Category Archives: Political Parties

Live Blogging the Republican Convention

8:15 Sorry for the late start. Hope you can join in – just hit the comments button to the right.

So, so far the Republican have trotted out one woman after another. Do you think they are aware of the gender gap?

Remember, every politician who gets a plum speaking assignment is hoping to reprise Obama’s 2004 performance and catch lightning in a bottle.

Love that New England accent – a “leaduh”!

By the way, we are watching this on C-SPAN. Not sure when the national networks are going to cover this.

John Kasich has come fully caffeinated.

Btw, the pundits are constantly over analyzing the content of these speeches. They are not meant to be policy seminars – they are meant to sketch out broad themes to invigorate the base and maybe draw in first-time listeners…

First campaign ad is up – and what do you know? It’s a business owner mocking Obama’s “You didn’t build that” speech. I see a theme here.

Wow, still another woman speaker!

Expect to see a lot of homestate references – Gov. Fallin just trotted out the “that dog don’t hunt” saying. Cue Dan Rather.

(Joe – Have to agree – you never diss someone else’s golf game in public. Unless it’s Charles Barkley’s.)

Another “you didn’t built that” ad. I get it.

Republican Governor Bob McDonnell is on. Another potential VP candidate. The consolation prize for all of them is apparently a speaking gig at the convention.

Twitter feed people are mocking coverage on major cable stations – too much punditry, not enough speeches. But it is a reminder that this is not showing on national networks as yet.

The other point to keep in mind is that at least some of these speakers are in line for a post in Romney’s administration. McDonnel is likely one of them.

McDonnell is introducing another business owner – a woman, to boot. Do we see a theme here?

On the twitter feed, Obama backers are trying to put the “somebody invested in roads and bridges” where it came in the actual quote. Not going to make a difference tonight. Do you think Obama regrets that statement?

Republicans are doing a good job moving this along. That’s good, because there haven’t been a lot of barnburners speeches so far.

this may change. Scott Walker – the Republican hero who beat back the recall vote in Wisconsin – is up, to big applause.

So far, the Republicans are staying on message. Nary a mention of a social issue.

A musical interlude! A good chance to see what the other stations are running….nothing.

Back to CSPAN – Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is on. Another key battleground state.

Rick Santorum is on deck. Will he pivot to social issues, or stay on the economic message?

One of the things that I think pundits have overplayed is that Romney needs to become more “likable” during this convention. I don’t think that is going to affect very many votes, one way or the other….

Before Santorum, however, another small business owner – this one from New Mexico.

This time a different Obama speech – the famous “bump in the road” speech.

and here’ s Rick – no sweater vest!

Rick gives a shoutout to his 90+ year old Mom, and then to his son who is a cadet …. let’s see if he stays on message.

So far, so good. It’s all about the economy, stupid.

But it couldn’t last. Rick is on to family values, although he’s trying very very hard to link it to the economy. But he really can’t help himself…In Rick’s defense, he’s trying very hard to link family values, and God, to economic prosperity.

Here’s a nice line – “I shook the hand of the American Dream, and it was strong”…..

And he’s on a lyrical riff here, using the hand metaphor….and here comes the Bella story.

Rick has hit the mark. Best speech so far….but then he’s had practice.

Meanwhile, the twitter pundits are screeching about Republicans inaccurately claiming that Obama is repealing the welfare work requirement. He’s not, but that’s not going to stop the Republicans!

In the end, despite the pivot to his social issues, this was a good speech by Santorum – but I do wonder whether it was more about him than Romney. I’m guessing the Romney folk are hoping his attacks on Obama resonated.

Next up, another rising star in the Republican field: U.S Senate candidate Ted Cruz, who – backed by the Tea party – secured the Republican nomination. He’s speaking without standing behind the podium. Here’s his chance to shine…. Cruz is laying into Obama, and making an appeal to Hispanic voters. But he’s largely staying on message…..uh oh, the reference to learning English may prove to be a lightening rod for some….

