Those who have been reading Smart Politics during the past two months should not have been surprised that Hillary Clinton both won the Indiana primary on Tuesday night and also decided to continue her campaign the next day, despite strong pressure by the media, pundits, and some Democratic politicians for her to drop out of the race.

On the near horizon, Clinton can expect two more wins in the states of West Virginia (next week) and Kentucky (on March 20th). Oregon will also hold its primary on March 20th, but, although Obama is projected to win that state, it should be a fairly close race – without any significant effect on the delegate or popular vote counts.

Even Clinton supporters will acknowledge the Senator from New York will not win the pledged delegate count. If she is to make inroads with superdelegates in the coming weeks, she not only needs to string together many more victories to help define her campaign in the media as the one with the momentum, but, equally important, she also needs to close the gap in Obama’s popular vote lead amassed so far in the 2008 campaign.

Obama currently leads Clinton by approximately 415,000 votes – that total includes votes cast in Florida, but not Michigan (which did not have Obama’s name on the ballot). It also does not include vote totals in the Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington caucuses (states in which official numbers have not been released).

Clinton is hoping for big turnouts in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she is currently leading Obama in the polls by about 30 points.

Smart Politics estimates that Clinton can make a significant dent in Obama’s popular vote lead in the next two weeks - perhaps reducing it almost in half. Here is the math:

• Smart Politics calculated the 2004 general election presidential vote total of neighboring states in the West Viriginia/Kentucky region (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina). This amounted to about 21.8 million votes.

• The number of votes case in the 2008 Democratic primaries in these states totaled approximately 8.8 million.

• Thus, in the region, people are coming out to vote in the Democratic primaries at a rate of about 40 percent of the general election turnout in those states in 2004.

• Assuming this 40 percent stays true to form in West Virginia and Kentucky (though the turnout might be higher because of the high profile the states will receive in the coming days), approximately 302,000 will come out to vote for the Democrats in West Virginia, and 718,000 in Kentucky.

• Obama will likely close the gap a bit in these states, so let’s say Clinton only rolls by 20 points in each state, not 30 points. Clinton would then pick up about 144,000 votes in Kentucky and about 60,000 votes in West Virginia.

• That would reduce Obama’s lead in the popular vote by nearly half, from 415,000 to just 211,000.

Clinton is not likely to pass Obama in the popular vote total, but the more she can make the numbers looks “about even," the more she can point to momentum as the key factor in her attempt to sway superdelegates to her side.

Her other mathematical weapon is the Electoral College vote total: Clinton has now won states that have 278 Electoral College votes, compared to just 217 for Obama (Clinton’s total, again, includes Florida, but not Michigan).

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

6:30 p.m. MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN all project Barack Obama will win the Tar Heel State. Obama has now carried 27 states, plus the Texas caucus, District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam. Obama narrowly won Guam last Saturday.

6:40 p.m. New polls were released today in Kentucky, which will hold its primary in two weeks, by Rasmussen and SurveyUSA. Rasmussen's poll of 800 likely voters has Clinton up 56 to 31 percent. SurveyUSA's poll of 595 likely voters has Clinton up 62 to 28 percent.

6:42 p.m. MSNBC is calling Obama's victory in North Carolina "decisive."

7:09 p.m. (5% reporting)
Obama = 65%
Clinton = 34%

7:20 p.m. (9% reporting)
Obama = 64%
Clinton = 34%

Obama has been waiting for good news like he received tonight in North Carolina for weeks. At last the junior Senator from Illinois can bask in some positive media coverage and stand on equal footing again with Clinton, or perhaps even put her on the defensive, pending the margin of victory tonight.

7:30 p.m. (13% reporting)
Obama = 64%
Clinton = 34%

7:44 p.m. (17% reporting)
Obama = 62%
Clinton = 36%

8:05 p.m. (25% reporting)
Obama = 60%
Clinton = 38%

Obama's lead is beginning to decline, as votes come in outside of Obama country (e.g. Durham, Wake, and Guilford Counties). Will Clinton lose by less than 10 points?

8:08 p.m. (28% reporting)
Obama = 59%
Clinton = 39%

8:30 p.m. (46% reporting)
Obama = 57%
Clinton = 41%

8:51 p.m. (59% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:05 p.m. (69% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:30 p.m. (80% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

9:49 p.m. (87% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

12:10 a.m. (99% reporting)
Obama = 56%
Clinton = 42%

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

6:00 p.m. (4% reporting)
Clinton = 59%
Obama = 41%

MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN are stating the race is "too early to call."

6:05 p.m. (5% reporting)
Clinton = 59%
Obama = 41%

6:12 p.m. (8% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

6:19 p.m. A Clinton win in Indiana, and a strong showing in North Carolina, will certainly keep her in the race for the nomination. North Carolina is one of the last states that Obama is favored to win. Clinton will win big in West Virginia next Tuesday and will win by a very large margin in Kentucky on May 20th. The next opportunity for the Clinton train to lose momentum will be in Oregon on May 20th.

6:22 p.m. (12% reporting)
Clinton = 58%
Obama = 42%

6:27 p.m. (16% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:33 p.m. (18% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:38 p.m. (21% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

6:43 p.m. (25% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

With a quarter of the vote counted in Indiana, Clinton is maintaining a double-digit lead. Only one pollster, SurveyUSA had Clinton winning the Hoosier State by double digits.

6:54 p.m. (32% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

7:00 p.m. (35% reporting)
Clinton = 57%
Obama = 43%

7:10 p.m. (39% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

7:18 p.m. (42% reporting)
Clinton = 56%
Obama = 44%

7:23 p.m. CBS News has just called Indiana for Hillary Clinton. If that holds, Indiana will be the 16th state carried by Clinton, plus Florida, Michigan (where Obama's name was not on the ballot), and American Samoa.

7:28 p.m. (50% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

7:33 p.m. Britt Hume of Fox News just stated that although they cannot call Indiana yet, Clinton "probably has won."

7:35 p.m. (52% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

7:43 p.m. (56% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:00 p.m. (65% reporting)
Clinton = 53%
Obama = 47%

8:12 p.m. MSNBC now classifies Indiana as "too close to call." None of the cable networks have followed CBS and called the state for Clinton.

8:14 p.m. In Obama's victory speech in North Carolina, he states it "appears" Clinton has won Indiana.

8:31 p.m. (73% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

8:52 p.m. (78% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

9:03 p.m. (81% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

As the percentage point advantage of counted votes declines for Obama in North Carolina and Clinton in Indiana, only the Hoosier State is in doubt. Should Obama win North Carolina by less than double digits, that will be lost in the media focus (and rightfully so) on what appears to be a very close race in Indiana.

9:43 p.m. During the first ten minutes of her speech, Clinton referred to the price of gas three times - a not so subtle reference to the difference between her and Obama; Clinton and John McCain support 'gas tax relief,' while Obama sees it as political pandering.

