The first graph comes from the 1964 book Recount, by Ronald F. Stinnett and Charles H. Backstrom, an authoritative account of the legendarily close election two years earlier for governor of Minnesota. That contest ended — after 139 days of counting and recounting — with a 91-vote margin of victory for Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party challenger Karl Rolvaag over the Republican incumbent Elmer L. Andersen. But it started with an electoral see-saw of first thousands and then dozens of votes that saw the lead change six times in four days.

The graph is a snapshot of a little more than a day of that upheaval, from 9 p.m. election night until midnight the next day. Two lines show the size of the gap favoring first Rolvaag and then Andersen, as tracked by the rival news services United Press and The Associated Press, who were competing for the latest counts from counties across the state. At first, the lines rise sharply into territory indicating a Rolvaag plurality, then dive steeply down as press tallies indicated an Andersen lead, the first of a pattern of plurality shifts that continued for days after the time period depicted in the graph.

The second graph shows a different 28 hours in last week’s counting, based on tabulations courtesy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press’s Political Animal Twitter feed, from nearly 5 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 6, to past 8 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 7. Over that time, the vote margin favoring U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman dropped from 590 to 221 votes, with a few sudden jolts but no swings in the lead.

How the gap in the Minnesota gubernatorial vote count changed over 27 hours, Nov. 6–7, 1962, in thousands of votes. Lead for Rolvaag in the upper half of the graph, lead for Andersen in the lower half.

How the lead for U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman changed in the Minnesota senatorial vote count over 28 hours, Nov. 6–7, 2008, in hundreds of votes.

In 2000, the proportion of those who felt they were worse off financially than the year before was only 22 percent. By 2001, after Bush’s first year in office, that number jumped to 36 percent, with 53 percent believing the economic conditions in the country were getting worse.

As USA Today notes, such a weak economic outlook has led voters in the past to oust the political party in the White House. Ironically, another Gallup Poll notes what that organization calls an “inexplicable” jump in America’s overall optimism: Two-thirds of Americans believe the U.S. will be better off five years from now. The level of collective optimism is the highest it’s been in four years.

Rankings and analysis after breakIf the GOP caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would turn out:

  1. Mitt Romney — Romney has put by far the most resources into building an organization in Iowa, and so far it has paid off.  His large staff and well-connected network of supporters keep him on top of what is otherwise a very volatile field.  Although other candidates are showing signs of strength, Romney will not give up the top spot without a big fight.

  2. Mike Huckabee — Huckabee appears to be the flavor of the month.  Although he failed to capitalize on his surprise 2nd place finish at the Ames Straw Poll to the degree many expected he would and turned in lackluster third quarter fund raising numbers, the winds seemed to shift a few weeks ago, and Huckabee started getting buzz.  Despite high profile evangelical endorsements going to other candidates, one gets the sense that rank-and-file social conservatives in Iowa are breaking his way.  And although his Iowa staff is tiny in comparison to Romney’s, it is led by talented heavy-hitters at the top.

  3. Rudy Giuliani — Reports of Giuliani’s reasonably high poll numbers in Iowa are generally followed by statements about what might happen “when Iowa Republicans find out about the real Giuliani.”  So far, either most GOP caucus-goers have not found out about the former mayor’s personal history, or fewer than expected are turned off by it.  Although one might expect Giuliani to slip farther down the list by January 3, we expect he would finish third if the caucuses were held tonight.

  4. Ron Paul — Paul’s support comes from the least likely corners of Iowa, making it very difficult to measure with “likely voter” polls.  Cynics expect his unlikely coalition to stay home on caucus night, and they might; but if the depth of a candidate’s support is one measure of his likely success in the caucuses, Paul has the rest of the field beat.  While Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, and Sen. John McCain appear to swap supporters every few weeks, Paul’s fans remain squarely in his corner.  And there is the oft-ignored fact that polls show that a majority of likely GOP caucus-goers favor withdrawal from Iraq within six months, which many analysts are hard-pressed to explain.

  5. Fred Thompson — Before Huckabee became the flavor of the month, there was Thompson, who entered the presidential race late amid significant fanfare.  But entering late makes building an organization difficult, and so far Thompson does not seem to have spent enough time relationship-building with activists to have put an infrastructure in place.  His national endorsement from Right to Life showed a glimmer of promise for his Iowa operation, but hopes were dashed when Iowa Right to Life, which could have given the former senator the organizational jump he needed to catch up to his opponents, decided to remain neutral.

