Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 5/14 (Morning Edition)

by: DavidNYC

Fri May 14, 2010 at 8:11 AM EDT


  • AR-Sen: Americans for Job Security, a shadowy group deservedly under fire for racist ads attacking Bill Halter, has now followed suit with an equally if not more disgusting mailer (click to see for yourself).
  • FL-Sen: So Charlie Crist's gone and hired himself an interim campaign manager... who just happens to be his sister. It's not surprising that Charlie's having trouble finding staff. Dems are loyal to Kendrick Meek and will risk getting blackballed by the DSCC if they work against him. And the Republicans - you can bet they will fucking fry anyone who crosses them. Crist is definitely going to wind up with some slim pickins', though if the Jeff Greene thing doesn't work out, I'm sure Joe Trippi will be available.
  • NC-Sen: Former Rep. Eva Clayton, the first woman elected to Congress in North Carolina and a prominent backer of third-place finisher Ken Lewis, gave her endorsement to Elaine Marshall. Will Lewis himself follow suit?
  • AL-Gov: Is Artur Davis's plan to win the war causing him to lose the battle? Ron Sparks just picked up the endorsement of two historically black political groups in Birmingham, which seem to have established a mutual shunning society with Davis thanks in large part to his vote against healthcare reform. Even if Davis does win the primary, will he kill the enthusiasm of black voters for the general?
  • CT-Gov: The Democratic state convention is the same weekend as the GOP meetup (see CT-04 item below). My understanding is that Dan Malloy has the nomination locked up, but Ned Lamont and his millions are only hoping to score the 15% they need to avoid petitioning to get on the ballot.
  • SC-Gov: Moose Lady in the Palmetto State today, endorsing Mark Sanford protégé Nikki Haley.
  • ME-Gov: Heh - it's a poll, of sorts. Portland-based Critical Insights asked 600 likely voters if they could name any of the gubernatorial candidates, I assume by pure recall. Republican Les Otten was best-known, with 30% naming him, while Peter Mills was at 16%. Among Dems, Libby Mitchell scored 16% and Steve Rowe 11%. Everyone else was in single digits.
  • CT-04: Some Dude Will Gregory is bailing on the race, following Rob Russo, who quit a couple of weeks ago. Russo endorsed state Sen. Dan Debicella, but Gregory isn't backing anybody. The GOP will gather next weekend (May 21st) for its convention, where a simple majority gets you the party's endorsement, which Debicella is expected to pick up easily. However, 15% gets you on the primary ballot, and failing that, so will 2,000 signatures. The other three Republican hopefuls are all more or less saying they plan to fight on regardless of what happens at the convention.
  • DE-AL: This is either some unbelievable oppo or the product of an amazingly lucky Google search: A letter to the editor in a Jamaican newspaper written by businesswoman/heiress Michele Rollins has somehow surfaced, and it's given developer Glen Urquhart a fat opening. In the letter, Rollins advocates that Jamaica - which she refers to as "our" country - develop itself as an international banking center (aka offshore tax evasion haven) to rival the Cayman Islands. Not only does this raise the weirdest dual-loyalties question I've ever seen, but given that Delaware is a big banking center, it's causing Rollins extra grief. Also of note: The DE GOP will hold its convention this Saturday. Candidates need 60% to get the party's endorsement (which is expected to go to Rollins), but it's non-binding, and both Republicans plan to fight on to the September primary no matter what happens.
  • FL-08: Former state Sen. Dan Webster, like so many of his brethren, also seems ensnared in the burgeoning Republican Party of Florida Amex scandal. He spent $9K over a two-year period, pretty much entirely at restaurants, and isn't apologizing for it. That's a lot of pizza.
