Barack Obama began scaling back TV advertising for the convention week, pulling ads in Republican strongholds in the South and Mountain West to concentrate on ad wars with rival John McCain in battleground states.

~ snip ~

Democratic and Republican officials familiar with Obama’s ad purchases said the campaign had decided to pull ads from Alaska, Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and North Dakota during next week’s convention. Two Democratic officials, speaking not for attribution because they were not authorized to discuss ad strategy, said the campaign intends to return to those state airwaves the following week.

In 2004, Kerry’s team also attempted to change the map. They ran two biographical spots in states which they hoped to turn blue. Factcheck.org reported in May of that year that:

According to the Kerry campaign, the ads will appear in 19 battleground states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Associated Press said the buy was the largest so far by any candidate in the 2004 campaign, and would exceed the $17 million spent by Kerry since he wrapped up the Democratic nomination two months previously. Kerry strategist Tad Devine called it “the most ambitious media campaign in the history of presidential politics.” (emphasis added)

By Labor Day, Kerry had ceased ad buys in nearly all the Red States listed above:

Democrats all but wasted about $40 million by advertising in GOP-leaning states they had hoped to put in play before giving up - Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia. Still, buying airtime there forced Bush’s campaign to spend at least $25 million defending those states.

That $40 million would have probably made the difference for Kerry in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and perhaps moved the numbers in Missouri.

In addition to running ads in crimson Red States, Obama has squandered big money in Florida. Last week, The Huffington Post confidently proclaimed “Obama’s Florida Dominance: 9,785 More Ads.”

In Florida’s living rooms, the presidential contest so far has been a landslide — Barack Obama, 9,785; John McCain, zero….The Obama campaign has spent about $6.5 million on TV advertising in Florida, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of media tracker TNS Media Intelligence. In part, the spending can be attributed to the Democrat’s late start there. He refrained from campaigning in Florida during the primary season after the Democratic Party penalized the state for holding its primary early.

Obama’s ads in Florida — and elsewhere as the A.P. article obliquely suggests — have been wasted dollars. Despite the onslaught in Florida, McCain is leading Obama in the Sunshine State. Floridians, it seems, have tired of intentional disenfranchisement, and Obama’s disingenuous letter asking for the state’s full seating at the DNC was just another example of Obama’s slickness. Charles Lemos writes:

(SUSA) has a new poll out today that shows McCain enjoying a comfortable six point margin. That margin is slightly more than Bush’s five point win in 2004. Not a bad place to be…Most polls heretofore have shown Florida as in the “leaning Democratic” or “slightly Democratic” column so these new polling results are either an outlier or suggest a shift in the race. Coupled with other polls, both nationwide and in individual states, the trend seems to be the latter. There is a discernible if nascent shift in the race. It is now increasingly evident that in the past fortnight despite the “glory that was Baghdad, the awe that was Berlin” that support for Obama has eroded.

Buried at the bottom of a long paragraph in the A.P. article was this gem of information:

Obama has already pulled ads in Miami, but there were conflicting reports on whether he planned to silence his ad presence in the rest of Florida.

It seems Obama is not the map-changer for which Dr. Dean had been planning.

The first post, Obama’s Flawed Race Strategy: Why the Black Vote Won’t Be Enough by iam0nly1, argues convincingly that Obama’s weakness in the Rust Belt cannot be offset by African American voters in the South:

Obama’s entire claim to redrawing the political map is based on his perceived ability to win in Southern states precisely because of African American voters. After all, this is why Hillary’s claim that she alone was capable of winning large swing states that Democrats must win, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, went unnoticed and unheeded by Dean, Pelosi and others. However, this is a severe and dangerous gamble.

Obama is in serious trouble in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and, particularly, Florida. Consequently, he’s trying to expand into traditional red states, especially Virginia and Georgia in the South, and the Rocky Mountain West region.

The second post, by Charles Lemos, is a video and PowerPoint presentation by renowned pollster Douglas Schoen. On the surface, it seems to be good news for Obama. He now leads McCain, the country wants change, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican:

Lemos is correct that Schoen’s analysis is a snapshot of the current situation:

I think the presentation is accurate as of right now. In politics, nothing is static. Events happen but of as right now, Obama is leading and Schoen’s presentation, I think, offers reasons why.

