Absolutely No Momentum

There's no difference between no momentum and "absolutely" no momentum. The term "absolutely" is a useless word, prime to be struck by my editing pen. But I mention it here for emphasis: The 2008 Democratic Primary campaign has shown absolutely no momentum for either candidate.

Obama voters have voted for Obama. Since Super Tuesday, this category includes African Americans, younger voters, and those who make more money and have completed college. Clinton voters have voted for Clinton. Since Super Tuesday, the Clinton voter is typically blue-collar and/or older. Clinton has also done well among women, unless they are African American, and her support in this category wanes among younger women and among women who've completed college (since that would overlap with a demographic favorable to Obama).

In contest after contest since early February, the make up of either candidate's support has not changed. Each primary is a census on a given state's make up against those demographics. We now know that the younger or college-educated Democratic audience in Indiana is almost the same size as the blue collar or older one.

I admire the fact that Democrats across the country have stuck to their hunches. They have not been swayed by talk of momentum (proof there hasn't been any). From a broader perspective, the way the media has covered this race is humorous. Under the no-momentum theory, a casual observer could have predicted a Clinton victory by ten points in Pennsylvania back in February. It's just the way the demographics in Pennsylvania fall, and the way the "Democratic census" in that state would work out. Yet the morning after, we heard pundit after pundit saying that Hillary had momentum. We heard it for a week.

Truth be told, the media are dieing to say that someone, anyone, has momentum. Because a horse race with no race is boring. After Pennsylvania, many reporters couldn't wait any longer, and proclaimed that Clinton had finally received the big "mo."

Except they were wrong. The results in North Carolina and Indiana are exactly as one would have predicted back on Super Tuesday, looking and the Democratic make-up in each state. At that time, you could have called North Carolina for Obama by a dozen and said Clinton would win Indiana by a couple.

But while the results showed no momentum, the media said the opposite: That Obama had momentum and the race was over. We heard Tim Russert say early Wednesday morning that we now know who the Democratic nominee will be.

While Obama might readily win the nomination, he has not picked up any momentum from Tuesday's victories. New polls today from West Virginia show Clinton extending her lead there. Using the theory of no momentum, let's make some predictions on how the remaining contests will unfold. To do this, I will look at the demographics of each state versus the results on Super Tuesday (yes-- results from early February). Here goes:

1) Clinton wins West Virginia by 24.
2) Clinton wins Kentucky by more than 20. Could even be 30.
3) Obama wins Oregon by 7.
4) Obama wins Montana by 9.
5) Clinton wins Puerto Rico by 12.
6) Obama wins South Dakota by 6.

Let's see if I am right.

It's important to call each primary what it is. They are not snap-shot polls of the electorate. They are reflections of the unique demographic mixes of each state. When Clinton wins West Virginia on Tuesday, it will not be because she has momentum and has won over voters, it will be because the group of voters that she appeals to will be much larger. We shouldn't read more into it than that.

Sec. Galvin Should Have Stuck to His Hunches

In May 2007, Massachusetts was set to hold its primary on March 4, 2008. Mass. Secretary of State William Galvin admonished his counterparts at certain states, such as Florida, since they were moving up their primary dates (as Massachusetts ultimately did). This is what he told the New York Times:

Though Florida meant to pump up its importance in the primaries, it might have done better sticking to March, said William Galvin, the secretary of state in Massachusetts and leader of a National Association of Secretaries of State committee that opposes the movement toward earlier primaries. If no candidates emerge as clear front-runners after the ''super-duper'' primary on Feb. 5, Mr. Galvin said, states that vote later could prove pivotal.

''This is kind of like the track touts trying to figure out what's going to happen at the Kentucky Derby,'' he said.

Here we are in February 2008, and Galvin was right on the money. As much as I liked to vote on Super Tuesday, how neat is it for voters in Texas and Ohio, who could possibly participate on the last primary day that means something this election season?

EDITORS NOTE: Text pulled from: New York Times, "Seeking an Edge, Florida Changes Its Primary Date," May 4, 2007

Thoughts from the Beacon Hill and National Trails

I was in Austin, Texas this week for a few days for some work meetings. Along the way, I mentally put together a post that updates everyone on what I have been working on as well as gives my current thinking on this amazing election we're in the middle of.

Before I talk about the national campaign, I want to note for a second a debate that is raging in my neighborhood of Beacon Hill in Boston.