9:50 p.m. Clinton has peppered her speech with several references equating herself with Obama - that they are both fighting for change, that they are each winning states. Clinton is clearly trying to paint a picture that the race for the nominee is also 'equal' - thus legitimating her staying in the race through June 3rd.

12:10 a.m. (99% reporting)
Clinton = 51%
Obama = 49%

Clinton is declared the 'apparent winner' of the Indiana primary by NBC News.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 05:57 PM | Permalink

Three more polls of likely voters in North Carolina and two of likely voters in Indiana were released today. In North Carolina, Barack Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton continues to be measured from very large to very small:

Zogby: Obama 51, Clinton 37
American Research Group: Obama 50, Clinton 42
Insider Advantage: Obama 47, Clinton 43

Zogby is the only pollster to have shown the race to be in the double-digits for Obama during the past week. ARG has gradually shown a slight deterioration in Obama’s lead from 13 points in late March, to 11 points in mid-April, to 10 points ten days ago, to 9 points last Thursday, to 8 points through this past weekend. If Obama continues to receive 90 percent of the projected black vote in North Carolina, he should carry the state.

In Indiana, Clinton has been leading in all polls in recent days, with the exception of the final Zogby tracking poll:

Zogby: Obama 45, Clinton 43
American Research Group: 53, Obama 45

Smart Politics will blog live Tuesday night as the primary results from both states come in. In addition to real-time reporting of results and media watchdog commentary, Smart Politics will examine the impact of the results on the upcoming primary contests. Live blogging will commence at 6 p.m. CST when polls close in Indiana.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance press release:

"The 2008 contests for the Republican and Democratic Party presidential nominations have been a boon for American democracy. The intense competition for nomination combined with investments in mobilizing voters for primaries and caucuses has fuelled an historic surge in voter registration compared to its level during the 2004 nomination contests. A study of official voter registration records by the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute reveals the following:

Record voter registration was produced in 43 out of the 44 states for which there are official data during comparable periods in 2004 and 2008.

North Carolina registration in April 2008 is 14 percent higher than in the comparable period in 2004 and Indiana is up 20 percent. The unusually wide-open competition for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations has fuelled this remarkable jump in voter participation.

About a quarter of the new voter registration records were set in purple states, perhaps altering the electoral landscape in these states since 2004.

Although Democrats fear that the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may weaken their Party’s chances in November by alienating some voters, it may also have helped by increasing voter registration. Seventeen of the 43 states set records during primaries or caucuses that were held after Super Tuesday when the Republican contest largely came to an end. These voters may be a new and important pool of voters for Democratic candidates to recruit in November, offsetting perhaps voters that they lose because of lingering ill will."

The study was conducted by Lawrence R. Jacobs (Director, Center for the Study of Politics and Governance) and by Melanie Burns (Research Analyst). A full copy of the study can be found at: www.politicsandgovernance.org/reports/2008/The_Big_Mobilization.pdf

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One-term Republican incumbent Senator Norm Coleman continues to keep lead DFL challenger Al Franken at bay, according to the latest poll of 615 registered (not likely) voters by SurveyUSA.

The poll, conducted April 30 – May 1, gives Coleman a 52 to 42 percent advantage, well outside the survey’s margin of error. Coleman also led Franken by 10 points in SurveyUSA’s March poll, 51 to 41 percent. Coleman has never trailed Franken in the six polls SurveyUSA has released dating back 15 months to February 2007.

The new poll also has Coleman up by a 55 to 36 percent margin over DFL hopeful Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and 53 to 35 percent over DFL-er Darryl Stanton.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A new poll by Insider Advantage finds Hillary Clinton has climbed ahead of Barack Obama among likely voters in North Carolina. The survey, conducted April 29th of 571 likely voters, gives Clinton a statistically insignificant 44 to 42 percent lead.

Whether or not Clinton is actually ahead in North Carolina is unclear; what is clear is the upward trajectory of her campaign in the Tar Heel State (and the downward trajectory of Obama’s). Two weeks prior, an Insider Advantage Poll found Obama up 51 to 36 percent over the junior Senator from New York. The last three public surveys of North Carolinians have found Clinton within single digits of Obama or, in Insider Advantage’s poll, in the lead.

Clinton had not been atop the polls in North Carolina since December 2007, when John Edwards was still in the race splitting the “anti-Clinton vote” with Obama. Since then, Obama had led in 17 consecutive surveys by non-partisan organizations. Another poll released today of 400 likely voters, by Mason-Dixon, still shows Obama up by 7 points.

Insider Advantage’s track record has been pretty good of late this primary season. In its final Texas poll, Insider Advantage had Clinton winning by 5 points; Clinton won by 4 points. Its final poll in Pennsylvania showed Clinton winning by 7 points; Clinton won by 9.3 points.

Despite her recent primary victories, Clinton's momentum is being dampened, however, as undecided superdelegates appear to be peeling off in equal or greater number to Obama in recent days.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As Barack Obama continues to labor under the cloud of controversy stirred up by his longtime friend, pastor, and ostensibly mentor Jeremiah Wright, the consequence of Wright’s recent high profile speaking engagements will no doubt result in an abandonment of some voters, many of whom will be white, from Obama’s camp to either John McCain’s or Hillary Clinton’s.

The pace and scope of this desertion is not yet clear, and even one on a fairly large scale would almost certainly not be enough for Clinton to emerge with the most pledged delegates after the last primaries in early June.

In a brand new poll conducted by SurveyUSA from April 26-29 of likely voters in North Carolina, Obama finds his once double-digit lead over Clinton reduced to 5 points – 49 to 44 percent. The headline from that poll was stated thusly:

“White voters are key. Since January, Clinton had led among Carolina whites by 14, 19, 17, 22 and 23 points. But today, suddenly: 31.”

If Clinton manages to perform above expectations and make North Carolina a nail-biter, expect the left-leaning media and pundits to level the race charge against white America, perhaps tempered with the qualifier that whites “do not understand black (churches)” or that there was a “racial component” to the vote.

And perhaps that’s true.

But let’s look at the numbers: Obama has regularly been receiving 40 (Ohio) to 45 (Texas) percent of the white vote in states that he has lost. Clinton, meanwhile, has struggled to receive 15 percent of the black vote in states that she has won. The question for the pundits: where was the outcry when blacks abandoned Clinton in favor of Obama? Remember, Clinton received 88 percent of the black vote in her 2006 re-election victory for Senator of New York.

In short, even on his worst day in the midst of this controversy, Obama is going to receive two to three times the proportion of Democratic white voters as Clinton will receive from blacks. So if and when Obama supporters play the race card during the coming weeks, know that this card could just have easily been played by the Clinton campaign – and with more justification – many months ago.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During the heat of the Republican nomination battle, GOP candidates were criticized by many pundits and pro-immigration advocates for inflaming the public fear of illegal immigration as well as for artificially pushing the policy issue on the front burner of their campaigns. To some extent, illegal immigration became a prominent issue for the GOP – even spilling over into the Democratic debates – because of the presence of firebrand Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo in the GOP race.