  • FL-25: Joe Garcia is hammering state Rep. David Rivera for a "political stunt" which cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. Rivera supported a law which required travel agencies arranging flights to Cuba to post six-figure bonds. The agencies successfully fought the law in court and were also awarded their legal costs, which amounted to $365K. This is a clever hit, and it also shows that Garcia isn't afraid to challenge anti-Castro fanaticism.
  • HI-01: AFSCME funneled $100K back in April to a group called Workers for a Better Hawaii, which has since spent about $75K on radios ads against Charles Djou and Ed Case. Perhaps the scariest thing is that the NRCC hasn't spent a dime on this race (thought the RNC transferred some $94K to the Hawaii GOP back in March).
  • ID-01: Remember back in 1997, when George Lucas re-released Star Wars? Yeah, he shoulda stopped there. GOP candidate Vaughn Ward shouldn't have even bothered with the re-release: He tried to re-trot-out an endorsement from the American Conservative Union in order to bolster his wingnut bonafides... but he put out a press release about this all the way back in November. That is sad. Even sadder is the Bill Sali-esque excuse making from Ward's campaign manager, who - when called on it - claimed, "I just got a new Mac and I'm still trying to figure it out." Oh god.
  • IN-08: I like it: The D-Trip is already going up on the air with an ad bashing Republican Larry Buchson on a tried-and-true theme: social security privatization. No word on the size of the buy, though apparently it will go up for a week in Evansville, which is not a costly market.
  • MA-05: So Niki Tsongas demurred on whether or not she'd want Barack Obama to campaign with her. While Scott Brown did win this district 56-43, I'm really not sure Tsongas wants to be playing cringe politics. However, the NYT - which seems to think she's in real trouble - cutely points out that her best-funded GOP challenger has not raised "as much" as Tsongas has. The truth: Tsongas $863K, Jonathan Golnik $177K. P.S. I note that Rep. Brian Higgins (NY-27) was eager to get a photo op with Obama yesterday.
  • NY-14: Hah - Reshma Saujani almost does something I might approve of, except I don't. She's berating Carolyn Maloney for not supporting President Obama and the DCCC because she didn't raise money for last night's fundraiser (see item below). Ordinarily at SSP, we're the loudest when it comes to demanding incumbents support their party committees - but this is ridiculous bullshit. The D-Trip always goes easy when incumbents face serious races, whether primaries or generals. But in any event, Maloney points out that she has in fact raised over a quarter mil for the DCCC this cycle. I guess Saujani has a lot of credibility when it comes to supporting the D-Trip and Obama, though: She's donated $0 lifetime to the DCCC and was a big Clinton backer.
  • PA-12: SEIU just dropped a cool $200K on TV ads to go after Tim Burns. Let's just hope those recent polls are right.... Meanwhile, Scott Brown is coming to campaign for Burns, while Sen. Bob Casey will be doing the same for Mark Critz.
  • DCCC: Barack Obama was in NYC last night, doing a fundraiser for the D-Trip at the St. Regis hotel. He raked in $1.3 million (tickets started at $15K a pop).
  • DavidNYC :: SSP Daily Digest: 5/14 (Morning Edition)
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    I feel pretty confident
    that Critz is going to win now.  The only polls I see with Burns up anymore are republican internals, and even those only have Burns ahead by 1-2 points.  Critz has a lot of the big guns, like Bill Clinton and Bob Casey campaigning for him, and the DCCC has dropped nearly a mil here, which I find incredible.  

