10/27/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with a discussion about the 2 articles Paul emailed group members about Herman Cain. The first article discussed Cain in the context of the conventional (but often wrong) wisdom that the front runner in the invisible primary in the polls usually secures the nomination (think Giuliani and Clinton). The second article, written by Nate Silver on his FiveThirtyEight Blog, talks about how Cain lacks many of the fundamentals seen as critical to winning the nomination. In order to analyze this, Silver runs some simple correlations to measure how quintessential fundamentals such as organization and fundraising prowess (which he combines to form what he calls the candidate's GPA) correlates with poll standings in November back to the 1992 primaries. He finds that his GPA correlates with poll standings at .80-a relatively strong value. There is, however, one data point that is a considerable outlier: showing a weak non-polling GPA of 4.0 with an usually strong polling GPA of 8.0. And that data point belongs to none other than Herman Cain.

We then discussed one critical variable in Silver's non-polling GPA: the puzzling paradox of Cain's current strong showing in Iowa polls (see the latest Des Moines Register poll of likey caucus particpants http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/cain-and-romney-top-iowa-poll/ despite the fact that he has virtually no presence in the state. Only 2 months out from the election, Cain still isn't actively campaigning in Iowa, focusing instead on his national book tour and on appearances on political talk shows. Meanwhile, Romney's substantial organization in Iowa has yet to result in pushing him to front-runner status, nor in more than 23% in most polls. (For interesting and quick analysis of how support breaks down by demographics see The Des Moines Register caucus analysis page.

This led to a discussion of what might happen should Cain win Iowa without engaging in the traditional boots-on-the-ground retail politics long seen as vital to winning the state. With Santorum spending 65 days thus far in Iowa, and scheduled to make his final appearance in the 99th of Iowa's 99 counties (the only candidate to do so thus far) yet failing to make any headway in the Register poll between June and now-some group members opined that a Cain victory might have 2nd and 3rd tier candidates questioning the effectiveness of the the retail politics strategy in future contests. It certainly didn't work for John Edwards in the 2008 cycle. He literally moved his whole family to Iowa for the year before the caucus only to come in 3rd in the caucus and to drop out of the race.Still, pre-contest organization and retail politics is one thing but the real importance of organization becomes apparent on caucus day. Because of the complexities of the caucus system, candidates need to have caucus experts and insiders on hand to wheel and deal for delegates, as well as the organization to get potential supporters to the caucus. Lacking these resources, it is quite possible that the candidate leading in the polls (Cain) will not ultimately prevail on election day. This is why despite the fact that Romney has not yet spent a great deal of time actually in Iowa, he has a substantial organizational presence there.

Other topics discussed: the chatter regarding Perry floating the idea of not participating in anymore debates (which most group members and pundits alike think would be a fatal decision), Cain's flub on the abortion issue, and Romney's flip-flopping on several issues in the lat 2 years. The group agrees that Romney's triangulation is substantive and not similar to Kerry's mistake of trying to explain congressional procedure which led to his infamous quote which was levied as an effective weapon by the Bush campaign team of being "for [the bill] before being against it." In contrast Romney has changed positions on several key issues and not over  long period of time. Some of this is a result of Romney's tenure as the governor of Massachusetts, a liberal stronghold. The rest is a result of the sharp turn to the right the Republican Party has taken over the course of the last decade, which has forced Romney to waffle on issues as he tries to address his conservative shortcomings, which ironically are some of his best weapons against Obama should he win the nomination and they are both fighting for the coveted Independent vote. Regardless of the rationale behind these policy position changes- voters may be wary of supporting a candidate seen as blowing whichever way the wind blows and just as his fellow GOP contenders are doing, Obama's team will certainly highlight the issue during the general election.

So, that's what you missed at this week's meeting. Only 2 months out from the first contests, the meetings are heating up. Hope to see some new folks there this week! (Thursdays 2:15-3:15, room 302 Baldwin Hall).

10/20/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with a discussion of the latest polling from RealClearPolitics.com. A poll from Iowa showed Cain with a modest lead over Romney with 26% to Romney’s 22%. The latest polling from NH reflects Romney’s current surge with the establishment and more moderate wing of the party with Romney at 40% and Cain at 18%. The SC poll shows that Cain leads Romney by 9% with 31% to Romney’s 22%. Finally, Florida’s poll shows Romney and Cain in a virtual tie with Romney at 31% and Cain at 29%.

Paul provided an interesting update regarding the primary schedule by sharing with the group recent developments of counties in South Carolina refusing to stage a primary due to budgetary concerns. The state is in the process of challenging this in court. Paul opined that the state’s Republican Party would likely receive substantial assistance from the national GOP to stage a party-sponsored primary rather than see the important SC primary canceled.

The rest of the meeting focused on the (at the time) latest debate in Viva Las Vegas. Unfortunately for Romney, what happened in Vegas definitely didn’t stay in Vegas as the airwaves replayed Perry’s and his chest-pointing “fight” over immigration and Perry’s charge that Romney used illegal immigrants as landscapers. But by and large, the debate focused on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.  The debate opening with each candidate ripping it to shreds leaving Cain affable but flustered as he tried gamely to defend his plan using an apples and oranges analogy that reminded viewers of Perry’s poorly executed “flip-flopper” attacks on Romney in the previous debate. The criticisms were buoyed by a recent analysis from The Heritage Foundation (among other groups) that found Cain’s original plan (he has since been trying to modify it) would result in a net tax increase for 86% of all Americans: making it dead on arrival to the rest of the field as well as the congressional Republicans.  

