doesn’t say much of anything about November. The outcome isn’t irrelevant, but it certainly isn’t an indicator of things to come.

The special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district is a far more important event, since it’s a head-to-head contest in a Democratic part of the state. But while Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won the district narrowly in 2004 and Al Gore carried it more comfortably in 2000, Barack Obama lost it narrowly in 2008.

This is the kind of district where voters could use the special election as an opportunity to send a message of dissatisfaction about the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congressional agenda.

Republican Tim Burns is about as strong a candidate as Republicans could have hoped for. I interviewed him months ago as well as in late April, and I found him to be a more poised and polished candidate than I did during his first visit.

Given the large Democratic registration advantage in the district and the district’s strong support for the late Rep. John Murtha (D), Democrat Mark Critz, who was an aide to Murtha, should have an advantage in the race. A Burns victory would be a bad sign for Democrats for the fall.

Recent events in Utah certainly were noteworthy but not as instructive as the media coverage would suggest.

Nominating conventions are usually dominated by activists and ideologues, and purists at both the state GOP convention and the Democrats’ 3rd district convention showed their muscle, if not their brains.

Republican delegates denied Sen. Bob Bennett even the right to go to a primary to win renomination, and Democrats in the 2nd district forced Rep. Jim Matheson into a primary with a more liberal opponent who criticized the Congressman’s vote against health care reform.

Conventions produce different outcomes than primaries, so the results in Utah say more about the process than the voters. But the results are a reminder that the ideologues are particularly intolerant and vociferous this cycle.

Finally, the dramatic changes in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, the Republican Senate primary in Florida and the GOP gubernatorial primary in California are worth remembering throughout the cycle.

Rep. Joe Sestak’s campaign seemed very much stalled until a single brilliant TV ad jump-started it and changed the Democratic Senate race in Pennsylvania fundamentally. Using video of party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter (D) together with former President George W. Bush, Sestak redefined the choice Democratic primary voters face. Now it is Specter who will need to come from behind.

In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist went from popular frontrunner in the GOP race to controversial also-ran in the Republican primary to Independent candidate in a matter of months. A year ago, nobody thought that could happen.

Similarly, in California, Republican Meg Whitman built up a large lead in the gubernatorial primary, only to see it largely evaporate when her opponent, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, hit her in a TV ad for her association with Goldman Sachs.

Whitman’s 50-point lead in a March Public Policy Institute of California poll has fallen to 2 points in a recent SurveyUSA poll.

These kinds of reverses ought to make favorites and frontrunners feel uncomfortable, whether Democratic Senators such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Michael Bennet in Colorado or Republican Senate hopefuls Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Sue Lowden in Nevada.

On the other hand, I’m not yet a believer in some races where recent polls show tightening in general election ballot tests, including Senate races in Iowa and North Carolina. That’s because I expect the 2010 midterms ultimately will be a referendum on Democratic control of the White House and Congress, making for a very difficult political environment for Democratic challengers in both states in the fall.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Shifting Standards of Victory

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With less than a handful of states under our belt in the presidential race, it’s time for both the candidates’ campaigns and the media to agree on a uniform way of evaluating the results and determining candidate placement on the medal stands.

Post-Nevada, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are claiming victory, and each has a reasonable explanation. Sen. Hillary Clinton defeated Sen. Barack Obama 51% to 45% in the Silver State’s popular vote (which, more accurately, reflects delegates to the state convention). But Obama appeared to edge Clinton in national delegates 13 to 12, because of how the national delegates are proportioned.

The newfound focus on national delegates is fascinating since no one talked about Clinton taking more national delegates than John Edwards in Iowa. Instead, observers near and far were anxious to shove the New York Senator into third place in the first critical contest because it made for a better storyline.

In Iowa, Clinton earned 15 national delegates, one behind Obama (16), and one ahead of John Edwards (14). But that didn’t stop Edwards from swiping the rhetorical silver medal. The former North Carolina senator edged Clinton 29.748% to 29.468% in state delegates, but if Clinton had received a single state delegate more (she already had 737) she would have been at 29.5% and her percentage would have been rounded up to 30%, putting her in a statistical “tie” with Edwards.

