Nomination At A Glance, First Post-Debate Edition

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 13:52

Nomination At A Glance, October 30th

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 13:30

Nomination At A Glance, Now With Thirteen Candidates

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 13:30

Nomination At A Glance: First Post-Q3 Update

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 14:00

Nomination At A Glance: Natural Condition Of Campaign?

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:28

Nomination At A Glance, September 30th Update

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 18:17

New Iowa Polling Data

by: brklyngrl

Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 14:36

Obama leads just within the margin of error among likely Democratic caucus-goers, although the margin of error is pretty huge (+/-7):

Obama 28, Clinton 24, Edwards 22, Richardson 10

All other candidates are in the single digits. So it's still a close race, and overall it's probably best to think of this as a three-way tie. Still, it's hard not to see this as bad news for Edwards, if only because his strategy depends so heavily on winning in Iowa. I don't think he could survive a third place finish there. Relative to the Pollster averages, this poll has Edwards performing the same as he normally he does (22%), Clinton and Richardson are performing similarly (26% to 24% and 10% to 13%), but Obama is performing significantly better (28% versus 20%). Obviously, it's also good news for Obama.

Voters who indicated they would either definitely or probably attend the caucus (42% of those surveyed) were included as likely caucus goers - 64% of those identified as likely caucus goers attended a previous caucus.

This poll also provides some indirect support for Chris's inflated Clinton poll theory - Clinton leads among registered Democratic voters (MOE +/- 5):

RDV: Clinton 31, Obama 25, Edwards 21, Richardson 6

Obama and Richardson both do better among likely caucus goers than registered Democrats, while Clinton does worse and Edwards does basically the same. Still, Clinton has the highest fraction of supporters who say they are strongly supporting her - 55%, compared to 41% for Obama and 37% for Edwards. Another interesting result from this poll - 80% of those surveyed thought it would be a plus to have Bill Clinton "back in the White House."

Here are the results for the Republican field:

LCG: Romney 24, Thompson 16, Giuliani 13, Huckabee 12
RRV: Romney 25, Thompson 16, Giuliani 15, Huckabee 6

I have to say I'm not excited to see Huckabee break into the double digits, but I am pleased to see Romney continuing to do so well. McCain is in the high single digits - 9 among likely caucus goers and 7 among registered voters.

Last, this seems as good a time as any to mention the Pollster disclosure project. Pollster is one of my absolute favorite blogs - I can't tell you how much I rely on them for understanding trends and using polling data to predict election results. They are now making a formal attempt to encourage ALL pollsters to release more information about likely voter screens, sampling frames, and sample compositions. Having this information available would make a huge difference in my ability to tell you what might really be happening when polls produce contradictory results or when I want to write one of the longer in-depth posts about the race that I love so much.

More On Where The Campaign Is Being Waged

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 13:30

1. Iowa: 1,240
   
2. New Hampshire: 571
   
3. South Carolina: 268
   
4. California: 238
   
5. D.C.: 174
   
6. Florida: 146
   
7. Nevada: 111
   
8. New York: 103
   
9. Texas: 93
   
10. Illinois: 73
    
11. Michigan: 55
    
12. Virginia: 38
    
13. Georgia: 37
    
14. Pennsylvania: 37
    
15. Massachusetts: 36

The candidates for President have made more trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, a combined 1,811, than every other state and territory combined. In fact, there have been more trips to Iowa than to every state other state, except New Hampshire and South Carolina, combined. Further, most of the trips outside Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are fundraisers, not public campaign events. For example, looking at upcoming events in California, one can see that over 60% of all scheduled appearances in the state are fundraisers, and virtually every non-fundraiser campaign appearance in the state is accompanied with a fundraiser.

The point I want to again try to hammer home here is that the campaign is being waged, in significantly decreasing order, in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (and the latter mainly on the Republican side). This simply is not a national campaign right now, not even close. As such, national polls are not a useful reflection of the campaign. What matter is where the polls stand, once again in significantly decreasing order or importance, in Iowa, New Hampshire South Carolina and nationally. Michigan, Florida and Nevada are wildcards that will probably have an impact on the campaign that is difficult to predict.

