Category Archives: Presidential campaign

Even More Presidential Candidates Emerge

Almost everyday now, a new individual is mentioned as someone considering a potential run for president in 2016. The latest to be attracting some attention are two big state Republican governors both named Rick. Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Michigan state chief executive Rick Snyder are reportedly floating national trial balloons, testing whether they might be viable GOP presidential candidates next year.

Though both are clearly considered long shot candidates at best, they do have several key obvious positives. First, they are governors, which has historically been the best office from which to successfully run for the White House. Second, if either were to capture the nomination, their home states should give them a key boost on the general election map, particularly in Gov. Scott’s case because a Republican realistically cannot win a presidential election without carrying Florida. Third, both have a fundraising base that could quickly reach national proportions.

But, both Scott and Snyder also possess clear negatives. Though they won re-election to a second term last month in their respective competitive states, neither did so impressively. Florida being the quintessential swing domain always yields a close race, but Scott’s 48-47 percent victory margin, virtually identical to his 49-48 percent win four years ago over then-Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D), should have been stronger against an opponent Continue reading >

More Midwest Maneuverings

Indiana

Gov. Mike Pence (R), whose name appears from time to time on the ever-growing list of Republicans considering a presidential run, appears to be drawing at least one name opponent for the 2016 Indiana statewide race. The Hoosier State is one of 11 entities to hold their gubernatorial vote in the presidential election year, thus putting a potential crimp into any plan the governor may have about entering the national campaign.

Most believe Pence will seek re-election to a second term, especially since political heavyweights Evan Bayh, the Democratic former governor and senator, and former gubernatorial nominee John Gregg have both said they will not run for governor in 2016.

But, former US Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN-9) is making moves to suggest that he will enter the contest. Hill is leaving his DC lobbying firm and moving back to Indiana and reportedly is setting a financial budget as to what he will require to launch and conduct a competitive campaign.

Hill served 10 non-consecutive years in the House, and belongs to a small group of members who have twice lost their seats as incumbents. Hill was originally elected to the House in 1998, and fell to businessman Mike Sodrel (R) in the Bush re-election year of 2004. Undaunted, he ran once more two years later and re-claimed the seat in the 2006 Democratic landslide. But, in the Republican wave of 2010, Rep. Hill once Continue reading >

Potential Presidential Candidates Decide on Next Steps

Two informal pronouncements were made yesterday from potential presidential candidates, with a rather odd statement coming from a third. The first two comments came from a pair of US senators who surprisingly indicated that they plan to seek another term in their current political position.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) informed potential national supporters that he has decided not to run for president and will instead seek re-election to the Senate seat he won in 2010. Before returning to Congress, Portman served as President George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget after a short stint as the administration’s US trade representative. Before that, Portman was elected to six terms in the House of Representatives.

In a state just to the south of Portman’s Ohio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul appears intent on running for two political jobs: his current Senate position, and for president. Paul has a serious problem in trying to do both, however, as Kentucky election law does not allow an individual to appear on the ballot for more than one office.

The bid for Republicans to gain control of the Kentucky state House of Representatives failed, thus ending any chance of changing the state election law to allow candidates to simultaneously seek two offices.

Without having the ability to alter the election statute, another potential way exists Continue reading >

State Primary Dance Already Underway

As the calendar turns to 2015, we immediately usher in a new year of political jockeying. Come January, we will be reading many stories describing how political party leaders are attempting to move their state into a prime nomination position for the upcoming presidential campaign. With an open national race upon us for the first time in eight years, and on the threshold of what could become the most exciting political contest in generations, the schedule of primaries and caucuses become of tantamount importance.

With several exceptions, Republicans and Democrats generally have the same respective nominating schedule as it relates to voters participating in primaries or caucus events. Though the dates are not yet finalized, a projected schedule can be constructed. Most of the political musical chairs tend to occur on the Republican side because GOP leaders in states like Florida have a history of jumping ahead from their historical primary position into a more prominent spot.

From a big state, the Floridians gain significant leverage if they hold their primary just before what is normally pegged as “Super Tuesday”, the large gathering of mostly southern state primaries held on the same day in early March of the election year. But, Republican National Committees have previously punished state delegations for threatening the early positioning of the four sanctioned states. In fact, Florida itself has been stripped of its entire slate of delegates Continue reading >

“First” Presidential Primary Poll Yields Interesting Numbers

Though election results rarely resemble survey research data that is conducted more than a year in advance, early polling still provides benchmarks from which to begin analyzing a particular future campaign; in this case a presidential contest that promises to be, perhaps, the most wide open, interesting, and exciting political forum of the modern era.