So, if all of the sudden national delegate counts are the new fad, Edwards has three third place finishes under his belt.

In fact, both “votes” and delegates matter. And in the case of Nevada, Clinton and Obama finished in a near dead heat. One “won” in delegates, while the other “won” in caucus votes. The reality, however, is that the Nevada results, by themselves, don’t boost either Democrat’s prospects dramatically.


This item also appeared on Political Wire.

Romney’s Michigan Showing Adds Complexity to Evangelical Vote

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three states down, three different results among evangelical voters for the Republican presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won a plurality of evangelicals (34%) in Michigan, despite some reservations within the community about his Mormon religion. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed second (29%) and Arizona Sen. John McCain third (23%) among evangelicals.

After Huckabee’s convincing win among evangelicals in Iowa (he took 46%) and the three-way tie among evangelicals in New Hampshire, Romney’s showing is evidence that no candidate has a lock on the evangelical vote.

It also suggests that while evangelicals hold to uniting theological themes, there is limited uniformity in how evangelicals apply their faith to politics and choosing a particular candidate.

Evangelicals were a larger part of the electorate in Michigan (39%) than in New Hampshire (24%), but a smaller percentage than in Iowa (60%). South Carolina will be the next test case for the evangelical vote on Saturday.

Eight years ago, the exit poll asked primary voters if they were part of the “religious right.” First of all, what does “religious right” even mean? Second, surely there were evangelicals in 2000 who did not consider themselves part of the “religious right,” but we don’t know how many. Unfortunately, that’s the only vaguely similar question we have in analyzing potential evangelical percentages in upcoming Republican primaries.

In 2000, one-third of the Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they were part of the “religious right,” a slightly smaller percentage than similar voters in Iowa that year (37%). If that trend still exists today, it would poke a hole in the theory that South Carolina is full of uber-conservative evangelicals ready to deliver the state for Huckabee.

For Republicans, Iowa Better Be an Aberration

By Stuart Rothenberg

Three months ago, the Democratic presidential nomination looked up for grabs, but the party had a narrow favorite, an identifiable frontrunner. Today, after Iowa but before New Hampshire, the Democratic nomination looks up for grabs, but the party still has an identifiable frontrunner — only it’s a different candidate.

Three months ago the Republican contest looked like a chaotic brawl, with no clear favorite and a bunch of scenarios still in play. Today, looking at the Iowa results and contemplating Tuesday’s Granite State primary, the GOP contest looks like a chaotic brawl, with no clear favorite and a menu of potential scenarios.

Something big happened on the frozen turf of Iowa on Thursday, but the state’s caucuses still were only the first test of a process that, for both parties, could drag on at least a bit longer than many assumed.

By now, you’ve read and watched at least three days of post-Iowa reporting and analysis. You know who voted for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), how Mike Huckabee (R) finished first ahead of Mitt Romney (R) and what Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have at stake in New Hampshire. So what’s left to discuss? November.

Obama’s win makes him the instant Democratic frontrunner, though one victory is not a strong basis for beginning work on a Democratic National Convention acceptance speech.

Huckabee’s victory makes him one of his party’s credible contenders for the GOP nomination, but nothing more. South Carolina may be fertile territory for Huckabee later this month, but there are far too many question marks about his candidacy and appeal to see him as anything more than that.

The former Arkansas governor may well have hit his high water mark in the nation’s first presidential contest. We will see.

But one thing does seem pretty clear: If it’s Obama versus Huckabee in November, Republicans might want to prepare a bomb shelter and store plenty of food, water and reading material. That general election would more likely than not be a massive blowout for Democrats.

Politics, like basketball, is a lot about matchups. Can your taller guards post up the opposition’s short backcourt and take advantage of the mismatch? Can your quick team press the opposition when it’s bringing the ball up court, quickening the pace of the game and forcing the other guys out of their half-court offense?

Even if you aren’t a basketball junkie, you probably get the point. You want to take advantage of your strength and exploit the other team’s weakness, rather than allowing them to do that to you.

For Huckabee, Obama is a true nightmare. For Obama, Huckabee is a godsend.

