Edward-Isaac Dovere at Politico reports on the strategizing among the nascent campaign team in former Vice President Joe Biden's orbit:...
Edward-Isaac Dovere at Politico reports on the strategizing among the nascent campaign team in former Vice President Joe Biden's orbit:
"...a tight circle of aides has been brainstorming a range of tear-up-the-playbook ideas for a White House run, according to people who’ve been part of the discussions or told about them.
On the list: announcing his candidacy either really early or really late in the primary process so that he’d define the field around him or let it define itself before scrambling the field; skipping Iowa and New Hampshire and going straight to South Carolina, where he has always had a strong base of support; announcing a running mate right out of the gate and possibly picking one from outside of politics; and making a pitch that he can be a bridge not just to disaffected Democrats, but to Republicans revolting against President Donald Trump."
It is kind of early in the cycle for the "skipping states" discussion, but with 2020 giving all indications (at this time) of being a wild nomination cycle on the Democratic side, perhaps it is an idea worth exploring anew.
The premise remains the same: pick a spot on the calendar/state contest where you are more likely to succeed, win then/there, and keep winning on the way to the nomination. Simple, right?
In reality, that has proven easier said, or maybe strategized, than done. It did not go as planned when Al Gore focused on the Southern Super Tuesday states in 1988, and it did not work for Rudy Giuliani twenty years later when he attempted to resurrect a similar strategic path by putting everything on the late January Florida primary. Both campaigns foresaw their respective foci as springboards. Gore from a delegate haul in his home region that would give him enough of a lead to make it difficult for others to catch up. And Giuliani from a winner-take-all Florida win into a series of contests a week later when half the country would be voting.
Both lost.
Gore split the South with Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, leaving behind his natural base of support and with no delegate advantage to show for it. Giuliani lost Florida to John McCain and the Arizona senator -- winner in New Hampshire and South Carolina -- used that series of wins to effectively wrap up the nomination a week after Florida on Super Tuesday.
Now, FHQ does not want to make too much of just two cases, but they are instructive with respect to the prospective "Biden to skip Iowa and New Hampshire" strategy in 2020.1 Nominees -- or frontrunners in real time during the primaries -- do not skip states. Those campaigns do not cede wins, delegates, and attention to their opponents for a month.
But the allure of South Carolina to Biden is clear and under a rationale much like those above. A win in the Palmetto state with its heavily African American primary electorate would serve as an important hypothetical precursor to wins across the South. And many of the states of the region -- with similar primary electorates -- vote just a week later. That would be an extension of the Clinton success story from 2016. Wins fueled by African American support across the region built the delegate advantage by which the former secretary of state claimed the nomination. Actually, that is the surest path to the modern Democratic nomination.
But skipping Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada is no way to start any march to the nomination even with the "South Carolina gateway to the rest of the South" as the centerpiece. That lowers expectations in any of the first three states to zero and raises expectations on anyone camping out waiting in South Carolina. However, expectations can be lowered or rather tempered without ignoring the first three of the carve-outs.
Romney's "keep Iowa at arm's length" strategy in 2012 is a decent guide. There was a lot of talk of the former Massachusetts governor skipping Iowa in 2011 to focus on New Hampshire, but while he did not spend a ton of time and effort there, Romney was there. That is lower expectations, but not to zero, not ceding the state to the competition.
In a supposedly wide open race, candidates cannot give away anything. And on the Democratic side, get to 15 percent and qualify for and claim whatever delegates you can. Now, if Biden can do that without so much as looking Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada's way, then bully for him. But activists and volunteers, not to mention voters in those states will likely not be receptive to such a snub.
The skipping strategy throws the baby out with the bathwater.
--
Quickly, about that entering/announcing late strategy:
Biden may announce late, but if the campaign seeks to do this properly, then the announcement will not really come as a surprise.
Why?
Campaigns have to raise money and hire staff to run the operation. That is groundwork that has to be laid well in advance, and the public will see signs of progress (or lack thereof) during the invisible primary regardless of any announcement. To wait on building that campaign infrastructure is to, again, cede it to the competition. Biden stayed on the sidelines too long in 2015, and though the chatter of a possible run was there, donors and campaign operatives were not. They had signed on elsewhere and were not willing to switch.
