Thursday, August 31, 2006

PCC Forum

So, if you were looking for excitement at the forum, the guy with a flashlight dressed in a trenchcoat posing as a stalker was probably as good as it got. Not sure who he was affiliated with, but it was kind of fun in a sophomoric way.

As far as the actual forum, it was pretty much a snoozer. I'm not sure if it was because of the television cameras, or the fact that the candidates have done so many of these things but there was very little in the way of fireworks form the candidate end. Here is what I saw:

Steve Huffman: He was there, so that is a start. He actually did a half decent job when answering the questions and didn't go negative. I was particularly impressed on the "faith in government" question where I thought that he actually gave the best answer. When the "11th commandment" question was brought up, he ducked so hard Daffy and Donald felt threatened. Obviously the negativity is not finished. Steve stayed for the entire debate, but cleared out as soon as he could. Somebody should sit him down and explain that he needs to stop and talk with the people that attend these things. Some of them may be press or anonymous bloggers that may be persuaded to give him positive press that he doesn't need to pay for.

Mike Hellon: Solid performance by Mike if unspectacular. Let Steve off the hook a bit with the 11th Commandment question, especially in comparison with the Tucson Republican Women's breakfast. He projected confidence and statesmanship and stayed on message. I still wonder what he could have done with even a quarter of the money that fell to Steve.

Randy Graf: Didn't really bomb, but didn't meet up with his usual high standards. This is perhaps the weakest performance I have seen from Graf in a while. He did have his usual command of specific facts and legislation, which always works well, and I always enjoy the pocket constitution. His response of being "highly disappointed in Mr. Huffman" was measured and appropriate when faced with the 11th commandment question. I did think that his closing statement where he went after Huffman was out of character for Randy. Of course I am not facing a constant barrage of negative advertising about me personally with more on the horizon.

Frank Antenori: Superb as always. If Frank doesn't win the primary, he should at least get his own reality show, and another series where he discusses politics with Francine Schacter and they interview guests in the defunct "Crossfire" fashion (Frank and Francine, my people will be in touch with you). Appropriately passionate and focused, these forums are his bread and butter. He also has a pocket constitution, although I would bet that his is specially treated to stop a bullet. He also understands the importance of staying late to work the crowd. We should expect big things of Frank even if the Primary doesn't go his way.

Mike Jenkins: Of all the candidates, I think that Mike has grown the most of all in the time that I have followed the campaign. Where several months ago he looked nervous and tentative at these forums, he now looks comfortable and confident. His answers were consistent and controlled without the gruffness that he used to show. He also did a good job of getting his supporters to the forum, as I saw several Jenkins bumper stickers in the parking lot, and more Jenkins tee shirts inside. Even if he does not win this race, Jenkins will be far more formidable in future races.

Again, I apologize for the bland review, but I wasn't given a lot to work with. I believe the rerun will be on cable access Saturday night at 8:00 pm. Too bad most of the city will be attending the U of A-BYU football game which should be a sellout. If you are debating between the two, go for the football game.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Don't write off Old Media yet. . .

AZ Congress Watch already beat me to is but there was a rather detailed and informative article published by Congressional Quarterly.

I do wish however that we could get articles written without the main sources being Jim Kolbe and Margaret Kenski. The conventional wisdom that Graf is skating only because Hellon and Huffman are splitting the vote is old and broken, and demonstrably so. Graf is winning because he has run a far more effective campaign thus far, and is not merely picking up the "sloppy seconds" left by the other two major candidates.

I really haven't seen the "temper tantrums" referred to either, other than Hellon's refusal to drop out of the race, which is plain silly. Hellon isn't in some sort of cabal with Huffman and doesn't really owe him anything. It would be just as valid to point out that a Huffman victory places the party in greater danger of losing the election to the Democratic challenger with the utterly inept and embarrassment of a campaign he has run to this point, so Hellon should withdraw and support Graf. That isn't going to happen either.

I also enjoy the term "many Republican officials, including Kolbe. . ." as being concerned that Graf cannot win. Either name them or just quote Kolbe like everyone else. The Graf issue seems more like a Kolbe crusade more than anything else, unless one counts Jim Click as "many Republican officials. I'm not going to pin this on CQ, however as this has been the only thing the national people had on this race for months.

My favorite part, however, was the damage control attempted by Dave Spuempfle which was promptly cross-checked against Chuck Coughlin. If you can't even get out a couple lines pumping your campaign without CQ checking your accuracy, things aren't really going well for your primary campaign.

Overall, however the article was well researched, well written, and insightful which is a direct counter example from the AP article I cited previously.

More please.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Dinosaur Media

Here is a great reason why you cannot trust the Arizona Republic for your campaign news (or the AP for that matter).