And now it is Artur! Olivier Knox claims his speech is scathing. Remember – four years ago he was nominating Obama!

I’m sitting back to listen. I’ll be back later….

Artur is on a roll…..

Well, that was the red meat special so far – the right wing twitter feed is lighting up. They like Artur. Even more impressive, Obama supporters are taking the time to take his speech down a notch.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is on, while Ann Romney waits in the wings…..

Haley is solid – and here’s Ann, with prime time coverage clicking in. She’s going to try to “humanize” Mitt, no doubt.

And she’s going to talk about “love”.

(BTW, Matt Drudge has leaked the draft text of the Chris Christie speech – it’s reprinted here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/chris-christie-speech-_n_1838130.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Meanwhile, Ann begins with an open appeal to women voters. Remember, Mitt is staring at a huge gender gap….

I don’t find efforts by any Romney to highlight their poor roots very believable.

Ann is doing a much better job when she talks about the reality of marriage.

I have to think this is the best speech of the night….she’s doing a wonderful job…..and here’s the money line… Mitt wasn’t handed success….”he built it”! cue applause….

And here she’s trying to make Bain a selling point for Mitt – Can she pull that off?

A heckuva speech. I can see portions of it excerpted for campaign ads. She is getting a well deserved standing O, and Mitt comes out to join here. Television gold….

Chris Christie coming up….and here’s the preparation with an introductory campaign ad.

Hard to follow that speech, but Christie is probably the guy who can do it. ..

so far, this has been a lot about Christie – not much Mitt so far…..and the tone is an abrupt switch. We’ve gone from “love” to “what the ‘eff I can get done.” Think “tough love”….

so far, not much Romney here…..

This is a helluva speech – for Christie. Is he going to mention Romney’s name?

Ah, he finally does, but Mitt doesn’t look comfortable. I’m afraid that Chris is milking this speech about five minutes too long – he’s pushing Bill Clinton territory. time to wrap it up Chris…

and he does, but not before imploring the audience to stand up for Mitt (which they do)…..got to hand it to Chris. An effective speech – but it probably worked better for him than for Mitt…Note that Chris finished at 10:59 – just in time for the late news!

That’s the wrap for day 1. I’m switching over to the Red Sox but will try to recap tomorrow……..good night all……

Final thoughts: I think Ann’s speech was the highlight of the night, while Artur was the most effective at riling up the base. Christie was solid, but there was too much “I” and not enough “Mitt”.

Keep in mind that there a tendency to overreact to any single speech – in the end, all anyone will likely remember is what Mitt says – and maybe not even that.

Convention Bumps, Race-Baiting and those “Old, Lefty Professors” (Who, Moi?)

It’s been a busy day so far – and the night promises be even busier. In addition to my post on Artur Davis, one of tonight’s convention speakers, I’ve got another piece just up at the Economist in which I argue that neither Obama nor Romney is likely to get a major polling bump coming out of their respective conventions, but that Romney’s is likely to be bigger than Obama’s by a couple of percentage points. In a tight race, of course, a 2% net gain may be enough to push Mitt into the lead. There are signs – so far ignored by most of the media as far as I can tell – that the race is beginning to tighten just a bit. When I come up for air, I’ll try to post some of the latest poling data to show you what I mean.

Tonight, however, I’m going to be live blogging the Republican Convention. In case you missed it, Republican delegates formally nominated Mitt as their candidate today. While the media tends to dismiss the convention as a scripted, made-for-television event, that misses its real significance. As Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan argues in this piece conventions in fact serve as an important learning tool and informational source for voters who are just beginning to tune into the presidential race. So we ought not to dismiss the event as mere pageantry. Instead, view this as the opening volley in the general campaign.