As we stated many times during the immediate past pre-election coverage, 2016 campaign activity begins right after the mid-term voting concludes. Consistent with that axiom, the Purple Insights organization – the survey research arm of the Purple Strategies consulting firm – conducted a “first in the nation” presidential primary poll for Bloomberg Politics and St. Anselm’s College (NH). The survey was commissioned during the Nov. 12-18 period, interviewing 989 New Hampshire general election voters, including 407 previous Republican primary voters and 404 past Democratic primary voters.

Purple Insights tested 18 different political figures, 17 of whom have been linked to the upcoming presidential race. The only person not in the national category is New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), who will stand for re-election in the next cycle. She scored a strong 47:27 percent favorability ratio, and a 28:42 percent positive to negative score among Democratic primary voters. The latter rating is actually quite Continue reading >

Christie, Clinton Up in New Presidential Poll

CNN released the results of their latest 2016 presidential poll (ORC International; Nov. 18-20; 843 adults; 595 landline respondents; 248 via cellphone) during the Thanksgiving break, but their methodology leaves much to be desired, hence the conclusions are unreliable.

As we know, contemporary polls conducted on a national basis for a series of nomination elections that will occur more than two years into the future are merely for news consumption and have little real political value. Furthermore, polling “adults” as opposed to registered or likely voters yields even less reliability.

That being said, the data gives both New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton (D) clear leads for their respective party nominations.

According to CNN/ORC, Christie leads the GOP field of potential candidates with 24 percent support from the poll respondents. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is second with 13 percent; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1), the 2012 Continue reading >

Camp Says No in Michigan; Brown for President?

Michigan

House Ways & Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-MI-4), after flirting with running for his state’s open Senate seat, again says that he will remain in his current position so he can continue leading his committee’s tax relief efforts.

Back in March, when veteran US Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) announced that he would not seek a seventh term next year, Camp immediately declined to run statewide. Last month, however, the congressman appeared to come full circle by publicly indicating that he was reconsidering his previous decision to remain in the House.

His move gave national and local Republicans reason to begin upgrading their chances to defeat Detroit Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI-14), who already appears to be the Democrats’ consensus candidate. Virtually all political analysts gave Camp higher marks as a Michigan Senate candidate than ex-Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (R), partly due to his ability to amass funds as Ways & Means Committee chairman.

Now, Camp has yet again re-reconsidered his position and invokes his initial decision to forgo a statewide run. He again said, over the weekend, that he wants to remain in his current position to concentrate on tax relief legislation. The northern Michigan representative will continue to chair the committee until the end of this current Congress. Under party rules, his allotted service will then end.

The Republicans need six seats to wrest Senate control away from the Democrats, and the open Michigan contest is an important one if they are to achieve such a goal.

Today, it appears highly likely that GOP candidates will capture open Democratic seats in West Virginia, South Dakota, and Montana, leaving them with three more conversion victories to obtain, assuming the three aforementioned states do come through. Realistically, even with Michigan included as a target, there are only six more seats where competition is likely to occur, assuming the GOP holds their own potentially vulnerable positions in Georgia and Kentucky. A lesser Michigan Republican challenge obviously reduces their chances of gaining the majority.

Brown in Iowa
Continue reading >

Hillary Flies High on a Low-Flying Poll

A new Public Policy Polling national survey (Jan. 3-6; 1,100 registered voters; 400 Democratic and 536 regular Republican primary participants) projects Hillary Clinton to be in the strongest position of all potential 2016 presidential candidates from either party, but the poll has methodological flaws.

According to the data, Clinton would easily capture the Democratic nomination, scoring a 57-16 percent margin over Vice President Joe Biden. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren notched 4 percent, followed by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley at 3 percent, while Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner tallied 2 percent apiece.

The poll then paired only Clinton against a myriad of Republican potential candidates such as former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Clinton beats them all in hypothetical individual ballot test match-ups, but early results such as these are inconsequential and particularly so in this poll. Of the aforementioned, Christie fares best coming within two points of Clinton, behind 42-44 percent. All of the others trail her in double-digits.
Continue reading >

Pennsylvania Electoral Votes

Pennsylvania state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) is at it again. In the last legislative session, Pileggi introduced legislation to apportion Pennsylvania’s electoral votes as opposed to continuing the winner-take-all system. Maine and Nebraska already split their small number of electoral votes, hence there is precedence for a state deciding to divide its presidential EV allotment.

In the period prior to the 2012 presidential election, Pennsylvania was viewed to be a battleground entity and the state bifurcating its votes would have undoubtedly helped the Republican nominee. The Pileggi bill would have awarded two votes to the presidential candidate winning the statewide vote and one apiece for each of the 18 Pennsylvania congressional districts.