    The only thing that makes me think Critz might lose is Obama's approvals in the district.  But ultimately I think the district is too historically democratic for that to have a big effect.

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13


    Think so too
    The hotly contested Democratic primary should create enough spillover votes to push Critz over the top.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't worry about the President's approvals there
    The man was never popular there to begin with, even when he was a candidate. But yeah i'm pretty confident as well, Critz got alot of people stumping for him and Burns didn't do himself any favors by running ads attacking Critz for working for a dead man everyone there loved.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

    [ Parent ]
    My main question would be if a Critz win is "great" news for
    the Dems. If he wins, Critz will have done so by running as far away from his Congressional leadership and HCR as possible. Don't get me wrong, a win is a win, and beating the GOP after they have invested so much in the race would help the Dems win some news cycles and blunt the GOP mo into November. I just don't know if the same strategy can be replicated in swing districts where the incumbents have been close to Pelosi or supported HCR.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh it means nothing
    In that regard. But the optics mean everything. Especially with Djou likely to win.

    [ Parent ]
    A win is a win
    If Critz wins, it dosen't matter how he did it because all the media will talk about if his wins. Same with HI-1, no one will be yakking that the only reason Djou won was because the primary system, they'll be talking about how he won in the President's home turf. As for him running away from Peloso and HCR, dude PA-12 is the type of district where these things are not popular and if you want to win you have to distance yourself from it. It may not be popular with people like you but it is what it is.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

    [ Parent ]
    2 things
    First, as I have stated previously, I am a Republican, so I actually don't mind the anti-HCR stuff.
    Secondly, the main thrust of my comment was not that it was bad that he is running away from Pelosi and HCR, as you stated that is likely what has to be done in a district like this one. The idea is that this type of strategy won't be replicable for the Dems in the fall. Most incumbents will either be able to be tied to Pelosi and/or HCR. In districts that are D+5 or more that probably won't be a big problem at all, but in areas which are red or purple it definitely has the potential to be a major problem.
    Just to reiterate, a win is great and you cannot beat the optics of beating the Republicans in a district trending their way after the NRCC has invested so heavily there. However, the way in which Critz has ran his campaign does not bode well for a good deal of Dem incumbents in the fall.  

    [ Parent ]
    To be honest...
    I didn't know you were a GOPer, don't shock me because your comments always came off very conservative but I always thought you were concern troll.

    But I disagree with your statement, most incumbents that voted againist HCR are not in trouble because the Pelosi shit won't fly because it's hard for a GOPer to tie a Dem to the Speaker when they never supported the Speakers agenda. Second alot of Dems from red districts for the most part voted down HCR so there not in trouble and Critz is running the campaign he's running because PA-12 is the type of place where the stimulus is not popular, cap and trade is not popular and HCR is not popular. So in order to win he has to run away from it. It's what you got to do to win around here. But I don't think alot of Dems will run a campaign Critz is running so I can't really agree on your statement

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.


    [ Parent ]
    In really hard-right districts
    just having voted for Pelosi for Speaker could threaten a Democratic Representative's reelection chances.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah I Know
    Cause in those districts, Pelosi is looked apon as the devil because she's liberal, A baby killer,she's from from California home to such homoloving socialists towns like Berkley and her hometown San Francisco (there words, certainly not mine). I think it's stupid, but i'm smart and educated like you and everyone else here so that's why we don't go obsessing about the Speaker like she's the devil in drag like the tea baggers and RWers do. It's quite pathetic when you think of it.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree with all this, but I think we might be ignoring
    Another thing hurting Burns is fact he's not the uncontested Republican nominee. Russell sounds like he's giving him no support, and since the polls seem to indicate an even division between the two on the Republican side, that's probably hurting him even more than his attacks on Murtha.

    I believe that if Burns were the consensus nominee, he might be winning now.  


    [ Parent ]
    I can't say if that's true or not
    Since there has been zero coverage about Bill Russell since they picked the GOP nominee. I know he's getting no support since Russell believes it should be him againist Critz and he's running aganist Burns in the primary. But to say that this is a reason Tim Burns is hurting I can't really say.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's my argument
    Say you're a Bill Russell supporter (he ran against Murtha the last time) and you think he got cheated out of the nomination. Are you likely to support Burns when you think Russell would be the stronger candidate? Seems to me like you'd not vote at all.

    There's been zero converage of Russell nationally, but I'm assuming he has residual local support. This is going to be close enough race that I gotta think Russell non-endorsement/primary challenge has got to be hurting Burns.

    But I also agree with you, Burns attack against Murtha was dumb and probably hurts him as well. Certainly that seems to be when Burns began to fall in the polls.  


    [ Parent ]
    That's a good point
    Bill Russell didn't run a great campaign, but ran decent enough that he got some support in the Johnstown area in his run last cycle againist Murtha. My guess is the support over Burns and Russell will be divided. What I mean is there will be GOPers that will vote for Burns simply because they want the Republican to win no matter what, but there also will be the Russell supporters that will sit this one out because there man isn't running againist Critz.