Immigration consistently polled as a top-tier issue during that span, frequently polling as the second or third most important issue behind the War in Iraq and the economy.

But with John McCain’s nomination all but sealed up since mid-February, the immigration issue appears to have faded from the national scene. The question remains: do the folks still care about immigration, or was it a Republican politician-driven issue?

In the Upper Midwest, illegal immigration continues to resonate as a strong concern, and new polling numbers by SurveyUSA still show the issue polling in third place behind the economy and the war in Iraq in both Wisconsin and Iowa.

In polling conducted April 11-13 of 600 adults, 11 percent of Iowans believe immigration is the most important issue facing the next president, ahead of perennial media favorites like health care (9 percent), terrorism (9 percent), the environment (5 percent), education (4 percent), and Social Security (3 percent). The economy (36 percent) and Iraq (19 percent) ranked as the most important issues.

In Wisconsin, the economy (39 percent) and Iraq (14 percent) also ranked at the top, with immigration (10 percent) tied with health care for third place. Terrorism (8 percent), the environment (5 percent), education (5 percent), and Social Security (4 percent) trailed behind.

Whether or not immigration policy will have a place at the table in the general election debates is unclear – McCain has stated he has “heard the people” and is now in favor of sealing the border first (and, essentially, abandoning his amnesty plan that angered the Republican base and independents in 2006). That position is much more hardline than anything that has been proposed by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, so a debate on the topic would prove interesting, presuming McCain does not backtrack from the position he carved out during the nomination phase, now that his ticket is stamped for the GOP convention.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin enjoys a huge lead in his bid for a fifth consecutive term as junior Senator from the Hawkeye State, according to a new poll released this weekend by KCCI-TV / Research 2000.

The survey of 600 likely voters gave Harkin leads of between 29 and 39 points against three potential GOP nominees – none of which are particularly well known statewide:

• Harkin 57 percent, former State Representative George Eichorn 28 percent
• Harkin 58 percent, businessman Steve Rathje 23 percent
• Harkin 59 percent, businessman Christopher Reed 20 percent

Harkin was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, winning by 11.8 points over Roger W. Jespen. Unlike his colleague, Iowa Senior Senator Republican Charles Grassley, Harkin has not enjoyed particularly comfortable re-election campaigns to date: winning by 9.1 points in 1990 (over Thomas J. Tauke), by 5.1 points in 1996 (over Jim Lightfoot), and 10.4 points in 2002 (over Greg Ganske). Grassley, by contrast has won his four re-election campaigns by 32.4 points, 42.4 points, 37.9 points, and 42.3 points in 2004.

Grassley also enjoys favorability ratings in the mid-60s, making him one of the most popular Senators across the country, while Harkin’s rating usually lingers in the mid-50s. The new KCCI-TV poll finds Harkin with a 53 percent favorability rating.

The Iowa Senate race should tighten to within at least 15 to 20 points after the GOP selects their nominee.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Wednesday, Smart Politics broke down the race for the Democratic nomination utilizing the math of the Electoral College vote (to date, Hillary Clinton has won states with 267 Electoral College votes, including Florida, compared to just 202 for Barack Obama).

Obviously, and by no means, did that entry imply that such a method was a predictor of a general election matchup between John McCain and Clinton or McCain and Obama. Nor did it even mean to suggest that Clinton would perform better than Obama in the key battleground states she has won in the battle for the nomination.

However, Smart Politics does stand by its stance that it would behoove the Clinton campaign to utilize this scoring method as a way to further the general point it is trying to make in the media that the New York Senator is, in fact, winning the big battleground states that Democrats will have to win in November to take back the White House.

But it must first be established that the general argument being made by the Clinton campaign is specious – and it is. There are several reasons why it could very well be the case that Obama is better suited to win some of the battleground states that Clinton has carried throughout the Democratic primary contests.

For one, Obama has largely outperformed Clinton among both independents and Republicans. In matchup polls with McCain, Obama is generally drawing about 5 percentage points more than Clinton among both Republican and non-affiliated voters (though there are several exceptions, especially in GOP-leaning border states).

Secondly, the reason Clinton has been winning some of these battleground and Republican-leaning primary states is because these contests were closed to only registered Democratic voters. Such states include Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Arizona. Clinton was also helped to rack up victories in solid Democratic states like Connecticut, New York, California, and Rhode Island because they were closed or semi-closed primaries – preventing a chunk of Obama supporters from participating in the process.

That said, the Clinton campaign could easily blur these points by pointing to the larger argument that she is nonetheless winning the battleground states with bigger Electoral College votes.

Clinton has won 10 true battleground or Republican-leaning states that are crucial puzzle pieces to a Democratic victory in November: Florida (27 Electoral College votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), New Jersey (15), Tennessee (11), Arizona (10), Arkansas (5), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4). These states total 124 Electoral College votes.

Obama has won 8 battleground or Republican-leaning states, but with much smaller prizes – totaling just 80 Electoral College votes: Virginia (13), Washington (11), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Louisiana (9), and Iowa (7).

Whether or not Clinton is actually performing better than Obama in these battleground states in head-to-head matchups with McCain is not the issue for the Clinton media campaign, but this query will be analyzed in an upcoming entry here at Smart Politics.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Republican incumbent Senator Norm Coleman continues to lead likely DFL challenger Al Franken in the latest survey of 500 likely voters by Rasmussen. The survey, conducted April 22nd, gives Coleman a 50 to 43 percent lead, up from 48 to 46 percent a month ago.

Though Coleman’s lead is very fragile for an incumbent, he continues to show promise in retaining his seat with his relatively high favorability numbers – currently at 55 percent. Coleman’s favorability rating has ranged between 51 and 56 percent in six Rasmussen surveys conducted during the past 13 months.

Franken’s unfavorability numbers have also remained relatively static during that span, holding between 45 and 48 percent in five of these six surveys. These are Hillary Clinton-esque unfavorability numbers – there appear to be roughly half of Minnesotans who just do not like Franken. Minnesotans who are recently forming their opinion of Franken, however, seem to be viewing him favorably. In March 2007, 15 percent of Minnesotans had no opinion of Franken, with just 39 percent holding a favorable view. Now, in April 2008, only 5 percent of Gopher State residents have yet to form an opinion of the satirist, and his favorability rating has climbed to 48 percent (holding steady from a month ago).

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Hillary Clinton’s big (though unsurprising to Smart Politics) double-digit victory in the Keystone State Tuesday night did more than ‘delay the inevitable’ – the ‘inevitable’ being what most pundits say is that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. Clinton accomplished four things with her victory.