Although this developed after Thursday’s meeting, Cain has also come under fire from the other candidates for comments he made in an interview regarding the government’s proper role on the abortion issue. Cain committed the cardinal sin of trying to stay consistent with conservative orthodoxy on limited government by taking a quasi-pro choice position on abortion-leading some to speculate that he has committed political suicide, particularly in Iowa. The base of the Republican Party has not often embraced candidates with moderate stances on abortion-particularly at the presidential primary level. Although they begrudgingly got behind John McCain in 2008 (his efforts to appease them by debating Obama with Pastor Rick Warren seemed to help somewhat) the primary is not a good time to wax philosophical about limited government in private matters, although it was probably well-received by Ron Paul supporters.  As the polling discussed at the beginning of this post was released before this story broke and before the critiques of the 9-9-9 plan were widely covered, it remains to be seen whether Cain will still be the front runner in Iowa by the time the next major debates are held on November 9^th and 12^th.

That’s what you missed-hope to see you next Thursday in room 302 of Baldwin Hall at 2:15pm.

9/22/11 Meeting

* I apologize for the delay in getting this post up. I had to let my dog (my very best friend in the world for the past 15 years) go on Monday night and was unable to do a post.


The 9/22 meeting was focused on the fallout from the Florida Tea Party debate and Rick Perry’s fall from frontrunner status due to his lackluster debate performance. Discussion centered on Perry’s inability to articulate his points contrasted with Romney’s polished performance which looked even more so against Perry’s blunders. Clearly, Romney is benefitting from the experience factor of having competed in the 2008 cycle and the numerous debates he participated in. In 2008, Romney was seen as the frontrunner in the invisible primary period and as such, most of his fellow contenders were focused on him. This has no doubt better prepared him for this cycle’s debates. One group member posited that it was strange that Bachmann, Cain, and especially Hunstman focused their attention on Perry, who came into the debate with a modest lead on Romney in some polls. He argued that despite this modest lead, the other candidates should focus on Romney because he has been consistently competitive, has the best organization, and of all the candidates (aside from Huntsman), he has the best appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. This point was countered with the argument that the candidates tend to focus on whoever is leading in the polls going into the debate in a classic “attack the frontrunner” strategy and that now that we know beyond a doubt that the field is settled (even though Palin still refuses to publically state that she is not running, the filing deadlines are this week and next) we can expect that debates will focus on trying to mitigate the lead of the frontrunner, which has now reverted to Romney.


However, the most interesting result of the debate is the surge in the polls by Herman Cain, who was identified by the FL caucus members as the winner of the debate. Cain’s surge is largely comprised from people fleeing Perry and switching their support to Cain, who is now the strongest Tea Party candidate in the field. We discussed how Cain’s lack of political office experience and his race might affect Republican primary voters in the early states and in the general against Obama. Because the Tea Party movement has made “outsider” status an asset and not a curse, some group members feel that his lack of elective office experience will only help him with TP Republicans. Additionally, he has an extensive business resume including his time as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, so as he gains exposure to the masses, more moderate Republicans may dismiss his more extreme right positions and focus on his business credentials as this election cycle will be all “about the economy, stupid.”  I opined that Cain has an advantage over Romney in IA and SC because he is an evangelical Christian whereas Romney is a Mormon. Although some of the mystery about his Mormonism will be tempered by the fact that it was a key issue in the ’08 cycle, it is not clear if social/religious conservatives will be comfortable with his religion. This will be hard to determine because they may reject him purely on the basis of his relatively moderate social issue positions. How this plays out will be one of the more interesting aspects of the primaries should Romney stay in the top tier. Rob pointed out that Romney understood and made good use of the debate rules. He rarely referred to other candidates, particularly Perry, by name because doing so immediately allows that person a 30 second response. However, Perry did not seem to be aware of this, or if so could not discipline himself to not say Romney’s name. This allowed Romney to get a lot of extra talk time, which he used to his advantage.


The group also discussed the potential role of race should Cain win the nomination. If this happened then we would again have a historic election as there would be two African-American candidates as the major party nominees. Should Obama win-his legacy as the nation’s 1^st black president extends to a 2^nd term. Should Cain win, then we would have consecutive black presidents representing both sides of the political spectrum, neither of whom had substantial experience coming into the Oval Office- a tantalizing situation for scholars of presidential politics. Would Cain’s presence on the ticket neutralize the race factor for Obama? Might it also help to neutralize it for the element of the TP that were (and in some cases still are) in the “birther movement?” Would Cain be able to pull any of the solidly Democratic black votes away from Obama or would it have the inverse affect of galvanizing the black vote like in ’08 as black voters become aware of Cain’s decidedly conservative social and economic positions? As far as the primary goes, the group was divided on whether Cain would be attractive to black voters. Statistics on the black vote show that 95+% of black voters cast their ballots for Democrats in most cases. However, if Cain was able to pull even 5% away from Obama it could be decisive in a few cases.


These issues and more are sure to be discussed in this week’s meeting on Thursday, October 6^th at 2:15 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall. Be there or be square. However, I’ll be tailgating in the parking lot of Autzen Stadium in Oregon, so the nest 2 weeks will be blogged by a guest blogger. Should you have any interest in doing the blog for both or either of those weeks-please talk to Paul Gurian.

9/22/11 Meeting

This week's meeting started off with a proposed agenda by fill-in host Rob. The three items on the agenda were a discussion of that evening's upcoming debate in Florida, comments regarding the articles Paul sent via email regarding possible back-lash effects if the Republicans in Pennsylvania indeed change their electoral college allocation system from winner-take-all to a district-based allocation system and an article regarding a possible 3rd party candidacy based on several polls showing a majority of respondents' expressing their desire to see an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. 

This inspired a brief conversation about whether a moderate 3rd party (Republican) candidate would enter the race should Rick Perry win the nomination. Although the group has discussed on several occasions the opposite scenario (a 3rd party candidacy from a Tea Party Republican like Bachmann or Perry), this new and interesting possibility of a moderate challenge evoked some interesting comments. Despite Perry's current front runner status and momentum, it is not clear that voters in states such as NH, FL, and NV will support Perry over Romney because of Perry's general election electability issues. In fact, a recent CNN poll of Republican voters indicates that despite a large divide on issues like climate change and gay marriage between self-identified Tea Party Republicans and "regular" Republicans, a clear majority of both groups indicated that they plan on engaging in sophisticated voting by supporting a different candidate over their preferred candidate in order to give the party the best chance possible to capture the White House. That Tea Party Republicans indicate that they are willing to settle for less than ideological purity in order to "make Barack Obama a one-term president" is an interesting finding. However, Iowans do not traditionally put electability above ideology and the massive winnowing that usually occurs by the conclusion of the Iowa Caucuses could hinder the ability of later-state R voters to select an acceptable alternative to their first choice.

