Poll

This is the Table for the next Post

Candidate	Def. FOR	Def. AGAINST	Net
Obama	33%	33%	Even
Giuliani	29%	34%	-5
Thompson	19%	29%	-10
Edwards	26%	37%	-11
McCain	23%	35%	-12
Romney	17%	33%	-16
Clinton	30%	48%	-18
Richardson	10%	28%	-18
Biden	9%	38%	-29
Gingrich	20%	49%	-29

Which Canidate Do You Hate the Least?

We begin with this poll by Rasmussen Reports.
Survey of 800 Likely Voters

April 9-12, 2008
This poll shows a couple of things. The first is that people like Obama. Well more that he has few people who don't don't like him than you're average politician. In part this is because he is being treated lightly by both the american electorate and the media, and in part because his newness to the political sceen and his apeals to general platitudes of inspirational leadership and post partisan politics without an appeal to specifics.

The second thing is that for those people who think that Gingrich will ride to the conservative base's rescue (including me in my previous post) it is important to realize that he is even more polarizing than Hillary! If you are going to figure out who is going to be the republican canidate you have to get to the bottom of a simple question: How afraid are republicans that they are going to lose? Because if at the end of the day republicans look at the candidates and think I'm voting for the electable one Gingrich is out and Rudy is in.

But I still doubt that it will play out that way. Maybe in a state like Iowa where the politicos are the only ones that go to the caucuses Rudy will win, but in states with primaries the base is going to turn to someone that they trust a little better. I mean if all you do is watch Fox, and listen to Limbaugh I don't think you get the sense that conservative power is waning, and consequently won't be willing to hold thier nose and vote for the candiate that has the best chance of winning.



Moving on the the Democratic debate, I watched most of it streemed on MSNBC's

I Demand Data

Why is it that I don't feel the sense of urgency about this new election cycle that I did 4 years ago? Possibly, it can be fully accounted for by changes in my perspective and outlook, but I have the sense that I'm not alone in feeling this way.

It's true that GWB is out for good, but almost everyone who believes he's been a terrible president also believes he is ultimately a figurehead for a huge array of coporate and military interests, right-wing and neoconservative strategists, and Christian-o-fascists.

If so, and given the dramatic and unequivocally terrifying effects of this administration and its backers, why would it seem comforting to think that "at least Bush won't be president?" Isn't the lesson that the apparatus that put (and kept) Bush in office is extremely powerful and effective?

Also, it's not like we're (in any way I can think of) better off now than in 2004. Has any single problem been solved since then? I don't have to list the new ones that have come into existence or been exacerbated.

So then why no urgency? Well, one reason is provided in the previous post: you really don't see a strong candidate who bears any resemblance to Bush and his brand of Republican partisan. But again, this flies in the face of everything we've learned over the last 7 years. Has the machine really fallen apart? Has Rove really lost his touch? Have the Christian extremists really become bored with national politics?

Something doesn't add up. The solution, at leat on this blog, and because David needs something to do, is data!

We need to make some careful comparisons between now and 4 years ago to decide if we're really seeing something different here.

I demand the following data:

1) Bush's polling numbers from this period (i.e. 18 months before the 2004 election)

2) Economic indicators for present and 4 years ago. Are we putatively "healthy" now and therefore uninterested?

3) Polling data on voter concerns and pressing issues then and now. Same thing as (2), but with regard to jobs, healthcare, "war on terror," "security"...

4) Volume of speculative activity at this point in the election cycle 4 years ago, compared with now. That is, is my sense right that there's a lower level of interest this time around? This may be tough, because I assume Intrade was fledgling, if in existence at all at that point, so the numbers will have to be normalized by total volume of trades or something.

Rudy Takes His First Beating





In my last post I exhorted people (including myself) to rethink Guiliani's chances. I've thought about it: Still No.

Rudy would be a strong candidate for president, his image as a "get things done mayor" + "you know I'll take it to the terrorists" would be difficult to beat. However, first he's got to get the republican nomination and as the market shows he's hit his first big bump. Since around April 1st 07, the probability of Rudy getting the nomination dropped 10% down to 30%. In case you missed it here is what happened:

Basically people said "hey Rudy remember how you once said you supported federal funding for abortions? Do you still feel that way?" To which he responded, "Yes." He added the rather lame proviso, "I won't advocate for it."