First, she cut into Barack Obama’s lead in the pledged delegate count. Not by much (estimates are between 10 and 20 delegates), but her double-digit victory insured the delegate count would not remain static.

Secondly, winning by a double-digit margin will have the effect of decreasing the qualifiers the media uses to describe her victory, such as: “She was originally ahead by 30 points, but only won by 4 points.” Or, “She was expected to win by more because Pennsylvania is one of her home states.” Instead, by winning decisively, Clinton can point to not only her victory, but also Obama’s loss – Obama is estimated to have outspent Clinton by a 3:1 margin in the race for Pennsylvania.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Clinton’s large victory significantly decreased Obama’s lead in the “total vote count” during the 2008 primaries and caucuses.

Now, there are several ways to calculate this vote total. The one employed most frequently by the media showed Obama with an approximately 715,000-vote lead heading into Pennsylvania. Clinton won the Keystone State by nearly 216,000 votes, decreasing Obama’s lead by 30 percent to about 500,000 votes. This vote counting method employed by the media does not, however, include six contests: Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, and Washington.

• It would be unfair to use Michigan’s vote total in the calculation, as Obama’s name was not on the ballot in that primary.
• Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington have not released popular vote totals for their caucus contests, but estimates by Real Clear Politics give Obama a net 110,000 more votes in those states.
• While Florida was penalized by the DNC for holding its primary too early in terms of seated delegates at the upcoming convention, all candidate names were on the ballot, and 1.7 million Floridians cast their votes just the same (with Clinton beating Obama by nearly 300,000 votes).

When Florida’s vote total is added into the mix with that of Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington, Obama’s popular vote lead decreases to approximately 315,000 votes.

If Clinton is going to attract more unpledged superdelegates to her side in the coming weeks, she needs to continue to chip away at Obama’s total vote lead, as it is viewed by the public as the “most Democratic” measure by which to determine which candidate should get the party’s nomination. Perhaps because they were pushing for a revote in Florida for so many weeks, Clinton’s campaign has not done a good job to date of releasing total popular vote numbers with Florida’s votes included.

Fourthly, Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania actually increased her lead over Obama by a measure rarely employed directly by her campaign, or the pundits: using the Electoral College math. Even though this is still the nomination phase of the race to the White House, and even though its detractors do not see the Electoral College as the most democratic process, adding each state’s Electoral College vote total to a candidate’s column is perhaps as democratic as the superdelegate process that will determine the party’s nominee later this year.

To date, Clinton has won states with 267 Electoral College votes, compared to just 202 for Obama. Clinton’s total includes Florida, but does not include Michigan. Having lost the popular vote in the Texas primary to Clinton, Obama’s total does not include any Electoral College votes from his Texas caucus victory.

During the past month and a half, Clinton’s campaign has stumbled in its efforts to give extra weight to her victories in “battleground states” or “states the Democrats will have to win in November.” Therefore, to give an objective ‘weight’ to these states (e.g. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida), the Clinton campaign would be best served by putting out numbers using the Electoral College math.

All in all, Clinton did everything she needed to do Tuesday night. As all eyes turn to North Carolina and Indiana during the next two weeks, the big question will be which campaign does a better job at spinning the media to its advantage in discussing the current state of the race for the nomination, utilizing the math that best helps its candidate.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

7:00 p.m. MSNBC characterizes the race as "too close to call." Fox News calls it "close" and CNN calls it "competitive."

7:10 p.m. It was an interesting, though not surprising, turn by the media during the past few days. The need to make Pennsylvania appear to be as competitive as possible to spur interest in the race (and thus drive ratings) first was characterized as a "Barack Obama surge." But when Hillary Clinton began to pull ahead in some polls by double digits over the weekend, the media moved the yardmarker -- and now the battle was defined by the media as to whether or not Obama could prevent Clinton from winning by 8, 9, or 10-points. You see, without the conflict, without a change in the expectations game, the media fears people will find little reason to stay tuned to their broadcast in what has been a campaign season of unprecedented length.

7:34 p.m. The race is now being characterized as "too early to call" by MSNBC.

8:04 p.m. All three networks have now called Hillary Clinton the winner of the Pennsylvania primary. Clinton has now won 15 states plus American Samoa, plus Michigan and Florida. Obama has won 27 states plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The call by the networks puts, in Smart Politics' eyes, an undramatic bookend to more than a month of this blog calling the state a sure-win for the Clinton campaign.

8:08 p.m. (7% reporting)
Clinton = 52%
Obama = 48%

8:30 p.m. (18% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:37 p.m. (22% reporting)
Clinton = 53%
Obama = 47%

8.40 p.m. Clinton has now won 15 state primaries, including Florida and Michigan; Obama has also won 15, including the District of Columbia. Clinton has won only two caucuses (Nevada and New Mexico) while Obama has won 13 caucuses. There are no caucus contests remaining.

8:47 p.m. (35% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

8:51 p.m. (42% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

9:00 p.m. (47% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

9:12 p.m. (57% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

Clinton's current lead - subject to change as more votes are counted - basically reflects the poll trends captured within the last few days (Zogby +10, InsiderAdvantage +7). Everyone lines up pollsters with a firing squad when they 'get it wrong', but survey organizations rarely get the credit when they 'get it right.'

9:17 p.m. A new poll of likely North Carolina voters was just released tonight by SurveyUSA with Obama leading Clinton 50 to 41 percent. North Carolina and Indiana will hold their primaries in two weeks. Indiana should be Clinton territory, though recent polls by Downs Center and the Los Angeles Times each show Obama with a 5-point advantage. Expect that to change in Clinton's favor after the Pennsylvania victory makes tomorrow's headlines.

9:22 p.m. (66% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

9:30 p.m. (70% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

Clinton's victory speech is serviceable, but delivered in her customary cue card / teleprompter robotic style; a style which is unlikely to lure over new (i.e. young) voters from Obama's side to hers.

9:39 p.m. (76% reporting)
Clinton = 54%
Obama = 46%

11:02 p.m. (96% reporting)
Clinton = 55%
Obama = 45%

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Three more polls of likely Pennsylvania primary voters were released today - each showing Hillary Clinton with a substantial lead:

American Research Group (April 20-21, 600 LV): Clinton 56%, Obama 40%
Zogby (April 20-21, 675 LV): Clinton 51%, Obama 41%
InsiderAdvantage (April 21, 712 LV): Clinton 49%, Obama 42%

Smart Politics will blog live Tuesday night as the Pennsylvania primary results come in. In addition to real-time reporting of results and media watchdog commentary, Smart Politics will examine the impact of the results on the upcoming primary contests.

Live blogging will commence at 7 p.m. CST when polls close.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 02:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Despite a lot of noise in the media during the last few weeks about Barack Obama’s surging campaign in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton appears on top in all five polls released during the past 24 hours – including by double digits in two of them. Clinton has not trailed Obama in any of the 58 surveys conducted in Pennsylvania by nonpartisan organizations dating back 15 months.