Key snippet:
Former state legislator Gabrielle Giffords has emerged as the Democrat to beat, while the Republican race is much tighter, with state Rep. Steve Huffman holding no clear-cut lead over contenders Randy Graf, a former state legislator, and Mike Hellon, a former state GOP chairman.

Unless "holds no clear-cut lead" is synonymous with "getting crushed by 23%" they simply have done no research on this race other than look at the names of the people running and the money raised. If this is the case, please spare us from writing the article at all.

And why does the Republic pick this story up, as they at least should know better?

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Poll Internals

You can get those at Inside Tucson Business

I'll have further comments about these internals later. . .

Some Analysis of GOP polling

I'm not even going to touch the Democratic portion of the poll other than say I overestimated the support for Patty Weiss. I guess I need to hang out with more liberal bloggers.

On the GOP side, reference this post I made 5 weeks ago.

Today's poll release shows that the leaked poll results I got then seem to be stunningly accurate. They were:

30% Graff
12% Hellon
4% Huffman

with 54% undecided.

What this would seem to show is that almost a quarter of the previous undecideds have decided and Huffman seems to be picking them up in greater numbers due to his advertising blitz. However, Graf looks to have received a good share of these voters as well with far less money spent and if the current undecideds continue to split at this rate, there are not enough of them for Steve to make the race competitive. Especially as a large percentage of the remaining undecideds aren't likely to show up and vote in the primary if history holds.

Hellon, on the other hand seems to be holding steady with the supporters that he held a month ago. Before the window-peeping flap it could have been argued that Hellon had topped out. It will be interesting to see what the coming week holds for him.

As of now, barring an implosion of some sort, Randy Graf looks to be Republican nominee for CD-8.

Results are in

from the Tucson Weekly Blog


Randy Graf: 36 percent
Steve Huffman: 13 percent
Mike Hellon: 10 percent
Mike Jenkins: 1 percent
Frank Antenori: 1 percent
Undecided: 39 percent


Gabrielle Giffords: 45 percent
Patty Weiss: 27 percent
Jeff Latas: 6 percent
Alex Rodriguez: 1 percent
Bill Johnson: 1 percent
Francine Schacter: 1 percent
Undecided: 20 percent

Simply WOW!

Pre-Poll Breakfast

While waiting for the news on the actual CD-8 polling, here are a few national snippits to tide you over:

Democrats are fond of tying support for the Republican candidate in CD-8 to the job performance of the President and his dwindling numbers:

Indeed those low numbers can be tied into the national trend that shows that the average voter prefers a generic Democratic candidate over a generic Republican

And on top of that the general feeling in CD-8 is that we have simply had enough of Republican rule and are ready to sweep a specific Democrat into office (pay attention to his first data point)

So with all of the bad national polling news, hopefully the Republicans will find something to be cheerful about with the poll released later today.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

When a scandal hurts. . .

Steve Huffman really stepped in it with this story. This is a semi-serious allegation as it stands on it's own. However, because of who he is and how he has positioned himself, this could be the death knell for Huffman. Here's why:

1. Huffman is a negative campaigner and a dirt digger. This was well known going into the contest and has shown itself in the primary. His first two television ads appeared to be almost formalities so that he could get to the mudslinging (although I bet he wished he could have the flashlight ad back). There is no one outside of Huffman's mother who would believe that he had nothing to do with the actions of Bill Arnold. It all fits to well with what is known about him and the way he campaigns. I wrote earlier on the Aiken scandal "" A campaign manager is not the candidate, and there is plenty of time to repair the damage and regain momentum." In this case, Arnold (treasurer, not the campaign manager) reflects exactly the actions and stances of Huffman and it will be hard for Huffman to separate himself.

2. The time factor, there really isn't much time to repair the damage and regain momentum. If Huffman had a crack staff (which at this point I am seriously doubting) this sets him at least a week back in terms of managing the damage and regrouping. We are exactly three weeks from the Primary and early voting has already begun.

3. It seriously hurts him if he continues to go negative. Anybody he attacks only has to respond "Have you been peeking into my windows again, Steve?" to deflect the attack. The correct way to deal with the scandal is to refocus the campaign and hit on Steve's positives and issues, and I am not confident that Steve is able to run this type of campaign.

4. The fact that it happened to Toni Hellon is also a huge negative. There would have been plenty of people that showed up to vote for Toni that also would have voted for Steve. This just isn't going to happen now. All of those votes are going to her ex-husband. It also has a lot of people who only follow politics marginally wondering what Huffman was doing spying on Mike Hellon's ex-wife not knowing about Steve's earlier plans to run against her. To these people this entire affair will just sound icky and make Steve look like a stalker.