Obama is a change candidate extraordinaire. Just look at him. Listen to him. Huckabee wants to be a change candidate as well. But he’s a pale reflection of Obama, and not just in skin color.

If Obama has an obvious weakness (and almost every politician has one), it’s his lack of experience and a possible weakness on national security matters. Democratic voters in Iowa didn’t care a lot about that, preferring to focus on him as a vehicle for bringing about change in this country, but that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t try to exploit that weakness.

Indeed, if the GOP ultimately nominates McCain or Rudy Giuliani, you can easily imagine how they would contrast their experiences with Obama.

But Huckabee is unlikely to be able to take advantage of Obama’s potential vulnerability. Sure, Huckabee served as governor of Arkansas for more than two full terms, but that doesn’t give him the credentials to raise questions about Obama’s ability to lead the war against terror or protect American national security.

Huckabee certainly could make the “executive experience” argument. But the last guy who had executive experience at the state level, Republican George W. Bush, hasn’t exactly been a rousing success as chief executive.

Anyway, Huckabee would have serious problems holding together the Republican coalition against Obama, with major defections from the GOP’s country club/business wing. Huckabee’s economic populism simply is at odds with too many in his party, which is why, in winning the nation’s first caucuses, he lost Republicans earning more than $100,000, those living in urban areas and those for whom a candidate’s religious views were not seen as terribly important.

It isn’t difficult to imagine Obama cleaning up in the suburbs and Huckabee taking little more than religious conservatives and populist Democrats. This assumes, of course, that Obama continues to emphasize a unifying message of hope, rather than a heavily left-of- center message of economic redistribution and liberal social policy.

True, Huckabee is a happy warrior, and that might be a considerable asset against someone like former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who sounds too angry, or Clinton, who often seems stiff. But against Obama, that potential Huckabee asset evaporates. Obama’s upbeat message of bringing people together, which would be magnified by the historic development of an African-American as president, would overwhelm whatever appeal Huckabee’s happy warrior style might have.

Finally, an Obama nomination would create a turnout headache for Republicans. Party strategists have been counting on Clinton’s nomination to produce a massive GOP turnout, so if she isn’t on the Democrats’ national ticket, Republican operatives will be forced to spend energy and resources making sure that Republicans vote in November.

Both parties probably still have some surprises in store, so anyone who reads too much into the Iowa results is asking for trouble. And for national GOP strategists, almost any matchup is preferable to Huckabee-Obama.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 7, 2007. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Did Edwards' Slip Help Clinton in New Hampshire?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While some will suggest that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire victory can be traced to her emotional comments shortly before the primary, and others will credit Bill Clinton, there is some evidence to suggest that the collapse of the John Edwards campaign in the Granite State may have given Clinton a victory that multiple polls promised would go to Sen. Barack Obama.

Edwards’s weak 17% showing in New Hampshire was a significant drop from his 30% finish in Iowa just a few days earlier. (It’s probably more accurate to conclude that Edwards drew 23% or 24% in Iowa, not 30%, since that’s what the Iowa entrance poll found. Edwards undoubtedly benefited in the caucuses from realignment, which boosted his final percentage past Clinton, though more people went into the caucuses saying that they would support her. Still, Edwards’s 6-point drop between the Iowa entrance poll and the New Hampshire exit poll is worth noting.)

It’s not that Edwards is unpopular with his party’s voters. A solid 79% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of him, and many said that he “cares about people.”

But exit polling from New Hampshire shows that the former North Carolina senator flopped with a number of groups that, given the tone and message of his campaign, he should have scored with – groups with which Clinton made noteworthy gains.

Granite State Democrats seemed to regard Edwards as irrelevant on Tuesday.

Among the 61% of Democratic primary voters who said that they were “angry” with the Bush Administration, only 16% voted for Edwards, who clearly ran the angriest campaign of the top three Democrats.

Of the 55% of Democrats who said that the top candidate quality they were looking for was “Can bring about change,” Edwards drew only 12%, while Obama won the votes of 58% and Clinton drew the support of 27%.

Given that Edwards pounded away with a ‘change” message for months – and drew 20% in Iowa among those wanting a candidate who could “bring change” – his New Hampshire showing on this dimension was disappointing.

