Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2009

Ranking the Presidents

Ranking the Presidents

It's President's Day ("Washington's Birthday" for you conservative traditionalists out there) and if you go to the bank, you may be able to get yourself a shiny new William Henry Harrison dollar. They're going through the presidents and it's Number Nine's turn, thus putting to lie the Simpsons' Mediocre Presidents Song.

Except you can't go to the bank because it's President's Day.

One of my more popular old posts was from last year during the Democratic nomination stalemate, when I suggested that Barack and Hillary adopt WHH's old 1836 strategery of splitting up the nomination. Is it really only a year since the Democrat's internal anxiety of that doom and gloom battle?

They'll be making those dollars three times longer than Tippecanoe and Tyler Too was president. Which is why it surprised me that C-SPAN's latest version of the Historians Rank The Presidents survey actually included William Henry Harrison. How does one really rank his job performance? I mean, was he better at laying around dying than James Garfield was? Most of these surveys exclude those two, but this one lists them all (although I noticed David Rice Atchison is missing).

The big news in this survey is that 43 was included for the first time, and he ranks down in the Tyler-Fillmore zone, 36th of 42. (They don't rank Grover Cleveland's two terms separately, though the first would clearly rate higher as the second was dominated by the Panic Of 1893. Back then we didn't have recessions or depressions, we had "panics" which sounds way scarier.)

W is for all intents and purposes dead last in international relations, ahead of only William Henry Harrison. And how could WHH screw up as bad in a month as Bush did in eight years?

The exit interviews and rhetoric, and the post-inauguration comments by Cheney, clearly indicate that Bush is hoping for Truman-like historic revisionism. Harry climbs to his highest ranking I've ever seen in these, number five. That's just below the Rushmore line, for those of you playing at home, and without the benefit of a hagiography campaign like the one Reagan has.

I've always thought Woodrow Wilson was by far the most over-ranked in these things. The 1919-20 Red Scare domestic spying and repression of dissent was in some ways worse than Bush; even the Gonzo Justice (sic) Department didn't have elected members of Congress arrested the way A. Mitchell Palmer went after Milwaukee Socialist Victor Berger. And Wilson let ole Eugene Debs rot in jail; it was Warren Harding who finally pardoned him.

Wilson's biggest foreign policy initiative, the League of Nations, was an abject failure, amd there was also Wilson's serious irresponsibility in staying in office when he was not fit physically, and probably not fit mentally, to serve. Vice President Thomas Marshall deserves some of the blame there for refusing to act. Is anyone ever going to do one of these for the Vice Presidents? Even Cheney would have a hard time beating Aaron Burr for last on that list. And that very first Got Milk ad is still the best:



Awon Buh.

I also have a little Iowa pride and feel like Herbert Hoover gets a lot of the blame that Calvin Coolidge deserves. Since we're into revisiting the causes of the Great Depression, let's note that the setup for that was all on Harding and Coolidge's watch, and they dumped the load on Hoover. Granted, Hoover handled it badly, but in a lot of ways he resembles Jimmy Carter: he did a lot of great things in his life and only ever failed at one job.

Anyway, the birthday of John Adams, the first Vice President, is October 30. I say we celebrate by making the first Monday in November Vice Presidents Day and get another holiday. Works for me.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Iowa Senate appointments

History Lesson: Iowa Senate appointments

U.S. Senate appointments are a hot issue these days. Assuming Judd Gregg's confirmed, an unusually high total of five Senators will be sitting by appointment, and we've seen all kinds of scenarios: the blatant placeholder in Delaware, the deal-making in New Hampshire, the Caroline Kennedy song and dance in New York and the Blagojvich-Burris opera buffa.

So it's not a shocker that proposals to ban the practice are in the works. Russ Feingold wants to do it at the federal level by constitutional amendment, and Mark Kuhn wants to do it at the state level through legislation.

It's not an issue that's come up in Iowa since great-grandfather's day, when we saw a run of three Senate vacancies and two appointments in 14 years.

Iowa's first vacancy in the era of popular Senate election came in 1922 when William Kenyon became a federal judge. Charles Rawson was appointed, did not run, and served nine months. Progressive Republican Smith Brookhart took over for the last two years of the Kenyon term.

Brookhart appears to have been quite the character. The great political cartoonist Ding Darling, pioneer of the now-dead Des Moines Register front page editorial cartoon, protrayed Brookhart as a blowhard isolationalist, alongside LaFollette, William Borah of Idaho, and California's Hiram Johnson.

And Brookhart plays a central role in the next vacancy, in 1926. In April of that year, the Senate reversed the result of Iowa's 1924 election, unseated Brookhart, and seated conservative Democrat Daniel Steck in his place. (This case gets pointed to now in light of the Franken situation, as proof the Senate could provisionally seat a member and then reverse course later.) Officially it was about election conduct, but what it was REALLY about was that Brookhart had supported Fightin' Bob LaFollette over Calvin Coolidge. Which kind of makes Brookhart the Ed Fallon of 1924. How contentious was it? The Iowa Republican Party backed Steck in the challenge.

