Friday, January 18, 2008
|
|
The Single State Strategy
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
12:17 AM
|
|
Amidst the chaos that is the GOP race right now, it’s interesting to see one pattern repeating itself over and over again: candidates with single-state strategies beating candidates with multiple-state strategies.
Huckabee emphasized Iowa over New Hampshire and he won.
Romney was the only one to play in Wyoming and he won.
McCain emphasized New Hampshire over Iowa and he won.
Romney emphasized Michigan over South Carolina and he won.
Romney is the only one campaigning in Nevada, and ARG had him up 7 today and a Las Vegas Review-Journal poll to be released tomorrow has him up 15 (note that there is a heavy Mormon population in NV).
The converse is also true:
Romney ran a multi-state campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and lost.
McCain ran a multi-state campaign in Michigan and South Carolina, and lost Michigan.
The trend also seems to apply on a micro-level to Rudy and Fred. We see how abysmally Rudy and Fred perform when they barely set foot in a state, despite polling in the mid-teens nationally. Where he has campaigned, Fred has placed or polled between 10% and 15%. Where he hasn’t, he’s barely ahead of Duncan Hunter.
We also see this with Rudy, though of course we don’t have results for a state where he’s campaigned in earnest for comparison purposes. But looking ahead, Florida is probably his #1 or #2 state in the country right now because he’s campaigned there — though it is no better than a tie.
Are early state voters such zealous guardians of their local prerogatives that 60-80% of support a candidate would have otherwise gotten simply peels away once the candidate leaves? Does local earned media matter that much? Or do voters just gravitate towards the two top horses in any horserace — regardless of what national polls or other states may say?
|
|
|
Get off your butts and get out and meet people. |
|
So, what is Romney's angle on the nomination? He heads to Nevada and wins that state's uncontested caucus. This keeps him viable until Florida, regardless of what happens in South Carolina. He then gives Florida everything he's got.
Will it work? I don't know. He has another potential problem.
Why is it that most primary candidates refuse to run sustained, intense negative campaigns? The answer is that everybody is basically on the same side. An attacking candidate has to be careful about his opponent's core supporters. He runs the risk of alienating them - and they might ultimately refuse to support him after their guy drops out of the race. Romney might find himself in that situation. His attacks on McCain and Huckabee have been more sustained and intense than any candidate's attacks on anybody this cycle. And there is evidence that this has damaged him with the Huck and Mac factions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/can_ mitt_catch_on.html
|
|
|
Why didn't you just link to the article? There was no need to quote 3 paragraphs word for word. We can read, you know. |
|
The two top candidates in each state are top candidates for good reasons. In IA it was Romney and Huck. IA is a state dominated by religious conservatives. In NH it was Romney and McCain. Romney is next door, well known and well liked and McCain won it in 2000. In MI it was Romney and McCain. Romney had ties and McCain had won it in 2000. NH and MI are cross over states that Rudy pulled out of (ditto for SC). That helps McCain. Romney spent a lot of money in IA, NH and MI. Huck camped out in IA. McCain camped out in NH. Fred camped out in IA and SC.
The one state phenomena is more a matter of time, money and natural fit than any other factors.
It does not matter what you national numbers are if you are not going to run in that state you are going to get beat by someone who takes the state seriously.
No candidate can run a general election until the field narrow down to 3 or less major candidates.
In WY and NV Romney spent time and they are Western states that are comfortable with Mormons.
FL is a different matter. It is a large state and the first where all 4 or 5 of the candidates will be in the mix. Anyway it is the first time Rudy will be head to head with McCain on election day. It really is more like 4 states with each candidate having a favorable region.
Romney comes closest to running a true national campaign but as long as the race has 4 or 5 serious contenders one of them will probably fit each state better than a general candidate.
Further, most of the national polls that have McCain up big are polls of registered voters or adults who will not vote in the state primaries. |
|
i am skeptic Mr. Ruffini,
It isn't the single focus on One State that matters, just what the populace is inside the State.
Iowa was won on Religious Identity.
NH was won with the overwhelming influx of Liberal 'Independents'.
The internals of each Arena, is the essential aspect.
Romney could have focused everything on Iowa and still lost to the Religious Vote.
McCain could have focused everything on Iowa and lost as well.