A majority of New Hampshire Democratic voters (58%) said that they were “very worried” about the economy. That was an issue that Edwards dealt with repeatedly. Yet among those Democrats who felt that way, only 17% voted for Edwards, while 41% picked Clinton and 36% picked Obama.

It would be reasonable to assume that Edwards’s former supporters would switch to Obama, the other “change” candidate in the race, and the Democrats who seemed to have momentum going into New Hampshire. But that apparently didn’t happen.

Instead, it was Clinton whose numbers generally rose as Edwards’s slipped.

This item also appeared on Political Wire on January 9, 2008.

Different Picture of Evangelical Voters in New Hampshire

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Less than a week after former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rode to victory on the shoulders of evangelical voters, he hit a speed bump in New Hampshire with the same group.

In Iowa, 60% of GOP caucus goers were self-described born again or evangelical Christian. Huckabee won the group with a commanding 46%. Mitt Romney finished second (19%), Fred Thompson third (11%), and Sen. John McCain tied with Cong. Ron Paul at 10%.

But in New Hampshire, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney fought to essentially a three-way tie (28%, 28%, and 27% respectively) among evangelicals, who made up nearly a quarter of Granite State Republicans.

The drop off in the size of the evangelical electorate is not surprising, but McCain’s dramatic improvement is particularly noteworthy. Tuesday’s results prove that evangelicals are not a monolithic block of voters, despite the laziness of some observers in claiming otherwise.

In Iowa, Huckabee won 56% of caucus goers who said that religious beliefs mattered a great deal to them (36% of the electorate). McCain, Romney, and Thompson all tied at 11%, a distant second. But in New Hampshire, McCain defeated Huckabee 34%-28% among voters who prioritized religious beliefs, although their share of the electorate was much smaller (14%) than in Iowa.

And among the one-third of GOP primary voters in New Hampshire who said they attended church weekly, McCain finished first with 32%, Romney second at 28%, and Huckabee third with 24%. On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama won weekly churchgoers (18% of the Democratic electorate) with 37%. Sen. Hillary Clinton was second with 32%. Unfortunately, the same question was left off of the Iowa entrance poll, making comparisons difficult.

While McCain did well among evangelicals, he also easily won those who strongly supported civil unions in the state, adding even more complexity to the New Hampshire electorate.

According to one Republican observer, Huckabee’s Southern charm just didn’t play as well in the Granite State as it did in Iowa. The good news for the former Arkansas governor is that evangelicals in the upcoming battlegrounds of Michigan and South Carolina are more likely to be friendlier to his style and message than Tuesday’s flock. But only more results will determine whether McCain has newfound appeal to evangelicals or if New Hampshire is an aberration in the race for the Republican nomination.

Winners & Losers From Iowa

By Stuart Rothenberg

After months of speculation about who’ll win Iowa, we finally have winners and losers. Some of them are obvious, while others may not be. One thing for sure is that a rousing speech on caucus night doesn’t mean a candidate has won. In some cases, losers seemed to yell even louder than winners.

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama.
The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.

Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused.

Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee.
In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization.

Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination.

But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney.

Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain.
Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani.
The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers.

1. John Edwards.
Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”

After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message.

Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama.

Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear.

Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney.
How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it.

Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.

Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

In Iowa, Will Edwards Divide and Conquer?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America’s fault. But he’s also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

For months, observers have noted that Americans are tired of the polarization and gridlock that has defined Washington, D.C. at least since 1994 (except for a brief period following September 11th). But if Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare. In a sense, they are displaying buyer’s remorse (from 2004) and choosing a more attractive, charismatic Howard Dean-like candidate this time.

Ironically, Edwards criticized Dean for being too angry in 2004, yet this time the former North Carolina Democrat has adopted Dean’s confrontational style.

Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left. The North Carolina Democrat’s message seems well-suited for 1933 or 1934, but not nearly as ideal for 2008. Yet, Iowa Democrats, like many of their partisan colleagues around the country, are so angry at President George W. Bush that they might be willing to give voice to their anger by voting for Edwards at the caucuses.