Smart Politics has consistently stated during the weeks since the Texas and Ohio primaries that Clinton would win Pennsylvania and warned its readership not to buy into the media’s tendency to make the race look closer than it really is in the Keystone State. That prediction is based as much on an analysis of the political culture and demographics of the state, as a cursory glance at public opinion surveys (all of which point to a Clinton victory).

In the latest batch of polls, Clinton is seen increasing her lead in the daily Zogby tracking poll (now up six points) and scoring double-digit advantages in surveys conducted by Suffolk and American Research Group:

American Research Group (April 17-19, 600 LV): Clinton 54, Obama 41
Suffolk (April 19-20, 600 LV): Clinton 52, Obama 42
Quinnipiac (April 18-20, 1,027 LV): Clinton 51, Obama 44
Zogby (April 19-20, 602 LV): Clinton 48, Obama 42
Mason-Dixon (April 17-18, 625 LV): Clinton 48, Obama 43

Smart Politics will blog live during the results of the primary on Tuesday evening, discussing the political impact of the returns as well as analyzing the media coverage of the important event.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 07:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance press release:

Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right

E.J. Dionne, Jr., columnist, Washington Post, and senior fellow, Brookings Institution

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Noon - 1:15pm
Humphrey Forum
Hubert H. Humphrey Center
301 19th Ave S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455

In his new book, E.J. Dionne, Jr. explores the changing dynamic between politics and religion. Mr. Dionne argues that the political power of the Religious Right is fading as Americans reclaim their faith from partisan and ideological purposes and find common ground with Americans across the political spectrum on issues such as social justice, peace, and the environment. E.J. Dionne, Jr. will discuss his new book with Professor Larry Jacobs.

This presentation is free and open to the public; registration is not required. Books will be available for purchase.

For directions and parking: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/about/contact/parking.html

For more information and disability accommodation, please contact the Center for the Study of Politics & Governance, 612.625.2530

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 07:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hillary Clinton is facing one sure roadblock on her way to a clean sweep through the South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3rd. That state is North Carolina, where Clinton has trailed Barack Obama by double digits in six of nine nonpartisan polls conducted since her wins in Ohio and Texas.

Clinton is expected (at least, by Smart Politics) to post big wins in Pennsylvania (April 22nd), Indiana (May 6th), West Virginia (May 13th), and, of interest to this entry, Kentucky (May 20th).

While Kentucky is located a tad northwest of North Carolina, these southern states offer a simple, but persuasive explanation as to why Clinton will trounce Obama in the former, but is struggling to get within single digits in the latter. While the data below from the U.S. Census is not broken down by partisanship, it is evident which state generally caters to each candidate’s base of support.

To begin with, Kentucky is a more rural state, a positive demographic for Clinton (in primaries, not caucuses). In the Bluegrass State there are 101.7 persons per square mile, compared to 165.2 in North Carolina.

Obama performs particularly strong among the wealthier (Democratic) populations. Kentucky, however, is a poorer state with a median household income of nearly $4,000 less ($37,046) than in North Carolina ($40,863). The percentage of residents who live below the poverty level is also notably higher in Kentucky (16.3 percent) than in North Carolina (13.8 percent).

Obama also performs very well among more educated populations, and the percentage of residents who have earned a high school diploma is 4 points higher in North Carolina (78.1 percent) than in Kentucky (74.1 percent). Likewise, the percentage of residents who have received a Bachelor’s degree is much higher in North Carolina (22.5 percent) than in Kentucky (17.1 percent).

Finally, and most importantly, North Carolina is home to approximately three times as many blacks (21.7 percent) as Kentucky (7.5 percent), based on the percentage of each state’s population. Obama is drawing support of 80 to 90 percent of blacks in most primaries.

The result: Obama boasts double digit leads among likely voters in North Carolina in recent polls by InsiderAdvantage (15 points) and LA Times / Bloomberg (13 points). SurveyUSA, meanwhile, has just staked Clinton to a 36-point lead in Kentucky, 62 to 26 percent.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The latest in a series of biannual polls conducted by Wisconsin Public Radio and St. Norbert College over the past decade demonstrates that Wisconsinites view the state of the nation – its institutions and economy – to be of grave concern.

An incredibly low 18 percent of the 400 adults surveyed between March 25th and April 5th view the country to be headed in the right direction, while 77 percent believe it to be headed in the wrong direction. This marks a 4-point drop in those holding an optimistic view, down from 22 percent from WPR’s survey last November. When George W. Bush began his second term back in early 2005, 40 percent of Badger State residents thought the country was headed in the right direction. The 77 percent citing the USA as headed in the “wrong direction” is six points higher than the previous record level – 72 percent – documented in the previous two WPR surveys conducted in April and November 2007.

The new poll also shows President Bush with the lowest job approval rating to date – just 31 percent of Wisconsin adults are satisfied with his performance – down from 36 percent last fall and the previous low of 34 percent in April 2007. When Bush began his second term in early 2005, more than half of Wisconsinites (51 percent) were satisfied with his job performance; the president has thus endured a 20-point drop in three years in WPR surveys.

Economic concerns have dominated the Upper Midwest and the country in recent months, and the new WPR poll clearly indicates the economy is foremost on the minds of Wisconsinites when it comes to the 2008 presidential election. In an open-ended question, nearly one-third (32 percent) of Badger State residents cited the economy and jobs as the most important issue in the presidential race – almost more than Iraq (23 percent) and health care (12 percent) combined.

The conventional wisdom holds that such dreary national news spells doom for the party in power – notably the party in control of the presidency. This would normally spell doom for the Republican Party in the presidential race, though the poll also found just 27 percent of Wisconsin adults are satisfied with the job performance of the U.S. Congress, which is controlled by Democrats in both chambers. Though a member of the D.C. community for more than two decades, if John McCain can somehow remake his image back into the “maverick D.C. outsider,” he may be able to rise above the low negative marks the Badger State is giving its national institutions – at least more than his eventual Democratic competitor.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In polling conducted in all but one of a half-dozen battleground states during the past week to ten days, Barack Obama continues not only to lead John McCain, but also perform stronger against McCain than his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

Although Obama’s advantage over McCain is in single digits in most of these states, he nonetheless polls stronger than Clinton, who trails McCain in 5 of the 6 battleground states.

• In New Mexico (Rasmussen, April 8, 500 LV), Obama leads McCain 45 to 42 percent, while McCain edges Clinton 46 to 43 percent. Net Obama advantage over Clinton: 6 points.

• In Washington (SurveyUSA, April 7, 607 RV), Obama leads McCain 51 to 44 percent, while McCain nips Clinton 46 to 45 percent, a statistical tie. Net Obama advantage over Clinton: 8 points.