I apologize for saying something that many people who read this will find incredibly obvious, but the point is to use the early states to take the national lead entering Super Tuesday on February 5th. How much of an impact the early states will have on the national polls varies from campaign to campaign, but we can deduce the following:

1. If Clinton wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, she will be the Democratic nominee
   
2. If Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the Democratic nominee
   
3. If Edwards wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
   
4. If number three does not happen, and if Clinton defeats Obama in Iowa, regardless of what else happens she will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee
   
5. If Richardson wins Iowa, and condition four is not met, then prepare for a real scramble that favors Clinton
   
6. If none of the above conditions are met, and Edwards and Obama somehow split Iowa and New Hampshire, then prepare for an entirely unpredictable scramble that clearly favors no one.

Oh, and this is amusing. According to Pew, Republicans nationally think that the "energetic" most clearly applies to Rudy Giuliani. However, here is where Giuliani ranks in terms of campaign energy, as measured by the number of trips each candidate has taken to early states:

Iowa: 12th, including 6th among Republicans.
New Hampshire: 10th, including 4th among Republicans
South Carolina: 9th (tie), including 5th among Republicans<

Yeah, that is real energetic. Rudy Giuliani is running a lazy campaign, which is to be expected, As a result, the odds are against him winning the Republican nomination, which is fine by me.

Demographic Splits and the Presidential Race

by: brklyngrl

Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:29

In the Democratic race, the biggest demographic splits are by level of education, by region, and among independent voters who plan to vote in the Democratic primary. The dynamics of the race differ among voters with different levels of education and in different regions of the country. Clinton and Obama are basically tied among college educated voters, among Midwestern voters, and among independents. Clinton maintains a convincing lead in every other demographic subcategory. Additionally, Edwards and Obama receive similar levels of support among white voters and among voters over 65, although both are well behind Clinton in these demographic categories.

In the Republican primary, ideology and partisan affiliation are major dividing lines that alter the dynamics of the race. Giuliani and Thompson are basically tied among Republican primary voters who describe themselves as strong Republicans, as well as among conservative leaning Republicans. McCain and Giuliani are close among independents who vote in the Republican primary. Additionally, the Thompson gender gap (widely reported) is worth keeping an eye on. In this omnibus survey, it is slightly larger than the Clinton gender gap, and in a recent ARG poll it was up to 30 points. It is bouncing around a lot, but I think Thompson will probably be in trouble in the general election if he can't even convince Republican women to vote for him.

Details for each candidate in the extended entry

Nomination At A Glance, September 19th Update

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:35

New Hampshire Polls

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:16

Rasmussen. 9/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)

Sununu (R) 43
Shaheen (D) 48

American Research Group. 9/14-17. Likely voters. MoE 4.2% (June 2007)

Sununu (R) 41 (29)
Shaheen (D) 46 (57)

It should be noted that the incumbent rule does not, and has never, applied in campaigns where the challenger previously held equivalent elected office (Shaheen was once Governor of New Hampshire). This was even noted in the original paper  proposing the incumbent rule theory. So, this does in fact look like a reasonably close race, given that two polls confirm the closer campaign at the same time.

Drawing A Line On Residual Forces In the Primaries

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 19:07

I know lots of people want the grand netroots to make our grand endorsement of the one true Presidential candidate and thereby rock the foundations of the universe, but, um, speaking only for every person who has ever blogged, ever, anywhere, I'll point out that by and large I don't want to endorse someone who wants to keep troops in Iraq.

The issue of residual forces in Iraq looms extremely large for many of the bloggers I know, which I think is entirely understandable. Especially in a Democratic primary. why on earth would I line up behind a candidate as the "progressive" choice if he or she wants to keep American troops in Iraq? There is no way to end the Iraq war as long as there are American troops on Iraqi soil. No matter whether our troops in Iraq are combat or non-combat, they will be targets, and the war will continue. It really is as simple as that. Ending the Iraq war is, and has been for a number of years, my top "issue" in politics. So why on earth would I, in a primary election, when the whole point is to fight for what you believe instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, line up behind a candidate espousing a policy that is contrary to my most important issue? I mean, I became a full-time political activist largely because of the Iraq war, and I am not going to choose a path in a primary election  that runs counter to my beliefs on this matter. I think a lot of other bloggers feel exactly the same way.

