Monthly Archives: January 2012

Mitt Romney Hates Dogs, Speaks French Too

In general, there are two views regarding the role of money in electoral politics.  The viewed espoused by the “good government” – or goo-goo – types, is that money distorts electoral outcomes.  They cite the golden rule – “them that has the gold, makes the rules” to argue that those with deep pockets exercise disproportionate campaign influence.  The cure, according to goo-goo’s, is to enact regulations designed to reduce money’s influence on elections, through some combination of spending and contribution limits.

A second perspective, however, views campaign spending as a form of political participation. In order to compete in the “market place of ideas”, candidates and their supporters must be allowed to spend money to get their message out. The Supreme Court, in its controversial 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, seemed to embrace at least part of this second view when it upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, but struck down efforts to curb campaign spending conducted independently of candidates.  That line of reasoning was extended in the Citizens United ruling that protected individuals’ right to  spend unlimited amounts  independently even if they do so in the form of labor unions or corporations.  That decision has led, at least indirectly, to an explosion of spending by so-called SuperPacs during the current campaign cycle.

For the most part, as my students have heard me proclaim through the years, I have long argued that the cure for the evils of campaign spending is more spending, combined with transparency regarding the source of funding.  I say so not because I completely agree with the Court’s view equating independent campaign expenditures as a form of free speech, but from a more practical understanding,  expressed in Dickinson’s Second Law of Politics, which states:  “Money will always find its way to candidates.”  That “law” suggests that efforts to minimize the flow of money into campaigns through legislation or regulation will always fail.  But that’s not necessarily a bad thing – as long as the money is used to inform voters regarding candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.

We are seeing my philosophy put to test during the current Republican campaign cycle. Consider the spending in the runup to the Iowa caucus.  Candidate spending on television ads was actually down this election cycle in Iowa from 2008, as was overall spending.  What was distinctive, of course, was the emergence of the SuperPacs.  As I noted in an earlier blog post, however, it was not just the emergence of the Superpacs , which collectively spent more than did the candidates themselves, that mattered – it was the fact that some 45% of their spending targeted Newt Gingrich, and it was spent just as he was cresting in the polls. The result was devastating to his candidacy – he went from leading the polls to finishing in fourth.

But critics of the SuperPacs often overlook why the spending was effective.  It wasn’t because they completely fabricated Newt’s record – it’s because they exposed it (albeit in a one-sided manner), particularly his role lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Moreover, as Newt acknowledged, he had no real counterattack, in part because he was far outspent by Romney’s Superpac, but also because he could not escape the reality that he had in fact lobbied on behalf of these mortgage giants.

The Iowa lesson was not lost on Gingrich, or his supporters.  In South Carolina, they have set out to fight fire with fire and so far, based on polling, it is having an effect.  (I’ll deal with the polls in a separate post). Once again, SuperPacs are outspending candidates, this time almost 2-1,  on television advertising in the Palmetto state. Although Romney-backed SuperPacs continue to spend heavily, however, the playing field has been leveled by the participation of Superpacs backing all the other major candidates as well.  And that is reflected, I think, in the polls.  Although Romney leads, the race has been tightening in part because of the influx of anti-Romney spending by other SuperPacs.  Here’s the RealClear Politics trend lines (Romney = Purple, Gingrich= Green, Santorum= Brown and Paul=Yellow).

Although much has been made about the 28-minute infomercial now airing that criticizes Romney’s role at Bain, I think my personal favorite is this ad that accuses Romney of – mon dieu! – speaking French!

Perhaps a close second is this recitation of some of Romney’s past statements, culminating with his defense of his decision to travel cross country with his dog on the roof of his car:

Critics will contend, of course, that these commercials simplify and distort Romney’s record, just as the SuperPac ads in Iowa did to Gingrich’s.  Of course they do.  But the question is: how do you “cure” these tendencies?  The record of past campaign finance regulations suggest that they are not very effective at preventing money from being spent on candidates’ behalf.  Moreover, there is an argument to be made that voters should be allowed to make their own judgments regarding candidates’ records  – and on the ads run on their behalf.