• In Wisconsin, (WPR, March 25- April 5, 400 adults), Obama leads McCain 46 to 42 percent, with McCain leading Clinton by the same tally. Net Obama advantage over Clinton: 8 points.

• In Iowa (Rasmussen, March 31, 500 LV), Obama leads McCain 46 to 42 percent, with McCain demolishing Clinton 51 to 36 percent. Net Obama advantage over Clinton: 19 points.

• In Maine (Rasmussen, April 1, 500 LV), Obama has a double digit lead over McCain, 49 to 39 percent, while Clinton leads McCain 47 to 42 percent. Net Obama advantage over Clinton: 5 points.

Only in Ohio (Rasmussen, April 8, 500 LV), of the battleground states recently surveyed, does Clinton outperform Obama – though just by 2 points. McCain leads Clinton 47 to 42 percent, and leads Obama 47 to 40 percent.

In non-battleground states that historically favor Republicans, Clinton seems to be polling better against McCain than Obama in the south (e.g. Alabama, Tennessee), while Obama performs better than Clinton in the West (e.g. Montana, Alaska).

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary less than 2 weeks away, the media is attempting to drum up interest with reports that Barack Obama is running neck-and-neck with Clinton in the Keystone State.

While it is true that Obama has gained ground on Clinton according to polling conducted over the past 4+ weeks, Clinton is still the big favorite to win the majority of the state’s pledged delegates on April 22nd.

The media's newfound characterization that the race is becoming a toss-up is based largely on the trend line of two polls: Quinnipiac and Rasmussen. Quinnipiac had Clinton up by 12 points on March 16th, by 9 points on March 31st, and currently by 6 points on April 6th – all polls conducted of a very large sample (1,300+) of likely voters.

Rasmussen had Clinton up by 15 points on the day after Ohio/Texas primaries (March 5th), by 13 points on March 12th, by 10 points on March 24th, by 5 points on March 31st, and currently by 5 points in an April 7th survey.

There are several reasons for the Clinton camp not to panic.

First, not all surveys are trending big towards Obama. SurveyUSA had Clinton up by 19 points on March 10th, by 12 points on March 31st, and then back up to 18 points in its new poll ending April 7th. InsiderAdvantage had Clinton ahead by just 3 points on April 2nd, but now shows the Senator from New York leading by 10 points in its recent poll conducted on April 8th.

Secondly, no nonpartisan public poll has shown Obama ahead in 39 polls conducted during the past 15 months. Therefore, while there may be some movement towards Obama, he is fighting against a solid base of support for Clinton that has been entrenched for more than a year. The same situation was basically true in Ohio – Clinton led in every poll, save one, conducted from January 2007 through March 3, 2008.

Ohio likewise showed the race narrowing in the week before the primary election: Clinton was polling ahead of Obama by 20+ point margins at the end of January, five weeks before the primary. That lead was cut down to single digits (and one deficit) in 13 of 17 polls conducted the week before Ohio’s primary. Clinton, however, ended up winning by double digits in that race (54.2 to 44.1 percent).

While Obama has more money to spend than does Clinton, that was also the case in Ohio, and this monetary advantage is thus already built into the momentum Obama has enjoyed during the past few weeks. The question will not be whether or not Clinton wins the Keystone State, as the media would have one believe, but whether Clinton can win by double digits.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last year, Wisconsin appeared ready to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee for the sixth consecutive election. Democratic candidates were defeating Republican candidates in most matchup polls and, in generic partisan matchups, Wisconsinites gave Democrats the edge by double digits in polls conducted in Spring 2007, Summer 2007, and as late as November 2007 (Badger Poll, WPR / St. Norbert College). However, Wisconsin is a classic battleground state and thus the numbers were bound to change with the political tides. And they have.

Once Republicans settled on John McCain to be their nominee, Wisconsin voters have seemed to rally around the Arizona Senator. McCain was once polling in the 30s when matched up against Hillary Clinton (Rasmussen, August 2007), but has gradually chipped away at her advantage in more than a half-dozen polls since: McCain polled at 40 percent against her in October 2007, 45 percent in November 2007, and 49 percent in December 2007 and January 2008 (Rasmussen, SurveyUSA). Two Rasmussen polls of likely Badger State voters conducted since McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination in late February and late March 2008 both show him with double-digit leads over Clinton, reaching the 50 percent mark in both surveys.

Barack Obama is more competitive against McCain than Clinton at the moment, though McCain did lead the junior Senator from Illinois by 48 to 46 percent (within the margin of error) in Rasmussen’s late March poll.

The extended primary process has not been kind to Clinton in Wisconsin, and the already high unfavorable marks she had in the Badger State before announcing her candidacy (48 percent in July 2006, Rasmussen), have now climbed in recent months: to 51 percent in December 2007 and 58 percent in March 2008 (Rasmussen). Flirting with 60 percent unfavorable marks will not get you elected in any state.

Obama’s unfavorability numbers were also bound to increase, as he was largely an unknown quantity to the average voter before the primary season began; they have increased in Wisconsin from 39 percent in December 2007 to 45 percent in March 2008 (Rasmussen). Still, a respectable 54 percent of Wisconsinites currently have a favorable rating of Obama.

McCain, however, has been a well-known and popular political figure in Wisconsin in recent years. And even though his favorability rating took an initial hit when he entered the 2008 race for the White House (dipping from 64 percent in July 2006 to 48 percent in August 2007, Rasmussen), this rating, unlike that of his Democratic challengers, has grown ever since: rising to 50 percent in October 2007 and 54 percent in March 2008 (Rasmussen). Perhaps more importantly, his unfavorability rating has remained constant: 45 percent in August 2007, 44 percent in October 2007, and 45 percent in March 2008 (Rasmussen).

Wisconsinites are not endeared by ‘attack politics’ and if McCain can stay above the fray – looking ever the more ‘presidential’ while his Democratic opponents beat each other up in the coming weeks – the Arizona Senator will be sitting in a good position to finally take back the Badger State for the Republicans come November.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As economic concerns continue to fuel pessimism about the near future, Democratic Governors Jim Doyle (Wisconsin) and Chet Culver (Iowa) face the lowest ratings of their gubernatorial careers. Meanwhile, Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has managed quite successfully to remain fairly popular with his statewide constituency.

Culver, who comes from a family of politicians, was sworn into office 15 months ago, and has seen his approval ratings fall to 45 percent in mid-March – down 14 points from 59 percent in early January 2008 (SurveyUSA) when the Iowa caucuses were being held in his state. Culver stayed above the fray and did not endorse a candidate at that time, although his wife did endorse John Edwards. (Governor Culver endorsed Barack Obama a month later).