Given this, Josh Marshall's interview with John Edwards today is extremely important, especially the part from 0:40 to 1:30 at the start of the interview:

Here is the relevant section, from a question that it appears only bloggers are able to ask:

MARSHALL: Now, you've talked about potentially a small residual force. Can you give people a sense of what that means?

EDWARDS: I would get all of our combat troops out. Assuming that we are going to maintain our embassy in Baghdad, we'll have to have some force to protect our embassy. We always have to have that. And if, if, there are American humanitarian workers there, it might be necessary, although I wouldn't commit to this at this point, it might be necessary to provide some protection for them. But that's it.

MARSHALL: But really just a matter of protecting the embassy, possibly protecting other US  civilian personnel--

EDWARDS: who are doing humanitarian work.

Is this different from Obama and Clinton? As I show once again in the extended entry, absolutely.

Obama Squanders A Major Opportunity on Residual Forces

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 13:03

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.(…)

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator says.

Obama's ardent opposition to the war has been a central theme of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he has used it to distinguish himself from leading rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. She voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq; Obama was not yet a senator.

Obama was trying to further sharpen that distinction Wednesday, spelling out his views on what the U.S. should do next.

To be blunt, I don't really know how pulling out all combat troops would "sharpen that distinction." At all. As far as I can tell, every single Democrat running for President is talking about removing all combat troops. That is, no one is suggesting that we leave troops in Iraq to continue to police Iraqi streets and actively try to prevent sectarian violence. The focus is typically on counter-terrorism, Iraqi force training, and infrastructure / embassy protection. And it doesn't seem as though Obama has closed the door on that at all:

Although he stopped short of calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, Obama said there should be a clear and certain timetable.(…)

By arguing that only combat brigades should be withdrawn _ there are 20 in Iraq, including five President Bush sent January _ Obama appeared to suggest that other U.S. troops could remain.

Good. I am somewhat relieved that the residual forces issue is starting to get some coverage, even if it comes in paragraphs 18 and 20 of the article. And let me remind everyone that Obama's campaign website is currently providing a huge link to this article in the top center of its welcome page. As such, I can hardly think of a clearer admission that he is proposing leaving non-combat troops in Iraq, to perform some or all of the missions . Actually, I can think of one, from his plan to end the Iraq war:

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

Obama is really blowing it here. The key differentiation on what to do in Iraq is not how quickly you remove all combat troops, but how many non-combat, residual forces you leave behind. On this front, he still seems to be absolutely identical to Hillary Clinton. A few months ago, she also introduced legislation proposing a removal of all combat troops, with a residual force contingent that does the following:

(1) That a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun, in a manner consistent with any limitations on aid for Iraq for security purposes in effect under section 4, including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of-

(A) training Iraqi security forces;
(B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;
(C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and
(D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

So, if there is a difference here, it is that Clinton is proposing providing "logistic support" to Iraqi security forces, while Obama is not. That is a very slight differentiation that I do not think is going to move many votes.

Considering that he opposed the war from the start, Obama is a position to really seize the mantle of progressive foreign policy in this campaign. However, he will be unable to do that as long as he continues to favor a significant residual force of at least 40,000 troops that is roughly the equivalent of Clinton's plans. I feel confident that if Obama had chosen this "major foreign policy speech" as an opportunity to truly differentiate himself from Clinton on residual forces, then he would have been in an excellent position to change the campaign. Barack Obama can generate tremendous press, and he would have had an ability like other candidate to make the residual forces issue more prominent in this campaign. He would have been able to position himself as "right on Iraq before the war, and right on Iraq now," with a double differentiation from Clinton. That strikes me as a potentially nomination-securing position for any major candidate to hold in this campaign. However, it seems that he has squandered that opportunity, and has not changed his stance on residual forces. I wonder if, after giving this foreign policy speech, it has grown too late for him to change that position before the start of the primaries now.

Nomination At A Glance, September 11th Update

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 23:06

I do just want to add that the "likely" voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants -- which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming "likely" voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

Counter-Intuitive Public Opinion On Iraq Troop Levels

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:55

83. As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.

Increase: 6%
Keep the same: 32%
Decrease: 39%
Remove All Troops: 17%
DK / NA: 6%

84. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is GETTING WORSE, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.