Undeterred by his unseating, Brookhart challenged longtime Sen. Albert Cummins in the primary for the other Senate seat. It was a rematch; Cummins had fended off a 1920 primary challenge from Brookhart, but this time Brookhart won.

In late July, Cummins died. A special election was set to coincide with the 1926 general election – but only for the few months remaining on Cummins' term. After a five-ballot Republican convention nominated David Stewart in early August, he was appointed to the seat. Stewart ran for and won the short term, while Brookhart won the full term and went back to DC to serve alongside his old pal Daniel Steck. Awk-ward...

Brookhart lost his 1932 primary, and in the November FDR landslide the seat went to Democrat Richard Murphy, who created Iowa's most recent Senate vacancy when he died in a July 1936 car accident. This time, the seat stayed vacant until the November election, when Democrat Guy Gillette won a special election for the last two years of the term.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Caucuses' Greatest Hits: Revisited With New Material

The Caucuses' Greatest Hits: Revisited With New Material

Album releases, like elections, happen on Tuesdays. And greatest hits sets always come out in the holiday season. Today, for example, we get the 43rd different version of a Rod Stewart compilation, for people who can't figure out free downloading.

With that in mind I dug into the vaults.

Two years ago, I wrote a history of the Iowa caucuses where I ranked the contests in order of significance. I've updated this classic collection, just like they always added a new song to the greatest hits album to make you buy the same songs over again. My two new tracks: an all-time classic and a cover version of a 1996 mid-chart hit.

Original text begins here with no changes except a couple strikethroughs and re-numbering. The 2008 sections are added where they belong. For now.

I’ve followed presidential nomination politics closely since 1980, extremely closely since 1984 (motivation: I was doing a humorous speech on the primaries in intercollegiate speech competition and needed to keep my jokes up to date), and from a front row seat as an Iowa party activist since 1990. Apply salt in grains or blocks as needed.

This is my first attempt at an ongoing series about the Iowa caucuses. The idea is mostly to focus on the kind of stuff the locals know but the national folks miss. This first time, though, my in-state perspective is just in the anecdotes.

First question: Do the caucuses REALLY matter? How important are they in terms of overall impact on the nominating contest, the presidency, and history? Here’s a look back, categorized and countdown formatted (with apologies to Casey Kasem). In the process of writing, I surprised myself and changed my own number one.

Not Worth The Airfare To Waterloo

15. 1984 and 2004 Republican. The Republican tradition is to hold no presidential vote at all in incumbent re-elect years. Or in years when Republicans otherwise reside in the White House.

14. 1996 Democratic. The word went down from Des Moines to the Democratic county chairs: “The President would like a unanimous re-nomination and this WILL happen.” Self-starters in a couple lefty college precincts elected a very small handful of Nader and Uncommitted protest delegates, but those results got delayed till past the newspaper deadline and thus went down the Memory Hole. Clinton came out and campaigned the final weekend, largely to step on the GOP story (Actually Being President trumps winning the caucus), but it was in basketball arenas, not chat n’ chews. Only time I've ever caucused for the eventual nominee.

13. 1992 Republican. Ranked up a little because the inside the Des Moines Beltway (yes, non-Iowans, Des Moines has a beltway) decision NOT to hold a vote while the Buchanan Brigade was tearing up New Hampshire was a strategic win for Bush Sr.

Ultimately Irrelevant

12. 1992 Democratic. Hometown boy Tom Harkin runs and wins big, though not as big as it looks (that’ll be a later discussion). Paul Tsongas, already on the ground in Iowa, bails. A couple feints from Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown but nothing serious. In the end, Iowa kept first place after `92 only because Harkin jumped on the winner’s bandwagon while the other rivals couldn’t hide their obvious contempt for Clinton. (Jerry Brown probably wrote himself in that November.) The long term importance of 1992 may be that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to shake hands and eat hotdish in towns like Courthouse Center and East Pole Bean.  Comic relief: An Iowa City dorm precinct elected a Jimmy Carter delegate.

11. 2000 Both. On the Democratic side Al Gore beat Bill Bradley in what was merely the first moment in the overall national dynamic; Dollar Bill made his stand on friendlier turf in New Hampshire. The truly significant GOP event was the summer 1999 buy-a-vote straw poll that winnowed out more candidates (E. Dole, Quayle, and Buchanan bolting to Reform) than the actual caucus (Orrin Hatch, as if that wasn’t obvious). This one was like one of those boycott-era Olympics: Bush Jr. won but the toughest competitor, McCain, was a no-show. Comic relief: People who took Gary Bauer seriously, Alan Keyes in Michael Moore’s mosh pit.

Secondary event in nomination contest

10. 1980 Democratic. The incumbent won the first test of Kennedy-Carter, but that battle of giants was played out on a national, even global, stage and Iowa was a bit player.