  6. John McCain — Having failed to captivate Iowa’s social conservatives with McCain version 2.0, the Arizona senator has reverted back to the straight-talking McCain 1.0 — the candidate who ended up skipping Iowa entirely in 2000.  What remains of his organization here appears to be spread too thin, and his willingness to speak his mind about ethanol and immigration, among other subjects, has not won him many friends.

  7. Tom Tancredo — Tancredo has very small pockets of deep support across the state, but, as a self-admitted one-issue candidate, he does not even seem interested in broadening his appeal.  While his ‘explosive’ new TV ad may have been a bold enough strategy to land him on cable news for a few days, we wonder how much money he actually put behind the buy, because we have spoken to very few GOP caucus-goers who have seen it.

  8. Duncan Hunter — Hunter has no real organization in place here, and he has spent very little time campaigning to build one.

  9. John Cox — Free potato chips may win Cox a few votes, but he has no institutional support and very little name recognition.

Also, check out the original post for some heated discussion.

]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/2737/iowa-independent-power-rankings-republican-presidential-candidates/feed 0 http://minnesotaindependent.com/2711/iowa-independent-power-rankings-democratic-presidential-candidates http://minnesotaindependent.com/2711/iowa-independent-power-rankings-democratic-presidential-candidates#comments Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:11:23 +0000 Robin Marty http://www.minnesotaindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2711 Iowa Independent asks the question: “If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?” Results are after the jump, and Republican candidate rankings will be out later this week…From…]]> From our sister site in Iowa, the Iowa Independent asks the question:

“If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?”

Results are after the jump, and Republican candidate rankings will be out later this week…From Iowa Independent Managing Editor, Chase Martyn…

As the January 3 Iowa caucuses draw near, media outlets across the country will continue to buzz about new poll numbers and analyses from the Hawkeye state. Although they will not always be so careful to mention this, at Iowa Independent we feel it is important to emphasize how difficult it is to predict caucus results.

No poll is definitive, nor is any one columnist or pundit.  Determining which Iowans will show up to participate in a caucus on a wintry January night — one which, this year, will be only days after New Year’s — is nearly impossible.  And pollsters find it difficult to include second choice support — a very significant factor in caucus results — in their horse race numbers at all.

I have compiled the first installment of what we are calling the “Iowa Independent Power Rankings” below. They attempt to answer the very narrow question, “If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?”

Campaigns were evaluated based on impressions we received from activists, everyday caucus-goers, event attendees, and pundits about  the quality of each campaign’s on-the-ground organization, the likelihood of each candidate’s supporters actually attending a caucus, second choice support, and — at the most basic level — gut feelings and guesses.  We provide no guarantee that these results are accurate, but we hope that while our readers are looking at poll numbers and spin from day to day, they will keep these rankings in mind as another worthwhile point of reference.

Next week, we will turn our attention to the Republican race.

If the Democratic caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would end:

  1. John Edwards — Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place.  Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him  in the top spot — for now.

  2. Barack Obama — Obama’s organization was fairly inconsistent over the summer, with some counties getting a lot of attention and others getting barely any.  Still, his campaign’s ability to build crowds –  as evidenced by his huge and geographically diverse group of  supporters at the Jefferson Jackson dinner — are as good a measure of his strength as anything.  And as Clinton continues to receive sharper attacks from Edwards and subtler attacks from Obama himself, the Illinois Senator could move up in the coming weeks — particularly on news of his United Auto Workers endorsement.  As things stand  now, he would still place second behind Edwards.

  3. Hillary Clinton — Different sources tell vastly different stories  about the Clinton campaign in Iowa.  Some expect it to flop completely, but others point to poll numbers showing Clinton in the  top spot among Democratic candidates in Iowa.  All that said, her aura  of inevitability has been all but shattered by increased criticism over the past few weeks, and she seems to lack significant second choice support.  And her latest swing through Iowa highlighted her energy policy, something which may not resonate among working class women, which continues to be her key demographic.  Frankly, although the polls show Clinton in first place in Iowa, many of us have been hard pressed to find solid Clinton supporters whose names have not already appeared on a campaign press release.

  4. Joe Biden — Biden’s campaign only picked up steam during the late Fall, but one could be led to believe that he planned it that way all along.  His list of legislative endorsements (including many in the Democratic leadership) is his greatest strength, because it lends him credibility that others in the so-called second tier do not have.  The current situation in Pakistan highlights his foreign policy expertise, which allows him to continue to take ground from Gov. Bill Richardson.  And his support comes largely from older Iowans, who are  more likely to attend Caucuses than any other group.