Four years ago, angry anti-war candidate Dean drew 18 percent of caucus-goers, while populist Dick Gephardt drew another 11 percent. Edwards, himself, attracted 32 percent of 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus attendees.

But let’s be very clear: Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it.

On Capitol Hill, Edwards’s “us versus them” rhetoric and legislative agenda would almost certainly make an already bitter mood even worse. He would in the blink of an eye unify the GOP and open up divisions in his own party’s ranks. Congressional Republicans would circle the wagons in an effort to stop Edwards’s agenda.

Would Clinton or Obama fare better in the nation’s capital? It’s hard to tell, but the answer probably is “yes.”

Obama surely wouldn’t arouse the immediate resentment and opposition that Edwards would, giving the Illinois senator a far better chance of accomplishing important things during the first two years of his term.

And while many Republicans around the country revile anyone named Clinton, the New York Senator might not face as much hostility as some assume from Capitol Hill Republicans. After all, Senator Clinton has worked well with her colleagues from both parties, and she knows better than anyone how important it is to build successful bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Just as important, a President Edwards might well find that his view of the American economy is built on sand. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business.

Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That’s certain to make retirement funds – including those owned by labor unions and “working families” – happy, right? Stick it to Wal-Mart, and their 1.8 million employees are at risk. Beat up on IBM, and you are beating up on their 330,000 employees. Take a pound of flesh from General Electric, Citigroup, Home Depot and United Technologies, and you’ve put the squeeze on just under 1.2 million employees.

So, Iowa Democrats are faced with much more than a choice of change versus readiness for the job. They will be deciding what kind of party and what kind of country they want. And they will be making an important statement about the tone they want in Washington, D.C.

The question facing Iowa Democrats is whether they want to send a message of frustration, or whether they place a higher priority on getting things accomplished in 2009. Edwards’s bet is that, unlike 2004, they’ll choose anger and confrontation.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 31, 2007.

Two Networks Flop in Reporting on New Poll

By Stuart Rothenberg

If there is something surprising about the new ABC News/Washington Post survey of likely Iowa Democratic caucus attendees, it isn’t the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (30 percent) holds a narrow lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (26 percent) and John Edwards (22 percent). It’s the curious way ABC and rival NBC reported on and interpreted the results during their Monday night national news programs.

For years, Independent political analysts have been warning about reporters’ tendencies to compare polls conducted by different polling firms, to over-interpret small changes in poll results and to treat the results of the most recent survey as if they are etched into stone. And yet that’s what the two networks seemed to do.

Interestingly (though probably not surprisingly), ABC News’s partner in the Iowa survey, the Washington Post, played the story in a much more measured and thoughtful way.

ABC’s World News opened with the network’s new survey, treating it with a breathless quality deserving of momentous breaking news. In fact, the ballot test in the new poll wasn’t all that different from the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted in late July, which had Obama leading with 27 percent, to 26 percent each for both Clinton and Edwards. Obama’s lead both in July and in the most recent survey are statistically insignificant.

Oddly, ABC’s Kate Snow commented that one of the interesting things about the new survey is that likely caucus goers have “come to a different conclusion than what national polls say.” That’s a strange comment since the difference between the Iowa numbers and the national numbers has existed for many months, and many observers have questioned the networks’ focus on national survey data.

A minute or two later in the show, anchor Charles Gibson told chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos that he was struck by “what retail politics this all is.” This is news? Gibson didn’t know that Iowa (and New Hampshire) are famous for being retail politics states?

NBC also botched its report of the new survey. First, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, referring to the Iowa race and the new poll, said “It’s tightening among the Democrats,” and then NBC Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory compounded the error by telling viewers that “For the first time, [Obama] has a lead in the state.” Given the results of the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, “tightening” is not an apt description. And of course, Obama held a “lead” in the July survey.

It’s worth noting, though nobody did, that the July ABC News/Washington Post survey was dramatically different than other surveys taken at the time. This does not mean that the July ABC News survey was wrong or that the current one is incorrect. It is a reminder, however, that it’s better to be cautious about reading too much into this, or any, poll – even if you are paying for the survey.