Is Mitt a French-speaking, dog-hating, job-destroying Massachusetts moderate, and  – if so – does it matter?

I say, let the voters decide.

Ash to Ashes: The Likely Fate of Obama’s Reorganization Plan

Roy Ash’s death was announced today.  Seventy-five years ago this week President Franklin Roosevelt unveiled his famous Brownlow Report (see Andy Rudalevige’s overview here). And today, as I write this, President Obama is slated to unveil his plan to consolidate six government agencies dealing with trade and commerce into a new department.  How are these events related?  All are characters in a long-running but often overlooked and underappreciated drama: the continuing efforts by Presidents to enhance their ability to “manage” the executive branch.

Under the Constitution (Article II, section 3), the President is charged to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  In the modern era, with the proliferation of government agencies and programs, that charge has taken on new significance.  To fulfill the expectations associated with serving as the nation’s “chief executive”, presidents have sought ways to enhance their control of the executive branch.  One of the first, and perhaps the most successful efforts to do so occurred under Franklin Roosevelt, based on recommendations contained in the Brownlow Report which he commissioned to recommend ways to streamline the executive branch and enhancing his control over the major managerial processes – budgeting, personnel and policy planning.  That Report, published in 1937, led to the creation of the Executive Office of the Presidency (EOP), including the White House Office, and to the consolidation and restructuring of portions of the larger executive branch.  Significantly, however, much of Brownlow’s plan to streamline the executive branch in the name of efficiency was blocked by Congress, which sought to preserve its influence over key departments and agencies.

Flash forward to the Nixon Presidency.  He took office in 1969, and one of his first acts was to appoint his own Brownlow Committee – the Ash Council, head by industrialist Roy Ash. Over the next several years, the Council issued a number of reorganization plans.  (Ash later went on to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget).  The most ambition plan to come out of the Ash Council was Nixon’s decision in 1971 to abolish several constituency-oriented cabinet-level departments and replace them with four new “super departments”, including a Department of Economic Affairs.  That superdepartment would absorb the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration (SBA) as well as a variety of other economic-related programs then lodged in other government agencies.  When that plan went nowhere in Congress, Nixon sought to institute his own version of it by appointing five “super counselors” who would supervise all government agencies dealing with broad functional areas – national security, natural resources, community development, etc., and who would report directly to him. Roy Ash was one such counselor, charged with supervising government agencies dealing with economic affairs.  That plan eventually was scuttled by the Watergate scandal.

Today, according to news reports, President Obama will announce his own, more limited reorganization plan focusing on agencies dealing with trade and commerce.  Without knowing the details, I can’t comment on its substance, or on the likelihood that it will achieve its stated goals which almost certainly include promises to save taxpayer money and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. But based on previous efforts to reorganize government, which include plans to consolidate economic programs into a single department, I am confident that the following observations are accurate:

  1. The timing of this announcement, in the midst of persistent high unemployment, and with an election less than a year away, is no coincidence.  This is as much about election-year politics as it is about restructuring the executive branch.  The idea here is demonstrate the President’s commitment to doing everything he can to resuscitate the economy and create jobs.
  2. The reorganization plan, even if implemented in full, is almost certainly not going to achieve the projected cost savings, whatever those are. The reasons why are complex, but the single biggest explanation is that government agencies are not created to be efficient.  Their bottom line is not to make a profit.  Instead, they often have multiple objectives that are in tension.  Take the Small Business Administration (the SBA).  You might think its mission is to make loans in the most cost-efficient manner by, for example, identifying companies that are likely to do well and who can pay back the government loans quickly and, in the process, generate more tax revenues.  In fact, however, the SBA must consider other values when deciding which company to back. For example, it may have an interest in promoting minority-owned businesses.  There may be geographic considerations – for instance, targeting inner-city business located in poorer regions – that affect its decisions.  Should the SBA focus on promoting emerging industries that may have greater payoffs down the road, or emphasize loans to established businesses with a proven track record?  Given these conflicting missions, it is probably inappropriate to judge the SBA’s effectiveness solely on its “bottom line” however that is defined.  Similar arguments can be made regarding the other agencies involved in the reorganization effort.  (Thanks to Middlebury student Brittany Perfetti on whose research paper I drew for some of the SBA-related observations.)
  3. And that brings up a third, crucial point: Obama lacks reorganization authority to make these changes on his own.  Both FDR and Nixon issued reorganization plans under authority granted to them by Congress, but that authority lapsed after Carter’s presidency and has never been restored.   As a result, if Obama’s plan is to reach fruition, it will need congressional approval. This almost certainly will not happen.  One reason, of course, is that this is an election year, and a Republican-controlled House is not likely to sign on to this legislation for fear of the political repercussions.  In particular, the plan promises to upset key constituents groups that have close ties with Congress.  And that raises my fourth point:
  4. Previous reorganization efforts along these lines have foundered on the shoals of interest group resistance.  Note that this isn’t the first time a President has suggested folding the SBA into the Commerce Department.  This is a recurring suggestion that, despite it superficial appeal, never goes anywhere.  The reason is because the powerful small business lobby, including the National Federation of Independent Business, consistently opposes these mergers for fear that small business interests will get swallowed up in a department controlled by larger economic interests.  It is not clear to me that it will be any different this this time around.
  5. There is an additional obstacle to a successful merger along the lines proposed by Obama: it ignores issues of organizational culture and mission.  By culture, I mean the views held by the dominant group within an agency regarding what its mission should be.  Culture influences how agencies recruit and promote individuals, and how it defines its critical task.  And when agencies that have different cultures are merged in a single department, conflict often results.   It can lead to greater inefficiencies and reduced effectiveness.  Witness what happened to FEMA when it was merged into the newly created Department of Homeland Security, and its focus shifted from disaster relief to terrorist response.  While mergers may look logical on paper, it takes a keen understanding of the individual agencies’ operating culture to know whether a consolidation will take hold.  And that leads me to my final point:
  6. Both the Brownlow Committee and Ash Council recommendations came after a lengthy study process based on input from scores of experts both inside and outside of government.   It’s not clear to me that this more recent proposal put forth by the Obama administration has a similar genesis.  Instead, it seems to me more likely that someone dusted off a previous reorganization plan and decided it would make for good election year politics without really thinking through the implementation details.  It is possible I am wrong, but I haven’t heard of any study group at work that would produce a Brownlow-like Report.

Bureaucratic politics is inherently unsexy.  Ash, may he rest in peace, confided that when he would discuss details of his reorganization plan with Nixon, the President’s eyes would glaze over.  But the reality is that, despite the lack of glamour, how presidents “manage” the bureaucracy is perhaps the most crucial determinant of their power, broadly defined.  Obama is but the latest in a string of presidents dating back to Teddy Roosevelt who have sought to use their reorganization authority to strengthen their control over the implementation of government programs.  History suggests, however, that this latest effort will produce much less than promised – not just in cost savings, but more importantly in enhancing the President’s administrative power.

Addendum: According to  this Politico story the President is seeking fast-track authority which would allow him to submit reorganization plans to Congress and it would have 90 days to either reject or accept the plan in its entirety.  Presidents use to have this authority for trade agreements, but not for reorganization authority as far as I can remember.  I don’t believe Congress will grant any reorganization authority that doesn’t allow them to edit the proposal before accepting it.   Again, my guess is this means the plan will go nowhere prior to 2012.