  5. Bill Richardson — Richardson’s campaign may have peaked too early, when its tongue-in-cheek TV commercials bumped his poll numbers into the double digits during the early summer.  Since then, he has shown little positive movement in polls.  His campaign events are known to be wildly inconsistent: some speeches and events are excellent, and others are lackluster at best.  But his field operation appears to be solid in certain key precincts, where staff have been on the ground since early summer.

  6. Chris Dodd — Everyone who has attended a Dodd event or met the Connecticut Senator personally seems to like him, but few seem to have committed to him so far.  While his International Association of Fire Fighters endorsement continues to be a major X-factor, he has attracted very few Iowa endorsements from activists and politicos outside the IAFF.  One gets the sense that Dodd has very strong second choice support from activists who have signed on to one of the top three candidates’ campaigns, but he needs to persuade more of those caucus-goers to  put him at the top of their lists.  The campaign shows real potential with its talented staff and a candidate who is so committed to Iowa retail politics that he has moved his family here through January, but if the caucuses were held today, they would not go his way.

  7. Dennis Kucinich — Although Kucinich may have a small number of hold-outs from his 2004 campaign, the vast majority of his past supporters appear to have migrated elsewhere, because Kucinich has spent such little time and money on the ground here.

  8. Mike Gravel

Can’t wait that long to talk debates?  Eric Black has already started, with this look at the most recent presidential debates:

In the last two televised debates – one by the Repub. presidential field on Sunday morning and one by the Dems. on Tuesday evening – Sen. Barack Obama has been accused of cluelessness and recklessness for saying that he would try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden if he knew where the Al Qaida leader was hiding in Pakistan…So are any of the Obama critics saying that they would forgo a chance to get bin Laden if Musharraf wanted them to stay away? No. Not a one.

Read the whole thing at Eric Black Ink.

more insideClinton had no good one-liners like Joseph Biden (“Can you be succinct?” “Yes.”), Gov. Bill Richardson (“Being stubborn is not a foreign policy.”), or former Senator Mike Gravel (“The only thing worse than soldiers dying in vain is MORE soldiers dying in vain.”).  She provided steady, albeit unexciting, answers to her questions and performed much as you would expect a well-coached candidate to perform.  And, in light of the questions that seemed to be pitched at a faster speed (“Is Wal-mart good or bad?”) in comparison to the more nicely lobbed softballs other received (“Who is your moral guide?”), doing exactly as well as the audience expected is not a bad thing.

There was one deviation from the script however, and there is a possibility it could make or break her campaign.  When asked about the massacre at Virgina Tech, Clinton mentioned the shooting at Columbine, and she teared up.

Was this a Pat Schroeder moment that could haunt Clinton?  Or could the tears in her eyes possibly sway the folk who think Clinton is heartless and robotic?  When Schroeder cried, people claimed that she “set back women’s chances for the White House by 20 years.”  That was 1987.

It’s 20 years later.  Let’s see what happens.
 

Joe Bodell:  Straightforward question out of the gate:  Why are you running for the United States Senate?

Al Franken:  Here’s a straightforward answer: I’m not happy with the leadership Senator Coleman has provided on the issues that matter to me and to Minnesota families, and I know I’ll be a leader in the Senate. I’m going to lead on universal health care, on renewable energy, on taking care of our veterans, and on restoring America’s standing in the world.  I think we need more of that kind of leadership.  That’s the kind of Senators Minnesota has given the country: leaders like Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone and Amy Klobuchar.  And that’s the kind of Senator I’ll be.

Read more after the break.JB:  Moreso than most recent candidates for statewide office, your name is already known to many Minnesotans.  Which particular aspects of your experiences do you think prepare you both to run for and serve in the U.S. Senate?

AF:  You know, I’ve been in this debate for a while now, with my writing and my radio show.  People, I think, know me not just as a guy they’ve seen on TV, but as a guy who stands up for his principles and is willing to speak out on important issues.  Take my show

A caveat concerning this analysis: Minor candidates are not included.  As much as some in the liberal wing would love for Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be included here, the Congressman has said that he does not expect to win, only to influence the debate.  The same goes for California GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Without further ado, on with the analysis.Democrats

The hallowed Conventional Wisdom says this is a three-horse race between Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.  But U.S. Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have access to strong fund-raising networks, and while they might not be darlings of the Netroots, they do have constituencies within the party.  Tom Vilsack is making some noise with innovative features on his website, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is stalking just outside the inner circle, having recently proved his foreign policy is bona fide.