Focusing on one, or multiple, has little relevance as it remains the voting blocks within each state. |
|
LOL !
still trying ?
why do you like McCain so very much ?
you know, liberals love the Keating 5 Member !
and they also fear Romney...
and your expression matches the old liberal game quite closely.
mmm... |
|
Not sure exactly what your point gets to Patrick but I think we'll find out if you are wrong or right after Super Tuesday.
You see, Romney's strategy of playing in all states so far makes him a winner. He was really unknown prior to this campaign having been the governor of a rather smallish eastern state. But running in all of the states and being in the game in every one of them has made him the guy to contend with. This also seems to me to be a very good general election strategy. Usually candidates spend a lot of their time in the purple states.
But if Romney has a 50 state strategy put together, he'll force the Dem candidate to fight for every inch of territory, even in states like Massachussettes and California. Taking nothing for granted can make things tough on your opponents.
So now Romney looks to be able to wrap up Nevada and take another Gold. It also seems like he'll remain firmly in the delegate lead come Florida. A loss by Huckabee or McCain in SC (Which one of them will lose) is bad for their campaign. But Romney has reduced expectations there because he's spending most of his time in Nevada. Yet, even with reduced expectations, he's still running ads there and trying to win the state. If he wins SC and Nevada, it makes him tough to beat in Florida and if he wins Florida, its game over on Super Tuesday (Because it will have put Rudy out of the running).
Then you'll have to recablibrate your competing in every state theory, because that is what Romney has done.
Just because you compete in every state doesn't mean you're a loser if you don't win every state. It just means your opponents don't get to take anything for granted. |
|
People want to believe their candidate actually WANTS their vote. When a candidate abandons a state, he is sending a message to his supporters that he's conceding it. No one wants to feel unappreciated, and few want to vote for someone they know is going to lose (except for Paul supporters, but they're a special case).
Unfortunately, this strategy is forced on the Republicans because of the compressed schedule and lower than usual contributions relative to the Democrats. Hillary and Obama have competed everywhere with their larger bankrolls - but they have burnt through millions to do it.
The solution is a national compromise on some sort of rotating primary schedule, but spacing it out more like it used to be. |
|
|
There are far fewer mormons in Nevada then there are evangelicals or catholics in Michigan, or evangelicals in Iowa, or South Carolina. Patrick tries to make it seem that Romney leads because of some overwhelming mormon presence here. The only state that has a plurality of mormons is Utah. Furthermore, as we have seen in every state so far, Romney does just fine with religious people of any affiliation. |
|
If Polls drive the electorate....
Hugh should be happy this AM... Rasmssen 4 day tracking moved 3%+ for Mitt overnight. For that to happen the one day vs. 4 day ago change had to be 12%+ for Mitt, strongly suggesting a trend.
Meanwhile for McCain the opposite was true losing 2% overnight.
Obviously these changes reflect about 3 days after a state win or loss confirming the sad fact that the polls even if not voting conservatives are reacting to polls and wins other than candidate information. Self full filling promise!!
I would suggest that over time the Rasmussen would become less fluid so a 3% daily swing in a 4 day rolling average today is more significant than 2 weeks ago.
|
|
You're wrong about that. Romney is the guy we fear least.
McCain has the ability to draw independent voters. And he has some arms length from the failures of this generation of "conservative" leadership. Those failures--whether Iraq and the erosion of American power or massive fiscal indiscipline or cronyism and corruption or the nasty tone of our civic discourse--are coming home to roost this election for the Reeps. McCain, and also Rudy and Huck, can claim a little distance from all that.
As for Mitt, what is he? Some guy who will say anything to "close the deal." A Massachusetts politician who specializes in nuance and flip-floppery, who was moderate until a few years ago when he decided to be conservative. A prim and humorless man, likable in his own way, but part of that class of business leaders who inherited an America that was economically strong and transformed it into a country wracked with economic weaknesses. A guy who smears the conservative bona fides of his fellow candidates--men who have been fighting the conservative cause their entire career. The other candidates are contemptuous of him, and probably not especially interested in helping him win in November. Who the hell wants eight years of Mitt? Better to lose and spend four years in the wilderness.
It probably is going to be our year anyhow, but of all the candidates on your slate, Mitt will be the easiest to beat. Your side knows how to win elections--even if you don't know how to govern--but not even Reep operatives and dirty tricksters could find a way to put Mitt over the top.. |
|
Some of the early primary / caucus states depend on the money they make during the campaigns, with all the reporters and others visiting the state. So they punish candidates who don't show up.