There’s another reason to watch tonight, of course – it’s to see the speeches. Several major figures, including House Speaker John Boehner, are on tap. Of course, all eyes will be focused on my former student (Ok, my eyes will be!) Artur Davis, who continues to attract controversy for his decision to split from the Democratic Party. In response to the broadside leveled at him by the Congressional Black caucus earlier today, Davis returned the favor, accusing them of “race baiting.” His comments come as both sides are trying to inject race into the campaign. Conservatives have been circulating this NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing not a single African-American respondent supporting Mitt. Obama supporters have fired back, pointing out that Romney’s recent comments at a Michigan campaign rally regarding his birth certificate is one of those “dog whistles” designed to stir up racial “resentment.” Davis’ comments are sure to add fuel to the fire.

By the way, if you haven’t seen Olivier Knox’s Yahoo piece on my Davis post, you should take a look, focusing in particular on the readers’ comments. As with most comments, they are decidedly partisan, and not for the faint of heart (or for those who value grammar, spelling or punctuation). Thus:

“All of the southern dixie crats switched to the repug party after 1965 check it out. Now the repugs have all of the racest members from the south on their side.”

“Well at least Arthur we know what his academic record was at Harvard…..still waiting for Obama to release his school transcripts…you think the liberal news media could do a story about that!!”

And my favorite: “That’s the Ticket . Attacking black conservatives in support of the candidate the liberal media sold us – Barack Obama . Great work yahoo once again. Digging up an old leftist college professor to call Davis a weasel. Very balanced .”

Imagine that! I’m both “old” and a “leftist college professor”! Who knew?

I’ll be live blogging beginning at 8 – unless Artur comes on earlier. Hope you can join me – it’s been a while since we’ve done one, and the scotch bottle is full.

UPDATE: According to the C-SPAN scroll, Davis is speaking at 9:46 – he’s the lead-in to Ann Romney’s speech. Primetime!

No, Partisan Polarization Is NOT The New Normal

In still another manifestation of a familiar media theme, a front page article in yesterday’s Washington Post proclaims: “Partisan polarization now presents a potentially insurmountable barrier to governing for whomever wins the White House in November.” Drawing on results from a survey co-sponsored by the Kaiser Foundation, Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write, “Partisan polarization once was considered an affliction only of elected officials and political elites. Now it has gone mainstream. Citizens’ ties to their political parties are stronger than ever, and passions on issues are intensely felt.”

By now you should know why the survey evidence Balz and Cohen cite does not, in fact, prove that “polarization is the new normal”. I have made this argument before, but as long as the national news media continue to present a misleading read of survey data, I’m going to persist in trying to knock the story down.

As with similar media claims regarding a deeply polarized electorate Balz and Cohen’s case rests on two sets of survey data: longitudinal polling results that indicate more people are calling themselves strong partisans, and cross-sectional data showing differences in how self-proclaimed Democrats and Republicans respond to questions regarding a number of hot-button issues. In both cases, however, the survey evidence is open to a different interpretation. To see this, however, the reader would have to look at the actual survey data rather than simply relying on Balz and Cohen’s description of that data in the main article. I suspect very few readers will take the time to do so. So I’ll do it for them.

Let’s start with the longitudinal data. Balz and Cohen note that in a similar Kaiser study from 1998, “41 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats said they considered themselves “strong” partisans. In the new Post-Kaiser survey, those numbers have shot up to 65 and 62 percent, respectively.” That’s true, but what they don’t say is that the overall number of self-professed Democrats, Republicans and Independents has remained remarkably stable in that period.

Democrat Republican Independent Other/None No opinion

8/5/12 34 25 34 4 3

6/3/07 36 27 29 4 3

8/18/98 30 27 30 12 1

In short, we don’t see Independents flocking to either party, which one might expect to be the case if the electorate was becoming more partisan. In fact, there may have been a slight increase in the number of independents during the last 14 years. How, then, do we reconcile the growth in “strong” partisans with the overall stability in partisan identification? The answer is one I’ve discussed before: what Balz and Cohen are documenting is a process of party sorting, not partisan polarization. As research by Mo Fiorina, Sam Abrams and Jeremy Pope indicates, when ideology increasingly matches up with party labels – Republicans more uniformly conservative, and Democrats more liberal – it becomes easier for people to identify more strongly with a party label even if their own political views have not become more partisan. That’s what Balz and Cohen are picking up in the survey data: voters are not more polarized – party labels are.