9. 2008 Republican. Important tactically to the dynamic of the contest but not central to the result.

Mitt Romney was looking like the guy to beat in December 2007. Which Mike Huckabee did in January 2008, after first beating Sam Brownback at the Ames Straw Poll to win the mantle of THE religious conservative candidate. Had Iowa Republicans gotten behind the Mitt, they may have headed off the chaos that was the GOP field in January. Instead, we proved that there was no there there for Fred Thompson, and that the Ron Paul Яэvoutionaries were noisy in disproportion to their actual numbers. But really, we just stirred the pot, and the decisive event was in Florida between two men with Screw Iowa strategies, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Downmodded a notch below 1996, because that year the Iowa winner actually won the nomination. May move up in a few years if Huckabee goes anywhere in 2012.

8. 1996 Republican. Frontrunner Dole wins, some all too obvious field winnowing (Dick Lugar???) happens. Phil Gramm gets out too, but his real stumble was in Louisiana’s jump-the-starting-gun contest a week earlier. What might have been: Pat Buchanan was within 3% of Dole, but the fundamentalists in Cedar Rapids backed Alan Keyes instead; Keyes thus won the second biggest county. One minister at one mega-church makes a different choice, and we’d have had a major upset. Comic relief: Easily the funniest caucus! Bob Dole, genuinely witty in his non-Satan mode, Steve Forbes the android, Alan Keyes… but they all pale next to Morrie Taylor, the tire magnate who literally tried to buy a win one vote at a time. Failed miserably but looked like he had more fun than the rest put together.

7. 1988 Democratic. Gephardt narrowly wins. Some Paul Simon loyalists still point to a couple late reporting counties and say otherwise (real-time rules on reporting results have been enacted since then), but this one proved the winner-take-all-news theory. Al Gore is the first to use the Screw Iowa strategy.  It's never worked (save for the Tom Harkin year), but nevertheless Gore wound up outlasting the two Iowa leaders. But the contest came down to Dukakis vs. Jackson, neither of whose fortunes were affected by Iowa.  Comic relief : Gary Hart’s last minute return to the race, campaigning with his wife.

Significant event in nomination contest

6. 1988 Republican. Pat Robertson pushes Bush Sr. into third place. Robertson was insignificant thereafter, but the blow made Bush go on a fight of his life attack against Bob Dole in New Hampshire. Dole took the bait and was goaded into “stop lying about my record.” This convinces Bush Sr. that hard negative was the way to go. That road went through the flag factory and Willie Horton, and ended at the White House. Comic relief: Al Haig.

5. 1984 Democratic. Gary Hart barely squeaked past his old boss, George McGovern. But second, no matter how distant, was enough to make him the anti-Mondale and propel him up about 40 points in eight days for a New Hampshire win, a brief but genuine shot at the nomination, and (pre-Donna Rice) 1988 front-runner status. The Right Stuff sank like Gus Grissom’s capsule, and you're an old timer if you catch that reference.

Decisive event in nomination contest

4. 2004 Democratic. Nothing that happened after Iowa mattered nearly as much as what happened in Iowa.  The guy who won got the nomination, the guy in second gets VP.  And the guy who came in third...



The Dean Scream goes down as the most memorable caucus moment, but everyone forgets The Scream was after The Much More Important Disappointing Third Place.  Iowa was the whole ball game in 2004.

Made History

3. 1976 Democratic. This one made both Jimmy Carter and the reputation of the caucuses themselves. Carter didn’t actually win this, you know. He was second to Uncommitted. But I know folks who still brag “Jimmy Carter slept on my couch.”

I’m torn about ranking the only caucus that directly produced a president merely SECOND. But read on.

2. 1980 Republican. In the first true Iowa Republican caucus (more on the two party history and the very significant differences later), an obscure former ambassador, spy boss, and failed Senate candidate George Herbert Walker Bush shocks the ten foot tall colossus of the GOP, Ronald Reagan. This one win puts Poppy on the map and ultimately on the ticket (after the botched Ford “co-presidency” deal at the `80 convention).

So why rank this ahead of Jimmy Carter, especially since Bush Sr. lost that 1980 nomination? The ripple effect. No Iowa win = no Bush 41. And with no Bush 41, do you REALLY think Bush 43 would have made it on his own? History needs a major rewrite without that 1980 caucus.

As for history and the caucuses themselves, a mixed bag.  Irrelevant nearly half the time, critical a little less often.




New Number 1: 2008 Democratic. There's no question the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses created a president. Iowa was the honing ground for Barack Obama's message and appeal and ground game. We eliminated the entire second tier, and proved that voters in one of the whitest places in America would support a black candidate. Remember, a lot of African-American voters were sticking with Hillary Clinton before Iowa, because Obama "couldn't win." Iowa shattered that myth and the perception of Clinton's "inevitability."