Increase: 16%
Keep the same: 27%
Decrease: 25%
Remove All Troops: 22%
DK / NA: 9%

Under the scenario that Iraq is growing worse, support for increasing troops in Iraq is higher, in a statistically significant way, while support for decreasing troops declines in a statistically significant way. However, it has actually been pro-war groups, including the White House, that are arguing that Iraq is showing signs of improvement, while it has been those who oppose the war that have argued Iraq is growing worse. Americans are more likely to want out of Iraq if things are going better in Iraq. Go figure.

The befuddlement over troops levels in Iraq among the public does not end there. The same Time poll asks about residual forces, although the poll really slights the "remove all troops" option (same page in link above):

81. Looking ahead in Iraq, if you had to choose, which of these comes closest to your position: 1. The United States should withdraw all of its troops within the next year regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave. OR 2. The United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats. OR 3. The United States should keep the same number of troops in Iraq as are there now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq?

Withdraw all troops: 22%
Withdraw some troops: 56%
Keep same: 20%
DK / NA: 2%

I think throwing the ominous "regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave" clause is a clear negative description of the position, especially since the options were not rotated in this poll and it was followed with an apparent compromise solution. This is one reason why the Time poll shows very different numbers from other polls asking essentially the same question, but in a more neutral fashion:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

9/4-9/8: Increase 11%, Same 19%, Decrease 35%, Remove all 30%
8/8-8/12: Increase 13%, Same 17%, Decrease 31%, Remove all 30%
7/20-7/22: Increase 12%, Same 15%, Decrease 30%, Remove all 36%
7/9-7/17: Increase12%, Same 18%, Decrease 29%, Remove all 34%

The wording of the Time poll seems to have lopped at least 10% support off the "remove all" option. At the same time, there does appear to be a noticeable trend where support for "remove all" is slowly shifting to support for "decrease the number of troops in Iraq." It would seem that removing all troops no longer holds a plurality of public opinion on Iraq. The cause for this seems to be connected to the findings in the Time poll. Reports of improved conditions in Iraq shift people toward the "remove some" and "keep the same" options, while reports of worsening conditions in Iraq push people toward the "increase troops" and "remove all" options. When Iraq seems to be improving to the public, war opponents seem to move toward simply a reduced force, while war opponents see no need to increase the size of the American force in Iraq. When Iraq seems to be worsening, war opponents move toward removing all troops, and war proponents move toward increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

This results in the most counter-intuitive conclusion of all. The frequent Democratic facilitation of the "Iraq is improving" narrative actually helps those Democratic candidates who want to maintain significant residual forces in Iraq more than it helps anyone else, including the White House. When Iraq is improving, support for withdrawal actually increases, and the plurality position in this country becomes the most commonly held policy among Democratic elites: "the United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats." When Iraq is seen as worsening, the plurality position in this country is to remove all troops from Iraq, which is the position held by Bill Richardson, the Center for American Progress, numerous bloggers, and others. The "Iraq is improving" narrative does not help the Republican position on the war. Instead, it helps the residual force Democratic position on Iraq, while hurting both the Republican position and the progressive Democratic position. As such, some Democrats have a vested interest in making comments like:

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.

We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.

And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.

An improved situation in Iraq increases support for troops withdrawal, while also decreasing support for removing all troops. Given that virtually every Democratic plan among 2008 candidates and those proposed in Congress favors the "withdraw some, but leave residual troops" option, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Democrats are not doing a particularly good job of fighting back against the "situation is improving in Iraq" line coming from Republicans. Dong so strengthens their hand, by making their position on Iraq both a plurality nationwide, and a nice compromise between removing all troops and maintaining the status quo.

While I don't agree with it, at least this allows the way Democrats have been acting on Iraq to make a lot more sense.

Memo to Grassroots: Electability Equals Power, So Don't Dismiss It

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 14:00

Three-out-of-four Democrats (75%) believe that if Clinton wins the nomination, she is at least somewhat likely to win the White House in 2008. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats say the same about Edwards and 69% think Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. However, there is a higher degree of confidence in Clinton than other candidates. Forty-one percent (41%) of Democrats say that Clinton is Very Likely to win the White House if nominated. Just 26% say the same about Obama and 24% have that confidence in Edwards.