But what of the individual survey questions in the latest study that purport to show huge differences in how Republicans and Democrats respond to questions that address fundamental political issues, such as the role of government in our lives? My answer is largely the same: rather than indicating growing partisan polarization, the results are instead measuring the process of party sorting. For instance, as Balz and Cohen note, “One set of answers is particularly revealing: The number of Republicans who feel strongly that the government controls too much of daily life jumped 24 percentage points since the 1998 survey, to 63 percent. The number of Democrats strongly disagreeing with the assertion doubled.”

But here are the actual trends over time:

a. Government controls too much of our daily lives

——— Agree ——— ——- Disagree ——– Neither No

NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly (vol.) opinion

8/5/12 60 41 19 39 21 18 1 1

Dem 38 21 17 58 27 31 1 2

Ind 65 45 21 34 21 12 1 *

Rep 81 63 18 18 11 8 * *

8/18/98 60 35 26 39 28 10 1 *

In 14 years, the proportion of registered voters who think government controls too much of our daily lives has not changed! The same stability holds for opinions regarding whether government or individuals should be primarily responsible for improving peoples’ standard of living:

Gov’t in Washington Not gov’t

should do everything responsibility, each

possible to improve person should take Neither No

the standard of living care of themselves (vol.) opinion

8/5/12 52 44 NA 4

Dem 76 20 NA 4

Ind 47 48 NA 4

Rep 26 71 NA 3

9/1/02 56 39 2 3

8/30/99 57 38 4 1

8/18/98 51 46 – 3

Rather than growing polarization, we see instead almost no change in public attitudes on these fundamental questions. Fine, you respond, but what about the partisan breakdown that Balz and Cohen cite? Surely that proves the public is deeply split along partisan lines.

Not necessarily. Remember, I am not arguing that the views of Republicans and Democrats are identical – only that they are not deeply divided in a way that makes compromise impossible, as Balz and Cohen would have us believe. Part of the problem in interpreting these results is that the survey questions are often worded in ways that make it difficult for respondents to provide nuanced answers. Instead, they are typically told they must choose between one of two extreme positions. So, for example, the results cited by Balz and Cohen regarding whether government controls too much of our lives are based on this survey question: “Do you personally agree or disagree with the following statement? Government controls too much of our daily lives.” What answer do I give if I agree sometimes, and disagree other times, depending on the issue? Yes, it’s possible for respondents to answer “neither”, but the agree/disagree format certainly doesn’t encourage a more nuanced response.

And so it goes with most of the questions on which Balz and Cohen rely to support their claim of a divided public. Consider question 17: “Would you say you favor a smaller federal government with fewer services, or larger federal government with many services?” Again, the question wording practically begs for a split along partisan lines, even if Democrats and Republicans aren’t that far apart on their views regarding the proper role of government. If forced to choose between the two answers, we shouldn’t be surprised that Republicans lean one way, and Democrats the other. But this is not necessarily evidence of a deep divide along partisan lines.

At the same time, Balz and Cohen play down survey results that indicate Americans are becoming increasingly tolerant of opposing views, particularly on moral issues, than they were 14 years ago. Consider the results to three questions that directly address tolerance on social values:

b. We should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their own moral standards even if we think they are wrong:

——— Agree ——— ——- Disagree ——– Neither No

NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly (vol.) opinion

8/5/12 75 44 31 23 11 12 1 1

Dem 80 54 27 18 8 10 1 1

Ind 75 46 29 23 12 11 * 2

Rep 68 29 38 30 13 17 1 1

9/17/00 71 37 35 26 14 12 NA 2

8/18/98 70 30 40 27 15 12 1 1

e. Americans are too tolerant and accepting of behaviors that in the past were considered immoral or wrong:

——— Agree ——— ——- Disagree ——– Neither No

NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly (vol.) opinion

8/5/12 61 38 23 36 17 19 1 2

Dem 53 29 24 44 18 26 * 3

Ind 57 34 23 40 20 20 1 2

Rep 77 55 22 20 12 9 * 2

9/17/00 70 43 28 28 16 12 NA 2

8/18/98 69 42 27 29 18 11 1 1

Finally: 4. Would you rather see religious and spiritual values have (more) influence in politics and public life than they do now, (less) influence, or about the same influence as they do now?