--
Betting at home?
Biden announces early and plays in all of the carve-outs to some extent if he plays at all.
--
1 The Politico article is another cut in the death by one thousand cuts that the Nevada caucuses continue endure. Presumably, if a Biden campaign is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire to focus on South Carolina, then they are skipping third in the order Nevada as well.
New State Polls (9/29/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin California Survey USA 9/27-9...
New State Polls (9/29/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
California | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.6% | 732 likely voters | 59 | 33 | 3 | +26 | +21.47 |
Colorado | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.7% | 694 likely voters | 46 | 40 | 6 | +6 | +3.42 |
Florida | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.4% | 826 likely voters | 45 | 43 | 8 | +2 | +2.08 |
Missouri | | 9/26-9/27 | +/- 3.0% | 1279 likely voters | 39 | 49 | -- | +10 | +7.45 |
North Carolina | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.3% | 861 likely voters | 44 | 42 | 7 | +2 | +1.15 |
Pennsylvania | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.3% | 886 likely voters | 45 | 39 | 8 | +6 | +4.79 |
South Carolina | | 9/18-9/26 | +/- 4.5% | 475 likely voters | 38 | 42 | 11 | +4 | +7.91 |
Virginia | | 9/27-9/28 | +/- 3.4% | 811 likely voters | 46 | 40 | 5 | +6 | +5.62 |
Polling Quick Hits:
Thursday brought eight new state-level polls, seven of which were in the field after Monday's first presidential debate. Either the jury is still out on the true impact or the difference thus far is negligible. FHQ would tend to land on the jury still being out, but that is a position rooted in the desire for a bit more data to accrue first.
California:
There is nothing much to see here. Not only does the new Survey USA poll of the Golden state echo the survey the firm released in early September, but it looks a lot like the final results in the state in 2012.
Colorado:
Somehow this is the first PPP survey of Colorado this year, and as a result, it lacks a natural point of comparison. That is relevant because this survey was in the field completely after the first debate. What looks like Clinton jumping out to a lead, then, may be nothing more than a poll inconsistent with the other recent polls in the state. The frequency of polls being released in the Centennial state has picked up, so more data will be along soon enough to help settle the matter.
Florida:
More of the same in the Sunshine state: Clinton and Trump have traded leads in recent polls there and the margins have been within a +/-3 point range in both directions. This new PPP survey fits in that window and also is little different from the early September poll the firm conducted in the state.
Missouri:
After narrowing some following the conventions, Missouri has subsequently moved in the opposite direction in the time since. The polling margins have climbed to around the Strong/Lean line and pull the FHQ graduated weighted average in the Show-Me state up toward that threshold as well. The former bellwether is lodged well within the Lean Trump category for the time being.
North Carolina:
Most of the Florida description above applies in the Tar Heel state as well. The range is similar as is the narrow Clinton advantage. The only difference is that there was a swing in the PPP series of polls in the state. Whereas the survey last week found Trump up a couple of points, this post-debate poll has Clinton up two.
Pennsylvania:
For starters, the fourth of the PPP surveys today closely resembles the firm's last poll in Pennsylvania. Yes, that six point margin breaks with the slew of more narrow polls out of the Keystone state over the last week or so. However, the simple truth of the matter is that each candidates' share of support is within their established ranges there. It is just that Clinton is at the top end of her range and Trump on the lower end of his.
South Carolina:
Down in the Palmetto state, September has ushered in a series polls finding a double digit lead for Trump. That was a departure from some of the narrower survey margins that emerged in the post-convention period. But this Winthrop poll is a return to those tighter results in a state that has moved and seemingly taken root in the Lean Trump area.
Virginia:
Finally in Virginia, the race seems to have settled into a solid Lean-level lead for Clinton. Clinton, more often than not in recent polls, can be found somewhere in the mid-40s while Trump tends to trail somewhere around the 40 percent mark. That is as true in this latest PPP survey of the Old Dominion as it was when the firm was last in the field there earlier in September.