In fact, some campaign operatives with the Presidential campaigns are skeptical about many of the polls being conducted in Iowa because of the difficulty in predicting exactly who will participate in the January caucuses.

This item also appeared on Political Wire on November 20, 2007.

Iowa Straw Poll: Over Long Before It Really Began

By Stuart Rothenberg

Less than a month ago in this space, I observed that the fast-approaching Iowa straw poll in Ames on Aug. 11 could offer some interesting insights into the Republican race for president. To quote Emily Litela (Gilda Radner) of “Saturday Night Live” fame, “Never mind.”

The recent announcement by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that he would skip the straw poll, followed by the surprising announcement by Arizona Sen. John McCain that he, too, would not actively participate in the straw poll, all but destroys the significance of the event.

Television network executives who were preparing for a political event of significance — a visual event with real people “voting” — will now give only passing mention to the straw poll.

An NBC source told me the network is “completely reassessing” its coverage of the Iowa straw poll, while a source at CBS familiar with that network’s political coverage was more blunt: “Giuliani’s and McCain’s absence from the Iowa straw poll makes it very much less likely that we’ll cover it with the intensity that we would have had they been involved. It’s hard to justify giving significant time to a no-contest event.”

Given those reactions, it’s a safe bet that the television and print coverage of the event will be one-tenth of what it would have been if all the major GOP candidates had competed.

With two of the Big Three Republican contenders (McCain, Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney) already announcing that they will not compete, there is little reason for political reporters to dwell on whether Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee can get more supporters out to Ames in the middle of August.

The straw poll was never going to be as important as the January caucuses, of course, but it was likely to be some sort of early test of campaign organization in a state where organization in January (or whenever the Iowa caucuses actually take place) matters.

Thompson, who is expected to enter the GOP race soon, can now move up his announcement date if he chooses without fear of being asked whether he will participate in the straw poll. His late entry would have given him an out anyway, and some insiders have been speculating that he was delaying his announcement to make it impossible for him to participate in the Ames event.

Giuliani’s decision also isn’t surprising, since Romney and McCain have the two best organizations in the state and a disappointing finish by the New Yorker could have done nothing but add to the impression that he is weak with the GOP base and his appeal has been exaggerated by national poll numbers.

One month ago, one Republican insider who is supporting Romney’s presidential bid told me privately that Giuliani might skip Ames. “Rudy has no organization on the ground in the state,” the observer commented.

McCain’s decision, however, is more of a surprise, and it can’t be comforting to supporters of the Arizona Republican that he has chosen to bail from the straw poll.

McCain has put together an excellent Iowa operation, and his team includes campaign manger Terry Nelson, a very talented Iowan who knows the state’s politics and political mechanics as well as anyone.

Just a month ago, an ally of McCain told me, “We are obviously participating” in the straw poll.

The Republican insider went on to compare 2008 with 2000 by noting that when McCain “didn’t participate in the 1999 straw poll, he was in the single digits nationally,” compared to now, when he has been a top-tier candidate for many months. The implication: This is a very different race; McCain is one of the frontrunners; McCain must participate in Ames.

The decision by the McCain camp, then, constitutes a reversal, an important change in plans that certainly suggests his advisers feared he would underperform in Ames or doesn’t have the financial resources to enable him to compete there without hurting himself elsewhere.

Obviously, it’s better for McCain to duck a fight with Romney than to have one that would have embarrassed the Senator. But either way, McCain looks weaker, raising more questions (questions he doesn’t need) about his long-term prospects.

One thing that the now-catatonic straw poll doesn’t do is undermine the importance of the Iowa caucuses. They remain, along with New Hampshire’s primary, the two biggest tests of the presidential cycle.

Will Republican activists in Iowa punish McCain and Giuliani for not participating in the straw poll? It seems unlikely, as long as the two of them, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, make it clear that the caucuses remain a high priority for them.