Who Really Won New Hampshire, and Why

The on-site comments* to my post yesterday for the U.S. News “debate club” remind me that perhaps the biggest story coming out of the New Hampshire primary was not Romney’s decisive win – it was Ron Paul’s unexpectedly strong second-place showing.  You will recall – and undoubtedly remind me in months to come – that I had Paul coming in a very close third, just behind Huntsman, with about 18% of the vote.  Although I nailed Huntsman’s vote totals, Paul did better than I projected, winning 23% of the vote to finish a strong second.

And yet despite his strong finish, very few if any commentators bothered analyzing why Paul did so well in New Hampshire.  That oversight is consistent with the more general media view that Paul is no threat to win this nomination, and that he has committed but relatively small support consisting of a core group of “Paulistas” who contribute to Paul’s moneybombs and lurk on every website, but who don’t constitute much more than 10-15% of likely Republican voters.

I think that characterization, while not completely inaccurate, fit Paul better in 2008 than it does this time around.  In fact, the New Hampshire exit polls suggest Paul has expanded his base of support beyond his libertarian core by attracting conservatives and Tea Partiers who are worried about the deficit and who want to reign in government spending.   Let’s take a closer look.

By now, it is clear that Paul does well among younger voters.  Interestingly, that support is not just among the very young; he edged Romney, 11%-10%, among all voters 44 years or younger who voted in New Hampshire’s Republican primary (based on exit polls).  Romney racked up his winning margin by relying heavily on the much larger 45 year and older vote.

But the most intriguing findings come when we look at the breakdown of the vote by income.  As the table below shows, Paul’s share of support in each income category drops in linear fashion as you climb up the income scale, while Romney’s is the mirror opposite – his support climbs as you go up the income ladder:

Income Paul 2012 Romney 2012
Under $30k (11%) 35% 31%
$30-50k (15%) 28% 31%
$50-100k (37%) 22% 35%
$100-200k (27%) 20% 47%
$200k or more (10%) 12% 52%

In the aggregate, Paul ties Romney at 31% support among wage earners below $50,000, but Romney trounces him, 41-20%, among those earning over $50,000.   If we look back at 2008, however, we see a slightly different pattern of support by income for Paul:

Income Paul 2008 Change In Share of Income Category from 2008 to 2012
Under $30k (10%) 8.4% +26.6%
$30-50k (14%) 8% +20%
$50-100k (39%) 6.5% +15.5%
$100-200k (29%) 6.4% +13.6%
$200k or more (7%) 7% +5%

 

Although Paul shows gains across the board from 2008 to 2012 in each income category, the gains are larger in the lower income brackets.  His coalition now has a distinct economic skew in a way that it did not four years ago. Much of Paul’s New Hampshire support in 2008 came among voters who strongly disapproved of the Iraq War, who thought the economy was doing very poorly and who were self-identified liberals.  This year he again drew heavily on self-identified liberals and moderates who formed a slightly higher (47% to 45%) proportion of the voting pool than they did in 2008.  But he increased his support among independents, winning 31% of that category, compared to in 2008 when he won only 13%, even as the percentage of independents voting in the Republican primary climbed 10% from 37% to 47% in four years.

Note that Paul’s overall support does not correlate very well with opinions regarding the Tea Party movement; among New Hampshire Tea Party sympathizers; he wins 22% of those who support the movement, 27% who are neutral, and 19% who oppose.  (Interestingly, Huntsman won the most – 41% – among the 17% of voters who opposed the Tea Party.)  What this suggests then, is that Paul was able to draw on a subset of Tea Party voters: those most concerned – particular lower and middle-income voters – with government spending and the deficit.  These are the economic populist voters that Santorum appeared to make some inroads with in Iowa.  My guess is that Santorum’s social views, particularly toward gay marriage, made him anathema to New Hampshire voters who might otherwise have backed him for his economic policies.