So lets get this straight. Rudy wants to raise taxes to have bureaucrats in Washington DC pay people to have abortions. Umm... I have a feeling that "Focus on the Family" is not going to support that policy.

The worst part for Rudy is that this is likely to be repeated, as his liberal social views sequentially butt heads with a segment of the republican base they offend. And you know every other campaign out there is digging up dirt on Guiliani ("Hey Rudy remeber how you marriage is a right for people of all sexual orientations? How do you feel about it today?"...) with plans to inject them into the news cycle at the most politically damaging time.

Will it matter? I mean if these political storms all anger the same group of voters, who had stopped supporting him long ago, maybe it won't. The "no abortion" voters are the same as the "no gays" voters (which is much smaller subset of the "no gay marriage" voters), but gun voters are quite a different coalition "you ain't telling me what to do!" types.

Plus even if you are pissing off the same segment of voters that matters, because once the conservative base decides to demonise someone, they can take it to such an extreme level it can be truly devastating. It is one thing to not like someone it is another to think someone is a dangerous threat. If Evangelical Christians turn vehemently against him, other Republicans might start to not trust him just by osmosis.

Look, if the Democratic primary was all locked up then the independents might flock to Guiliani as they did to McCain 8 years ago. But I think this demographic is going to be much more split especially with the "I will unify" rhetoric of Obama.

But there is one last caveat which must be said. There is right now no logical conservative alternative, and don't be an idiot and bring up Fred Thomson. (Though he is also a major reason for Rudy's decline, "Fred Thomson" is is a placeholder, like they added a "none of the above" to a polling question. To me he is a joke to me until he proves 1) he is interested in having his life turned upside down 2) that he can weather a major political storm 3) people are interested in Fred Thomson the person rather than "Fred Thomson" the idea, which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.) As the clock ticks you increasingly have to consider the possible that no conservative alternative emerges. In which case the only question that remains is can Guiliani beat McCain and Romney? The answer is of course Yes.

So here is the bottom line. It is still a long time between now and Iowa. Lets get all these guys on one big stage and see what happens. I'm not sure why Huckabee is so overlooked, and more importantly, you can bet if this is the way the field looks in 5 months or so Gingrich will get in. So that's it. Look for Rudy to go down. Target around 20% or so. Buy Gingrich or a real wildcard like Tommy Thomson.

Easter Egg Time

Alright in addition to Intrade we will also be highlighting Rasmussen Reports polling data. They do traditional political polling but they throw in a healthy amount of random questions. For instance a lead story story today is Easter Poll: 76% Believe Jesus Rose From the Dead .

I remember as a kid thinking they must have crucified him a second time after he rose from the dead. Pilate: "What he's back? He wants more eh? Well thats what he'll get!... And get a bigger boulder for that cave!"

My analysis for this post is to say I think the whole "America is a bunch of Religious zealots" storyline has been over-emphasized over the past 6 years. In part it is reasonable because they have been the core base for the Republican victories, but it beyond this there seems to be a general zeitgeist that evangelical Christians are poised to dominate the American agenda for a generation (watch jesus camp).

However the numbers tell a less dramatic story: self identifying evangelical Christians are only 20% of the population which is only around twice as many atheists. I like the breakdown of religiosity in the article as a good way to understand American religiosity without hyperventilating: 1/3 attend a religious service weekly 1/3 rarely or never and 1/3 are in between. I mean 25% aren't sure about the most central storyline of Christianity.

All I'm saying is that for those who would say there is no way Giuliani gets the republican nomination (including your's truly) should reanalyze the political landscape just to make sure -- not every wining coalition is the "Bush coalition."

What's $25 Million Gonna Get You?

So Obama is almost as good as Hillary, or even in some ways better (i.e. twice as many donors).
I think the +4 to 33% sounds about right for this turn of events though, as my friends know, I'm bullish on Obama.

What I wonder is how much wiggle room there is in reporting these numbers (for example counting the donation in the quarter when the "Ranger" collects it or, in the quarter when its turned over to the campaign) because if they had a choice the Obama camp made the right decision by coming in short of Hillary in fund raising. (no facts here; just speculation. You report, I decide).