More influence Less influence About the same No opinion

8/5/12 30 36 32 2

Dem 21 42 35 1

Ind 26 39 33 2

Rep 49 21 28 2

9/1/02* 44 21 33 2

8/18/98* 38 22 38 2

*2002 and 1998: Would you rather see religious and spiritual values have (greater /less) influence…

On all three questions, while there are partisan differences, in the aggregate the movement is toward more toleration of opposing views, and less willingness to see religion and spiritual issues injected into politics. This is is not evidence of an electorate that is growing more culturally divided.

But what about those hot-button cultural wedge issues, such as abortion, that are so often cited as dividing Republicans and Democrats? Balz and Cohen assert: “Divisions over religious and social issues are equally stark.” Perhaps they are, but an equally important question is whether that division really matters to the outcome of the 2012 election. That is, how deeply rooted is the division on moral values? In this regard, perhaps the most revealing data in the entire survey comes in response to question 3, which asks: “Other than the economy and jobs what will be the most important issue in your choice for president?” In responding to this open-ended question, only 3% cite “morals/family values” and only 2% cite “social issues”. Only 1% mention “abortion”, “gun control” or “gay marriage.” Rather than so-called “values”, the most cited non-economic issue is “health care/Obamacare”, at 14%. Fully 17% cite no non-economic issue at all. When given the choice to identify which issues really matter, very few Americans care about the moral values that so many pundits cite as dividing Republicans and Democrats.

It is an article of faith among pundits and journalists that Americans are deeply divided along party lines. To be sure, when it comes to politics, Republicans and Democrats are not “tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum”. Instead they come down differently on host of issues. But neither are they so deeply divided as to make compromise on these issues impossible. And in this election cycle, the issues that matter are almost exclusively economic in nature; voters simply are not interested in debating so-called “moral values”. And on these important matters, such as the role of government in the economy, surveys that purport to show deepening partisan polarization are instead, in my view, showing party sorting against the backdrop of polarized choices. In short, contrary to what Balz and Cohen write, there is little evidence that Americans have become more deeply polarized along partisan lines during the last 14 years.

Tonight’s Primaries: Move Along, There’s Nothing To See Here

Between conference papers, grading, reading journal submissions and prepping for lecture, I couldn’t live blog tonight even if I wanted to, but I did want to post a brief update on the state of the nomination race after today’s primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The short story is that this is a good night for Mitt Romney who, the networks are projecting, is likely to win all three contests. More importantly, he’s likely to win 80 or more delegates tonight, leaving Rick Santorum to take maybe a dozen delegates, give or take a few. None of this is surprising, given the demographics of the three states. In Wisconsin, evangelicals constituted about 37% of voters, according to exit polls – far below the 50% threshold that has to date signified a certain Santorum victory. In Maryland they constituted 38% of the vote. At this point in the race, much as we saw in the latter stages of the Democratic primary fight in 2008, demographics are destiny, and the demographics of these three states favored Romney.

Meanwhile, media pundits are clearly hoping to create the impression that the Republican race is over by talking about the momentum Romney will pick up because of his victories tonight. The reality is that Romney’s victories tonight may affect the media coverage, but they likely will have almost no impact on the next set of primaries which take place on April 24, and which will include Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania. (Amy Walter is now tweeting that the Wisconsin results finally put an end to the Republican primary because he did better among some demographic groups than he did among those groups in Ohio. This is nonsense, of course.) Note that in both Wisconsin and Maryland, Romney’s support, once again, increases as we go up the income ladder. However, he did increase his support among lower income voters, relative to Santorum, at least in Wisconsin, compared to how he did in previous Midwestern contests. But given the margin of error in exit polls, it’s not clear this really signifies an expansion of his support. Note that as in previous contests, his support also increases among older voters.