What does this mean as we head into South Carolina?  I think Paul is unlikely to fully replicate the success he had in New Hampshire, with its favorable mix of libertarian, middle and low-income fiscally-minded voters. But he could still do well – if the trio of Gingrich, Perry and Santorum let him.  There is an opening, I think, for someone who can reclaim the economic populist portion of the Tea Party vote and still appeal to social conservatives.  So far, Paul doesn’t seem to attracting much support among social conservatives, and his foreign policy views may play less well among South Carolina’s more traditional Republican voters.

The degree to which Paul can replicate his New Hampshire success, then, depends in part on whether someone contests his claim on the economic populist vote.  At this point, I think Gingrich is best positioned to do so. If he is to win back these voters, however, he needs to have a much better answer to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lobbying connection than he has given so far.  If he can provide one, and if he hones his Romney-as-job-destroyer campaign theme without appearing overly negative, he is going to give Mitt a run for his money in South Carolina.  The key to attracting the grass-roots Tea Partiers is for Gingrich to successfully paint Romney as part of the Wall St. banking crowd that benefitted from government bailouts and engaged in “predatory capitalism”.  Even then, however, Gingrich won’t beat Romney if Perry, Santorum and even Paul effectively appeal to the same Tea Party faction.

*The Paulistas were none too happy with my U.S. News piece because I dismissed Paul’s chances of winning the nomination.  Here’s a representative comment:

“Stopped reading this article after bracketed sentence in first paragraph. Author, you are an unpatriotic American, someone who will say anything as long as you can collect money for doing so. You have the integrity of Newt Gingrich.”

Why Mitt Romney Is A Weak Candidate

There is a growing consensus among the talking heads that with his victory in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney is on the fast track to win the Republican nomination.  That sentiment, judging by comments from Tom, Paul and others last night, is one that many of you share.  In response, I want to develop an argument I started in this U.S. News and World Report opinion piece suggesting why it is too early to anoint Romney as the Republican nominee.  In fact, I will go further here to explain why New Hampshire confirms that Romney may be one of the weaker candidates Republicans could nominate.

It is true that he won New Hampshire decisively, with his 39% share of the vote almost exactly matching the average winner’s share in contested primaries dating back to 1988.  That represents a gain of 7% over his performance here four years ago.  But that decisive win masks a second important point: Romney did not broaden his coalition at all in the intervening four years. Consider this graph put together by MIT Professor Charles Stewart that compares Romney’s support in New Hampshire towns yesterday (the left-hand vertical axis) to his support in those towns four years ago (the horizontal axis).  (Courtesy of the Monkey Cage website.)  Each circle is a town (bigger circles=bigger proportion of overall turnout).   What does it show?

Essentially, geographically speaking, Romney drew on the same voting coalition as he did four years earlier, but  his vote total was boosted about 5-7% in those areas.  (If he had exactly the same vote total in a town in both elections, it would be situated on the diagonal line running just below most of the circles.)  What explains the boost in his support?  I suspect it is mostly because Jon Huntsman, a much weaker candidate, was running in the place of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani this time around.  In short, there’s no evidence that he expanded his voting coalition geographically or widened his support to new voting blocs.

And, as Stewart shows, this is almost identical to what happened in Iowa; there Romney also largely drew on the same voting coalition in 2012 as he did in 2008.  However, his support actually declined in most areas of Iowa in the intervening four years, but that decline was almost offset by a substantial boost he received from voters in Polk County.

Pundits have seized on the fact that Romney is the first non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate to win both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire’s primary.  Given the states’ dramatically different demographic pool, this is evidence, they suggest, that Romney has put together a broad Republican Party coalition capable of carrying him to the nomination.  But this is nonsense.  Never mind that he likely didn’t win Iowa (the votes there have not yet been certified but there is credible evidence that Santorum’s vote was undercounted.)  The voting results indicate he hasn’t broadened his support at all beyond the Republican banking/country club set that backed him four years ago.  In Stewart’s words, “Thus far at least, Romney has almost nothing to show from five years of presidential campaigning.  Romney stands at the top of the heap right now because he has the traditional Wall Street/Country Club wing of the party to himself.”