It's too soon to tell, but those of us who crammed into gyms last January may have ushered in not just one president, but a whole era, a new alignment of states that ends the 1968 Nixon-Wallace southern-western coalition for good.

2008 is a whole new map. The Solid South has shattered, and Republicans are retreating to the mountains of Appalachia and Utah. (In a realignment, you look for counter-trends, and what better example than West Virginia, which went for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in `88?) Barack Obama fueled this alignment, which would not have been possible without that Iowa win.

The 1976 caucuses made one president, but his victory is a mere footnote to a Republican era, brought about by the intensity of Watergate and the Nixon pardon. The 1980 Republican caucuses made two presidents, but they followed the electoral footsteps of others.

How many presidents in an era? Only time will tell if Obama is able to hold it for a second election and transfer this alignment to a successor. If the 2008 caucuses usher in an Obama Realignment, like the FDR Relignment or the Nixon-Wallace Realignment, they could lead to four or five presidents. Thus, the number one rank.

For now.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

North Carolina Senators Don't Get Re-Elected

North Carolina: The Senate's Revolving Door

Iowa went through a stretch in the 1970's as the revolving door of the U.S. Senate. With a combination of defeats (Miller, Clark, Culver, Jepsen) and retirements (Hickenlooper, Hughes), no Iowa senator was re-elected from 1966 to 1986.

Nowadays, Iowa is a giant of Senate seniority with two five-term senators, outranked in total now goes to North Carolina. Since 1968, no one except Jesse Helms has been re-elected to the U.S. Senate from the Tarheel State.

Granted, Helms held that seat for 30 years. Elizabeth Dole took his place in 2002, only to lose her re-election bid to Kay Hagan this year. But it's the other Senate seat that has really seen turnover.

The last senator re-elected to the Class 3 seat was Watergate era hero Sam Ervin in 1968. Since his retirement in 1974, the seat has seen no fewer than seven senators, in a sequence that reads like a list of Spinal Tap drummers.

  • Democrat Robert Morgan took over the seat in 1974, but lost in 1980 to...
  • Republican John East, who announced his retirement in 1986 and then, in ill health, committed suicide. He was briefly replaced by...
  • James Broyhill, a House member who had already won the 1986 Republican Senate primary. But Broyhill lost the general to...
  • Democrat Terry Sanford, a former governor making a comeback after a decade or so out of office. But in 1992, Sanford lost his re-election bid to...
  • Republican Lauch Faircloth, who proceeded to lose in 1998 to...
  • none other than John Edwards, who just recently re-emerged from the shadows. Edwards must have known the seat was jinxed, because he quickly adopting the old Fred Harris strategy of "run for president, because I've got a better chance at that than I do of getting re-elected." Even though state law allowed Edwards to run for both vice president and re-election in 2004, Edwards went with the up-or-out approach.
  • With the seat open in 2004, Republican congressman Richard Burr took over from Edwards. Given the history of the seat, and the blue trend in North Carolina, Burr has to be a little nervous.

    Believe it or not, this isn't even the highest turnover era in North Carolina history. Through a combination of deaths, appointments, and primary defeats, six men held the Class 2 seat in 12 years between 1946 and 1958. That included the infamous 1950 primary, when Willis Smith beat appointee Frank Graham. Jesse Helms, who later held this seat, made his bones working on the race-baiting Smith campaign, which featured a faked photo of Graham's wife with--a black man.



    My, but things have changed.
  • Friday, November 14, 2008

    Four Iowa Counties Flip To McCain

    Four Iowa Counties Flip To McCain

    Four Iowa counties which went Democratic in one of the biggest Republican landslides ever voted for John McCain last week--and one of these things is not like the others.

    Swing State Project took a long-range look at voting trends and found 97 counties nationwide that backed Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan in the 1984 landslide, yet supported John McCain while Barack Obama was scoring a--what should we call it? Let's say "comfortable victory."



    Those counter-trend counties are concentrated in Appalachia, but four spots appear in Iowa. Three of these double-maverick anti-bellwethers are small rural counties: Davis, Monroe, and Ringgold. But the fourth is high-growth, suburban Dallas County.

    Iowa was one of Mondale's stronger states at 46 percent, and the 1984 election was near the height of the farm crisis of the 1980s. That would help explain Davis, Monroe, and Ringgold.

    Dallas County trended Republican between 2000 and 2004 as well, and a strong Republican performance there was key in George Bush taking the state back from the Democrats in 2004 after a Democratic winning streak dating back to Michael Dukakis in 1988.

    Democrats are looking to Obama's election and the changed map, with wins in states like Indiana and Virginia that last voted Democratic in 1964, as a sign of realignment. One way to spot a realignment is to look for counter-trends of voters moving against the stream, and these four Iowa counties help make the case.