Doyle (who also has endorsed Obama), meanwhile, has never been a popular governor in the Badger State, winning close elections in both 2002 (3.7 points) and 2006 (7.4 points). The polling firm SurveyUSA has found Doyle to boast an approval rating of above 50 percent in just 2 of its 34 consecutive monthly polls dating back to May 2005. The firm recently measured Doyle’s approval rating at an abysmal 39 percent, just one month after being re-elected, in December 2007. Rasmussen’s late March poll of likely Wisconsin voters found only 33 percent considered Doyle to be doing an “excellent” or “good” job – another all-time low for the Democratic governor.

Tim Pawlenty, meanwhile, continues to remain relatively popular with Minnesotans, despite the state’s recent history of voting Democratic in the majority of statewide and district races. Pawlenty seems to have gained favor with the state by adhering to his strong anti-tax stance (which resulted in a veto override recently by the state legislature). Pawlenty’s latest approval rating numbers show him hovering at just above 50 percent (51 percent in mid-March), and the GOP governor has dipped below that mark just 5 times in 34 consecutive monthly polls by SurveyUSA. The trend line does show some concern for the Governor, however: 59 percent approval in August 2007, 57 percent in September and November, 56 percent in December 2007 and January 2008, 52 percent in February, and 51 percent in March.

None of these Upper Midwestern Governors are up for re-election in 2008, though their relative popularity or unpopularity could impact the presidential races in these battleground states at the margins.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In monthly surveys tracking what is the most important issue facing the next president, the economy has emerged as the dominant issue across the Upper Midwest.

SurveyUSA asked 600 likely voters in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin closed-ended questions with eight choices as to what was the most important concern facing the next president: the economy, education, the environment, health care, immigration, Iraq, Social Security, and terrorism.

The economy ranks far and away as the top issue – 44 percent in Minnesota, 38 percent in Iowa, and 37 percent in Wisconsin in polling conducted in mid-March 2008. But a lot has changed in the past few months since SurveyUSA began tracking this question in December 2007.

Back then, in Iowa, Iraq was the most pressing concern (19 percent) perhaps fueled by the Democratic debates and campaigning held in that state which focused so heavily on the war. The economy and health care were tied with 17 percent, followed by immigration at 16 percent. In January, the number of likely Iowa voters mentioning the economy rose to 23 percent, followed by 28 percent in February and 38 percent in mid-March. The war in Iraq was cited by only 15 percent of Iowans in March, followed by 11 percent for health care, 10 percent for terrorism, and 9 percent for immigration.

In Wisconsin, the economy was tied with health care last December as the most important problem for the next president (23 percent each), with the war in Iraq a distant third at 13 percent. Economic concerns bumped up to 39 percent in January and have remained in the mid- to high- 30s in February (34 percent) and March (37 percent). The war in Iraq ranked only as the 5th most important issue in March (8 percent), also behind health care (16 percent), terrorism (10 percent), and immigration (10 percent).

In Minnesota, the economy has been the issue throughout the past four months. Back in December, 27 percent cited the economy as the next president’s most important issue, with health care (16 percent) and Iraq (16 percent) each 11 points behind. In January, the economy was mentioned by 38 percent of Minnesotans, rising to 44 percent in March. Iraq (14 percent) and health care (13 percent) remain comparatively distant concerns in the Gopher State.

The challenge for John McCain and whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee to make inroads in the Upper Midwest will be to transform their presidential campaigns that have greatly focused on foreign policy and the war in Iraq to domestic issues like the economy. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent much of the time focusing on health care in their domestic policy speeches, but without an economic agenda that resonates with Upper Midwesterners, they could be quite vulnerable in these battleground states.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance press release:

Jesse Ventura ran in the 1998 governor’s election as a rebel intent on breaking the hold of the two party system on government. Yet, critics charged that Governor Ventura failed to convert his personal following into a lasting legacy of third party strength in Minnesota. Doug Grow blasted Ventura in a Star Tribune June 2002 column for “blowing a huge opportunity” and “giving almost nothing back” to the Independence Party while Jim Ragsdale predicted in a July 2002 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story that Ventura’s legacy “won’t endure” in part because “party building” was not a priority.

The conventional wisdom is wrong or, at a minimum, requires a significant revision. Ventura’s successful campaign for governor in 1998 solidified and strengthened third parties in State and national elections in Minnesota. Although Ventura benefited from the history of third party success in Minnesota, his election campaign for governor expanded the number of state and national elections in which third party candidates won a significant number of votes.

The strengthening of third parties under Ventura had an impact on the balance of power in Minnesota government. Third Party candidates defeated Democrats and Republicans and won elections. Even when not winning, they tipped several elections by drawing voters from one of the major parties. In the 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns, Independence Party candidates Tim Penny and Peter Hutchinson likely served as king makers by drawing enough votes from Democratic Party candidates to help Republican Tim Pawlenty win by pluralities of 44 percent and 47 percent.

After Ventura’s departure from Minnesota politics in 2002, the success of third parties generally declined.

To read the complete report go to: www.politicsandgovernance.org/reports/2008/The_Ventura_Legacy.pdf

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the three weeks since the last presidential primary contest in Mississippi, and the four weeks since the Texas and Ohio primaries, little has changed in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

As projected here at Smart Politics last month, Hillary Clinton has the decided advantage over Barack Obama in almost all of the remaining ten contests, with the exception of North Carolina and possibly Oregon. Aside from those two states, all of the states yet to vote are non-coastal and each of the contests utilizes the primary format (Obama won 13 of the 15 caucuses).

Recent polling shows Clinton remains strong in most of these key states. In the first contest, Pennsylvania (188 delegates), a new SurveyUSA poll of 588 likely voters conducted March 29-31 measures Clinton’s lead in double digits, 53 to 41 percent. Clinton has led Obama in all 30 public polls conducted in the Keystone State dating back to January 2007.

Indiana (84 delegates) holds its primary on May 6th, and SurveyUSA measures Clinton’s lead at nine points – 52 to 43 percent (530 likely voters, March 29-31).

West Virginia (39 delegates) holds its primary on May 13th, and a Rasmussen poll of 702 likely voters in mid-March showed Clinton with a whopping 28-point lead: 55 to 27 percent. If Clinton is to stand any chance at winning the pledged delegate vote, she will need to rack up this kind of margin of victory in almost all the remaining contests (which is not likely to happen). Clinton's primary plan is to string together several victories in a row at the finish line to win over enough superdelegates to overtake Obama's likely pledged delegate advantage.

The neighboring state of Kentucky (60 delegates) holds its primary on May 20th, and a new SurveyUSA poll gives Clinton a similar lead: 58 to 29 percent (572 likely voters, March 28-30).

Recent polling is not available in Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

In North Carolina, polls consistently show Obama in the lead, usually by double-digits. The latest survey, by American Research Group, gives Obama a 51 to 38 percent advantage.