My point is simple: the reason Romney is “winning” this race has almost nothing to do with his gaining strength as a candidate, and everything to do with the fracturing of the non-Romney vote among several candidates.

In addition to overestimating Romney’s support in this election cycle, pundits have made a second mistake: underestimating the strength of the Tea Party movement. Ezra Klein, among others, suggests that Romney’s success indicates that a desire for moderation is driving Republican voters during the current election cycle. In fact, the center of the Republican Party has moved Right, driven by the Tea Party influence in the last four years, and not to the Center where the moderates reside.  Rather than losing influence, the Tea Party remains as potent an electoral force as it was in 2010.  The problem is that no single candidate has been able to unify the economic populists with the social conservatives, two voting blocs that live uneasily together under the Tea Party label.

As Stewart persuasively argues, some of the Tea Party strength has been siphoned off by Paul, which explains how he has gone from a fringe candidate supported by the small libertarian wing of the party to a second-place finisher in New Hampshire. Republican voters may be turned off by his isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy views, but his argument against spending and corporate bailouts are exactly the issues that motivated the Tea Party movement in the first place, even if they don’t buy his more extreme views on ending the Fed or monetary reform.

Paul’s influence has expanded to fill the vacuum left by the implosion of the other Republican candidates who might have been expected to represent the Tea Party.  The most logical candidate to unite the anti-Mitt forces is Gingrich, but his candidacy wilted almost entirely because of his link to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – the government-backed mortgage giants that most Tea Partiers see as the Prime Movers behind the housing collapse.  Gingrich never came up with a satisfactory answer to the negative ads touting his lobbying for these firms, and it likely fatally wounded his candidacy.  The other possibility was Rick Perry, but he was simply unprepared when the spotlight turned on him.  Santorum’s success in Iowa had much to do with Gingrich’s and Perry’s collapse.  But he also tapped into the economic populism that fueled much of the Tea Party movement.  It’s not clear, however, that he is poised to build on his Iowa success.

My point is that Romney would be losing this race if any of the three – Gingrich, Perry or Santorum – had not stumbled out of the starting gate.  And he is still vulnerable if any of them can regain their footing – or if a new candidate with Palinesque stature enters the race. In this vein, the Republican establishment has been busy trashing Perry’s and Gingrich’s “attack on capitalism”.  But in fact the Bain-as-job-destroyer theme is precisely the one that should have been used against Romney from day one because it capitalizes on the original sentiment – opposition to crony capitalism – that fueled the Tea Party movement in the first place, and which may yet resonate in South Carolina, where unemployment is much higher than in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Romney is ahead not because he is a strong candidate. It is because his opponents and their supporters face a classic collective action problem: each would prefer any of the other non-Mitts as the nominee, but none are willing to sacrifice their own candidacy to make it happen.  There are only two ways Republicans are going to solve this problem.  One is to negotiate an agreement, one brokered by Tea Party activists and social conservatives, to back one of the three non-Mitts (perhaps in return for promises to be placed on the ticket or to have a place in the administration).  The second is to let the process play out and hope that two of the remaining three are winnowed by the voters in time to stop the media-induced rush to coronate Mitt.  The problem is that as long as the media buys into the Republican establishment’s mantra that Mitt is the One, the harder it will be for the non-Mitt’s to raise money.  And when the money goes, so does the candidate.

Mitt may yet win this nomination by default. If he does, I have no doubt many Tea Partiers and social conservatives will hold their nose and vote for him in the general election. But we ought not to overlook the reason why – it’s not because he’s the strongest Republican candidate. It’s because the majority of the Republican Party cannot make their mind up between three candidates – any one of which might beat Romney in a head-to-head matchup.

That’s my argument because I think that’s what the data shows. Now let’s hear your objections.

Meanwhile, Bert Johnson and I are up with our latest prognostications on the race.

