Obama's Grand Slam

by: Laura Clawson

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:33 AM EDT

Mike will be able to tell you what it was like in the stadium -- I can only imagine it was electric -- but I was in a room of famously demanding bloggers, and he got repeated applause. Markos Moulitsas was among the people who lept to their feet at the end of Obama's speech.

I particularly loved this section:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This, too, is part of America's promise -- the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

Here, he takes his 2004 DNC speech's pretty rhetoric about red America and blue America not being so different, and translates it into concrete policies. It's moved from "yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States" to "surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination."

But mostly, damn, this speech just had so much to it. Truly one of the great ones.

Into the Hall

by: Laura Clawson

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 14:48:48 PM EDT

My grandfather was a politician. Not a governor or member of Congress or anything like that, but it's how he made his living for most of his adult life -- he was sheriff, treasurer, probate clerk. He died before I was born, but to the end of her life my grandmother identified strongly as a political wife.

About a month ago, as I was talking to my parents about my plans for Denver, my mother said she'd always wanted her father to get to be a convention delegate, but he never had. That was in my mind last night as I walked into the hall at the Pepsi Center to find the New Hampshire delegation -- some combination of regret that he never got to be there and pride that I was, but in this new role that we're all inventing together.

But I wasn't prepared for the incredible surge of awe and emotion that hit me when I stepped into the hall at the top of the stairs and looked out. It was unbelievable, looking out at the people and the signs and the lights and knowing what they, what we, were all here to do.

The history being made here in so many different ways is worth taking a few moments to appreciate in the cheesiest, most awestruck, and cliched way you can personally muster.

On the Floor

by: Laura Clawson

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EDT

I've already written about the experience of walking into the convention hall. So what happens next?

In the New Hampshire delegation at least, last night at least, people are settled in. A bag of popcorn and a pack of gum get passed around, and in addition to talking about politics, people reminisce about, say, being teenagers.

We'd seen Dana Delaney and Anne Hathaway in the security line coming in, but that was from a distance. Sitting with the delegation, Matthew Modine comes by to promote his Bicycle for a Day project.

But mostly signs are the business of the day. Orange- and yellow-vested people pass out the signs for each speaker, and the delegation's page (Meg Hassan doing a truly impressive job) gets telephone instructions and gives the cue for exactly what line should trigger sign-waving. Wave after wave of signs comes through -- these things had better be post-consumer recycled -- and the page is in a constant struggle against people jumping the gun. This is a particular problem when Hillary speaks, because as soon as people have those signs in their hands they want to be waving them.

And as for Hillary? Yeah, they loved her. There may have been chit chat during the earlier speeches, the sense that occasionally people were listening less to the content than to intonation so they wouldn't miss an applause line (and anyone who could sit through like 6 hours of speeches at one stretch paying total attention should feel free to judge them for that). But not during her speech.

Condoms and Bullhorns

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 16:34:21 PM EDT

Walking around the vicinity of DNC-related events, there's one thing I have been unable to escape: Free condoms.

Planned Parenthood is distributing pink-wrapped "Protect yourself from John McCain" condoms with a series of 10 fun facts about McCain's positions on women's health. Collect all 10!

Inside the initial convention perimeter you can go to the Trojan display, where you can go into an inflatable dome and watch a brief movie in which pigs on a roller coaster crash into facts on safe sex such as  (yeah, it's a little weird), participate in a condom race, read educational materials, and, of course, be handed a wide assortment of condoms by everyone you run into.

Meanwhile, for all the talk of PUMAs, the most visible protesters are opposing abortion, with the mixture of fury-inducing lies and pity-inducing unhingedness that you often find in aggressive anti-abortion forces. It was pity-inducing to the point that I'm not posting video I shot, because it feels exploitive of a very sad woman - but then you hear the ridiculous claim that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion person on, like, the entire earth, and the pity is mostly replaced by anger.

Who do you think is doing more to reduce abortion (never mind sexually transmitted diseases and general angst), the people handing out condoms or the ones screaming into bullhorns?

Monday DNC Schedule

by: Laura Clawson

Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:46 AM EDT

Summary:

Barack Obama's story is an American story that reflects a life of struggle, opportunity and responsibility like those faced by Americans everyday. The opening night of the Convention will highlight Barack's life story, his commitment to change, and the voices of Americans who are calling for a new direction for this country.