    I have to say running ads attacking a beloved dead man hurt Burns. Remember it looked like Burns was unstoppable, there was that SurveyUSA poll that had him with a 6 point lead, then he made that ad and slowly but surely things changed. Polls either showed Critz leading or tied, money and support came in for Critz and it dosen't hurt when the district leading newspaper (Tribune-Democrat of Johnstown) endorsed Critz, sure they always endorsed Murtha but it's a very conservative anti-government, anti-tax editorial section, so that good. I'm becoming more confident in this race, it will be a squeaker but I feel we got the momentum. If it wasn't for the fucked up system in HI-1 I say the same about that race too but I can't.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.


    [ Parent ]
    The Burns/Russell GOP primary the same day complicates things
    There are actually 2 elections going on at the same time in PA-12.

    One is the special election that pits Democrat Critz vs. Republican Burns - both selected by their party committees to run in the special for the remainder of Murtha's term.

    But there are also contested party primaries for the Republican and Democratic nominations for the November general election and the 2 year term beginning in January 2011.

    Russell is very aggressively challenging Burns in the Republican primary, and by some accounts may be poised to defeat him in that race. His attacks on Burns simply can't be helping convince some voters that they should vote simultaneously for Burns in the special and against him in the primary - that is a complicated message, and Russell has no interest in helping Burns with that nuance.

    The dynamic clearly helps Critz - especially since his primary opponent (Ryan Boccierni) doesn't appear to be getting much attention in the Democratic primary.

    My political active relatives in the district are now convinced that Critz will pull out a win - which is very different than what they were saying a couple of weeks ago.



    [ Parent ]
    UK-Voting System Changes
    For those who are interested, here's an excellent summary of the options for Nick Clegg (LD leader) in a prospective referendum:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/a...

    As shown in the various scenarios, the changes, except for the "Single Transferable Vote" option, would be incremental. Very minor parties (e.g. BNP, Greens) would be unlikely to gain seats under any of the scenarios. I suspect that's because none of the options are pure "proportional representation".

    If there is a referendum (and the Tories have committed to a referendum on AV -- in writing -- as part of the coalition agreement), it seems likely to pass

    Voting reform: what does the public want?
    The majority - 62 per cent - backed Nick Clegg's plan for PR, according to a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times. Only 13 per cent opposed it. But a different poll in today's Sun was less pronounced - 46 per cent were in favour of (an unspecified form of) proportional representation, while 37 per cent wanted to keep the status quo. Only a quarter of Conservative voters polled by YouGov yesterday wanted PR, while nearly three-quarters of Lib Dems did.

    The NYT provides a translation to American English here - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c...

    essentially, AV is equivalent to what we call "instant runoff" voting.


    Electoral reform is tough, and plurality voting is bad
    but IMO IRV is either just as bad or worse. The problem is that in IRV you can switch your first place vote from the winner to the loser and cause him to lose.

    Result #1:

    A: 44

    B: 29

    C: 27

    Suppose additionally that the vast majority of C's supporters prefer A to B. A then wins in the second round easily.

    Now suppose that some of B's voters decide to switch their votes to A, creating result #2:

    A: 47

    B: 26

    C: 27

    Suppose again that almost all of B's supporters prefer C to A. This time, because B is now in 3rd place, it is eliminated in the first round. When its votes are transferred to C, C wins. And again, the only change is that more people decided to vote for the "winner."

    Something like this supposedly happened in Burlington last year, so it's not just theoretical.  


    [ Parent ]
    That's just silly
    Yeah that can all play out, by taking the flaw in IRV and thinking the whole system is "just as bad or worse" doesn't seem fair.  You'd rather have the giant current flaw in our system where we elect people with 37% of the vote vs a system that guarantees 50%+1 winner but has a flaw that may play out 1 time out of millions?  How realistic is it that C's voters would be split up and allow A the win while B's voters would all go to C by such a large margin that they'd block A from winning.  From switching to the first to second scenario, the example acknowledges 10% of B's supporters would indeed support A because they decided to switch their votes, so saying 100% of them would then go to C isn't very logical.