Live blogging the New Hampshire Primary

Ok, we are on.  It’s 7:48 and the remaining polls are closing in less than 15 minutes. That’s when we should see our first exit polls.  Keep in mind that these are not as precise as the commentators sometime imply they are.   We’ll be watching the CNN feed tonight, along with a variety of email sources.  As always, keep me apprised via comments if you see something coming in that I’ve missed, particular you twitter critters.

7:55  Looks like they have early results already getting released.  Reading the early tea leaves, it looks like a long night for Santorum – he’s not pulling the votes in Manchester the way he needs to.  Paul is polling well in Concord, but Romney is ahead.

On CNN, the pundits are already openly wondering if the race is over.  That is, the entire nomination race!

Just sampling media outlets earlier today, it doesn’t appear that overall turnout is up. Indeed, many people are suggesting turnout is light.

Surprise! 8:00 and CNN is projecting that Romney has won.  That’s not the story as yet, of course. We need to see the exit polls.

8:05  Exit polls are just now being discussed.  Looks like a stronger night for Paul and – it was will likely be his death knell – a disappointing third for Huntsman.  This is especiall the case because it looks like a heavy turnout of independents tonight – roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Independents at about 47% of both.  That is giving a big boost to Paul tonight, apparently.

So far, this is not the knockout blow Romney hoped for – it doesn’t look like he’s going to reach the historical benchmark.  But I’m not seeing anything from Bedford, or Derry or many southern tier towns that should go heavily for Romney.  He could go higher….

8:12 Jeff has a great comment – apparently the pundits are making the Romney is inevitable because he’s won both Iowa and NH.  But, in fact, he may not have won Iowa, and so far he’s not even reaching the average winning total in NH.  And this is likely to be his best state in the entire contest.  I’m just not seeing it.

8:15  The scythe is out for Huntsman – unless he picks up the pace, he’s going to finish a distant third.  Not good.

Let’s start parsing the exit polls – the gender break down this time around saw a slight increase in women from 43% in 2008 to 46% this time around…..wait on this: Huntsman is on.  And he’s basically stated he will soldier on – he’s not getting winnowed.  What does he know that I don’t know?   In reading the early returns, I don’t see him finishing second.  But maybe Dad said he’ll open the wallet for his son? This isn’t good news for the Mittster.

Back to the exit polls – turnout was up by 6% among the 65 and older crowd as well and, as they did in 2008, they went heavily for Mitt.  On the other end, turnout in the youngest age group was flat at 9% (same as 4 years ago), and they went as expected for Paul.

CNN has just removed any remaining suspense for tonight – they are projecting Paul to finish second, and Huntsman third.  Looks like the signage evidence that both Bert and I alluded to was a good indicator of Paul’s organizational infrastructure.   Keep in mind, however, that this state is an outlier in so many respects.  Almost half of those who participated were Independents. If you add in the Democrats (who went for Huntsman, by the way), more than half the voters here were not Republicans.  Both Huntsman and Paul drew heavily on these groups, but they aren’t going see these numbers in most contests down the road.   The problem for Gingrich and Santorum, of course, is the media is not likely to pick up on this.

8:36 Mitt is on, and he’s talking to South Carolina voters.  So far he has not mentioned any of his Republican voters – again, this is part of his long running strategy to create the perception that his nomination is inevitable.  So far this speech is all about Obama…

Based on my benchmarks – Mitt is having a good night, but not the great one he hoped for.  It will be interesting to see how the pundits play this.  Again, media perceptions matter, because that can influence donors’ choices.

Interestingly, fully a quarter of voters made up their minds today, and Romney won those votes 29% to 23% to Huntsman (Paul was third at 19%).

8:44. I’m surprised the pundits aren’t making a bigger deal of Paul’s second place performance.