When the question is asked of all voters, not just Democrats, a similar pattern emerges. If nominated, Clinton is considered at least somewhat likely to win by 53% of all voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the same about Edwards and 55% about Obama. However, 24% of all voters say that if Clinton is nominated, she is Very Likely to win it all. Just 17% say that Obama is Very Likely to win the White House while 16% say a victory in November is Very Likely for Edwards.

The picture looks much different, however, among unaffiliated voters. Among this important segment of the voting population, 50% say Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the same about Edwards and just 42% see a Clinton victory as Somewhat or Very Likely.

This confirms the findings of an earlier CBS poll also showing that Democrats think Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama.

How much this advantage on perceived electability is contributing to Clinton's national poll advantage is unclear, but t is almost certainly making at least some contribution to that advantage. It is also interesting that both Democrats and Republicans differ from Independents on this matter. I have no real explanation for that difference, except that perceived electability and voter preference are probably linked together in a chicken-and-egg type fashion for many. Relative to Clinton, Obama does better among unaffiliated voters than he does among self-identified Democrats, so it probably isn't a surprise that unaffiliated voters also view Obama as more electable than Clinton.

Overall, apart from the specifics of the 2008 campaign, "electability" is a largely subjective concept loaded with dominant preconceptions about ideology, experience, and personality. Centrist candidates are generally viewed as more electable than progressive candidates. Experienced candidates are generally viewed as more electable than fresh faces. Populists are viewed as less electable than "well-mannered" insiders. Generally speaking, "electability" is such a nebulous concept, that it is easy to warp it to conform with other perceptions about the American political scene. That is to say, one way to tell that centrists, elites, and the entrenched establishment have control over Democratic culture and the national political discourse is that a concept like "electability" implies that candidates must conform to the standards of centrists, elites, and entrenched establishment types.

Control of the electability narrative relative to Democrats largely equals, or at least signals, control over the Democratic Party. This is why I think it is dangerous for the grassroots and progressive movement to argue against the use of electability narratives in elections. The problem for the people-powered movement is not that electability is a concept used in primary elections, but rather that the electability narrative does not conform to our standards of what makes a superior Democratic candidate in a primary. After all, one of the main reasons why many congressional Democrats act in ways that infuriate us is that they believe those actions are the smart, electable thing to do. When being "electable" for a Democrat means that a candidate is a populist, progressive, outsider, then that means the progressive movement will have made real strides in seizing power within the progressive ecosystem.

I know that grassroots and progressive Democrats have been burned by electability many times in the past, and as such some just want to chuck the concept altogether. However, ceding the definition of electability is equivalent to ceding significant power to centrists, elites, and the establishment. We can't change the culture of the Democratic Party as long as a conservative voting record, sucking up to corporate donors, and following beltway advice equals electoral smarts. Instead, once electoral smarts equals a progressive voting record, populist campaign style, a grassroots operation, and fresh faces, then we will start to see a huge change in Democratic Party culture, not to mention a huge change in Democratic culture in Congress. In this way, it is actually through a change in the definition of "electable" that the people-powered, progressive movement can leverage a huge change in Washington, D.C. As such, I think dismissing the electability argument, rather than trying to seize control of it, is extremely dangerous for the progressive grassroots and netroots.

Now, I don't necessarily know how to change the definition, but I do believe trying to do so should be one of our main goals as progressives. As long as it is considered the smart move for many Democrats to regularly act against the interests and desires of the progressive movement, there will never be a progressive governing majority in Washington, D.C.

Democrats Grossly Misinformed On Candidate Plans For Iraq

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:46

Now I’m going to read you a list of people, organizations. For each person or organization, please tell me which of the following four choices comes closest to what you think their view is on what the U.S. should do in Iraq?