The meeting then moved on to a discussion about that evening’s upcoming debate in FL and the fact that Perry would need to perform better than he did at the Tea Party debate. Of course, the group anticipated that Perry would be under attack from all sides again, because he is the front-runner. A full discussion of the debate will be the centerpiece of this week’s upcoming meeting, so please feel free to join us as it produced some interesting discussion points.

Off agenda-the group discussed the enthusiasm gaps between Republican and Democratic voters in the 2008 and 2010 elections and whether or not Democratic voters will turn up in the rates they did in ’08 for this presidential election. This led me to raise an interesting question. Does the enthusiasm gap stem almost entirely from supporting the out-of-power party or does it have a policy basis? If the Dems don’t show up at the polls in ’12, and the Republicans do-this will provide some anecdotal evidence that out-of-power status is the key determinant of the enthusiasm gap. If however, the Ds turn out in droves again, and the Rs do as well, this would seem to indicate that there is a policy element to the gap. With the biggest issues in many decades on the table (Ryan’s proposed Medicare changes, Romney’s proposed social security changes, and Obama’s jobs bill which proposes ending the Bush Tax Cuts as well as other revenue-raising aspects, and the debacle in Wisconsin galvanizing unions and other collective-action supporters) it would seem that if rank-and-file voter enthusiasm has a policy element, it should manifest on both sides this election season.

So that’s what you missed at the meeting this week. We hope top see you this Thursday at 2:15pm in room 302 of Baldwin Hall. Bring a friend!

9/15/11 Meeting

The week's meeting opened with a discussion of polling results on RealClearPolitics.com, which have Obama's current average job approval number at 44% nationally. Paul commented that this is relatively close to Bush's approval rating at the same time in the ‘04 cycle, as he was grappling with a slowing economy and an unemployment rate that had jumped up to 4/9%-provoking panic from the Wall St. class and the then completely out-of-power Democrats. RCP's averaged national numbers for the Republican primary contenders was also discussed. Although newcomer Rick Perry is just above 30%, Romney remains competitive with 20%. The most notable change is Bachmann's share of the pie, which has decreased precipitously as foretasted as many of her supporters have jumped ship to Perry's campaign. Of course, these are averaged numbers from national polls. What really matters is how the candidates are faring in the early states such as IA, NH, SC, NV, and Florida. The most recent state polling available on RCP is from August, as does not accurately reflect the field's distribution post-Perry's declared candidacy.

            The second half of the meeting focused on the first ever Tea Party debate. Overall group consensus was that Perry struggled in the debate as he came under attack from both the right (Bachmann/Paul) and the left (Romney/Huntsman) of the conservative spectrum. It was clear that Perry particularly struggled with defending attacks on his executive order that bypassed the Texas legislature to require all Texas girls to receive the HPV vaccine as well as on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants. Additionally, the group mostly concurred that Romney performed well, again demonstrating that he is the most seasoned top-tier presidential primary candidate in the GOP field. Perry’s continuing momentum may have done Romney a substantial favor because not many political observers (including this author) would have predicted a Romney victory in the Tea Party debate a month ago. As Romney learned in 08-front- runner status isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be, especially in terms of primary debates. Still, despite the barrage of criticisms Perry largely kept himself on message and didn’t respond to the attacks. He also had high moments, such as when his record of overseeing more than 200 executions since being governor of Texas brought cheers from the crowd.

            As for the other candidates, Paul’s “let em’ die” stance on health insurance and controversial comments about 9/11 that were not well received by the audience, were discussed. Gringrich’s focus on Obama rather than on his Republican competitors was led one group member to wonder whether he was trying to set himself up as a potential vice presidential pick, leading another member to quip that “no one would want Newt as their VP.” Bachmann made impassioned attacks on some aspects of Perry’s record as governor of Texas, but it was not clear that the attacks had enough bite to snare back her former supporters from him.

            The meeting closed with a discussion of proposed changes in Electoral College allocations being proposed by some Republicans legislators in Pennsylvania, as well as in MI and WI.  NPR reports that some Republican legislators in PA want to change PA’s winner-take-all allocation system to a district-based system, which would almost certainly result in a split of the state’s ECs between the Republican nominee and Obama. This is certainly within PAs rights and abilities, as the Constitution only provides the framework of the EC system and leaves the details up to the individual states. Two states already have a proportional allocation system-Nebraska and Maine and the Obama 08 campaign famously capitalized on this by focusing in on the Democratic districts in NE, a deep red state from which their strategy successfully eked out 1 EC vote out of the state’s 5 total. Please see both http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012  and http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/  for some interesting commentary regarding this and for insights on how such changes could both help or hinder both party's 2012 campaign efforts. 

Next meeting is this Thursday, September 22^nd at 2:15 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall. Hope to see you there!

8/3/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with a discussion of the debt ceiling fiasco's possible effects on presidential politics-particularly nomination politics. The fact that Romney broke two months of silence on the issue just as the bill was being passed was discussed. Some members thought Romney's statement was a blatant effort (and perhaps too little too late) to court Tea Party supporters by condemning the bill, stating “while I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.” In the last 2 weeks of the showdown-Romney started to take a lot of heat, particularly from the Tea Party for not issuing a statement on his position. This was exasperated by the fact that Michele Bachmann made several statements, including one on Meet the Press several weeks ago, that she would unequivocally be voting against any increase in the debt limit, no matter what. Whether Romney’s rejection of the deal is enough to convince base voters that he is embracing the Tea Party’s fiscal position rather than Establishment Republican’s position which, like that of President Obama and the Democratic members of congress, maintains that failure to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic and must be avoided at all costs.