Think of it this way: Lets assume that Obama eventually wins the nomination, at what point would it be optimal to jump ahead in the polls? Certainly not this early. On one hand if he is the front runner then he will be looked to for leadership i.e. "...Bush just vetoed the `Surge Splurge' because it set a timetable for withdrawal what's the Democratic response... Obama?... Hey Obama, it got vetoed again I said what's the answer!... Obama!"

He will have much less room to run as the anti-washington/idealism guy if he is a key washington deal-maker or even worse a key washington deadlock-maker. On the other hand lets say Washington doesn't collapse over budget impasses and gets some things done like immigration reform, and Obama is at the center of it, his biggest weakness, namely his inexperience, becomes less of a liability.

So here is my answer. The odds are people hate each other in Washington; a lot. A good bet is that not a lot gets done. So if Obama gets front runner status early, a lot of the shine comes off as gridlock ensues. Optimally for the Obama camp they should work the "up and comming" angle as long as possible -- ideally even through the end of the year. Its strategically smart for the reasons I just gave, and simply works better with the overall motif of the campaign. There will be plenty of time to work the `I can Command' angle after the nomination race is over.

Will it break this way? Look, a lot of Hillary's support comes from two places:
1) people who like Bill a lot and think she's fine
2) Democratic party establishment who are afraid not to support her and think she'd be a fine president anyway.
In other words a whole lot of hollow support. Its just a question of how long it takes the passion of the people in the Obama camp to undermine the inertia of Hillary, and even if it is strong enough to overcome it. I mean Kerry beat Dean remember?

Alright enough with the slapdash analysis, on to the unjustifiably specific predictions. Obama is in the lead in polls by the early fall -- he's ahead at intrade by summer; people start to lose a little faith as he is recast as "front runner" while politics looks like its falling apart since the number of vetos, shall we say, rises dramatically. (Number of Bush vetos: the next Intrade market? You heard it here first!) Obama falls back but still manages to win the nomination.

You know how I know? Imagine yourself in a voting both, no one else is there. You look down at the ballot -- the name "Barack Obama" stares right back at you. I think the average democratic primary voter finds that possibility too exciting to pass up - even after a long campaign.

Watch this space

Will Gonzales resign today watch this space

No Tragedy Goes Unanalysed

I will give an introduction to this blog in a later post. However, lets go straight to the markets. Politics can be a cold and unfeeling place, and today is a good example of that. In today's news it was revealed that Elizabeth Edwards (wife of John Edwards) cancer is back and has advanced to Stage IV. For their family, that has endured much tragedy in the past, this is difficult news and I wish her all the best. But in politics, no development, no matter how personal, can occur without strategic implications.


Intrade markets moves Edwards' odds of getting the nomination down 2.5% to 6.8%. This is probably because they think that he with either pull out (which they have denied) or it will hurt his campaign. The real difference is that he has young children, thus if Elizabeth's condition worsens or if John becomes a single parent he is in the position of having to devote more energy to his kids, and less to the campaign. Without young children if Bill developed cancer this would probably help Hillary. Americans love to vote for the "widowed wife" and Hillary would become much more likable and harder to attack. However, the simple fact remains its hard not to see Edwards pulling out to be there for his kids if things get bad for his family.

So Edwards is down who is up? Both Obama +2.1% and Gore +1.8% are up, with smaller positives for Hillary and Richardson. Gore makes sense but I'm not sure I understand Obama benefiting the most. I don't see Obama really courting the Unions the way Edwards has, he works the outsider angle to hard, and I think Gore is much more in line with Edwards 'concern with the average man's struggles in a globalizing economy. Further, if Edwards is out this only increases the chances the Gore gets in.

To close on a contrary note though you have to admit that the Edwards seem to thrive in adversity. Elizabeth will have access to the finest doctors in the country. There is still the chance that in the end this will only add to the Edwards' back-story. (As I said there is a political analysis for even tragedy). I mean if they or he makes it though this, and remains strong, passionate about their vision, sure the voters will wonder about who is going to be there for the kids (just need an 1st uncle or aunt in the white house to cover this angle though), and come on who wouldn't be rooting for this guy a little more?

My Analysis: -2.5% probably about right. Don't get crazy with the selling though because as I noted this could boomerang. I think Gore should have been helped most by this, and then everyone else equally. Everyone should be thinking: " where is Labor going to turn?"