Monday's headline prime-time speaker will be Michelle Obama.

Howard Dean calls to order at 3:00 local time; Kathleen Sebelius handles the recess at 9:00. In between, way too many speakers and videos to list here. A couple pieces of NH interest during the 3:00-7:00 segment:

Ret. Rear Admiral John Hutson,
Pres. Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord - lifetime Republican

Video - Changing the Course of Our Nation
Featuring Gabrielle Grossman
New Hampshire Obama Supporter "U2 mamma for Obama"

America's Town Hall - Economy
Moderator: Senator Sherrod Brown - Ohio,
Panelists: Ned Helms, Lisa Olivares, Dr. Laura Tyson, Jon Schnur

Sorry if I missed anyone in my scan.

Locating New Hampshire

by: Laura Clawson

Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EDT

I got into Denver later yesterday than Mike did, so have less to report thus far. But I'm here and I'll be checking in at least semi-regularly...

NH-01 Republicans go negative -- on each other

by: Laura Clawson

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 15:06:37 PM EDT

In addition to the ads, the candidates took turns bashing each other about the head at a debate last night.

Union Leader:

At one point, Bradley asked Stephen how he would handle a request from a soldier for equipment.

Stephen said he would talk to fellow congressmen and push through emergency legislation, but do so with transparency, not as an earmark.

"You're more concerned, commissioner, with the political process than with saving the lives of the men and women who serve this country," Bradley said. The line drew loudest response of cheers and boos from the crowd.

Stephen criticized Bradley for voting against oil exploration in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the coastal United States. Stephen stressed that he favored ANWR in 2002, when both were also battling in the Republican congressional primary.

"You've waited too long. You failed us when you had the chance," Stephen said.

Concord Monitor:

Stephen also criticized Bradley for sponsoring the Real ID Act to create a national identification card, a move that the Legislature banned. Bradley said Stephen cost the people of New Hampshire millions of dollars by shifting the state's burden of paying for poor nursing home patients onto county taxpayers.

Normally this is where I'd quote PolitickerNH, but for some reason Brian Lawson chose to focus on the fact that, surprisingly enough, each of the candidates felt himself most likely to be able to beat Carol Shea-Porter. As opposed to the many primary candidates who stand up in a debate and say "the other guy is more likely to win the general, but nonetheless you should vote for me."

DCCC gets Shea-Porter's back

by: Laura Clawson

Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 17:49:08 PM EDT

Freedom's Watch is a GOP slime group against which the DCCC has filed a complaint for illegal coordination with the NRCC -- in the special election in LA-06, they ran an ad apparently scripted by the NRCC. And they've been spending against Carol Shea-Porter.

So it's good news to hear, via Swing State Project, that the DCCC has put $17,000  into a radio ad buy for Shea-Porter.

Blograiser: Blue Hampshire at the DNC

by: Laura Clawson

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 13:10:53 PM EDT

This trip will certainly be a thrill for both of us (and I'll have more coming on that later in the week), but likewise we wouldn't be asking for you to help cover it if we didn't also think we'd be offering something to you.

What will that be? Reporting on the New Hampshire delegation. A local, Democratic perspective on what's going on there, up close. You'd be able to get bits and pieces of what we'll provide from elsewhere, but you'd be pasting it together from other sources, wondering about the filter they were putting on it. I'm not saying we won't filter (that's inevitable), but you know what our filter is, and if you're part of the Blue Hampshire community, we're accountable to you whether you donate or not.

We're going to find a way to get there, and to do all this regardless. But you can make it distinctly easier on us by chipping in even a little at the yellow "donate" button on the left of your screen.

A little more on sampling

by: Laura Clawson

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM EDT

UNH's polling technique is being questioned on the liberal blog www.BlueHampshire.com, which began disparaging its methods on Tuesday, about seven hours before it was released. A writer there said UNH's polls have "serious sampling problems." Too many Republicans are being included, apparently, at least for BlueHampshire's liking.

You might want to reread my posts. I did not say there were too many Republicans in the UNH samples in any comprehensive sense. Rather, well, let the me of yesterday take it:

But the key point I've been trying to make is that the fluctuations in the sample of this poll from one to another make it problematic to directly compare them.

For instance, I think we can all agree that the first district sample back in January had too many Democrats in it -- I wouldn't personally mind if 37.1% of first district voters were Dems, but it's empirically incorrect. I'm a partisan, yes, but I'm also an empiricist.