Sen. Pileggi was unable to pass his bill because the state’s marginal district Republican congressmen were opposed to the concept. They believed the presidential campaigns targeting their specific districts for individual electoral votes would potentially make their own road to re-election more difficult. They convinced enough of their state legislative colleagues to derail the effort.

Now Pileggi has a different approach. His new bill will still award two votes for the presidential candidate winning the statewide vote, but then apportion the remaining 18 EVs based upon popular vote percentage for the candidates on the statewide ballot. Since Pennsylvania is a Democratic state, but a close one (in 2012 President Obama carried PA 52-47 percent, for example), the winning candidate (Obama) would have received the two at-large votes plus another 10 based upon winning 52 percent of the popular vote instead of 20 under winner-take-all. Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have received eight votes. The PA vote totals would more than likely split this way – the winner receiving 12, the loser eight – in virtually every election.

It remains to be seen if the senator can gather enough support among Republicans — Democrats will not support the idea because it will weaken their nominee — in both houses of the legislature in order to send the bill to Gov. Tom Corbett (R). But, one major obstacle — Republican congressional opposition — has ostensibly been eliminated under this new approach.

Unexpected Voter Turnout Patterns

We wish you the best for the happiest of Thanksgiving holidays. The PRIsm Political Updates will return Monday, Nov. 26.

The official state participation and candidate preference statistics are being released throughout the nation, and many of the numbers are quite surprising. While turnout was down nationally, it was up in most of the battleground states and, despite Pres. Barack Obama’s victory, it may be erroneous to assume that the turnout pattern completely favored him.

While it is clear the president obviously benefited from the voting preferences of the aggregate group of people who cast ballots during the election process, it is interesting to note that he was only able to return 91.5 percent of the total vote he received in 2008. In contrast, losing national Republican nominee Mitt Romney retained 99.4 percent of John McCain’s 2008 vote. Obviously Romney needed to do better than to simply equal McCain’s vote, but it is significant that Obama’s share of the vote declined by almost a full 10 percent from what he obtained four years ago, especially when understanding that the Obama campaign clearly had the superior grassroots organization.

Nationally, and rather astonishingly from what was widely forecast before the election, overall voter turnout was down six million votes from the number cast in 2008, or a fall-off of 4.7 percent. It appears that virtually all of the drop-off came from the Obama coalition, as the president’s vote receded by almost that same amount as did the national turnout (voter participation reduction: 6,148,768 individuals; Obama drop: 5,917,631 votes).

The four core states also recorded interesting turnout patterns. Of the quartet of places that Romney needed to convert if he were to unseat the president, it was North Carolina — the only state in this group that he did carry — that had the highest participation rate increase from 2008. North Carolina voter turnout was up 4.5 percent in comparison to their aggregate number of voters from four years ago. Virginia and Florida, two of the three core states that remained with the president, also saw increased participation. Virginia was up 3.5 percent; Florida 1.0 percent.

Ohio, often believed to be the most important state in the presidential contest because it was viewed to be a national bellwether, surprisingly recorded a lower turnout this year than during the previous Obama victory campaign. Ohio turnout was down a rather substantial 5.9 percent, or greater than 336,000 participants from 2008.

Of those seven states commonly viewed to be in the secondary target group — at least one of which Romney would have had to have carried to be successful, more if he failed to carry all of the core states — four saw increased participation, and three declined. The states producing a greater number of voters were in the Midwest (Wisconsin, up 2.4 percent; Iowa, increasing 1.9 percent) and West (fast-growing Nevada adding 4.5 percent; Colorado, up 3.1 percent).

The three eastern and Mid-Atlantic states all recorded a smaller voter participation rate. Pennsylvania, always considered a swing state and a place that attracts a great deal of campaign attention, saw its voter turnout rate fall 6.1 percent; Michigan, the only state in the Union that actually lost population in the preceding decade, dropped 5.7 percent; and New Hampshire returned almost the same number of voters, coming in just 5,091 ballots under their 2008 total.

It appears the biggest voter drop-off occurred in some of the nation’s largest states, those that are most Democratic and among the president’s strongest places. His home state of Illinois, for example, saw more than 431,000, or 7.8 percent, fewer people vote this year than when compared to their favorite son’s first election in 2008. New York had the largest drop-off, a stunning 19.8 percent below its participation level of four years ago. California, the nation’s largest state, was off 12.5 percent. But, lower turnout rates were not confined only to the large Democratic states. Texas, the biggest and most loyal Republican entity, also saw a reduction in turnout. Over 112,000 fewer voters went to the polls in 2012 when compared to 2008.

More analysis will be completed when additional data is available, but these statewide turnout numbers may have produced more questions about the nation’s voting patterns than answers.