So what has the month since the Texas and Ohio primaries given Democratic voters? A continuing controversy involving Obama’s pastor, the opportunity for John McCain to look presidential and above the fray in his visits abroad, and, perhaps above all, a slight breather from the intense media coverage that dominated news cycles from December through early March. However, once Pennsylvania comes around and gives Clinton another big victory, expect all that to change.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Despite relatively positive news coming out of Iraq and a new campaign season that has focused the lens of the news media off the sitting president to the new contenders, George W. Bush cannot shake the horrendous job approval rating that he has faced in the Upper Midwest for nearly two and a half years.

New polling from SurveyUSA finds Bush’s approval rating to be nearly identical across the Upper Midwest:

Iowa: 32 percent approve, 65 percent disapprove
Minnesota: 32 percent approve, 64 percent disapprove
Wisconsin: 31 percent approve, 67 percent disapprove

With all three of these states prime battleground targets in the 2008 race, the uniformly critical view of Bush’s performance in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin seems to be the biggest potential albatross for Republican nominee John McCain, who is polling quite competitively in these states.

Independents, long McCain’s strong suit, have not been friendly to the Bush administration in these states for quite some time, with less than one-third currently approving of Bush’s job performance in each state:

Iowa: 26 percent approve
Minnesota: 29 percent approve
Wisconsin: 30 percent approve

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On multiple occasions during his weeknight telecast The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly has made a particular effort to tell the viewers, and his right-wing guests, that he is not endorsing a presidential candidate and has no horse in the race. O’Reilly has maintained for years that he is only interested in presenting “analysis based on facts.”

The host of television’s most successful cable television news program also has repeated that he is not a Republican (or a Democrat), and that he votes for a particular candidate regardless of political party. O’Reilly will frequently offer proof of his independent credentials, and that of his program, by pointing to a poll that was conducted (now years ago) which found approximately 45 percent of O’Reilly Factor viewers were independents (a slightly smaller number were Republicans and less than 20 percent were Democrats).

It is true that Bill O’Reilly is much more of an independent voice in the world of conservative personalities that frequent the television and radio airwaves; spend a few segments with O’Reilly and compare that to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Mike Gallagher etc.; the difference is quite clear. For example, O’Reilly has consistently maintained a fairly progressive stance on the environment and energy policy, vehemently criticizing U.S. oil companies and their cozy relationship with Washington D.C. Also, once upon a time, O’Reilly (a Roman Catholic) claimed to be against the death penalty, although his commentaries appear to be more tolerant of that criminal justice practice post-9/11.

However, if, in fact, The O’Reilly Factor were such a voice for independents, then how would O’Reilly account for the fact that virtually every single guest host that fills in for him is an unabashed Republican conservative? Laura Ingraham is his frequent guest host now (she hosted last night), but other conservative/Republican hosts in past years include former George W. Bush White House spokesman Tony Snow, former Republican congressman John Kasich, and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin. It is not clear what role O’Reilly has in picking his replacement, if any, or whether that decision is left up to his producers and Fox News Channel (who smartly do not ask Janine Garofelo to fill in).

With regards to the 2008 presidential race, John McCain fits in fairly snugly with O’Reilly’s professed “independent traditionalist” views, especially when compared to the liberal campaign platforms espoused by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That said, O’Reilly has made some effort to resist personally attacking the Democratic contenders – giving them the fair shake his Republican guests often do not. For example, during the Pastor Jeremiah Wright controversy, while O’Reilly has clearly vilified Wright for preaching anti-American and bigoted views against whites, he has not lumped the Illinois Senator into that camp, despite his close association with the pastor. O’Reilly has questioned Obama’s judgment, but gives him the benefit of the doubt on his love of country.

Perhaps O’Reilly is holding out hope he will finally land an interview with Obama or Clinton this year; Al Gore and John Kerry did not appear on The O’Reilly Factor during their presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004 (though Kerry has been an occasional guest on the program since his defeat). After all, O’Reilly frequently reminds his viewership that he has the #1 news program on cable; perhaps, in the end, good ratings trump any private desire he may have to see one political candidate get elected over the other.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With the 2008 general election just about seven months away, Minnesotans are very wary about the state of the nation’s economy, and appear to be ready to vote for a candidate who can best protect their pocketbook.

The percentage of Gopher State residents who view the U.S. economy as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ is now just one-third of what it was 1.5 years ago, according to polling by Rasmussen. In November 2006, 42 percent of likely voters in the state had a rosy view of the nation’s economy, with 57 percent rating it as ‘fair’ or ‘poor.’ But, in a new poll released last week of 500 likely voters, the percentage viewing the economy as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ dropped to just 14 percent.

Nor do Minnesotans expect the economy to stabilize or improve any time soon: just 6 percent believe national economic conditions are going to improve and 12 percent believe they will stay the same; a whopping 76 percent believe the economy is going to take an even larger turn for the worse.

Polling research from the Humphrey Institute in the last presidential election cycle found Minnesotans believe the best way for the economy to improve was to reduce the budget deficit: 49 percent thought reducing the budget deficit was the best method, while 30 percent believed cutting taxes was the correct remedy (15 percent believed the answer rests ‘in between’).

To be sure, John McCain and the future Democratic presidential nominee will need to address economic concerns in their campaign platforms to win over voters in Minnesota. Economic concerns have ranked as the most important issue affecting presidential vote choice in Rasmussen polls conducted both in early February before the caucuses and in the brand new poll conducted on March 19th.

Most important issue affecting presidential vote choice (Rasmussen, 500 LV)
Economy = 39%
The War in Iraq = 20%
National security = 11%
Health care = 9%
Immigration = 8%
Government ethics and corruption = 5%
Social Security = 3%
Other = 2%

Note: closed question format.

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Picking the Vice Presidential Nominees: What Should We Look For?
Monday, March 24, 2008.
8:30am - Noon; Hubert H. Humphrey Center

"The Humphrey Institute's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota and Presidential Studies Quarterly are convening a national conference on Monday, March 24th to examine the selection of the vice presidential running mates in 2008.

As both the Democratic and Republican Parties move toward selecting their respective presidential nominees, attention will now shift to the selection of the vice presidential running mate. The increased power and responsibility of the vice presidency under Richard Cheney makes the selection of the running mate more important than ever.

The rules for selecting running mates seem scrambled, however. The old rules of using the vice presidential pick to create a "balanced" ticket in terms of region, party factions, and other factors no longer consistently apply. Bill Clinton and George Bush both chose running mates that were similar to themselves in many respects.

What should we look for in the next vice president? What political factors are likely to influence the selection of a running mate in 2008? What role should be played by experience, temperament, and understanding of the role of the Office of the Vice President? What should we look for in a running mate's understanding of the Vice President's role within America's constitutional system?

Join Vice President Walter Mondale, former Governor and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and other prominent scholars, George Edwards III, Joel Goldstein, Lawrence Jacobs, Douglas Kriner, Richard Moe, Kathryn Pearson, and Steven Schier to discuss the political, personal, and institutional considerations in selecting vice presidential nominees. "

Posted by Eric Ostermeier at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)