    Swing State Project also found 85 counties nationwide that went for Bob Dole in Bill Clinton's solid 1996 win, but have now gone for Obama. None of those are in Iowa, and they tend to be large urban and suburban counties. "The sum population of all Mondale/McCain counties? 3,197,000," writes Swing State. "For all Dole/Obama counties: 25,846,000. There's pretty much the story of the 2008 election right there."

    Open Left also looks at long-range trends. comparing 2008 to 1988. This map includes the eastern half of Iowa. There's not much of the green that indicates a trend from Dukakis toward Obama--but then again, Dukakis overperformed in Iowa as it was one of the handful of states he actually won. Johnson County only gets a little bit greener, but there wasn't much room for improvement. The Quad Cities are greener, as is the state's northeast corner, but the Dubuque area trended slightly Republican in the 20-year comparison.

    Thursday, November 13, 2008

    Johnson County Canvass Facts

    Election 2008: Johnson County By The Numbers

    The canvass is done and the 2008 election is in the books. Time to dig really deep into the Johnson County numbers. And we can dig deeper than ever before. Thanks to changes in the law, we now get the absentees broken out by precinct, and not just all lumped together. That makes a big difference when more voters in your county vote absentee than on Election Day.

    Obama won the early vote in every single Johnson County precinct. You might have guessed from the party breakdown of the requests--58 percent Democratic to 15 percent GOP with the rest no party or third-- but we now officially know. The early vote was closest in tiny Monroe Township, which Obama carried by one vote.

    In four precincts -- Coralville 6, Big Grove, Madison and Monroe -- Obama trailed on Election Day but won the combined, overall vote on the absentees. So if nothing else, the new law takes away bragging rights from Republicans who, in past years, could have claimed they "won" those precincts.

    But McCain did win two precincts fair and square on the combined results. Sharon and Washington, in the southwest corner, saw big enough Election Day wins to offset Obama's early vote leads. Those two townships have long leaned Republican, but weren't enough to save Jarad Klein against Democrat Larry Marek in House District 89.

    Looking at the combined vote, Obama ran at 75 percent in Iowa City and 64 outside, for an overall percentage of 69.9. Better than LBJ's 68.1-- but damn, I really wanted that 70. McCain ended up at 28.4--just below Dole, just above Bush 41 in 1992. But remember, those were three way races. (Trivia: Perot wasn't the strongest third party candidate ever in Johnson. That would be John Anderson in 1980.)

    The most likely McCain voter was an Election Day voter in Washington Township, at 61 percent. The most likely Obama voter would be an early voter in Iowa City 21, which went -- wait for it -- 90 percent Obama, 9 percent McCain on the absentee. (This is the precinct where, on the Election Day vote in 2000, Bush ran third behind Nader.) Still, that's not the most insane absentee margin for Precinct 21; Mary Mascher was at 91, and Harkin was at 92. That's with opponents, but it's getting near the margin you see for unopposed candidates running against the write-in line.




    Not much evidence of ticket splitting, especially on the Republican side where the top of the slate bunched tightly together. Miller-Meeks led Team GOP at 30 percent, with McCain at 28 and Reed at 25. Harkin ran about five points ahead of Obama. Loebsack ran about five points behind Obama, which roughly equals the five points that the third party candidates won.

    The Election Day voter was more likely to choose the straight ticket (30.5 percent) than the early voter (23 percent). 24 percent of all Election Day voters marked Straight D, vs. 14 percent of early voters. Democratic straight tickets led Republicans 4 to 1 on the early vote and 1.5 to one on Election Day. That's roughly in proportion to the rest of the voting behavior.

    But a lot of voters who don't mark the straight ticket line still vote mainly in one party. How else to explain the 55 percent that Rebecca Spears polled in House District 79 despite dropping out of the race months before and not even having the ambition to bother getting her name off the ballot?




    None of that is really all that crucial, beyond the bragging rights of "Democrats won really big" vs. "Democrats won really, REALLY big." The breakdown is more interesting when you look at Johnson County's closest race, the conservation bond.

    When the absentees went up at 70 percent Yes on Election Night, I thought: "It has to break even at the polls to win" the required 60 percent. It didn't quite happen, as Election Day was 51 percent no, but with five absentees for every four ballots at the polls, Yes made it with 60.8 percent. (The biggest loser on Election Day? No, not Chris "Not Tom Harkin" Reed. The jail.)

    Opponents got a late start on their Flip No campaign, while supporters worried that the earliest early voters would "undervote," or skip the issue.

    The problem with comparing early vote and Election Day is that the early voters were a heavily Democratic pool, so it's hard to figure out whether the margins are because the No campaign started late, or if the early voters were more inclined to support Yes in the first place. But it turns out the undervote was pretty much comparable across the board, ranging from 8.9 percent for rural Election Day voters to 13.5 percent for Iowa City absentee. The rurals were slightly more tuned in to the race, and significantly more opposed, but were outnumbered by Iowa City.

    Even in the student precinct absentee vote, a lot of which was cast at satellites three weeks before Election Day, the undervote peaked at around 25 percent.