The rest of meeting was focused on recapping topics discussed over the summer CDG session, of which this meeting was the last. As usual in presidential campaigns, each week focused on new candidates, strategies, issues, and campaign events, which reflects the complex dynamics of our presidential nomination system. Paul will be sending out emails to all group members on the CDG listserv regarding availabilities for the fall semester session (if you are not receiving CDG emails, please email Paul and he will add you). Because orientation week and the first week of classes are so hectic, the meetings will not resume until after the first week of the semester. Hope to see you there when they do!

7-27 Meeting with Special Guest Josh Putnam

This week’s meeting featured a special presentation on the primary schedule by Josh Putnam, creator and author of the FrontloadingHQ blog and former UGA alum. Josh’s talk focused on the current structure of the primary schedule, which is still being defined. Josh is an expert on frontloading by the states (states moving their presidential primaries earlier and earlier in order to gain influence over the presidential nomination) and started the meeting by highlighting this cycle’s curious trend of some states moving their primaries backward rather than forward on the calendar. According to Josh, states are doing this due to a number of factors ranging from cost-cutting efforts to frustration that their earlier contests failed to reach the level of influence anticipated when the move forward was enacted. The 2008 cycle saw 24 states hosting their primary contests on Super Tuesday. So far the 2012 cycle has only 10 states participating in Super Tuesday, a more than 50% reduction.

Despite this broader trend, there are several “rogue” states that appear to be still jockeying to move their contests up, including AZ, MO, WI, MI, CO, FL, and GA. When these states decide to hold their contests will ultimately determine when we will see the IA, NH, NV, and SCs contests held. While far from finalized, if each state listed above indeed decides on their optimal date, we could see the Iowa and NH hosting their contests in middle of December, although this scenario is unlikely. It’s interesting to speculate the affects this might have on participation in these contests, particularly in the Iowa Caucuses, which are time consuming to participate in. Would this decrease the number of caucus goers as many will be too busy preparing for the holidays, or otherwise unwilling or unable to take part in the state’s famed presidential politics during a month traditionally reserved for family and holiday cheer? Or would it allow people normally locked out of the caucus process due to its high commitment structure to participate? Regardless, the idea of the Iowa caucuses and combative presidential politics during a month normally devoted to spiked eggnog and college football bowl games definitely has a Grinch-like feel.

The crux of Josh’s presentation is that the presidential primary schedule is still in flux and is likely to remain so to some degree even past the party’s deadline of October 1^st. Please visit Josh’s site, frontloading.blogspot.com for more in-depth analysis on these topics and to stay apprised of developments on the calendar.

The meeting then turned to a discussion on how various schedules might affect candidate strategies with Josh and several group members opining that any elongated contest is likely to benefit front runner and money leader Mitt Romney. Particularly in the Republican Party contests, the first 2 contests have traditionally winnowed the field to a few candidates and the presumptive nominee emerging at the conclusion of the Super Tuesday races. But as mentioned several times in earlier posts on this blog, this year’s candidate field and ideological divisions in the Republican Party between Establishment Republicans and Tea Party Republicans looks likely to produce different winners in IA and NH, perhaps again in NV and SC, and there could be two viable candidates still competing for the nomination after Super Tuesday. This would result in the unorthodox situation of the late February and March contests being determinative. There is no doubt that state party leaders in the remaining “rogue” states are considering this possibility as they contemplate moving their primaries up. It was the general opinion of the group that Romney is currently the only candidate positioned to have the funds and organization needed to wage multi-state battles into March. However, the winnowing of the field would likely help the Tea Party’s preferred candidate by streamlining donations that are currently being dispersed amongst several candidates and may allow a candidate like Michele Bachmann to continue to effectively compete.

Hope to see you at next week’s meeting on Wednesday, August 3^rd at 3:00 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall, which will be the last meeting of the group’s summer session. The day and time of the fall meetings will be determined soon so please be sure to let Paul know your availability for the fall as it becomes known.

7/20/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with the announcement that Josh Putnam, creator and blogger of Frontloading Headquarters (FHQ) will be attending next week’s meeting. Josh is a nationally renowned expert on the presidential primary schedule and may grace the group with a short presentation on this cycle’s changes to the primary schedule. Whether or not Josh gives a formal presentation, this will be a great meeting to attend as Josh’s insights on the “rule of the game” and on the Republican nomination will no doubt be instructive and informative. Details regarding his visit will be released as soon as possible.

The meeting opened with a discussion of whether Perry’s Tea Party credentials and support have thus far been overstated both in the media and within our group discussions. An Associated Press article published on the morning of the meeting discusses how Tea Party groups from Texas and early primary state New Hampshire “are collaborating to criticize Perry’s record on immigration, public health and spending, and his former affiliation with the Democratic Party” in the hopes of derailing his potential bid for the Republican Party nomination. Tea Party members behind the effort are quoted as saying that his record as Governor Texas does not match Perry’s conservative rhetoric and accuse him of being too moderate and a former Tea Party challenger to Perry in his last reelection bid accused the governor of talking like a Tea Party candidate but not governing like one. The article reveals that Perry’s Tea Party support may not be strong enough for him to siphon off Bachmann supporters should he enter the race and contradicts some members (including the author’s) contentions that Perry may be the double threat candidate the GOP field sorely needs.

The discussion again turned to why Perry is waiting to throw his hat into the ring. No other information has been released regarding Americans for Perry efforts to cajole the governor to enter the race or whether Perry has been successful in his efforts to be added to the Ames Straw Poll ballot despite missing the deadline in June. Some in the group opine that Perry will hold off on any announcement until after the debt ceiling deadline of August 2^nd in order to avoid having to address the issue. Many Tea Party supporters as well as Tea Party congressional members do not support raising the debt ceiling under any circumstance. This could put Perry into an untenable situation where he is forced to take a position that may alienate the Tea Party, further complicating the issues raised above.