Andy Smith notes that he screens for demographics,

But he said he does not screen for political party. The sample's political makeup "chooses itself," he said.

"Research has shown that weighting by party is misleading because you have to guess what the electorate is going to look like on election day, and that is difficult to do based on past election history," he said.

And, for the counter, Rasmussen Reports:

Just about everyone agrees that party identification is one of the strongest indicators as to how a person will vote. A Republican is overwhelmingly likely to vote for a GOP candidate and a Democrat is overwhelmingly likely to do the opposite.

However, the challenge lies in finding the "right" mix of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters. Some pollsters, including many academic and media pollsters, argue that partisan identification is fluid and changes frequently. This approach suggests that whatever partisan mix falls out from the results of a random sample is the "right" answer. In the case of the recent L.A. Times poll, this mix was 39% Democrats and 22% Republicans.

Polls that use this approach tend to produce a more volatile set of results (during Election 2004, one national firm reported results days apart that showed more than a ten-point swing in voter preference).

Others, including most political polling firms and Rasmussen Reports, argue that people rarely change their partisan affiliation (how many people do you know who consider themselves a Republican one day and a Democrat the next?). This approach produces more stable results.

(Follow the link for a discussion of how Rasmussen keeps their partisan breakdown at reliable levels.)

This instability Rasmussen points to was exactly my point. Personally, when I'm looking at election polling, I'll go with the practices of political polling firms. But your mileage may vary.

(Oh, and by the way, picture me howling with laughter as I write this. The idea that 2 years after I set up my little blogspot blog DiStaso would be devoting this much of a column to letting Andy Smith defend himself against me is too rich for words.)

UNH House Polls and a Few More Grains of Salt

by: Laura Clawson

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 13:13:44 PM EDT

Here's how that goes:

But the key point I've been trying to make is that the fluctuations in the sample of this poll from one to another make it problematic to directly compare them.

So from January to April, Carol Shea-Porter's net favorability dropped from +26 to +11 at the same time as Andy Smith's sample of Democrats dropped from 37% (which was way too high) to 26%. From April to July, Andy Smith's first district sample remained relatively stable, and Shea-Porter's favorability dropped further as her opponents worked hard to negatively define her, but her head-to-head match-ups with Jeb Bradley and John Stephen changed very little.

Meanwhile, in the second district, the sample had both Democrats and Republicans losing ground to undeclareds in April, and Republicans jumping considerably in July with both Democrats and undeclareds dropping. And lo and behold! Hodes dropped in his head to head match-ups with Bob Clegg and Jennifer Horn. Who ever would have thought that when you raise the Republicans in your sample by nearly 7 points, the Democratic incumbent's head-to-heads will suffer a bit?

So, with that said, take it for what it's worth: That is, somewhat more than ARG, but not a whole lot at least up until the pre-election tracking poll starts.

If you still want the numbers, here they are. I'm including April numbers in parentheses, even though the comparison is, as I've detailed, problematic:

First district MoE 6.4%
Shea-Porter 40 (39)
Bradley 46 (45)

Shea-Porter 42 (43)
Stephen 36 (35)

Second district MoE 6.3%
Hodes 44 (51)
Clegg 25 (24)

Hodes 43 (52)
Horn 23 (25)

(Edited to add MoE.)

Update: In case anyone's wondering, here are the statewide sample numbers.  

I should also note, some of these fluctuations aren't at all significant. I'm just laying them all out because some are and I think it's important to have as much information as possible available.

A word of warning in advance of the UNH Poll

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 00:27:02 AM EDT

Short version: UNH polls have serious sampling problems. Specifically (at a minimum), partisan identification fluctuates so wildly that looking at trend lines is misleading. The UNH poll in January is different from the UNH poll in April which may well turn out to be different from the UNH poll in July. Not garden-variety, all-polling-contains-some-error different. Apples and oranges different.

Long version: Back in May, I wrote a diary about the recent record of this poll, and specifically about these sampling problems. Rather than excerpt the entire diary, I'm bumping it to directly below this post.

But here I want to get back to the core problem, so I will repeat my excerpt from DavidNYC at noted national horserace blog Swing State Project.