    Overall, it was a little higher than the 10 percent undervote rate we saw in the 2000 jail vote, and just a little below the 12.6 percent undervote on the Idiot Amendment.




    Way, way below the 47 percent undervote on the last judge on the ballot. Just anecdotally, the judge percentages seemed almost identical to four years ago, maybe slightly up. I'm seeing 79 percents where I was seeing 77s or 78s. Guess the Iowa Christian Alliance campaign--vote no on all judges till they answer our surveys the way we want with details on abortion and gay marriage--didn't have much traction in the People's Republic. (It also got announced late, which doesn't help in a 55 percent early vote county.)

    One voter in 300 skipped the presidential race, which is comparable to past years. Weird, but it's a free country. One interesting thing: presidential write-ins were way up. The county had 60 or 80 of those each of the last four elections, but this year there were 342, more than any one of the third-party candidates. I haven't looked at them, but I suspect the Hillary PUMAs and the Ron Paul diehards are behind it.

    The president-only vote is in the range of the 4 percent that skipped the two-way Senate race or the 5 percent who blew off the multiple-choice congressional contest. But there's no way to cross-reference that. Someone could have voted, say, for president, skipped the other high-on-the-ballot races, and jumped down to the conservation bond.

    No particular geographic pattern to the write-ins or third parties, who all rounded down to 0 percent. Nader finished third, but waaay below the 6 percent he polled here in 2000. Almost the same exact number of votes as he got in 2004; 90 percent of the Nader vote evaporated after 2000 and didn't come back.

    Libertarian Bob Barr was fourth, followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, with Cynthia McKinney at sixth. In fact, McKinney polled fewer votes than the Green straight ticket line. In Iowa, an individual ballot mark overrides the straight ticket. That means at least 23 people marked the Green straight ticket, and then crossed over to vote for someone else for president.

    McKinney may have been hurt by the change in state law that gave the Greens and Libertarians a minor party, "political organization" status. Until this year the only way to get any sort of party status was to poll 2 percent for president (like Nader did in 2000) or governor. Now that there's a petition process, there's much less impetus to vote Green Party at top of the ticket. You don't have to choose between the presidency and the G on your voter card, and I'd guess that some Greens felt getting the Republicans out of the White House was a higher priority than McKinney's percentage in an obscure canvass book. Unless they were among the four people who read my world exclusive interview and voted for Gloria LaRiva.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008

    1970 Republican Primary Parallels Boswell vs. Fallon

    1970 Republican Primary Parallels Boswell vs. Fallon

    The incumbent ran as an experienced, moderate congressman, attentive to his district's needs. The younger, issue-based activist challenger, coming off an unsuccessful statewide race that nevertheless raised his profile, stressed his own legislative record and said the incumbent's congressional voting record was insufficiently loyal to the party.

    Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon? Nope. Hop in the Wayback Machine and set the dial to 1970, when Republican incumbent Fred Schwengel and challenger David Stanley faced off in Iowa's last primary challenge to a congressional incumbent -- nearly 40 years ago.

    David Stanley, 1968

    David Stanley is better known in this century for his leadership of the conservative group Iowans for Tax Relief than for his U.S House and Senate bids. Schwengel, who died in 1993, is the name behind the Mississippi River Bridge on Interstate 80. But in 1970, the two faced off in what was then numbered the 1st Congressional District.

    Schwengel won that June 1970 contest, with 56 percent to Stanley's 44 percent. Stanley carried the counties in his old legislative district, Muscatine and Louisa. The race was studied by University of Iowa political scientists Donald Johnson and James Gibson, who published an article in the March 1974 edition of the American Political Science Review that called the race a classic example of "the divisive primary."

    Like Boswell, Schwengel had only one loss on his electoral record, in a heavily partisan year. In the Republican watershed year of 1994 Boswell, then a state senator, was the lieutenant governor running mate on Bonnie Campbell's losing ticket. He came back from that loss to win his Congressional seat in 1996. Fred Schwengel, first elected to Congress in 1954 after a decade representing Davenport in the state legislature, lost his seat to Democrat John Schmidhauser in the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964. He then came back to beat Schmidhauser in a 1966 rematch.

    David Stanley, like Ed Fallon, raised his profile by giving up his legislative seat and losing a statewide race. In Fallon's case, it was the 2006 gubernatorial primary, where he finished third but won a surprisingly strong 26 percent, and actually won the area that makes up the 3rd Congressional District where he's running now. Stanley lost a 1968 U.S. Senate race to Harold Hughes, but came within 5,000 votes -- 1/2 of 1 percent -- of upsetting the popular sitting Democratic governor.

    Stanley's Muscatine-based legislative district, like the turf Fallon represented in inner-city Des Moines from 1993 to 2006, was safe for his party. Stanley served in the state House from 1959 to 1964 and moved to the state Senate for one term. He won that state senate race with 60% in the Democratic landslide year of 1964. With a safe seat, a candidate can take positions that excite activists who vote in primaries, rather than compiling a middle-of-the-road record that draws moderate votes in general elections.