I’m trying to pull up South Carolina exit polls from 2008 to give you a lay of the land there, but CNN is not cooperating.  Off the top of my head, (and you who are from there can correct me) South Carolina is really three states ideologically. As I recall, Huckabee did well in the more “Red State” section in the northwest, while McCain pulled heavily along the coast.  I’m guessing Romney will do well among McCain voters down there but the key question is whether he can attract the more conservative, traditional values voters that went for Huckabee four years ago.

9:03 to me the big story tonight is the cross-over vote for Paul.  He’s the one that outperformed expectations, but he’s not getting much love from the pundits.  He’s on now – let’s see what he says.

Nice – he takes a shot at the Manchester Union Leader (it endorsed Newt, remember).

Keep in mind that Paul’s strategy is to stay in this race, rack up delegates and see what happens come convention time.

Uh oh – Paul is beginning to wax eloquent on monetary policy.   This is when he begins to straddle the crazy line….

Too late, he’s on a roll.  On CNN, they are showing a meter that tracks a focus groups’ reaction to Paul’s speech.  It is going all ovr the place – he gets high ratings when he talks about cutting spending but when he strays into his U.S. as the U.S.S.R. (both “invaded” Afghanistant) the graph drops into negative territory.  And still he talks…. this must be what it’s like to listen to one of my lectures.

Except my students don’t chant in unison like this.

It’s easy to see why he did so well in the “Live Free or Die, baby” state.  He’s on an extended defense of liberty here – and why not, it’s his time in the sun… . It will be interesting to see how his brand of libertarianism plays in South Carolina… .

9:18.  It appears that no one is dropping out after tonight.  In my view, the bigger loser tonight should be Huntsman, but he’s not seeing it that way.  The other loser, I think, is Gingrich – he is likely to finish 4rth, and I expect his percentage to inch up a little bit as northern towns come in, but he apparently stalled out at about 10% of the vote.  He had to hope he could pick up some late votes after his strong debate performance, but it didn’t work out that way.

9:27.  We are waiting for Huntsman to come out and give his speech.  Frankly,  I’m surprised he’s thinking of staying in.  As one of the pundits just pointed out, he did well among those who, based on exit polls, “are satisfied with Obama”!   Even Paul has a better upside among Republicans than Huntsman does at this point.  He went nowhere among the Tea Party crowd.  I don’t know why he’s staying in this race.

In looking at the map, we still have lots of votes out along the Connecticut River area near Lebanon.  This is potentially a fertile area of votes for Huntsman.  The problem is that it is also fertile ground for Paul, so I don’t see that he’s going to close the gap too much as these votes come in.

9:31  Huntsman is on.  He’s delusional!  Did you see the meter on CNN drop in the negative when he gave a shout out to South Carolina?   Even South Carolinians didn’t like him.  He’s not graphing well with the South Carolina folks in this speech.  Even his chanting chorus is doing better than he is.    But, if he stays in, it helps Gingrich, Perry and – if he stays in – Santorum.

9:41  A ten minute, completely forgettable speech.  Even the crowd didn’t seem to be in it.  But, he’s moving on. so be it.

9:55 With about 62% in, Romney is hovering at 37-38% – that’s closer to the magic 40% mark, but I think he’ll fall short.   Meanwhile Santorum is on….. he’s pulled slightly ahead of Gingrich at this point.  Keep in mind that he had almost no television advertising here at all, and very little time to reprise his Iowa retail campaign style.  In some respects, then, this is a decent showing for a guy who is a social conservative in an election when more than half of those who showed up were independents or Democrats.

10:07 Now it is up to Gingrich.  He’s on now, and he needs to keep it upbeat and positive.

10:15 Well, this is a bit too wonkish, at least at the beginning, and a bit too NH-focused (you lost that race, Newt), he’s finally picking it up a bit here at the end.

I have a couple of media deadlines here, so I’m signing off for now.  I’ll be on tomorrow, but probably later in the day.

Meanwhile, it’s on to South Carolina!