Kansas Democrats are on their way to presenting the strongest slate of candidates in years with respected businessman Tom Wiggans' announcement that he will run for Governor. Wiggans, a native Kansan, will run against career politician, and well known right-wing Republican, Sam Brownback.
From his bio:
Tom is committed to applying his vast business experience to Kansas state government as our next Governor. By utilizing his common sense business practices to bring people together and solve problems, Tom will work with both Democrats and Republicans to pull our state out of the economic recession, ensure we have a stable state budget, and create 21st century jobs for our future.
As we move into the fall campaign season, the McCracken for Congress campaign is receiving several important endorsements. Earlier this month we were honored to receive the endorsement from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. This is a key endorsement from an organization that is a leader in supporting the rights of the working people, not only in the 5th district, but in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:
Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding
Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%)
Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%)
Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%)
Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)
While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.
Here is what I think happened, in chronological order:
Right now, it seems to me that Obama will receive less upward momentum for winning Iowa than Kerry did in 2004. I have four basic reasons for this:
No major Clinton or Edwards gaffe. Unlike the "Dean scream," Obama's defeated opponents have presented no negative moment that the national media can seize upon, and blow way out of proportion, this time around. Surely, the Dean collapse provided Kerry with an unusually high amount of momentum last time around.
Dodd and Biden do not equal Gephardt. Another main source of momentum candidates receive is from supporters of candidates who just dropped out of the campaign. This year, Dodd and Biden, who regularly scored about 3% in New Hampshire and 4% nationwide, dropped out after Iowa. While most of that support will now turn toward the candidate with momentum, in this case Obama, it doesn't match either the 4-5% support Gepahrdt had in New Hampshire prior to dropping out, or the 910% he had nationally before dropping out. Throw in Mosley-Braun's support from 2004, the gap becomes even wider.
Higher Attention Campaign: More people have paid attention to the 2008 Presidential campaign than the 2004 campaign, and the leading contenders in 2008 had much higher name IDs than the leading 2004 candidates. Four years ago, 46% of the country indicated is was paying either very close, or somewhat close, attention to the presidential campaign three weeks before Iowa. This time around, that number was up to 59% (source). Further, Hillary Clinton sported a 99% name ID before the caucuses, while both Edwards and Obama came in at about 90%. Four years ago, Dean was around 65-75% name ID, and John Kerry was 5-10% lower than that. Since momentum is caused primarily by a wave of positive media, especially about a candidate with whom voters are unfamiliar, higher attention and higher name ID might cause less momentum this time around.
Now, even with all that said, Obama trails Clinton by between 5-10% in New Hampshire, according to Pollster.com, and there should be some momemtum. Further, looking at New Hampshire polls from 2000 and 2004 on Polling Report, for Bush, Gore and Kerry, post-Iowa momentum peaked at between three and five days after Iowa. Thus, even if there is less momentum to be had, the shorter window between the two states could mean that Obama will receive a higher percentage of what is available than Kerry did. This is especially the case when one considers that the strong second place by Edwards in 2004 was a real shock, allowing him to take a significant chunk of Kerry's mo'. So, Obama may very well receive enough momentum to take New Hampshire.
We will find out more tomorrow, when Rasmussen, Zogby, ARG and Suffolk all release the first post-Iowa data in New Hampshire. The point I want to make is that it is not a guarantee Obama will receive enough to win. One week ago, when he was tied with Clinton in New Hampshire, there was no question that an Iowa win would put Obama over the top in New Hampshire. However, Clinton has built a lead in New Hampshire since that time, making the outcome in the granite state far less certain.
The nomination at a glance tables will return tomorrow.
STATE BLOGS