Additionally, the latest generic poll results were discussed which show that Obama is slightly down in the generic poll (a Republican candidate) but beats each of the Republican candidates when they are listed individually by name. The discussion then turned to the Ames Straw Poll. The group feels that anything below 3^rd place for Pawlenty would likely result in his pulling out of the contest and that anyone finishing below Gringrich will likewise be forced to withdraw. As of today, the race for a first place finish between Romney and Bachmann is heated, with Bachmann showing a slight edge in the latest poll released last week.

Finally the meeting closed with a discussion of the attention being lavished on Mark Bachmann’s clinical psychology practice, which offers controversial gay-straight conversion counseling, a practice which is not approved or endorsed by the APA. The discussion was focused on whether or not it has the potential to turn into a mainstream problem or if it will be relegated to the blogosphere and late night comedy. Regardless, the controversy is a result of Bachmann’s newly minted front-runner status in Iowa, which is the catalyst between Pawlenty’s attack on Bachmann’s record in congress and migraine-gate. Both of these issues are sure to be discussed this Wednesday-hope to see you there! (Wed. at 3:30 in room 302 Baldwin Hall)

7/13/11 Meeting

The meeting kicked off with a lively discussion of the latest Republican presidential primary polls and was buffered by the best meeting attendance since we were graced with James Campbell’s visit in March. In the latest poll of likely Iowa caucus voters by The Iowa Republican, Michele Bachmann surpassed Romney and is now officially the front-runner with 25% to Romney’s 21%. However, Romney maintains his front-runner status in the latest Quinnipiac national poll, with 25% to Bachmann’s 13%. When Sarah Palin is included in the poll, Bachmann beats her by 2% and the other unofficial candidate, Rick Perry comes in at 10%.

Rick Perry’s relatively strong showing (for an unannounced candidate) led to another discussion of the possibility of his entering the race. The fact that Perry has not made any real movements toward hiring staff leads several group members to conclude that he is not seriously considering running. This led to a discussion of the Ames Straw Poll, which will be held in August. As Perry missed the deadline to participate in the poll, his name will not appear on the ballot and he will not be setting up a booth. This leads several in the group to conclude that he will not throw his hat into the ring. If he is planning on running, skipping Ames is a curious decision for a candidate expected to do well in Iowa.

The group also discussed the 2^nd quarter fundraising numbers, which were released on Tuesday. President Obama demonstrated his continued fundraising prowess, raising $86 million in the 1^st and 2^nd quarters of 2012. His 2^nd quarter total of $47 million for his own reelection campaign far exceeds the $35 million dollars that his potential Republican opponents raised combined. Additionally, the report claims that 98% of the donations came from contributions under $250 and that 260,000 new donors contributed.

As expected, Romney led the pack reporting $18 million. The other “establishment” candidates, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman, reported $4.5 million and $4.1 million respectively. However it is not clear how much of Huntsman’s campaign donations were self-financed. The other candidates’ reports ranged from Santorum’s weak showing of $582,000, to Bachmann’s respectable $3.5 million raised from 88,000 donors. Clearly, Romney is best positioned in the money race heading into the 3^rd quarter, which will see several debates including a debate in Iowa and one hosted by Senator Jim Demint. However, it is likely that all of the candidates are wearily eyeing the President’s impressive totals. Although not mentioned in the meeting, Rudy Giuliani stated that he is still considering entering the race and is making 3 appearances in New Hampshire this weekend. He says that he is analyzing the field and will make a decision by the end of the summer. As for whether these latest statements will be enough to see his name re-added to the polls remains to be seen.

The remainder of the meeting focused on the debt ceiling debacle and the hesitation of the Republican presidential candidates to offer positions and/or statements on the debate. Although Bachmann stated unequivocally on her Meet the Press interview that she would not vote to raise the debt ceiling, the other candidates have been mostly silent on the issue. The fact that Romney is the front-runner and is likely approaching his candidacy with a “do no harm” mentality was offered as a reason that he has not weighed in. Some in the group thought his refusal to comment and take a principled stand on the issue may hurt him with the very part of the party he most needs to court.

Although we have resisted the urge for the past couple of weeks, the group entered into a lively debate about the debt ceiling and the competing positions of the Republican and Democrats. Like in Washington, no agreement was reached.

Hope to see you there next week! (Wednesday, July 20^th at 3:00pm in room 302 Baldwin Hall).

7/6/11

The meeting opened up pretty much where it left off last week: discussing a potential Rick Perry run and the implications his presence in the race might have on the other candidates, particularly Michele Bachmann. One group member brought up Perry's uncanny resemblance to George W., which he claims goes far beyond the fact that both are socially conservative Republican governors from Texas. Based on a Perry interview, he opined that Rick Perry bares such a striking physical and vocal resemblance to Bush that potential voters will be hard pressed not to associate the two. He pointed out that the Obama camp's strategy of casting McCain as a Bush prototype in the 2008 election was successful despite the considerable ideological and policy differences between Bush and McCain. With Perry, the Obama campaign may have a far easier time convincing voters that a vote for Perry is a vote for a 3rd Bush term.

Another group member countered that this would not necessarily be a bad thing for Perry in the primary, as Bush supporters remained steadfast in their approval of the President even while his approval ratings tanked with every other demographic group. This led to a discussion about a Perry campaign strategy: would he run as Bush the President or Bush the candidate? Bush the candidate ran formidable campaigns in both 2000 and 2004. Despite the controversy surrounding the closeness of the 2000 election, the fact remains that Bush out-campaigned Al Gore, who had the advantages of incumbency in an Administration that had overseen and economy on fire and had turned a 4 trillion dollar deficit into a surplus. In fact, most forecasting models predicted a resounding Gore victory. Should Perry display the same campaign savvy as Bush, he may appeal to strategic Establishment Republicans who have thus far been supporting Romney, albeit halfheartedly. Perry would more than satisfy the Republican base and would safeguard against any Tea Party insurgency that a Romney nomination may trigger. Thus, some in the group consider him to be a formidable contender should he run.