1. Make no cutbacks in U.S. troops in Iraq
2. Leave a substantial number of troops in Iraq, but have them concentrate on training Iraqis and targeting Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq.
3. Start withdrawing troops within the next three months, with all troops out within nine months from now.
4. Begin an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

(1) That a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun, in a manner consistent with any limitations on aid for Iraq for security purposes in effect under section 4, including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of-

(A) training Iraqi security forces;
(B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;
(C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and
(D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

Clinton: I Am An Insider Who Will Compromise

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 19:00

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York unveiled a new stump speech on Sunday, outlining the "four big goals" she would have as president and saying she was willing to "work within the system" and make "principled compromises" to achieve them.(…)

"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution," Mrs. Clinton said at an early afternoon rally in Concord, drawing a pointed contrast to the outsider messages of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards. Referring to the Roosevelts and Johnson, she said, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn't just about the dream, it's about the results."

"I want to work within the system," Mrs. Clinton said. "You can't pretend the system doesn't exist."

Um, OK. I have looked in vain to find the entire speech online, but those quotes from the New York Times will have to do for now. It is certainly an interesting tactic to basically start using a variation of the attacks of your two closest opponents, John Edwards and Barack Obama, as a means of selling yourself to voters. In this speech, she is presenting herself as an insidery technocrat, which is unusual as it breaks from the typical red meat diet voters receive from candidates in a primary campaign. Further, telling people that you plan to compromise ahead of time is also unusual as it comes at Obama and Edwards from the right. Outside of her inexplicable comments on nuclear weapons, from her vote against funding the war to her partisan rhetoric on electability, this is a direction she has refused to engage so far. If Clinton keeps using this language, it will become much easier for either Edwards or Obama to label Clinton as an agent of compromise and a self-identified insider. If they are willing to step up, and slightly redirect their attacks, it seems like she is playing into their hands.

Then again, while this seems like dangerous territory for Clinton, it is just so crazy that it might work. One of the things we discovered last year in the MyDD / Wright Consulting / Courage Campaign Strategy Memo for Democratic Congressional Challengers is that the electorate does not really believe that one party or one individual is going to bring about any sweeping change in Washington. Given this, I have to wonder if there might be a strange brilliance behind Clinton using this sort of language. While most candidates seem to talk of igniting grandiose change in Washington that never happens, perhaps voters will hear what Clinton is saying and be relieved by her honesty. Everyone thinks Clinton is the consummate insider, and many progressives think she is too willing to compromise. So, as with her lobbyist comment at the Yearly Kos candidates forum, rather than engaging in a contorted denial no one would believe and then improbably trying to recreate her image as an outsider even though no one will ever see her as such, she instead just comes out stating that yes she is an insider, and yes she thinks compromise can be good. This could very well work, as it will make Clinton look comfortable in her own skin, and make it appear as though she has nothing to hide.

Whether or not this helps or hurts Clinton, either way, I think this new language she is using will serve as an interesting test of Peter Daou's Triangle theory (Peter is currently a senior staff member of Hillary Clinton's campaign.) Albeit with a different tone and different qualifiers, Clinton is now saying the same things about herself that progressive bloggers have been saying about her for a long time: she is too much of an insider and her centrist leanings make her far too quick to compromise with Republicans. As such, after nibbling around the edges of this critique for a while and never naming names, the door now seems open for Edwards, Obama or someone else to broadly and vociferously adopt the most common anti-Clinton critique seen in the progressive blogosphere and potentially create a new narrative around Clinton in so doing. If I understand Daou's "triangle" theory correctly, if the most common progressive blogosphere critique of Hillary Clinton were picked up by multiple non-Clinton campaigns, that critique would become legitimate in the eyes of the media as both the progressive blogosphere and campaigns X, Y and Z would all be saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton. It is only at that point, and not a moment before, that it is possible the established media would start to repeat the blogosphere's critique of Hillary Clinton, and thus a new, potentially damaging conventional wisdom surrounding her would be born.

Then again, to pivot a third time in this post, this might never become conventional for two reasons. First, it is possible that no other Democratic campaign will attack her as too eager to compromise with Republicans after spending the last month making electability based comments about her high unfavorables. Second, even if other campaigns do adopt this critique, the media might not accept it as legitimate because of the way she has been attacked by Republicans both in the past and in the now. So, there might be some real barriers toward making this attack stick.

Still, at the very least, I now think the door has opened quite a bit for any non-Clinton Democratic candidate to start using the most common critique of Hillary Clinton in the progressive blogosphere. With Clinton herself basically repeating that critique, if adopted by other campaigns it has the potential of portraying her as a compromising, insidery Democrat just like our Congressional leadership that has failed to do much about the war. That leadership has seen its approval rating crash among liberals and progressives since the first capitulation vote. If Clinton develops a similar image among the rank and file, it will become much more difficult for her to win the nomination.