That's the deal that candidates need to kiss the backsides of tiny states like New Hampshire because they go first. |
|
No Republican has yet outpolled his opponents combined in any state. In fact, no Republican has even reached the 40% mark in any state. When you have six fairly strong candidates, a relatively small number of swing voters can give one candidate a plurality win. So microtargeting a specific subgroup of voters in one state while your various opponents are campaigning in multiple states (or doing the same thing you’re doing, but elsewhere) can pay off.
It doesn’t work so well if there are only two candidates and you need a majority win.
Things will change soon. If Thompson and/or Huck and or someone else loses top-tier status, the field will narrow and the threshold for winning a state will no longer be in the 30% range. And on Super Tuesday in order to have a good performance, a candidate will have to win multiple states convincingly. |
|
Patrick,
While I enjoyed this analysis, I am a bit troubled by your "there is a large Mormon population in Nevada," reasoning. First of all, there has been no polling to indicate a large block style voting among Mormons. You appear to be operating on a presumption that doesn't necessarily hold up. Likewise, there has been an assumption that evangelicals would be a large singular voting block for Huckabee wherever he went. While true in Iowa, it turned out not to be the case in Michigan. I think the lesson here is that we are making assumptions about religious groups in general that don't seem to hold up.
NPR in Michigan actually bothered to do a piece on Mormons and voting. The link is:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/15/mor mons/
You can also take a look at article6blog.com if you wish. They briefly cover historic examples of political independence among mormons.
After all, McCain was carrying Nevada just a week ago. He also has a lot of pull in west and in that area.
Joe,
I don't think it is a mistake for Romney to campaign in Nevada. I do wonder why McCain didn't even attempt it as it neighbors Arizona and he has a lot of pull in the West. South Carolina has the benefit of being traditionally covered by the media. There is something to be said for remembering that the West exists. McCain if from the West for crying out loud. Romney campaigned some in South Carolina and, for now, is showing a better third place position than previous candidates taking third place have in other states. Short of press attention, campaigning in the West is beneficial. |
|
gosh my friend, your wrong. When Mitt 'closes a deal' he holds to his word. Unlike 99% of politicans. Will it kill me to buy American? If Detriot can produce a car that is affordable and keep workers in jobs, heck, I'm for that. Corporations pay workers who buy homes and groceries...etc. Mitt Romney has not spent the last 20 plus years in the hallowed halls of congress, but in real life. He has built business, made them profitable, kept his word,kept his wife. It's a new concept in Washington - Honesty.
I am really hoping that Mitt gets the Nom. Regardless of what the 'national polls' say, I think a head to head with Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama will be a blow out - in favor of Romney. It's hard to tear down the facts. Romney made his millions by working. Clinton made her's by being 1st lady and writing some pretty bad books. |
|
|
Queenmum...She also made it with crooked land deals and cattle futures trading. She can use private enterprise to make a buck like anyone else! |
|
|
In fairness to Patrick, I think the comment about Mormon's in NV and other places out west is relevant, if not just for the number of votes they could bring a candidate. It's about acceptability. Mormon's had significant roles in the history of AZ, NV, ID, WY, CA, and CO in addition to UT (obviously). Overall percentages may not be that high, but political acceptance is. There are numerous LDS congressman and senators from many of these states. |
|
So hambones, are you trying to say that out west they accept them and therefore vote for them, but that in the east they don't accept them?
|
|
Throughout the country. So long as folks are allowed to think for themselves, LDS are accepted and often admired for their family values and ethics. I have been told by some on these boards that I should be punnished by my church for freedom of thought, but that's not the way the church works. If her church works that way, I want nothing to do with it.
Where ever there is a temple in the world, means there are enough members in that geographical area to support and sustain that temple. It would be a waste to have temples where no members could attend, now wouldent it. There are several temples on the east coast - Washington, boston, NYC, to name a few. That means that there are members there. And where there are members, there are folks that watch and judge them by their works and lives.
