GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
R4′08 is pleased to present the following article from Justin Hart of MyManMitt.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Much of what we discuss in the blogosphere about the 2008 election is anecdotal. Of course, when the latest poll clears the wires we wax scientific but the core element of our discussion is usually one of reason, persuasion and argument, not science.
But when you get down and dirty in the academic world this won’t fly. They would no sooner cite a post from Powerline Blog than they would from Paris Hilton to predict who will win the election.
Recent academic studies have brought to light numerous characteristics to define a classic campaign and possibly predict the outcome of the presidential primary and general elections. Let’s examine 12 of these characteristics in more detail and predict the candidates who have an advantage.
1) Classic “Type of Primary” Influences
Apparently, there are two characteristics that are typically employed in academic circles to assess what influence specific state primaries have on the nomination. The first is the lengthening effect of proportional primaries. The second is diverse voter preference. Let’s take this first element.
Alexandra L. Cooper, a profession of Law and Government at Lafayette University, produced a computer simulation to study these two elements. Her conclusion: “The simulations show that both proportional allocation and more diverse voter preferences increase the number of primaries that must be completed before a single candidate can amass sufficient delegates to guarantee nomination.”
Quick admission here. This is heady stuff and it took me about hour to decipher what Cooper is getting at. Let me translate:
There are basically three types of primaries:
1) Caucus or Conventions (CC)
2) Proportional Primaries (PP)
3) Winner Takes All (WTA)
The Democratic Party has a significantly larger number of “PP” states which indicates, according to Cooper, that their candidates will have to wade through more state primaries before a winner becomes evident. The GOP only has a handful of PP primaries which may indicate that the nominee will be solidified earlier than the DEMS.
For example, the DEMS have set up New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina as PP primaries. This means that even second tier candidates have a chance to win a “proportional” amount of delegates.
On the other side of the aisle New Hampshire is the only early state for the GOP that uses proportional delegates.
Then, on February 5th, over 44% of the delegates for each party are up for grabs. For the DEMS, 13 of the 18 states that have primaries on that date utilize PP for their allocation of delegates. Compare that to the GOP where no state uses a strict PP allocation and 10 states use the “Winner Take All” approach on that fateful Tuesday.
The outstanding question is: will this classic characteristic hold true for the election in 2008? Will early wins in IA and NH truly propel a candidate over to Super Tuesday per tradition?
So the prediction I have for this first characteristic: Mitt Romney will likely win the nomination if he continues his lead in New Hampshire and Iowa. Even if only a handful of Super Tuesday primaries go his way he will win because of the predominate “Winner Take All” approach. This isn’t rocket science but it is science (according to Cooper and her peers).
Next week we’ll tackle the “New Hampshire Effect” in more detail.
-Cross-posted over at MyManMitt.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Winner Take All is a misleading term.
It gives people the impression that most states gives all their delegates to the candidate with the most votes statewide.
This is not the case. Only a few states in the Northeast and in the West do that.
In fact the largest type of delegate selection method is winner-take-all by congressional district AND by state. In that method , used by most primary states, the winner of the vote in a congressional district wins delegates (usually 3) and the statewide winner usually wins a few bonus delegates in addition to any congressional district delegates they won.
This is the simple version of that system. There are odd variations in certain states.
You also didn’t mention the loophole primary where a primary is held but the votes actually don’t determine who is awarded the delegates. This occurs in Pennsylvania and a few other states.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I’m not trying to self promote but…
I posted a map on redstate that showed which states selected Republican delegates through the various methods.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/econ_grad_stud/2007/jun/01/winner_take_all_and_other_myths
June 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“Compare that to the GOP where no state uses a strict PP allocation and 10 states use the “Winner Take All” approach on that fateful Tuesday…. Even if only a handful of Super Tuesday primaries go his way he will win because of the predominate “Winner Take All” approach.”
Isn’t that contradictory?