But, some in the group question whether Perry has the political acumen in order to run a base-pleasing primary campaign that remains capable of transitioning into a moderate general election platform. One member stated that she had recently watched footage of Perry in an interview where he seemed to be moderating his message and laying groundwork for distinguishing his policy positions from Bush. This is as good of a sign as any regarding whether or not he is planning on entering the race, as no announcement regarding plans to make any type of announcement have yet emerged from Perry.

One factor that Perry is likely considering as he contemplates entering the race is a recent poll in Texas that indicates Perry is not well-regarded in the Long Horn state, which is consistent with comments from one group member who opined that Perry may not be as formidable a candidate as some in the group (including the author of this blog) anticipate.The poll (which can be found at http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/11242/ppp-polls-texas-lukewarm-on-perry-bid) finds that Obama is beating Perry by 2% points (47/45) in Texas (although 8% are undecided). This is not what one would expect to see, even in a hypothetical contest in solidly Red Texas-which no longer has a single statewide office filled by a Democrat and went solidly for McCain in 2008. The same poll also finds that 59% of Texans think that Perry should not run.

Finally, the question of whether or not Perry has truly taken steps to set up a campaign apparatus remains unanswered. Despite reports in June that Perry hired some of Gingrich's former staff in Georgia after their exodus from his campaign, there has been no other reporting regarding Perry hiring staffers. However, Americans for Rick Perry, a group that is trying to convince Perry to run, has hired Gringrich’s Iowa campaign director Craig Schoenfeld. Despite rumors that Perry would announce in June or early July, no announcement has be made leading some in the group to speculate that Perry will announce the week of the Iowa Straw Poll (37 days from today) in order to go into the Poll with momentum (assuming he announces at all).

So, that's what you missed at this week's meeting. Hope to see you next Wednesday at 3:00 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall.

6/28/11 Meeting

The meeting opened up with a discussion of Michele Bachmann's somewhat surprisingly strong showing in a recent poll of likely Iowa caucus participants, which has her in a statistical tie with establishment candidate and front-runner Mitt Romney. Some in the group opined that Bachmann might peak too early in the contest while others thought that she will hold steady, at least in Iowa. Of course, this could be contingent on Palin and Rick Perry, current governor of Texas not running. A poll was taken of the CDG group asking participants to indicate whether or not Palin will run. The majority of the group feels that Palin will not enter the race and instead choose to play the role of "kingmaker." We also discussed the issue that despite sharing a fair amount of issue positions and Tea Party support, Bachmann and Palin are mostly lumped together by the media because they are women. Regardless of the fairness of this, most of the group agrees that the race cannot support two female contenders and that Palin's lack of announcement has allowed Bachmann to fill the role quite successfully. In short, if Palin intended to run before, she may now be less likely because of Bachmann's strength in Iowa right now. Her hesitation may have proved to be her undoing. Additionally, Bachmann enjoys the highest favorably ratings of the entire GOP field, a fact that Palin, whose own approval ratings are quite low, is likely considering as she weighs her decision.

The discussion then turned to whether Rick Perry will enter the race. Some in the group think a Perry entrance will be problematic for Bachmann as he will capture some of her Tea Party support as well as for Romney because Perry, like Romney, has substantial executive experience as a 3-term governor of Texas and strong economic credentials. In short, Perry may be able to do what no one in the current GOP field has done: bridge the gap between Establishment Republicans and Tea Party Republicans. Others feel that Perry won't pass the "scratch and sniff" test with Establishment Republicans, moderate Republicans, and Independents because of his history of using inflammatory rhetoric including veiled threats of a Texas succession. In short, several in the group agree that Bachmann may be poised to win Iowa if Palin and Perry stay out of the race.

The group also discussed the possible outcomes of the first three primaries (Iowa, NH, SC) and the distinct possibility that no one candidate in the current field looks good to take all 3 races. Will it be a Bachmann win in Iowa, followed by a Romney win in New Hampshire? If so, and the GOP field is whittled down to 3 (say Bachmann, Romney, and Huntsman) what will South Carolina voters do? The newest addition to our group, Allison, opined that South Carolina GOP voters might strategically abandon their tendency to vote for a strong, outspoken social conservative in order to best reach the broader Republican goal of making Obama a one-term President. However, these same voters are some of the most likely Republican voters to take umbrage with Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts such as RomneyCare and his previous pro-choice position on abortion. Because of the likelihood that two separate candidates will take Iowa, NH, and SC, most of the group believes its likely that the race will come down to Super Tuesday, which offers a relatively balanced mix of GOP strongholds and Blue States, as well as the swing state of Missouri. Who might emerge with the majority of delegates from the Super Tuesday states will no doubt become a focal point of discussion as the primary season progresses and the candidate field solidifies.

Interestingly, the group was polled about what may happen should Romney win the nomination. The question polled was, “If Romney wins the nomination, will the Tea Party mount a 3^rd Party candidacy for the general election?” A strong majority of the group voted yes, based on numerous factors such as the Tea Party’s efforts to run ideologically appropriate candidates against GOP Establishment candidates in the 2010 midterms. A discussion of the fact that identity politics, long the nemesis of the Democrats, seems to be plaguing the Republicans ensued but was cut short as we ran out of time. This, and a discussion of Time Magazine’s 2012 Presidential Primary Bracketology (and it’s similarity to the group’s ideological graph of the candidates) are on the agenda for next week. Hope to see you there! (3:00pm Wednesday, July 6th room 302 Baldwin Hall).