Union Endorsement Scorecard

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 17:45

• Edwards: United Steel Workers, United Mine Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Carpenters. 2.3 million combined members.
  
• Clinton: United Transportation Union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. 800,000 combined members.
  
• Dodd: International Association of Firefighters. 271,000 members

Of course, the size of a union is not the only way to measure its political effectiveness. The Fire Fighters, for example, are widely regarded as a key endorsement despite their somewhat smaller membership. Here is the current line on future union endorsements:

• SEIU, 1.8 million members: Probably Edwards, Obama or no one.
  
• AFSCME, 1.5 million members: Could be any of the top three
  
• Teamsters, 1.4 million members: Could be any of the top three
  
• American Federation of Teachers, 830,000 members: Probably Clinton
  
• UNITE-HERE: 450,000 members: Probably Edwards

In every other case, from what I understand, pretty much every other union leans toward Edwards, or leans toward not making endorsement. One possible exception I would imagine is that the National Education Association would lean toward Clinton, but I haven't heard much from them about making a primary endorsement. For more information, You can see a complete list of unions with more than 100,000 American members here, and a list of union density by state here. As far as early states go, union members as a percentage of the electorate will be highest in Nevada, second highest in Iowa, third highest in New Hampshire, and lowest in South Carolina. Whether unions will be effective in turning out their membership in these early states, and whether unions will be effective in having their membership vote for the candidate it endorsed, is another question with answers that will vary from union to union.

End of Summer Election Wrap Up

by: brklyngrl

Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 18:09

Given that, I think it's a good time to look back what's happened over the summer. The short version: not much.

Democrats
Nationally
May (to obtain this estimate, I averaged the 5 national polls closest to the end of May):
  Clinton 35, Obama 22, Edwards 11, Richardson 2 

Now (Pollster.com):
  Clinton 39, Obama 22, Edwards 11, Richardson 3

There has been very little change in the Democratic race over the course of the summer. Although Clinton has consolidated her lead slightly, she has gained only 4 points in three months, and the dynamics of the race remain basically unaltered at the national level.

Iowa
  May (same methodology):
  Clinton 23, Obama 19, Edwards 28, Richardson 9

Now(Pollster.com):
  Clinton 26, Obama 20, Edwards, 24, Richardson 13

After closely following the polls in Iowa, and personally feeling like a lot of potentially exciting change had taken place, I surprised to find that no candidate had lost or gained more than a few points in Iowa since May. There are, however, a handful of changes here. Most notably, Clinton has moved slightly ahead of Edwards in the Iowa polls. However, given the difficulty of polling the Iowa caucus, particularly at this early date, as well as the fact that 46% of likely Iowa caucus goers says they still might change their minds (pdf), and the at least slight over-representation of Clinton and Obama voters in groups that are historically less likely to attend the caucuses, it seems wise not to make too much of this.

I was surprised to find that Richardson's rise in Iowa appears to be somewhat overstated. Crossing into the double digits breaks a big mental barrier for me, and possibly for others, but Richardson has gained only about 3.5 points in Iowa over the course of the summer. His gain is approximately equivalent to Edwards' 4 point drop since May, as well as to Clinton's 3 point gain. Obviously his gain is greater as a fraction of his support since he is starting from a much smaller base, so perhaps that explains the excitement.

New Hampshire
May (same methodology):
  Clinton 34, Obama 20, Edwards 16, Richardson 8

Now(Pollster.com):
  Clinton 35, Obama 22, Edwards 10, Richardson 11

In fairness to Edwards, he seems to have stopped his slide in New Hampshire, and an average of the four most recent polls finds him at 14 rather than 10. Pollster intentionally uses a methodology that is slower to react to changes than other possible methods. I appreciate this feature of the methodology because I am as interested in stability as I am in change, but if the current trends hold, Edwards' change in position may look more like a blip than a slide. The last four polls also have Richardson back at about 8%, so his slight gain may also prove temporary.

2004 primary polling and the Republican field in the extended text