The LDS Church will not endorse any one candidate over another. We have liberal democrates (Harry Ried, for one) and moderates and very conservative. Cabniet members like Mike Levitt, are LDS. When we go for our temple interviews, we are NEVER asked what political party we belong to, but we do give an account of how we live our life. |
|
I said nothing about eastern lack of acceptance, only that it has been well demonstrated that Mormons are electable in many western states. Romney was elected in Mass. My point was that were there are larger numbers, others have seen that Mormon's are good neighbors and citizens, and nothing to be afraid of politically ("harmless, lovable little fuzzballs" to steal a phrase).
It remains to be seen what will happen with the rest of the country. People can politically disagree with Mitt, or not like him personally and not have a problem with Mormons. My comment was just pointing out why he may be strong in some western states. |
|
|
yes, true. My bishop is a FORMER anti-mormon Southern Baptist. He decied to start tearing apart the LDS church, and ended up joining 30 years ago. He's western state guy. I have lived in the South, and yes, I know there is a lot of people who just don't know who and what we are. They hang on every word their paid pastor says, an rarely does what my Bishop did - look for themselves. |
|
We the People of the United States of America have the right to have our borders and our laws respected and enforced.
Citizens of other countries illegally in our country have no right to demand anything from our government. They most certainly have the right to petition the governments of their home countries for change if they are unhappy with their home country. If they want to be Americans, we have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other nation, and it starts in their home country.
We need to insist on the equal protection, application and enforcement of the law or devolve into anarchy. Our Republic only functions if everyone follows the same rules. We should not change the laws to accomodate those breaking them.
If America annouces to the world "We can't stop you, so come on in" with another amnesty, the deluge will be overwhelming. If 3,000 a day didn't get your attention, then wait until it's 10,000 a day. We cannot sustain this influx and survive as a nation. We must speak up and speak to each other about this and not let false claims of racism or bigotry be used to intimidate us into silent assent. America is not Congress' to give away. America belongs to We the People. Speak to your neighbors, speak to your coworkers, but please speak up to your Congressmen and Senators. It's O.K. for us to enforce our laws, no really, it is.
|
|
hambones, I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but I do question your logic. You defend Patrick's remark saying people in the West will vote for Romney because they are more accepting of Mormons. There seemed an obvious comparison here, so I asked about non acceptance elsewhere. Furthermore, Patrick asserted simply that Mormons in the west would vote for Romney, a Mormon. That was his underlying reasoning for the raise of Romney in the Nevada polls. I challenge that as being an assumption without data to back it up. I do hope you read the link I posted.
|
|
Republican hopeful Congressman Ron Paul has been in Nevada since 01/13/07, starting with Pahrump. http://www.pr-inside.com/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-t o-r383699.htm . Please issue a correction!
Additionally, Congressman Paul has introduced legisltation to exempt tips from taxes, the Tax-Free Tips Act.
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-092707.html He rightly feels that the government shouldn't tax non-wages that aren't even guaranteed! He is also the only candidate who believes in a free internet, and to legalize online gambling, something the Nevada casinos would DEARLY love to get involved in.
Romney may have injected the most personal money into his campaign, but Ron Paul is the only candidate to have raised more than $6 million dollars in a DAY, all from individual contributions below the $2,300 maximum. And a look at http://www.opensecrets.org will show that he's not in the pocket of PACs or wealthy corporations, like most of the other candidates (Obama and floundering Dennis Kucinich being the only notable exceptions to that rule).
For Nevadans, this should be a no-brainer: Do your own research and you'll find that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will bring back our FREEDOMS. |
|
John McCain was one of the GOP's biggest amnesty supporters, to the point where he publicly displayed his rage and vitriol when people disagreed with him. Although he has changed his public representation regarding the building of the fence, he has never said he is not for amnesty or a semi-immediate path to citizenship.
And yet, if one issue exists around which Americans of both parties can be united, it's illegal immigration. The overwhelming majority of Americans -- as was proved last summer -- do not want millions of illegal aliens flooding this country, depleting its resources, committing crimes and doing so only for the money, with no hope or aspiration of assimilation.
Anyone who casts a vote for John McCain casts a vote in favor of giving the world to a bunch of illegal invaders. The height of stupidity, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
where voters know a mormon, they are less likely to believe some of the crazy things they hear about them. My neighbor is a pretty good conservative guy. His kids don't cause trouble. He takes care of his family and watches my house for me when I'm on vacation. Mormons just aren't that scary when you know one. |
|
|
|