Interestingly, among those voters who made up their mind today in Wisconsin (13% of voters), Santorum was the clear victor, 46%-27%; among the 35% who made up their mind in “the last few days”, Santorum won 42%-39%. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. In other shocking news – at least shocking to those watching the CNN coverage – Santorum once again does as well among women as he does among men in both Maryland and Wisconsin. Hard to believe, I know, given his statements about abortion, contraception, etc. He also outperforms his polling support in both Wisconsin and Maryland – not that this matters all that much in terms of delegates. But it does indicate that Romney hasn’t changed the dynamics of this race.

Bottom line tonight? The media will come out strong tomorrow about how tonight’s results indicate that Romney has regained momentum and is poised to close this nomination fight out. The reality is that tonight’s results change nothing; Romney went into tonight as the frontrunner, and he will come out as the frontrunner, but there’s no evidence that he’s gaining “momentum” or expanding his coalition.

Again, I apologize for the decrease in blogging frequency, but my day job is calling with increased frequency in recent days.

Live Blogging the True Grit Faceoff

7: p.m. We are on a little early tonight, in order to give me some time to catch up on course reading during the live blogging session. As always, I encourage you to join in through the comments section.

Polls will close in both Alabama and Mississippi in a bit more than an hour. But the first wave of exit polls have been released. Note that Romney hasn’t won a state that has had more than 50% evangelical vote – tonight in Mississippi and Alabama the evangelical vote is overwhelming – 83% in Mississippi, and 79% in Alabama. Can he break the streak tonight?

By the way, for all the talk this year about SuperPacs and the outpouring of corporate cash in light of the Citizens United decision, the Washington Post reports yesterday that spending the Republican primary is down this year from previous campaigns. Longtime readers won’t be surprised by this – when the economy is down, spending on most everything – including campaigns – goes down.

By the way, I’m watching CNN just to see Wolf hyperventilate when the results come in at 8 p.m.

Despite high number of evangelicals, however, exit polls indicate that the proportion of strong conservatives – although high – is lower than in Iowa, Oklahoma or Nevada. In both states it’s closer to Tennessee and Georgia, at about 38% Alabama and 42% for Mississippi. Measnwhile the moderate/liberal vote is at 30% (Mississippi) and 31% (Alabama) – again close to the Tennessee/Georgia levels. Romney won 28% in Tennessee, and 26% in Georgia. The other thing to keep in mind that polls have underestimated Santorum’s support in the southern border states. Romney won about 28% in Oklahoma as well, with a more conservative voting turnout. So we shouldn’t be surprised to see Romney pull in 27-28% tonight.

One other interesting exit poll finding: 50% women turnout! That’s one of the highest turnouts so far. Only Oklahoma was higher. That should favor Mitt – I think. He did slightly better (29%-27%) among women in Tennessee. Same in Georgia (26%-25%) and Oklahoma (29-28%). However, Santorum did much better among women in Oklahoma (38%-29%), while Newt did worse among women in that state.

I have no turnout numbers, but scanning talking heads, they are suggesting it is sparse in Mississippi.

While we are waiting I should mention the lack of attention paid on this site to national polls head-to-head matchups between Obama and the various Republican candidates. I ignore them because they are meaningless at this time – not even newsworthy.

Now CNN is serious – it’s Wolf time! Also, is that James Earl Jones’ voice that does the “This is CNN” intro? If so, that’s cool!

By the way, exit polls indicate abortion was the most important issue for 11% of Alabama voters, and 10% of Mississippi – higher than in most previous states (but not as high as it was in Michigan) but not by much. The top issue for most voters (57% Alabama, 54% Mississippi) is the economy, followed by the federal budget deficit (24% Alabama, 28% Mississippi.) This is consistent with previous states – so again, the dominant issue for 3/4 of voters is the pocketbook.)