5/25/11

The last two weeks have been a flurry of activity. Gingrich and Pawlenty both formally announced their campaigns, while Trump, Daniels and most notably, Huckabee officially bowed out. We spent some time discussing who is most likely to pick up Huckabee's substantial share of voters, with most group members opining that Pawlenty will benefit unless Palin or Bachmann decide to throw their hat into the ring.

We also spent some time discussing Gingrich's rocky start, a bi-product of his controversial statements on Meet the Press where he came close to endorsing a federal mandate for health insurance and called the Ryan budget "right-wing social engineering." Some in the group argued that Gringrich still has plenty of time to recover (and the backpedaling began immediately) but also believe that these will only be the first of many verbal missteps from the gaffe-prone Gingrich.

One thing that became clear from the backfire is that support of the Ryan budget will likely be a litmus test for the party's conservative base. The last week has been filled with soundbites of other Republican nomination hopefuls tactfully trying to endorse the Ryan budget while still leaving themselves the wiggle room needed to triangulate with the general election audience, with whom the Ryan budget's proposed medicare changes polls very poorly.

This led the group to spend some time discussing the apparent division in the party between establishment members and party strategists, and the party purists and Tea Party contingent. Despite playing it cool for the press, the outcome of Tuesday's New York 26 congressional race no doubt has the attention of party leaders and Republican presidential nomination candidates as many pundits speculate that Republican candidate Jane Corwin's endorsement of the Ryan budget played a key role in Democrat Kathy Hochul's upset victory in a district that hasn't gone Democrat in over 40 years. Of course, if the majority of the 9% of votes that went to Tea Party candidate Jack Davis went instead to Corwin, she probably would have still pulled out a win. Some discussion of the Tea Party and their influence in both the presidential elections as well as the 2012 congressional elections ensued.

The meeting wrapped up with some discussion about historical campaigns and how it came to be that the Republican Party is dealing with the intra-party divisions that used to plaque the Democrats. The 2008 nomination campaign failed to produce a nominee that fired up the both the base and attracted independent voters. Of course, the extreme unpopularity of Bush and the Iraq war, as well as an economy spiraling out of control made it a tough contest for any Republican to win. Thus far, the field of declared candidates and potential candidates has failed to produce a Republican that seems suited to accomplish this goal in 2012 leaving some in the group to wonder why. Additionally, the emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 seems more likely to exacerbate these issues than to resolve them. The meeting closed with a discussion of the possibility that some of the GOP's strongest candidates are waiting for 2016 and an open contest rather than taking on the formidable Obama campaign machine.

4/15/11-5/6/11

The last couple of weeks have centered on mapping potential candidates on a 2 dimensional social and fiscal conservatism space. Thanks to Jaeyun's efforts, a graph was presented at the meeting and was the focal point of discussion. The data for the graph are derived from a poll of Republican strategists who were asked to rank their top 5 choices, with Romney and Pawlenty garnering the most votes. Some worried that it may be prudent to use polling results instead, because the data produce a graph that seems to distort the size of Romney's lead. However, there aren't any current polls that list all of the potential candidates so using that method would mean leaving candidates such as Huntsman and Bachmann out. So the graph is a work in progress, but provides a useful visual aid for understanding how the candidates compare ideologically.

The size and location of each candidate's circle is determined by the number of votes they received in the straw poll, and by how group members perceive their ideological placement on both fiscal and social conservatism. The graph shows Romney and Huckabee alone on the two left quadrants because both candidates are more moderate than their counterparts on fiscal policy and Romney is alone as the only moderate on social and fiscal issues. That the rest of the candidates are clustered together in the right hand side quadrants led several in the group to comment that they may be well-positioned because the clustered candidates will largely be fighting over the same voters.

The conversation then turned to the death of Bin Laden, which some group members see as a major coupe for the President that can be useful in his reelection campaign, provided the Democrats are strategic and develop smart ads that remind voters of it. If nothing else, Obama's success neutralizes any "soft on terrorism" attack ads the GOP may have otherwise run and goes a long way towards buffering up both his foreign policy credentials, and the way the public views him as Commander and Chief. Others feel that Afghanistan still poses a major problem for Obama.

The group will not be meeting next week, but will resume the following week at the regular time and place (3:00pm Friday Baldwin 326). Now that the semester is finished we hope that attendance will grow. See you there!

4/8/11 Meeting

As the semester winds down a CDG "core constituency" has been bravely keeping the conversation going. Without any declared Republican candidacies to focus on, the group has continued to discuss potential candidates, how they would match up against Obama, and how their individual presence in the race will affect the other potential candidates. The 4/1/11 meeting opened with a discussion of Romney, who is widely considered to be undeclared in name only. Because of his 2008 run, Romney enjoys name recognition, which is the main driver behind his 1st place ranking in most polls. But it is uncertain how Tea Party Republicans would view Romney, who is widely seen as a more moderate Republican. If the economy is still the central issue, Tea Partiers may more readily look beyond his support of the ObamaCare-like health insurance mandate he supported and implemented in Massachusetts when he was the governor there. But Romney also faces issues with Republican social conservatives because he is a Mormon. Would the specter of a 2nd Obama term be enough to unite the traditional Republican base and the Tea Party behind a candidate that most experts believe would be a viable candidate in the general election, or will the recent movement towards ideological purism drive the nomination battle?

The meeting on Friday opened up with some brief comments about economic voting inspired by a handout from group member Del on unemployment rates and one and two-term presidents. The handout also included a summary of poll results from 5 polls including Gallup and Pew. This led to a discussion of Donald Trumps strong second place showing in NH that made headlines last week and how this is likely being driven by Trump's name recognition from his considerable celebrity. The author volunteered that Trump's recent surge in support might be driven by his shameless pandering to the "birther movement" leading the group to offer various opinions as the whether his conviction that "the evidence is still out" is sincere or not. He is, after all, sending investigators to Hawaii.