    What would be much much much more likely is let's say some of B's voters went to C, thus causing B to be eliminated instead of C, thus giving C the win vs A.  That scenario makes a lot more sense and doesn't involve "voting for the winner causing the winner to lose".

    And the scenario you give only works when you have a viable third party that can really eat up votes, and that's only in VT with the Dem/Progressive split.  Even in MN, that would probably never play out because the Indy Party rarely gets over 10-15% so they're the first ones eliminated every time.  Special election jungle primaries, IRV would be a god-sent.


    [ Parent ]
    And from reading the wiki on the 2009 Burlington Mayoral
    I dont think this scenario played out

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...


    [ Parent ]
    The range voting folks, whose proposal
    [ Parent ]
    I don't see the big deal
    The crux of the "defective" Burlington election appears to be that Montroll, the Democrat, would've won if more people voted for him. Furthermore, the writers acknowledge that simple plurality vote would be even worse, electing the Republican. As it is, two left-wing and one right-wing candidate (plus an indy) ran in what I assume is a fairly left-wing electorate, and the stronger left-wing candidate won. What's the problem?

    27, Democratic, IL-01

    [ Parent ]
    This is pretty simple
    The winner under IRV would have lost to every other candidate in a head-to-head. In a sense, the Republican acted as a spoiler for the Democrat.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Democrats wont ever be happy in this scenario
    Either no IRV and the Progressives play spoiler and the GOP wins, or IRV and the GOP plays spoiler and the Progressives win.  And considering that a majority of the Democratic votes went to the Progressive candidate once they were their candidate was eliminated, they are probably a lot happier with the outcome with IRV.

    IRV is not perfect, but Im more at issue with you saying this system may be worse than first-past-the-post.  IRV is very clearly much more representative of the population than FPTP, and you using the one example of how it can be foiled, an example that statistically is not going to happen in your lifetime even if you've been voting IRV your whole life, well, color me confused.


    [ Parent ]
    read your below posts
    No need to color me confused, I get where you are coming from.

    [ Parent ]
    No plurality
    Honestly speaking, whether approval voting, range voting, IRV, or even Condorcet voting, they are all better than plurality voting. Is it STV or PR? No. But it sure beats keeping plurality. IRV has a lot of problems... but it's sure better than plurality.  

    [ Parent ]
    Would he?
    I thought it was pretty clear that the Progressive would've defeated the Republican in a head-to-head - in fact the write-up said that the Republican would've lost in a head-to-head with any of the candidates. The complaint seems to be that the Democrat would've won in a head-to-head with either candidate, (making him the "Condorcet winner"), but instead was pushed out in the first round.

    Maybe it's me, but I don't see why that's a problem -- the Democrat didn't get to run against one candidate, and was too weak to win the first-round support necessary to stay in the game. Tough toenails. The important thing is that he didn't spoil the race as in a plurality system, and thus allowing the Republican, who, as stated above was the Condorcet "loser", to win.

    27, Democratic, IL-01


    [ Parent ]
    There were vastly more Republican voters
    who would have preferred the Democrat to the Progressive. So strategic voting would have been rewarded: they would have been happier with the result if they had ranked anyone other than their first choice first!  

    [ Parent ]
    That doesnt seem like an instance
    though where people voting more for the winner made them lose.  That seems more like the one big downfall.  But since the real winner should be the left of center Democrat, having the further left Progressive seems like a better deal than the GOPer, and not saying that as a Democrat, but as a defender of the system.

    [ Parent ]
    Think about how you're examining this, though
    Some of the biggest supporters of IRV are people who support 3rd parties. But if 3rd parties actually gained electoral strength, my example would become quite real.

    I don't know what the right answer is, and Arrow tells us that there's no perfect voting system, but it's clear to me that IRV doesn't solve the problem. Moving from a monotone voting system to one that isn't is not an improvement.  