Polls close – and CNN cannot – I repeat! – cannot make a projection. Thanks Wolf!

But exit polls have Romney up with 35% in Mississippi – up 5% over Gingrich, while Santorum leads by 5% in Alabama.

CNN talking heads say if Newt finishes second, he is finished. But, in cliche #49, Anderson Cooper says Newt can “live off the land.” I think Newt can live off anything, judging by his girth.

By the way, let’s not forget 17 delegates at stake in Hawaii tonight with precinct caucuses there. An America Samoa selects 9 delegates who are, officially, unbound.

If Newt loses, it will be in part due to the gender gap. He’s down among women in both states.

Remember, pre-election polls have understated Rick’s support in some states. He’s out performing some of them now. But the exit polls will be adjusted a bit as additional results come in. This could be a long night.

The curse of Marianne bites Newt! He’s down 10% among women compared to men in Alabama, while Santorum is up 8% among women over men. Remember how Santorum was going to have a women problem due to his views on contraception? That was never the case, as I argued in previous posts. That gender split is similar to what we saw in Tennessee.

Meanwhile, Mitt once again wins the over 65 crowd – he’s consistently done that throughout this campaign. He also sees his support in Alabama go up as one goes up the income ladder – he wins the over $100,000 income groups, with 36% of the vote.

Newt, meanwhile, gets crushed among married women in Alabama – he wins only 18% of their vote, compared to 37% of married men. Hell hath no fury….

In Alabama, among the 63% who support the Tea Party Santorum gets 36%, Gingrich 32% while Mitt only wins 26%. Again, the split between Santorum and Gingrich is hurting both of them. Either one would crush Mitt here – instead, he might pull it out.

By the way, CNN talking heads have finally realized that both Mississippi and Alabama are open primaries. Note that in Alabama turnout included 6% Democrats and 25% independents. In Mississippi the numbers are 4% Democrat and 16% independents.

We get similar results in Mississippi. Newt’s support among married men is 13% higher than among married women. Mitt, meanwhile, sees his support increase as one goes up the income ladder in this state as well. And once again, Mitt loses Tea Party supporters vote to both Santorum and Gingrich, although he within 1% of Santorum’s support. TP was 66% of total turnout.

Media narratives are fascinating things. So far there’s no evidence whatsoever that Mitt has expanded his coalition, yet if he wins either state because of a split between Mitt and Rick, pundits are going to say it shows he can win in the South! He won about 30% of evangelicals in Mississippi, and 27% of this group in Alabama – finishing behind Santorum and Gingrich in both groups.

To his credit, John King is acknowledging that winning is about “bragging rights” – won’t have a big impact on the delegate race.

Note also that in Alabama you don’t get delegates at the congressional district level if you finish third, but in Mississippi you do. So you want to be at tleast second in each congressional district in Alabama.

One thing I am sure of: Ron Paul is going to lose, and he is going to give a speech about the Constitution.

Uh, oh. Gergen is off and running on if Mitt wins, it will be a big win. The reality is this race is so close, it’s not going to change anything regarding the delegates total or the relative standing of the candidates. Gergen is also going off on the contraceptive issue. How that is driving women to the Democrats. Guess what David – Santorum is doing better among women than men in both states.

This is where my basic ignorance of the political terrain in Mississippi and Alabama prevents me from having any idea how to interpret where the votes are likely to come from, and for whom. I hate to say it, but I’m relying on John King’s analysis in this regard.

Slow count, particularly in Alabama. Some of the Twitter feeds are suggesting Romney can’t win Alabama based on current returns, but I think this is premature. One thing is certain: if Santorum wins both states, Wolf will be at high decibel form in loudly proclaiming that this is a two man race. But if Santorum loses both states to Newt by 1%, media narrative will change dramatically. In short, even though a shift of 1-2% in the vote won’t really matter, in terms of the media narrative it could be huge. In contrast, Hawaii and American Samoa may prove more significant tonight in terms of padding Mitt’s delegate lead than will Alabama or Mississippi!