Democrat: 23% (25%)
Republican: 32% (22%)
Independent: 38% (43%)
Unregistered: 7% (10%)

I think that just about explains things: The current sample has 10% more Republicans than the prior poll. While I'm aware that party ID among independents tends to shift with the political winds, there's been nothing to suggest that even so much as a gentle zephyr has been blowing in the GOP's direction in New Hampshire over the last twelve weeks. What's more, if Bush's favorability shows an increase comparable to Bass's, that would make him more popular in blue New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole - and more popular than he's been in the state since January.

So, what's been going on with the sample in recent UNH polls? Let's look a take at the first district, where Carol Shea-Porter's popularity apparently took a pretty striking nosedive between January and April. At least, in Andy Smith's sample, which it must be understood is distinct from reality.

With first-district samples of 267 in January and 251 in April, here's how partisan identification broke down:

                         1/08      4/08
Democrat        37%       26%    
Republican     27%        26%
Undeclared     28%        42%
Not registered   8%       6%

Basically, we're to believe that Democrats took an 11-point tumble while Republicans held just about steady and undeclareds skyrocketed. I can believe that in the wake of the primary, a few people who had voted for one party reverted to identifying as undeclared. But this sample strains credulity to a truly insulting degree, relying on reporters not to read closely enough to see what's going on (whether it be grounded in sloppiness or intentional manipulation).

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to find out the partisan distribution of the upcoming poll. Anyone got any bets?

Update: A quick gander at the numbers of likely voters in the presidential poll released today showing Obama up by just 3 points, in contrast to other recent polling, shows this partisan breakdown:

Democrats 25%
Republicans 28%
Undeclared 40%

Presumably this is just a subset of the sample being used for the downballot races, which won't be screened for likely voters, but if it's a sign of things to come, color me excited.

And a reminder:  50,000 more people voted Democratic in the NH presidential primary than voted Republican this year.  

More Q2 Fundraising Numbers

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 16:51:15 PM EDT

Meanwhile, Jeb Bradley raised a bit less than $99k, and has $475k CoH. You have to wonder what's going on with him. Does he not really want it? The fact that he spent $189k to Shea-Porter's $60k this quarter would seem to indicate he does want it. Has he lost the faith of Republican donors that badly?

Anyway, both sides of this -- Shea-Porter's increased fundraising pace and Bradley's continued anemic fundraising -- are great news for Democrats.

Q2 Republican Fundraising

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 13:19:10 PM EDT

Bob Clegg: Raised "about" $60k, $156k CoH. The FEC filing should indicate how much he either lent or contributed himself.

Still no word from self-appointed frontrunner Jennifer Horn. Update: PolitickerNH has Horn reporting $61k raised, $21k CoH. Gee, you think she waited until Clegg's number got reported and then put out a number just barely edging him?

In the first district, neither Bradley nor Stephen appear to have filed yet.

Wally Edge over at the Politicker will be keeping an eye out for the actual filings as they appear.

Foster's is (stupidly) puzzled

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 13:12:35 PM EDT

What kind of timetable does the junior senator have? Immediate withdrawal or a phased withdrawal - and if phased, over how long a period of time?

Sen. Obama seems to be having trouble staying on point.

Let's inject some reality here. The Carpetbagger Report:

For over a year, Barack Obama's position on Iraq has been entirely consistent - a flexible withdrawal timeline, over 16 months, with one to two brigades a month. He would consult with commanders on the ground about how best to execute this policy, and would consider conditions on the ground, but Obama is committed to a withdrawal policy. He's said this over and over again.

In fact, conditions-based flexibility has always been a hallmark of Obama's policy. Asked earlier this year if he'd refine the timeline based on events on the ground, Obama said he would. Asked if he'd guarantee that all the troops would be out of Iraq, no matter, what 2013, Obama demurred.

So, yesterday, when Obama repeated the exact same policy he's emphasized for over a year, the McCain campaign and the national political media - the distinctions between McCain and his "base" continue to blur - pounced. Obama, they said without evidence or connection to reality, had changed his policy.

So, I'm puzzled. Did the editors of Foster's outsource their editorial page to the McCain campaign? Or have they so enjoyed having a president who listens to no one outside his immediate circle and never changes his mind that the notion you'd adjust a plan based on what knowledgeable people say about it is poison to them?

More End of Quarter Nagging

by: Laura Clawson

Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 22:15:59 PM EDT

Oh, you don't? You'd rather wake up to Jeanne Shaheen and Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes?