What does all this mean for Minnesota?  Have a look at the Democratic primary schedule.  In theory, Vilsack should do well in his home state of Iowa, and Bill Richardson has a natural advantage in Nevada, hailing from a nearby Southwestern state and bringing a Hispanic background to the table.  Clinton has to expect a strong showing in New Hampshire, and Edwards probably expects the same from South Carolina.  In short, leading up to the first multi-primary on Feb. 5, 2008, there could be a four-way split on the leaderboard.  If the primaries on that date split along similar geographic lines, the picture could still be muddled by the time Minnesota rolls around in March. 

Of course, this is theoretical.  Geography isn’t everything, and in many of these contests, there are significant second and third prizes in terms of delegates.  But in many ways, this field may prove to be much more interesting than that of 2004, in which Howard Dean collapsed in Iowa, leaving John Kerry to clean up the pieces, move on to New Hampshire with a geographic advantage, and crush the competition on the first multi-state primary day.  In short, Minnesota could quite easily have a role to play in choosing the Democratic nominee.

Republicans

Although Minnesota has moved solidly back into the blue column with the results of the 2006 election, in some ways its role in the Republican presidential nomination has a higher profile than for the Democrats.  The 2008 Republican National Convention will be held in St. Paul, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been appointed co-chair of John McCain‘s exploratory committee (to say nothing of speculation that Pawlenty is on McCain’s vice-presidential short list).  Pawlenty is in a great geographic position to stump for the Arizona senator in Iowa, but McCain runs into trouble in New Hampshire, where former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney threaten to suck all the oxygen out of the room.  For some time, Romney has been making inroads with social conservatives across the country, including the early state of South Carolina, so that state’s primary is not a given either.  By the time the dust settles in the Feb. 5 primaries, we should have a better idea of the direction of the GOP nomination.

Again, geography is not everything.  But it does matter.  McCain’s success in the 2000 New Hampshire primary was eight years ago, an eternity in politics.  If Pawlenty can deliver Iowa and concurrently raise his own profile, a VP nod would be a strong possibility.  If, on the other hand, McCain cannot secure solid victories in any of the three early primaries, the big multi-primary day will be very interesting indeed, especially if social conservatives and religious Republican voters migrate from one of the three frontrunners to Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee.

Edwards, who was running with on a ticket with John Kerry in 2004, could be seen to already have an electoral advantage in Minnesota, as he received one of Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes two years ago.  No one has ever claimed the miscast vote.

Marty: Mike Ciresi is a difficult candidate for me to get my head around.  I know very little about him, not having been around for his glory days of bringing down Big Tobacco.  To me, Ciresi was the spectre looming over the Senate race last year, never quite in and never quite out.  My understanding is that he was intending to enter, but by the time he had made his decision too many donors were already vocally supporting Senator-elect Klobuchar, and so he never quite made it in.

Because of this whole “getting stuck behind the front runner” issue, I not only would expect Ciresi to run, but I would expect him to begin making motions in that direction soon after the first of the year, perhaps as early as the beginning of April.  It would serve two purposes: not only would he get running before the money people pick a candidate, but he would be running while the success of Klobuchar’s campaign was still in people’s mind.  After all, one Minneapolis liberal lawyer just clobbered the GOP candidate, why not send in another to do the same thing?

Ciresi has a good name, strong liberal background, an impressive network of people to donate and some funds to finance himself if he falls too far behind.  That’s a lot of good advantages tucked under his belt. Bodell:  I’m loathe to analyze potential candidates in light of other candidates, but that’s the situation we find ourselves in with a possible primary matchup of Franken vs. Ciresi.  Liberal entertainer vs. crusading trial lawyer – smell the GOP attack ads yet?

In my mind, Ciresi represents an old-school DFLer, and not in a good way.  His candidacy as an urban trial lawyer, while the laudable product of a great legal career, would depend on the old DFL turnout model – push the base in the 4th, 5th, and 8th CDs, and hope like hell people in the suburbs don’t turn out to vote.  Playing urban, rural, and suburban areas off against one another didn’t work for Mike Hatch, and I don’t think it would work for Ciresi. 

The other factor here is money – don’t be modest on Mr. Ciresi’s behalf, Robin, he has more than some funds to finance his own campaign.  I worry that another self-funding candidate doesn’t have much incentive to do the early groundwork necessary to build a true grassroots organization and message to unite the entire state of Minnesota.  Old fundraising (personal funds plus  big donors) can yield enough money to be competitive, but drawing financial support from the grassroots in smaller increments can help a candidate and his team build rabid support where it’s necessary – at the grassroots level.