The conversation then turned to the 1996 nomination battle between Lamar Alexander and Bob Dole that may (or may not) have turned out differently if the process had taken longer (inspired by an article passed on to the group by Paul). This led to more talk about the invisible primary and the role that name recognition plays in the pre-primary polls. Jaeyun reminded the group that at this point in the 2008 Republican primary, Guilani was leading most of the polls and the little known governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was polling in Iowa at about 1%. He then went on to win the state. This led to more talk about Michele Bachmann and her relatively strong showing of 5% (average).

The meeting wrapped up with a conversation about the (then) impending midnight deadline for a budget deal and how a shutdown would affect both Obama and the Republicans. Del offered that this is a defining moment of the Obama Presidency and that the President would need to demonstrate Clintonesque qualities in order to come out ahead in public opinion. The group was mixed as to who, Obama or the Republicans had the tougher line to walk here-but nearly all agreed that there would be a political price to pay should a deal not be struck. And that’s what you missed!

3/5/11 Meeting

The meeting opened with comments from the group's director, Dr. Paul Gurian regarding the uncertainty plaguing the 2012 potential pool of candidates and their relative ideological homogeneity compared to the 2008 Republican candidates. Gurian pointed out that the candidates were considerably more ideologically diverse, even on important issues like immigration. He also commented on the lack of a clear frontrunner as is evidenced by pre-announcement polling. He pointed out that in 2007, Giuliani was the clear frontrunner. Although some consider that status to belong to Romney right now-this is by no means the consensus opinion and seems to be contingent on whether other relatively moderate candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and (although it is a long shot) Jeb Bush or Chris Christie throw their hats into the ring.

The discussion then turned to possible scenarios should candidates widely considered to be likely to enter the 2012 nomination fray indeed run. Romney could take Iowa if the field is mostly composed of social conservatives who will be forced to split the vote. Again, Romney's ability to capture Iowa could be severely compromised should a Pawlenty or Daniels enter the race because neither candidate carries the baggage of RomneyCare-Romney's health insurance reform that passed when he was the governor of Massachusetts which closely resembles the eventual reform package passed by the Democrats in 2010.

This led to a discussion regarding the importance of South Carolina in the Republican primary because of the state's open primary system-which allows independents to vote in either party's primary. With the Republican nomination highly likely to be the only game in town, it is likely that South Carolina's primary will attract a high number of independent voters. Should there be a "tie" coming out of Iowa, with a social conservative carrying that state and a fiscal conservative carrying New Hampshire, South Carolina may well be the decisive in determining the nominee. Should this happen, the state's open primary system should bring rumors of attempts by Democrats to sabotage the primary by encouraging left-leaning independents to cast their vote for the socially conservative candidate in the hopes that the Republican will be forced to give the nomination to a candidate far to the right of the median voter, similar to the rumors that were circulated in the 2008 campaign during Texas' primary between Obama and Clinton.

The group discussed the possibility of the Republicans switching from their current winner-take-all delegate appropriation system to the proportional system used by the Democrats. Should a proportional system be adopted (although most of us agree it is not likely, at least for the 2012 cycle) then the importance of South Carolina would be decreased. This led Jaeyun Sung to comment that a proportional system for the Republicans may make it more likely for them to experience a long, and perhaps more importantly, divisive primary more similar to 2008 than to 2004 or 2000.

Finally, the group responded to the open question of what issues (other than the economy) are likely to be hot for the 2012 cycle. Immigration reform (in the wake of the Arizona's controversial immigration bill, versions of which are now being considered in 11 Republican dominated state legislatures) and if Mitt Romney is in the field-RomneyCare. Should Huckabee or another social conservative prove to be viable, social issues such as the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, as well as the usual issues like traditional marriage, gun control, and abortion will likely be important. Inevitably, this led to a discussion of the Tea Party's influence and how their presence will affect the nomination process-which is largely composed of partisans. Gurian cautioned against the dangers of party division and opined that the Republican Party will need to find a way to keep the party together going into the general election-a proposition easier said than done.

James Cambell Visit: 2/25/11 Meeting

The discussion group was fortunate to have James Campbell, coauthor of The American Campaign and one of the nation's most experienced presidential election forecasters, stop by and share some insights on the 2012 cycle. Dr. Campbell was visiting UGA to give a talk on his current research, "The Economic Records of the Presidents: Party Differences and Inherited Economic Conditions” which reanalyzes (and in his words, debunks) Larry Bartels' highly acclaimed book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

When asked to predict whether any of the candidates widely considered to be likely contenders for the Republican nomination (Romney, Huckabee, Barber, Gingrich, Palin, Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, and now Romer) Campbell predicted an Obama victory but cautioned that changes in the electoral environment, particularly in Obama's approval ratings, are likely between now and 2012. Campbell said that every President who had a 45% approval rating or higher in the final months before the election has won reelection-so that approval rating is something to watch closely as the campaign season progresses.

Campbell also spent some of the meeting discussing the performance of forecasting models in the 2008 election. On average, the forecasting models for '08 were fairly accurate, especially considering that the forecasts are made months before the election (how many months varies with each forecaster) and do not account for campaign effects such as debates performances, gaffes, and of course in the case of 2008, an economic meltdown the likes of which had not been seen in this country since the Great Depression. For those of you unfamiliar with presidential forecasting models, it's important to point out that because of a very small N size (for 2012 models it will be N=17) forecasting models are constructed to be as parsimonious (simple) as possible. Thus, campaign events like those described above, as well as factors such as fundraising are not taken into account in the predictions.

Campbell also discussed why his model incorrectly predicted a 4% margin of victory for McCain. He argued that despite gaffes such as McCain’s ill-fated trip to Washington and temporary campaign suspension, the true reason McCain’s numbers dropped so precipitously in the last two months of the election was because his approval was tied to President Bush’s, whose own approval ratings plummeted from the low 40s to the mid-20s as he lost support from his base because of the economic crises. Thus, despite being an open seat contest focused on the Iraq War initially, 2008 became a classic retrospective election where the party in power was held responsible for poor economic performance.