--
These polls did little to change things here at FHQ. Virginia came back on the Watch List and shuffled again with Michigan on the Spectrum. California also moved a cell deeper into the Strong Clinton category on the Spectrum, switching with Massachusetts. Other than that, everything else held steady.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
HI-42 (7) | | | | |
MD-10 (17) | | | | |
VT-3 (20) | | | | |
CA-55 (75) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | AL-9 (12) |
OR-7 (161) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.
3 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.
|
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Delaware | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Indiana | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Iowa | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Maine | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Michigan | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Nevada | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Jersey | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Ohio | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
Oregon | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Pennsylvania | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Rhode Island | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Utah | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Virginia | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/28/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/27/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/26/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Latest Update New State Polls (8/24/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin Florida Florid...
New State Polls (8/24/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
Florida | | 8/19-8/22 | +/- 2.7% | 1200 likely voters | 41 | 43 | 5 | +2 | +3.14 |
New Mexico | | 8/19-8/21 | +/- _._% | 1103 registered voters | 40 | 31 | 9 | +9 | +8.64 |
North Carolina | | 8/20-8/23 | +/- 4.9% | 401 likely voters | 44 | 42 | 6 | +2 | +2.21 |
South Carolina | | 8/18-8/21 | +/- 4.0% | 600 likely voters | 39 | 39 | 16 | +/-0 | +1.98 |
Polling Quick Hits:
Rare are the weeks in which polls are simultaneously released in North and South Carolina. This is the second such day this week bringing new polls from each along with a new survey from Florida and an update in New Mexico.
Florida:
FHQ likely does a disservice by talking about average margins in these daily write-ups. The weighted average is taken on the candidates' shares of support and the polls and the margin calculated from the difference. That came to mind as I was typing up my thoughts on the Saint Leo poll yesterday. It comes up again today with another -- though less egregious -- outlier in Florida. It is not that a Trump +2 is bad or anything. Rather, that sort of outcome has become more sporadic in the post-conventions landscape.
But it may be more instructive to examine the candidates' shares of support in these two surveys released over the last couple of days instead of the margins. What makes today's FAU poll "better" is that Trump 43 - Clinton 41 offers levels of support that are well within the range of results for both across all Florida polls. The Saint Leo poll by comparison only got halfway there. Trump's 38 percent in that poll is at least in his Florida range. Clinton's 52 percent is not. Again, it is not yet. Things could change.
The straight average share across these two outliers is a bit more plausible -- Clinton 46.5 - Trump 40.5 -- but still a wider gap than the more modest difference in the FHQ methodology.
New Mexico:
There is a lot to say about Florida, less so in New Mexico. The tale in the Land of Enchantment is a brief one based on just two surveys now. Both are from the same firm (PPP) and both show basically the same thing despite three months separating them: Clinton is ahead in the upper single digits in a state Obama carried by just more than ten points in 2012. That is the end of the story for the time being.
North Carolina:
Nothing against the Marist polling in North Carolina, but few other polls -- even in the post-convention uptick for Clinton -- have had the Tar Heel state above anything more than about +4 for either candidate. But the balance of the polling through the FHQ graduated weighted average tilts in Clinton's direction by a couple of points. Needless to say, adding in a Clinton +2 from Monmouth does little to alter the course there. North Carolina is close just as it was in 2012. The difference in 2016 is that it has consistently fallen on the Democratic side of the partisan line rather than the Republican end.
South Carolina:
One could undoubtedly see a tie in South Carolina in this Feldman survey and get carried away, and then see the resulting average and repeat that process. Let's take a step back from both for a moment. The data, limited though it may be, is pointing toward a closer than usual race in the Palmetto state. However, it is still a state that tips toward Trump by what might seem like a decreasing amount over time. Perhaps, but shunt that average to the side for a moment. South Carolina did not budge on the Spectrum below despite that change. It still occupies a space that is distinct from closer Trump toss ups like Arizona and Georgia. And it is probably closer to Missouri though the averages do not quite reflect that at the moment. Very simply, we need more data in South Carolina. But what we have has consistently shown a close race that advantages Trump.
The new polls today did little to change either the Electoral College Spectrum or the Watch List. Both remain unchanged from a day ago.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
HI-42 (7) | | | | |
MD-10 (17) | | | | |
RI-4 (21) | WI-10 (188) | | | |
MA-11 (32) | | | | |
VT-3 (35) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
WA-12 (151) | | | | WV-5 (8) |
MN-10 (161) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.