It's about Suffolk University. A week ago, the Beacon Hill Civic Association, of which I am a board member, passed a policy that notes specific concerns regarding Suffolk's proposed expansion in downtown Boston. I supported the policy, and I am happy the board passed it, since things could have been far worse. A bit of background:

-- Suffolk is in downtown Boston, and it is trying to grow. A few of the University's buildings are located in Beacon Hill. The neighbors on Beacon Hill are wary of Suffolk's plans to expand, given the stressed nature of "town-and-gown" relationships in other Boston neighborhoods. It follows that every loud party on Beacon Hill over the past few years has been blamed on Suffolk.

-- Suffolk is in the middle of laying out for Boston its plans for the next several years, in a document called an Institutional Master Plan. The process has been rocky, primarily because no one on the Beacon Hill Civic Assocation belives Suffolk and vice versa. I have been trying to formulate my own opinion, and I have found that means listening to the civic association, and listening to Suffolk, and then shooting for the middle of both arguments.

-- Many in the neighborhood simply want Suffolk to leave. Literally, they want Suffolk to sell their properties here and move to some other part of Boston. I saw a draft policy that discussed this last week. Umm. This is a tad scary. What would be next? My neighbors decide that they also want renters like myself to move on, preserving the neighborhood for property owners?

All this being said, here's what I think: Suffolk is an asset to Beacon Hill in many ways. I want the institution to grow and continue to contribute here. That means Suffolk must detail in a very comprehensive way how its expansion will impact the neighborhood. Which means Suffolk needs to admit there will be an impact. Suffolk must use additional drafts of its new master plan to lay out specifics. And I am happy to help them in this process. Finally, I don't think it's a good idea for Suffolk to just leave the Hill. I for one would miss the institution.

Well there you have it. Now I move on to my points about the national Presidential race:

1) You know everyone is engaged this election season when my football-watching former roommate, Blake, called me on Super Tuesday evening and asked to come over to watch election returns, as if we were watching the Super Bowl. A native of Texas, Blake is always a good one to speak to for a level-set on the election, since he has perspective from outside of the liberal bastion of Boston.

2) The campaign has clearly moved to Texas. There were many ads on TV for both Obama and Clinton that I saw while in the hotel room in Austin. Also, a few people spoke of the debate this week on the University of Texas campus and how there are only 100 tickets. (But there is a debate watching party for all candidates at the Hyatt hotel.)

3) I met with a work-related friend for coffee, and she told me that on Super Tuesday evening, she and her husband went to a wine bar to watch returns. The atmosphere seemed more like a big college football game; when the announcers called a state for a given candidate, cheers would erupt, as if Obama or Clinton were scoring touchdowns.

4) I was up in Vermont this weekend, and at my ski house, debate inevitably moved to the campaign. I have spoken with quite a few women who are not fans of Hillary, which leads me to my next point, a crititque of the media:

5) I think Hillary has gotten a bad rap from the press (and I say this as someone who is supporting Obama). I have heard repeatedly that Obama "has the momentum." In reality, what has happened over the past few weeks is exactly what everyone was expecting. It just so happens that Obama has benefitted from a few states that have his "type" of voters. So he has been victorious. But momentum? Have the pundits seen the latest polls out of the states voting on March 4? Hillary is ahead. If those polls do change, it will only, in my opinion, be because of the so-called momentum they are placing behind Obama.

At the same time, I don't think the media's favoring of Obama is because Hillary is a female. I think it's because she is the "establishment" candidate. How amazing is it that even though she is a woman, Hillary is often picked by those who make up their minds in the voting booth? The reason? As David Plotz noted in last week's Slate political gabfest, it's because Hillary is the "safe" pick. She's the establishment candidate. Unfortunately for her, the media like underdogs or "mavericks." In addition, voters tend to be romantic. They like fresh faces and discussions of hope and change. I have a general theory that voters will pick hope and change over practicality every time. It's a core Amercian fundamental. But that's the topic of another blog post.

Finally, what the heck is wrong with Bill Clinton? Yesterday, I heard that he blamed the recent losses by his wife on well-off voters participating in caucuses who "don't really need a President," but rather have bought into needing change or hope. Is that how he classifies me, an Obama voter here in Massachusetts? I don't understand what is wrong with him, but I am kind of embarrassed.

Kudos to everyone who is acknowledging that today is in fact my 32nd birthday. It's raining here in Boston. Is that a sign? : )