    Fred Schwengel, 1970

    "Schwengel, 63, ran as an experienced and moderate legislator who, as a member of the Committee on Public Works, had been attentive to his constituents and their needs," wrote Johnson and Gibson. "Stanley, 42, campaigned vigorously from house to house and in frequent professionally made television announcements. He stressed his own state legislative record and invariably charged that Schwengel was insufficiently regular as a Republican -- that his party unity score was lowest among all of Iowa's congressmen."

    Stanley's charges are echoed today by Fallon, who argues that Boswell's voting record, particularly his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war, is too conservative for a Democrat. But in one key difference between the 1970 race and this year's contest, Boswell has hurled the party loyalty issue back at Fallon, citing his 2000 support for Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader over Democrat Al Gore.

    Another difference between the 1970 battle and this year's contest is that only one party has a primary contest in 2008. Democrats know that either Boswell or Fallon's Republican opponent in November will be former congressional staffer Kim Schmett. But in 1970, 1st District Democrats also had a spirited primary. State representative Ed Mezvinsky, an attorney and consumer advocate, prevailed over anti-Vietnam War professor William Albrecht and law-and-order sheriff William "Blackie" Strout. Mezvinsky's campaign featured distinctive ads showing voters butchering his name, that later became literally textbook examples of name-ID ads.

    Johnson and Gibson surveyed activists in both parties before the primary and again just before the November general election. They found that most established Republican activists had backed incumbent Schwengel, just as the establishment of the Democratic Party is backing Boswell this year. In their post-primary study, they found that 60 percent of the respondents who backed primary losers intended to vote split tickets in the fall, compared to only 31 percent of the activists who had backed winners Schwengel and Mezvinsky. "There was no intensive or comprehensive effort made by the winners to recruit people who had been active for the opposition in the primary," wrote Johnson and Gibson. "Only a few, possibly no more than three to five, Stanley workers volunteered to work in the Schwengel campaign; most of those who continued their political work did shift to other campaigns."

    While Schwengel prevailed over Mezvinsky in November 1970, Mezvinsky came back and finally ended Schwengel's career in 1972. Schwengel went on to serve as U.S. Capitol historian.

    Before founding Iowans for Tax Relief in 1978, Stanley returned to the state House for one term in 1972, and lost another close U.S. Senate race, this time to John Culver, in 1974.

    Monday, March 17, 2008

    Should Dems Split Nomination Like 1836 Whigs?

    Should Dems Split Nomination Like 1836 Whigs?

    Democrats facing their irresistible-force-meets-immovable-object nomination fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be wishing they could somehow nominate both.

    They can, actually.

    Let's hop in the Wayback Machine and travel to 1836, when one political party had not two, but three presidential candidates.

    The Whig Party, which has the second funniest name of any dead political party just behind the Know-Nothing Party, was just in the process of forming around the basic ideology of hating President Andrew Jackson and dodging the slavery issue. The Democrats, perhaps persuaded by Jackson's track record of dueling with people he had disputes with, quickly settled on Vice President Martin Van Buren. But the Whigs were split between General William Henry Harrison of Ohio, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, and Senator Hugh White of Tennessee.

    So they nominated all of them.

    Quick Electoral College 101: We regular folks don't vote for president. We vote for presidential electors, and they vote for president. In almost every state it's a winner take all system. That's how it was in 1836, that's how it is now.


    The Whig strategy in 1836 was to win a majority of electoral votes by running each candidate in the region he was strongest. Webster represented the party in New England, Harrison (pictured) ran in what was then called the Northwest and White was the candidate in the South. If between the three of them they could manage to win more than half the electoral votes, they could either consolidate behind one candidate, or throw the election into the House of Representatives if they preferred. It had only been twelve years since a four-way presidential election had produced an Electoral College deadlock that had been settled by the House, so it wasn't an unthinkable strategy.



    It was a compromise; the Whigs were big on compromises. But it was an unsuccessful strategy, as Van Buren and the Democrats won a clear Electoral College majority. The experiment served as a sort of 1840 Whig national primary, as Harrison became the de facto front-runner by getting more electoral votes than Webster or White. We all know the rest: the economy tanked in the Panic of 1837 (recessions had more dramatic names back then), Harrison won in the Tippecanoe and Tyler Too campaign of 1840, and gave a really long inaugural speech in the rain. Next year, William Henry Harrison dollar coins will be minted for three times longer than he actually served as president.

    Could such a strategy work today? No, not dying after a month in office, I mean running different candidates in different states. Since candidates file with each state, there's really not a legal barrier. The barriers would be more political. Would the public stand for the shenanigans? Maybe not, with the grumbling about popular vote in the primaries and the role of the superdelegates. But then, just eight years ago a president was sworn in with fewer votes than his opponent, thanks to the 18th century wonders of the Electoral College, and the streets did not flow with the blood of the nonbelievers.