    [ Parent ]
    I think the analysis in the original link proves otherwise
    yes, there will be exceptional cases. But with AV (aka instant runoff voting --IRV), progressives get the chance to pool their votes.

    And in every permutation considered in the UK, right of center parties lose seats as a result.

    However, IMO what you (andgarden) say is a reasonable argument against IRV for executive offices.  


    [ Parent ]
    It's not at all clear to me
    that this problem is that unlikely. IRV seems like a great idea as applied to Florida 2000. But once you actually start dividing the electorate with multiple serious candidates, you get all sorts of bizarre results. Just as one example, tell me if you think this makes any sense at all.  

    [ Parent ]
    IRV & Third parties
    Although I prefer IRV to our plurality system, it is far from my perfect. Insofar as your concern about monotonicity is predicated on the development of third parties, I would simply point out that the use of IRV has not led to the expansion of third parties in places where it has been tried, such as Australia.

    The most consequential voting reform would be to institute proportional representation, whether via STV or a different system.      


    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I am not a proponent of more parties
    I think that our two party system has a lot going for it. But for those who do want more viable parties, IRV is just as much of an impediment as plurality voting--if not more so.  

    [ Parent ]
    Third Parties, Third Candidates
    I`d just say that multi-candidate single-winner elections are not uniquely multi-party affairs, this also describes party primaries. In many primary elections there is pressure not to `divide the anti-incumbent vote`and thereby artificially limit the number of candidates that can run.

    States that have primary runoffs, or jungle primaries, already suffer from some of the deficiencies you mention and would only benefit by instituting IRV. Just as I think we all agree that HI-01 would be better off with a runoff, states like AR or WA would benefit by moving to IRV-primary voters would get more choice, while producing the winner with the broadest amount of support.  


    [ Parent ]
    It depends how it'd work out
    I think the likely scenario would be two major GOP-oriented parties; one for the Christian fundies who hate everybody and everything unless it's something that reverts us back to the 50's, and then the party for common sense right of center who dont want to pay tons of taxes but who dont demonize gay people.

    The left, however, fuck, we could have 10 different parties!  And it really can come down to did the Labor Party get 11.5% of the vote or 11.8% of the vote, and how would the Labor Party divide up, how much of their vote would go to the moderate GOP Party, or to do the Pro-Choice Party who has the most vote total of the progressive parties?

    There will certainly be a lot of those questions and it could cause the GOP to win depending how the vote breaks down by third party, but overall, it's still going to add up to Progressive vs Conservative and these types of questions wont ever be realized anyway because the SoS wont have a staff of people to go through how every permutation screwed over some other permutation.

    The third party split-offs could hurt Democrats overall though, because we are notoriously bad at coalescing around a candidate.  Now old-school labor has the chance to vote directly for a pro-life labor choice, or pick GOP as their second option if they care that much.  But on the flip, it forces liberals who like to "throw their vote away" and vote for Nadar and the like, well now they either dont vote, only fill in their choice, or at least bother to scribble in their 2nd choice, which would be the Democrat.


    [ Parent ]
    It all averages out
    While unexpected results happen under normal systems too, on average, it would work out -- I haven't run numbers -- but I suspect the example you link would happen maybe at most 1:100 times (i.e. only when 3 parties are fairly closely divided, with a 4th party as shown in your link - and the cited Burlington Mayoral election). That makes IRV suited for legislative elections, where the occasional weird result doesn't matter in the body of the whole.

    However, the risks associated with what you say (and link) would make me hesitate with respect to an executive (i.e. Mayor, Governor, Presidential) election. Legitimacy is enough of a problem with a straight plurality 3-way election.


    [ Parent ]
    Way more than 1:100
    You need to factor in how often we even have election where a third party gets that close to 2nd place.  There's gotta be thousands upon thousands of electoral positions in this country and I doubt even .1% of those elections have regular (or any) instances of a third party challenger gets that close to the 2nd place total.

    IRC may make that more likely, but I doubt it.