June 9th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
That is a great recourse econ!
I did in fact simplify the choices for brevity.
However, unlike “proportional primaries”, district-level “winner takes all” primaries usually see a snowball effect.
Bottom line: GOP nominees are typically decided earlier than the DEM candidate in part because of the heavy “PP” type primaries that keep second-tier winners alive.
In addition to the “Loophole primaries” (NJ, IL, PA) that econ mentioned there’s the “Bonus Primary” and the “Advisory Primary” (NE). Lots of fun!
June 9th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
David B. - Lost my track of logic. It should read: “Even if only hanful of Super Tuesday don’t go his way…”
June 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Regarding the snowball effect, after 2-3 primaries, voters tend to behave like crowds, moving toward the guy who’s won the most primaries.
But the media will be bombarding voters this time with things like “this year is entirely different and nobody knows the effect of the new primary schdule,” “Rudy Giuliani is counting on voters in states like FL, CA, NY and NJ to offset other candidates strength in earlier states,” “the math allows any candidate to win,” etc
What that really means is these voters are being invited/challenged to stick with their first choice regardless of what’s happened in earlier primaries.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Justin, if you’re beginning this series with the assumption Romney will win all but a handful of Mega Tuesday states, your analysis is not going to be terribly persuasive.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Justin, mathematically a candidate can’t actually cliche the nomination with pledged delegates until nearly April.
However you’re right that a candidate can build up an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates by February 5th.
A long drawn out primary campaign is a hard to get in the GOP but not impossible (see 1976).
June 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
David. Obviously I have my own biases but there are a few characteristics that Rudy wins hands down. For example, a scientific study came out a few months ago indicating that the GOP top poll leader a year out from Iowa usually wins.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Rudy’s not winning NY if I have anything to do with it.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Re: #6
To understand the snowball effect and whether or not it will happen this year, we need to understand why voters behave this way.
I would say the reason for this snowball effect is that people want to be on the winning team; no one wants to support a loser. Something like this effect is also seen in polling leading up to the primaries. Many voters say they will vote for the one they feel will win. I believe much of Rudy’s support has been this type of support. Evidence of this may be seen in the poll numbers for Rudy pre- and post-Fred Thompson.
For many people who choose Rudy as their “first choice” in polls, their actual “first choice” is not Rudy, but the perceived frontrunner, regardless of who it is.
Therefore, the snowball effect should be in effect in 2008. If Mitt does win NH and Iowa, there is good reason to believe that many of these voters will throw their support over to Mitt when it really counts, and end up voting for him in the primaries.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Another reason why Mitt WON’T have wrapped up this thing even if he wins in Iowa and NH is that the press will do everything in their power to make this a race, on both sides, for as long as possible.
June 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Rasmussen: McCain now leads Clinton 48-42
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_now_trails_both_giuliani_and_mccain
can we please stop hearing the BS-spin about how Giuliani is the only viable general election candidate for the GOP?
June 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
JB: Most of us Rudy fans have always said McCain is the 2nd most electable and could probably win. We just hate him like most otehr Republicans do.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
McCain’s dropping in Iowa.
Voter/Consumer Research Iowa GOP Primary 6/8/07
* Romney - 29% (15)
* Giuliani - 12% (24)
* F. Thompson - 10% (-)
* Gingrich - 10%
* McCain - 9% (17)
* Huckabee - 7%
June 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
[...] Last week I examined recent computer models predicting that the GOP nominee will be known earlier than the Democratic nominee because of the type of primaries utilized by each party. I surmised that this phenomenon currently bodes well for Mitt Romney who is leading in New Hampshire and Iowa. [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 9:01 am
[...] Last week I examined recent computer models predicting that the GOP nominee will be known earlier than the Democratic nominee because of the type of primaries utilized by each party. I surmised that this phenomenon currently bodes well for Mitt Romney who is leading in New Hampshire and Iowa. [...]