Yeah, I thought so.

That being the case, and it not yet being high-octane, door-knocking, phone-calling, envelope-stuffing campaign season, the big thing you can do to make November 5 a happy day is give some money to those candidates, and for that matter to Barack Obama and Doug Lindner, who join them on our Blue Hampshire ActBlue page.  

Unity Snippets

by: Laura Clawson

Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 18:52:13 PM EDT

Via Barb at the GOS, the quote of the day came from Hillary Clinton:

In the end, Senator McCain and President Bush are like two sides of the same coin and it doesn't amount to a whole lot of change.

Over at Balloon Juice, John Cole isn't a big fan of the concept of a unity event, but says:

1.) I simply still do not know how Hillary does it. I really don't. She is standing there, nodding, clapping, looking like she is actually enjoying herself, and I simply wish I had 1/10th her drive and toughness. Whatever you think about Hillary, and I have had some harsh words, her drive is just amazing.

2.) Obama had a line about women not being held back by anything after Hillary's campaign, and that women can do it better than men and in high heels. This reminded me of the old quip about Ginger Rogers, who, as the saying goes, did everything Fred Astaire did but did it backwards while in heels. Always love that line.

MyDD also had a bit of liveblogging.

We're still looking for diaries from people who were there to promote. C'mon people, where's the citizen journalism?

Come November

by: Laura Clawson

Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 19:27:50 PM EDT

Marc Ambinder, 6/20/08:

Here's my best sense of the interviews, reportage, polling and guesswork. The big moves this month: New Hampshire is back in the tossup column. I think I may have prematurely moved it to lean Obama, but I'm getting the sense from some NH Dems that the big liberal wave has crested there.

Rasmussen, 6/20/08:

Barack Obama has more than doubled his lead over John McCain in the first poll conducted in New Hampshire since Hillary Clinton's exit from the race. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Granite State found Obama ahead 50% to 39%.

I'm not a total believer in polling, but I'm equally critical of source-based journalism. In this case I'm leaning toward the poll as more believable, for a number of reasons. But whatever happens in November, this is a reminder not to go all in on any one kind of evidence.

A Pleasant Reminder for November

by: Laura Clawson

Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 23:27:14 PM EDT

Mr. Van Hollen said Republicans should be doubly worried by evidence that showed Mr. Obama outperformed Senator John McCain among independents in primary states when the Republican party's nomination battle was still in doubt. Independents are considered Mr. McCain's political strong suit.

Yet the memo said that, based on exit polls, Mr. Obama won 16,000 more independent votes than Mr. McCain in New Hampshire, a state where Mr. McCain is very popular. "This trend continued in the traditionally Republican state of South Carolina, another open primary, where Senator Obama won the independent vote with approximately 51,405 compared to Senator McCain's 33,498," it said.

Not that we didn't know it, but worth remembering.

Victory at Dartmouth

by: Laura Clawson

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 21:24:47 PM EDT

What does it matter if the far right takes over Dartmouth? It means just over a thousand students a year being taught by professors to whom a conservative litmus test has been applied. It means a new training ground for rightwing pundits like Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D'Souza (both of whom came out of Dartmouth in the 1980s heyday of the Dartmouth Review). It means a prestigious academic home from which conservative faculty could themselves act as pundits, or draw support for their research. And it provides a blueprint for future assaults on other colleges and universities; it is, in the words of one of its leaders, part of a "multigenerational battle."

Today, we learned that Dartmouth alumni were not willing to let the right win that battle:

HANOVER, NH  - The Dartmouth College Office of Alumni Relations today announced that a record number of Dartmouth alumni voted to elect new leadership of the Association of Alumni (AoA) committed to ending a lawsuit against the College.

Every member of the "Unity" slate of candidates for the eleven-member executive committee was elected with approximately 60 percent of the votes cast. With 24,940 ballots cast, a record number of Dartmouth College's more than 60,000 alumni participated in the election, approximately 38 percent.

That's not a bad turnout for a lot of local elections, let alone an alumni association one, and the scale of the turnout and the victory points up the strategy the right had relied on to win: mobilizing their side to turn out for elections that would otherwise fly under the radar. Once people knew something about what was at stake in this election, they voted, and they roundly rejected the radical rightwing agenda.

This is a really happy day.