3 New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Pennsylvania and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.
|
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Alaska | from Lean Trump | to Toss Up Trump |
Arizona | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Arkansas | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Delaware | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Georgia | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Indiana | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Mississippi | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Nevada | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Jersey | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Wisconsin | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Latest Update New State Polls (8/22/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin North Carolina...
New State Polls (8/22/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
North Carolina | | 8/15-8/17 | +/- 3.6% | 723 registered voters | 38 | 39 | 10 | +1 | +2.22 |
Ohio | | 8/18-8/21 | +/- 4.9% | 402 likely voters | 43 | 39 | 8 | +4 | +2.40 |
South Carolina | | 8/15-8/17 | +/- 3.5% | 768 registered voters | 37 | 41 | 11 | +4 | +3.03 |
Polling Quick Hits:
With just more than 11 weeks until Election Day, the beginning of the work week offered one new poll each from the Carolinas and another Ohio survey.
North Carolina:
In the Tar Heel state, the latest Gravis survey found a closer race than had the other polling firms in the post-convention period. While Clinton led by one in the head-to-head with Trump, in the multi-candidate race, Trump was ahead. This one is closer to the PPP survey (Clinton +2) than it was to the Marist poll that had the former secretary of state up nine points. This nudged the FHQ average in North Carolina down slightly, but kept it the cluster of Clinton-leaning toss up states (with Florida, Iowa and Ohio).
Ohio:
For the second consecutive day there was a new poll out of the Buckeye state. The range established in the few polls to have been released since the conventions has had Clinton ahead anywhere from two to six points ahead. And the first Monmouth poll of Ohio of this cycle falls into that gap. Clinton +4 is not only the average Ohio poll lead since the conventions but modal poll margin as well. In any event, the polling out of Ohio continues to push the FHQ weighted average (margin) higher and higher and away from Trump. This poll and the latest North Carolina poll above kept both states in the cluster of toss ups mentioned above but causes the two to trade places in the Electoral College Spectrum.
South Carolina:
One could argue that the Gravis survey of North Carolina discussed above is off by showing Trump ahead. Perhaps, but is it within range of the post-convention PPP poll there. What is more difficult to square is the idea that only three points separate the margins North and South Carolina. Trump's lead in the four-way race in South Carolina is just four points. That, too, is proximate to a recent PPP survey of the Palmetto state. However, North and South Carolina have been separated by a bit more than eight points in the final results over the last two cycles. Something could be wrong with one of these two Carolinas polls, but it could also be that the two states are reverting to a pre-Obama era proximity to each other in the order states (albeit one that has the pair in a more competitive space on the Spectrum than was the case when both were Strong Bush states in 2000 and 2004).
Though this Gravis survey does not move South Carolina on the Spectrum, it does provide a little more evidence that South Carolina is more competitive than it has been while still being consistently tilted in Trump's direction.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
HI-42 (7) | | | | |
MD-10 (17) | | | | |
RI-4 (21) | WI-10 (188) | | | |
MA-11 (32) | | | | |
VT-3 (35) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
WA-12 (151) | | | | WV-5 (8) |
MN-10 (161) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.
3 New Hampshire and Virginia are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Virginia and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.
|
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Alaska | from Lean Trump | to Toss Up Trump |
Arizona | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Arkansas | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Delaware | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Georgia | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Indiana | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Mississippi | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Missouri | from Toss Up Trump | to Lean Trump |
Nevada | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Jersey | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Wisconsin | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
![[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Bids to Move Back to March Meet Dead Ends in Arkansas](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif4jA4ZAoL4KQqZXT25xV-4mIqfot51VDIxAfcNVb95qf5fggcKWANY0S5gcJXZtk7-5PN_Prsho-oT5myU40dDD3EFigTq_xqNhyphenhyphen0oJZ3Afvf1_BWLmGRimCLt4ZvJSABp_JiQv9KhAsm/s72-c/ar2017_2020.png)
Follow Us
Were this world an endless plain, and by sailing eastward we could for ever reach new distances