    [ Parent ]
    You mean way less, I think (but I get it)
    Nevertheless, as an engineer by training, I'm used to setting up rough "back of the napkin" estimates. If the numbers turn out to be closer than the original guess, then step 2 is to "sharpen the pencil."

    a.k.a., even at 1:100, I think the point still holds.


    [ Parent ]
    I am decidedly non-quantitative
    but I took a math and politics class to satisfy an undergraduate requirement. It has served me well in discussions like this (I too think that IRV looks pretty good on the surface. . .)

    Probably there is no perfect voting system to choose between individuals. And even in proportional representation you have to set a percentage threshold, thereby causing some individuals to waste their votes.  


    [ Parent ]
    But what about
    IRV for primaries, rather than generals? We don't really need it in a two-party system for generals, since someone usually gets a majority or a high-40s plurality. But it's a much bigger problem in multi-way primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure that IRV is superior to runoff elections
    although it certainly saves money to have it all done at once.

    [ Parent ]
    A divided field
    is exactly where IRV would fall down. How do you deal with a three way tie, for example?

    Here's one voting profile:

    32 A>B>C

    34 B>A>C

    34 C>A>B

    B wins round 2 with 66%.

    But change it just slightly:

    34 A>B>C

    35 B>C>A

    31 C>A>B

    and suddenly A wins with 65%.

    Because of a fluke in who was eliminated first, one third of the voters who gave their first choice votes to the 3rd place candidate get their second preferences honored. We've also created what is, to my mind, an illusion of a strong victory. I don't see how this is any better than with a plurality vote. If I had time, I could even show you the bizarre results that can arise from small shifts in second and third preferences.  


    [ Parent ]
    In primaries only would be something
    both parties could support.  Winning with 26% is pretty damn silly.

    [ Parent ]
    *cough* Bill Sali *cough*


    My blog
    Twitter
    Scribd
    28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


    [ Parent ]
    CA-Sen: Dead heat for Boxer/Campbell, Boxer ahead 6,7 over DeVore, Fiorina
    NY-Sen: Nassau County Comptroller to challenge Schumer
    Very surprising to me
    The guy just won last year. I guess he's ambitious and wants to increase his name recognition for some more realistic future run.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
    --  Will Rogers  


    [ Parent ]
    R2K spector sestak poll is out
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

    Sestak leads 45-43

    Kos makes another one of his "non-endorsement" endorsements,

    At this point, nominating the real Democrat also gives us the best chance in the general election to hold the seat. There is zero reason to stick with the untrustworthy Specter.


    What's really telling
    is Specter's lack of strength in the Philly burbs for the GE. He should dominate there, and he isn't.

    The crosstabs are currently missing Sestak's GE performance for some reason, though.

    And no regional crosstabs for the primary, which is also odd.  


    [ Parent ]
    Sestak is from the Philly burbs, too.


    Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

    [ Parent ]
    I know that
    but he isn't nearly as well-known there as Specter.  

    [ Parent ]
    Probably true, but it's his base, too.


    Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

    [ Parent ]
    Depending on how you define it,
    the Philly burbs constitute 4-5 Congressional districts. Sestak represents just one.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let me rephrase
    PART of the Philly suburbs are Sestak's base, too.  :p

    Plus, I assume Sestak aired ads on the Philly networks, so there had to be quite a bit of exposure to other suburbanites outside the 7th.  And there's also probably some affinity for a fellow resident of the Philly burbs, like a home-state advantage, only on a sub-state, regional level.  

    Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


    [ Parent ]
    That is the point
    Everyone in Philly and the burbs sees the same ads.  And Sestak had a ton of ads in 2008 for his congressional run, so everyone "knows" him and his ads in 2 straight cycles.  

    Specter may be very well known, but Specter's key has always been offsetting huge Dem margins in Philly/burbs because he was from there.  Now he's on the Dem side, he now has to maximize these margins against someone from the same region.

    Its a true change for him.  It will be close, but aren't all Specter elections lol?


    [ Parent ]
    6, 7, 8, 13, and possibly 15. nt


    [ Parent ]
    I'd say it averages out to 4.
    The 6th, 7th, and 8th are clearly suburban.  The 13th has a large chunk within the city itself.  And the 15th is mostly outside of Metro Philly.

    Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

    [ Parent ]
    Democrats Need To Get This
    Outside of areas where President Obama did very poorly in November 2008....being scared of him makes no sense.

    First of all, the kind of people who are going to be turned off by you associating yourself with the President are already voting Republican. You're not going to stop the teabag crew from coming to the polls to vote for your opponent with cringe politics.  

    Second of all, the more you and run and hide the more that the kind of people who Obama brought to the polls in 2008 are less likely to show up for you a few months from now. And if they stay home, that hurts your re-election chances.

    This is especially directed at people like Nikki Tsongas. The only way an incumbent like her loses, other than a personal scandal, is if she either neglects to campaign at all like Martha Coakley or manages to dissuade loyal Democrats from turning out for her in November.  

    36, M, Democrat, MD-03


    Silly
    Scott Brown wins a district so the incumbent must be in trouble. Seems to me nothing more than an assumption. And a bad one at that.

    Yeah, a fluke special election isn't the best thing to base conclusions on.
    Brown won when Democrats were further down the crapper and only then after the heavily-favored Democratic nominee committed political hari-kari.  

    Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

    [ Parent ]
    The nadir was clearly March
    Steady progress since then in Dem fortunes. Best captured in these two graphs.

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

    HCR and job creation being the reason. As we had been saying for months would happen.


    [ Parent ]
    Harakiri
    To be honest I'm not sure if Tsongas herself is the world's best campaigner. MassGOP correctly notes below that she won an underwhelming victory in 2007 (although Ogonowski's Some Dude-ism was reduced by the fact that his brother was a 9/11 pilot; I'd say that counts as an exceptional backstory). The only good news for her, in my opinion, is that she's slowly getting more entrenched, and also there are some liberal Boston suburbs in her district that are sure to vote for her.

    21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
    please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


    [ Parent ]
    Tsongas isn't in a ton of trouble
    Brown did win the district, but it was only his 3rd or 4th best in the state.

    However, she barely won a special election for this in 2007 against Jim Oganowski, who is the definition of Some Dude. And the political climate was a lot better for Dems back then.

    20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


    [ Parent ]
    Oganowski on paper was some dude
    But his ties to 9/11 were thrown about so excessively that the GOP elevated him to a solid tier 2 or 3 candidate, simply by being high off of 9/11 ties.  So while he certainly started off as some dude, he wasn't by election day.

    Oganowski was even going to run against Kerry, until he didnt get enough signatures or something like that.  Then he perfectly exemplified why he was "some dude", and not the grand moderate GOPer whose own brother died in 9/11.  He was an interesting candidate.


    [ Parent ]
    If I remember right, Ogonowski based a lot of his campaign on immigration.
    Hispanics are the equivalent of southern blacks in this district in cities like Methuen, Haverhill, and Lowell. White working class Catholics here want no part of immigration reform.

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Trippi
    I don't blame anyone for trying to make money in legal ways, but is this the first shady candidate that Trippi has worked for or does he have a history of this?  I always thought he was one of those true believer, principled people.  

    Please donate to amcharities.org to help build more after school centers in the Miami area.  

    23, Democrat, IA-2


    DCCC NYC Event
    1.3 raised at 15K a pop = 86 people in the room

    With Obama not doing nearly as many events as past presidents you'd think he'd be bigger draw.  Maybe the ticket price was to high, but you figure if Obama can't get more then 100 big donors in Manhattan where the heck can he?

    Maybe I'm just being paranoid.


    You could say it was too much
    Since a ticket was 15k, but I think your being a tad paranoid since he was able to rake in over a million for the D-Trip.

    22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

    [ Parent ]
    FL-Sen, Trippi is likely gonna make so much money off that
    billionaire Jeff Greene guy's campaign, that he won't need any other work.
    Sorry Charlie, you'll have to look elsewhere for a campaign manager.


    Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

    Primary Sponsor

    You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?


    About the Site

    SSP Resources

    Blogroll

    Powered by: SoapBlox