With about 20% of the Alabama vote in, Santorum leads Newt by about 5,000 votes. I have to think they are drawing from the same area, so it will be hard for Newt to make this up. However, I won’t be surprised if Mitt can close the gap based on bigger urban areas coming in late. But that’s a guess….

Just a reminder – if Mitt remains third in Alabama in the congressional districts, he doesn’t pick up any delegates. So that’s a total loss of 7 delegates, out of a total 21 district delegates, and 26 at large.

Romney is slightly underperforming the preelection polls, but doing about as well as he did in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia – right around the 28% level.

Apparently NBC is projecting that Santorum will win Alabama – wait for the overreaction from the pundits! If Santorum wins Mississippi too the media will come down hard on Mitt. He is almost better off if Newt wins in Mississippi, and thus stakes a claim for staying in.

Story of the night is that Mitt is underperforming pre-election polls, and exit polls, but doing about as well as he did in Tennessee, Georgia and Oklahoma.

But keep in mind – even if Mitt finishes third in Mississippi, it is so close that he’ll earn almost as many delegates as Rick and Newt – but the media is going to overlook this.

When we factor in American Samoa and Hawaii, Mitt may be the winner tonight in delegates. But John King is already telling us that if Rick wins both states, “we have a very different race.” No, we don’t.

The spectator in me wants Rick to win both states, just to see media overreact. Wait – get the paddles out! Wolf is projecting that Rick takes Alabama.

At this point if I’m Rick I offer the VP slot to Newt.

Folks- get ready: we are going to have a huge divergence between the media narrative after tonight and the political science narrative if Santorum wins Mississippi too. The political science narrative is that nothing much has changed. The media narrative is that it is a whole new ballgame.

Smart move by Santorum to come on now, while there’s still an audience – and before potential loss in Mississippi potentially steps on his narrative.

I think Santorum is going to take Mississippi as well – he’s up a bit more than 3,000 votes with 95% in.

Rick needs to start looking ahead to Missouri caucuses – give it a shout out.

We go to Missouri on Thursday, then Puerto Rico, and then Illinois a week from now – at that point almost 50% of the delegates will be allocated.

Fox calls Mississippi for Rick Santorum – if that’s true, he sweeps tonight. Cue the doom-and-gloom Romney can’t close the deal media narrative. I can’t say I’m displeased – it means the race will go on!

And now Wolf confirms! I can’t wait for the media explosion tomorrow….poor Mitt!

In fact, Mitt is going to win 30% in Mississippi – his best performance in a southern state so far. but all for naught, according to the media.

Newt is on – but given the gender gap that likely cost him tonight, he needs to tell Callista to step it up.

Newt is on – will he step down? Not likely! He points out that his delegate haul will be “substantial” – in fact it will be close to Rick’s. And he takes time to take a shot at the “elite” media. Newt has to make nice to Rick, in case he has to strike a deal. At this point I expect Newt to stay in at least through Louisiana.

This is a very revealing speech. Newt is making it clear that at this point his goal is to prevent Mitt from clinching the delegate race before the convention – but note that he avoids taking on Rick and in fact speaks of himself and Rick as allies of a sort.

When will we hear from Mitt? Not tonight! He’s going to wait for the Hawaii and American Samoa results and then he’ll proclaim delegate victory.

That’s it for tonight folks. Not much happened to change the delegate math – but a whole lot happened to change the media spin. And it raises the question whether the media narrative can influence events from here on out. Mitt has to hope Newt stays in – and I think he will until at least Louisiana votes. I’ll be on tomorrow for the post-mortem. thanks again for all your participation….

Final point: if this isn’t support for my Operation Brokered Convention – I don’t know what is. Spread the word!

Why don’t the pundits push Ron Paul to drop out?

And let’s leave on this comment from CNN’s Erin Burnett: “men don’t know how to wear blue jeans”. OK.