For Romney, the Giuliani and McCain decisions about August constitute a quick victory and serve to confirm the former governor’s organizational strength, and momentum, in the state. Of course, the bar for him is now set high in the Hawkeye State, and the presidential contest is a long war, not a single battle. Two months before the big event, the straw vote is now ancient history.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 11, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

For Republicans, Iowa Straw Poll Could Offer Some Answers

By Stuart Rothenberg

You wouldn’t know it from the media coverage — or, rather, the lack of media coverage — but it is less than three months until the Aug. 11 Iowa straw poll in Ames, the GOP’s first major test of candidate strength for the party’s White House hopefuls.

No delegates are at stake and it’s wise to view the event first as a state party fundraiser and only second as a test of the candidates. But the straw poll is worth watching anyway.

It’s true that the results of the first straw polls were a bit misleading — then-Sens. Phil Gramm (Texas) and Bob Dole (Kan.) tied in the straw poll in 1995, but Gramm drew less than 10 percent at the caucuses and was a nonfactor in the race — and they attracted few participants. But the 2000 turnout in excess of 23,000 Iowans (not quite a quarter of the expected caucus turnout) demonstrated that the event has become of considerable interest in the state, and the straw vote often has been an early warning sign of candidate strength or weakness.

In 1987, for example, Pat Robertson finished a shocking first in the straw vote (held in September that year), besting second-place finisher Dole and the sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush. In the caucuses the following January, Dole finished first, ahead of runner-up Robertson and third-place Bush. Bush’s weakness in the straw poll presaged his showing in January.

In the 1996 presidential race, Dole’s relatively weak showing at the straw poll was echoed in the caucuses, which he won only narrowly over Pat Buchanan. Four years later, George W. Bush won the straw poll 31 percent to 21 percent over businessman Steve Forbes, and the then-governor of Texas went on to win the caucuses by an almost identical margin, 41 percent to 30 percent, over Forbes.

The straw poll shows which candidates have put together the best organizations in the state. Given that the January caucuses also put a premium on organization, the Aug. 11 event almost certainly tells observers something about the caucuses.

Former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander was so dispirited about his sixth-place showing at the 1999 straw poll that he dropped out of the race just two days after the event. Alexander, who is now finishing his first term in the Senate and is expected to win a second term next year, had finished third in the 1996 Iowa caucuses.

There are so many interesting storylines to this year’s straw poll that it’s hard to know where to begin.

First, who is going to play, and who might well pass? Nine of the 10 Republicans who participated in the Reagan Library debate on May 3 seem certain to participate in the straw poll, with only former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani hedging. In addition, former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) hasn’t made a decision about the race, so he’s a question mark for Ames. (The timetable of former Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia for making a decision about running appears to leave him out of the Ames mix, too.)

Giuliani initially signaled he would participate, but aides quickly backed off and indicated the campaign had not made a decision. If Giuliani bypasses the straw poll, it would surely raise questions about his commitment to the caucuses, which would fuel rumors that the former mayor may take a pass on both Iowa and New Hampshire, beginning his bid in Florida on Jan. 29.

If both Thompson and Giuliani take a pass on the straw poll, will it devalue the event? Could Giuliani bypass the straw poll and still compete in the caucuses? And if Giuliani does compete at the straw poll, will any of the three current favorites — Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Giuliani — fail to finish in the top three spots?

Second, there’s the “best of the rest” storyline. While McCain and Romney are widely seen as the cream of the crop in terms of Iowa organization, a flock of second-tier hopefuls will be competing to see whether one of them — and which one — might emerge as the conventional wisdom’s long shot in the race.

An unexpectedly strong showing by Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee might well give them some traction into the fall. On the other hand, Brownback seems to be basing his candidacy on a surprise in Iowa, and if he disappoints at the straw poll, he could well be out of the race days later.

Third, there’s the question of whether the second-tier candidates take enough straw votes away from one of the frontrunners to change the outcome of the poll and affect the post-poll assessment.

Since the Ames event is a poll, not a true election, ideologically motivated voters are more likely to make a statement by supporting Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) or former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, effectively wasting their vote and taking votes away from a candidate they may ultimately support in January. Will one of the also-rans be a spoiler?

The August GOP event certainly doesn’t guarantee anything about who will win the January caucuses or the Republican presidential nomination. But the national media will cover it heavily and the straw poll results could tell us a good deal about the candidates and shape the race as it goes into the fall.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 17, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.