Many commentators have referenced Michael Dukaksis’ infamous 17 point lead over George H. W. Bush in 1988 as a cautionary warning to Obama. Beware, the argument goes, summer’s highs can evaporate in the fall after the withering attacks by the Republicans.

All of this has me thinking about a more recent election. In 2004, my preferred candidate did win the Democratic nomination — and there was real unity in our Party. Iraq was spinning out of control, Americans felt shame about the horrific pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison, and the Democrats were about to nominate a genuine war hero. Looking up Democracy Corps’ polling analysis from July 22, 2004, I found that Obama’s situation is strikingly similar (if slightly weaker) compared to where John Kerry was at the same time. Karl Agne, writing for Democracy Corps, sounded even more optimistic about Democratic chances than does Schoen today:

The Kerry-Edwards ticket heads to the Democratic Convention in Boston with a great deal of momentum behind them. In a race that has been surprisingly stable and evenly divided since Kerry truly emerged as the nominee in March – characterized by small swings in either direction usually predicated by events in Iraq and in the nation’s economy – Kerry and Edwards are enjoying an undeniable shift in voter attitudes. Kerry leads Bush in every national poll released this month, reaching 50 percent in the last two surveys of likely voters.

~snip~

Virtually every poll released in the last couple weeks shows Kerry making tremendous gains in these individual states. In fact, Kerry now leads in the most recent poll in every state won by Gore in 2000 and is either winning or within the margin of error in all 11 battleground states won by Bush. In making such strong gains at this stage, Kerry has put himself in an enviable position and can now use the unparalleled exposure of the Democratic Convention to solidify these gains, reinforcing his already strong support in the Democratic base and reaching out to even more Independents and newly engaged voters.

Besides the fluctuations of polls, what’s interesting about the above statement is the reference to the battleground states. Because of our Electoral College system, national polls (as cited by Schoen) can only tell you so much, and this is where the news becomes ominous for Obama. Unless he has a huge national lead in the fall, Obama will likely be fighting for the same swing states for which Kerry fought. iam0nly1 argues that African Americans are unlikely to increase their numbers sufficiently to carry Obama in Southern states. With the South off the table, Obama will also be disadvantaged in the Rust Belt and Florida, and he will be fighting for the Rocky Mountain West:

[Obama's team] discuss the Rocky Mountain states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, but frankly, even if he wins those three, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (all three of which will be highly competitive), if he loses Ohio and Florida, he will lose the election 267-271 (this count includes all the states Kerry won). In short, if Obama loses Ohio and Florida, the three Rocky Mountain states and Georgia and Virginia become must win states.

In short, Obama’s minuscule national lead today — prior to the expected Republican assault — will show Obama to be a map-changer, but not in the direction he hopes.

According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary - 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined.  In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported.  Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes.  Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct.  Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.

 Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges.  During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot.  To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate.  The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.

 Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift.  Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.  

This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary.  The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions.  What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results?  Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states?  What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results?
 
 No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee — but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.  

The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters.  Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours.  Senator Clinton’s core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses.  Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier.  Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus.  And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration.  Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for.  At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters.  
 

Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses.  Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets.   How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.

 Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization.  Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?

 On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates.   Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates.  Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest.  Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes).  How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference?  The caucus factor is at work again.  Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?  

 Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively.  Fourteen states had caucuses — Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses.  The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters.  In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race.
 
 The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses.  The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points.  The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points.  This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.

 The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor.  The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results.  Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin.   Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound.  Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points.  If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.

 Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries.   In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded.  In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast.  In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates.  A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary.  With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.

 The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states.  The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results.  

Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries.  

Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states.  The Democrats have allowed the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.  

This will result in certain disaster in the fall.

– Lynette Long
 
BIO: Dr. Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist practicing in Bethesda, Maryland.  She is the author of twenty books including fourteen math books.  Dr. Long has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and was the host of One on One with Dr. Lynette Long.  She recently published Op-Ed’s in both USA Today and the Baltimore Sun about the current election cycle. Her blog is LynetteLong.com.