    A March 6 Survey USA series of polls showed both Obama and Clinton leading John McCain in the Electoral College. Obama beats McCain 280 electoral votes to 258, while Clinton defeats McCain 276 to 262. But the patterns are quite different. Obama loses some border states that Clinton wins, but does better in the Great Plains and Rockies. One of those Great Plains states is Iowa, where McCain beats Clinton but loses to Obama.

    Let's suspend our disbelief and assume that the Democrats deadlock and come up with a mashup candidate as a compromise: Barack Rodham Obama, or Hillary Hussein Clinton. Time to play with maps and numbers.

    First let's look at the primary results, a familiar map to anyone who's been watching election coverage.



    Obama is in green and Clinton in orange, with the yet to vote states in gray and calendar cheaters Michigan and Florida in black.

    Now let's look at which candidate runs stronger in a general election against McCain according to Survey USA.



    In this map, the gray states indicate Clinton and Obama run within two points of each other. This is a similar map, but not identical. In a few Deep South states where Obama easily won primaries, Clinton runs just as well as he does; probably one set of votes trading off for another. And interestingly, Obama runs better than Clinton in Texas.

    Now let's see what happens if the Democrats adopt the 1836 Whig strategy and run the stronger candidate in each state.



    It's not a squeaker anymore -- it's a landslide, 341 electoral votes for the two Democrats vs. 173 for McCain, with Tennessee and Virginia too close to call (see data table below). Obama even picks up two electoral votes from Nebraska, one of the two states that split their electoral votes by congressional district.

    Then they settle it with a deal in the smoke-free room, or if that fails, they can settle it the way Andrew Jackson settled his disputes. They'd still be eligible to hold office in Iowa, thanks to the 1992 dueling amendment. Just remember: if it's raining on Inauguration Day, cut the speech short.

    Survey USA, 3/6/08: McCain vs. Stronger Democrat



    StateMcCainDems

    Electoral Vote

    stronger DemPrimary Winner
    McCainDems
    Alabama51%41%9 ClintonObama
    Alaska48%43%3 ObamaObama
    Arizona51%39%10 ObamaClinton
    Arkansas40%51% 6Clinton (Obama loses)Clinton
    California40%51% 55ObamaClinton
    Colorado41%50% 9Obama (Clinton loses)Obama
    Connecticut34%55% 7ObamaObama
    Delaware41%50% 3ObamaObama
    Florida42%51% 27Clinton (Obama loses)depends
    Georgia54%41%15 ObamaObama
    Hawaii31%61%04ObamaObama
    Idaho52%39%4 ObamaObama
    Illinois31%60%021ObamaObama
    Indiana50%41%11 Obama-
    Iowa41%50% 7Obama (Clinton loses)Obama
    Kansas50%42%6 ClintonObama
    Kentucky50%41%8 Clinton-
    Louisiana51%41%9 ClintonObama
    Maine39%53% 4ObamaObama
    Maryland40%53% 10ObamaObama
    Massachusetts37%55% 12ClintonClinton
    Michigan44%46% 17Obama (Clinton loses)depends
    Minnesota42%49% 10ObamaObama
    Mississippi51%42%6 ClintonObama
    Missouri48%44%11 ClintonObama
    Montana47%39%3 Obama-
    Nebraska45%42%32Obama (wins 2 of 3 districts)Obama
    Nevada41%46% 5Obama (Clinton loses)Clinton Clinton (Obama won delegates)
    New Hampshire44%46% 4Obama (Clinton loses)Clinton
    New Jersey42%47% 15Clinton (Obama loses)Clinton
    New Mexico43%50% 5ObamaClinton
    New York33%55% 31ClintonClinton
    North Carolina47%45%15 Obama-
    North Dakota42%46% 3Obama (Clinton loses)Obama
    Ohio40%50% 20sameClinton
    Oklahoma50%42%7 ClintonClinton
    Oregon41%49% 7Obama (Clinton loses)-
    Pennsylvania46%47% 21Clinton (Obama loses)-
    Rhode Island37%54% 4ClintonClinton
    South Carolina48%45%8 ObamaObama
    South Dakota47%43%3 Obama-
    Tennessee46%46%tietieClinton (ties, Obama loses)Clinton
    Texas47%46%34 ObamaClinton (Obama won delegates)
    Utah50%39%5 ObamaObama
    Vermont29%63% 3ObamaObama
    Virginia47%47%tietieObama (ties, Clinton loses)Obama
    Washington38%52% 11Obama (Clinton loses)Obama
    West Virginia42%47% 5Clinton (Obama loses)-
    Wisconsin40%51% 10ObamaObama
    Wyoming54%35%3 ObamaObama
    District of Columbianot polled- 3ObamaObama
    Total  17334124 tied-