5. Mike Hellon owns Steve Huffman. Does anybody actually think that Toni just found out last week who was posting the pictures back in April? Her and Mike have been sitting on this information and waited until Steve was hip deep in negative advertising to release it. It was a masterful bit of ju-jiutsu and subtlety that again shows that Mike has been ahead of Steve on every move since the Kolbe endorsement. There have even been rumors that Hellon was responsible for leaking the information on Steve Aiken which again was promptly blamed upon Steve Huffman. It would have been interesting to see this race play out with Hellon getting the endorsement.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Back the Truck up

Just been reading all the breaking news about the RNCC being responsible for the pro-Giffords push poll that was "revealed" during the Weiss press conference. I have read all of the findings online and count me in as less than impressed with the amount of detail provided that led up to the stunning conclusion.

1. The poll took place and it definitely was a push poll.

2. Patty's people backtracked the the calls and found that they originated from Western Wats. I believe that this happened and is true.

3. Everything else after this point is hearsay and conjecture.

It appears that the rest of the footprints are provided by this article. This story is about a push poll in the New York 20th Congressional District where a Republican is attacking a Democratic candidate. This poll was also tracked back to Western Wats. then the following paragraph was included:

A Western Wats worker said the poll was commissioned by The Tarrance Group, a national Republican polling firm that does a lot of work for the National Republican Congressional Committee. She would not reveal on whose behalf The Tarrance Group is polling.

So a single (as in one) unidentified (as in nobody that can be followed up with or fact checked) worker (no position identified, it could have been the CEO or vending machine stocker) said that the poll was commissioned by the Tarrance Group. I do not doubt that the Tarrance group works with Western Wats, I wouldn't even be shocked if they do engage in push polling from time to time. However, I am pretty sure that Western Wats does not make a practice of revealing who is behind which poll unless they are given leave to do so by their client. In this case the information could be gathered in a verifiable manner (company records show, or a spokesman, John Doe, from Western Wats verified. . .) However, since this information is clearly not public knowledge a single anonymous source will have to do.

So we have a pretty tenuous thread that holds the Tarrance Group to the Poll in New York. We immediately switch to the RNCC paying the Tarrance Group $391,087 for polling this year (verifiable). Then a DNCC source (not named, not objective, and probably not in a great position to know the exact specifics) says that the RNCC have given the Republican candidate in New York $16,275 for polling. No verification that it was a push poll or otherwise, or that this particular poll or any of his polls was contracted through the Terrance Group.

So is there any verifiable information that Patty has that shows that Western Wats did the push poll on the request of the Tarrance Group other than the fact that they have worked with the Tarrance Group before? If so, it is not laid out on her or Michael Bryan's posts.

The fact is that any push poll is likely to be associated with Western Wats as a push poll takes an entirely different degree of bandwidth than normal polls due to the number and the specifity of those contacted. Western Wats is one of the few providers that could accomplish such a poll in a short amount of time.

But the calculus appears to be:

Push polls are evil
Republicans are evil
Western Wats ran the poll
Republicans have used Western Wats

Ergo. . .

Brilliant move by Patty however, there was no way that she could prove that Gabby did the poll, so she blamed it on Rove which a lot are likely to believe absent of evidence. And an enemy of Rove would seem to merit a good look as a candidate, and short of admitting complicity in the push poll, there is little that Gabby can do to dilute this message.

However, if the proof given so far is all that there is, it is either sloppy or dishonest research, and should in no way constitute definitive proof of Republican involvement.

If there is something I have missed, I would be happy to reassess.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Is Gabby Giffords really Snow White?

The Arizona political blogosphere is still in its infancy, and I must admit that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have quite the advantage so far on us Republicans, which means that sometimes we have to wade over into their internal discussions, which I am fine with.

But there is something that really has made me wonder. It appears that there is a great cross section of bloggers who have a politician confused with a Disney Princess. Here are the facts:

1. Gabby's "Darkness" ad stretched the truth quite a bit. She knew it when she ran the ad, calculated that no one would challenge it, and lost. I do not think that makes her an evil person, just a politician. You can bring up legislators that "were there as it happened" that rushed to her defense, but we all know that her Legislative peers weren't going to shove her under the bus, especially as she has a pretty decent chance of winning. I especially enjoyed the conspiracy theories that a "Republican" reporter had set out to destroy Gabby. A likelier story is that the only reason that the story was allowed to run was because the larger paper was going to endorse Gabby, and they wanted to show that that they could be tough on "their" candidate as well.

Now the whole idea of newspapers endorsing candidates should be a scandal all in itself, especially this far out. Shouldn't they have to preface any story concerning Gabby or any of the other candidates with "In the interest of full disclosure, we would prefer that Ms. Giffords win the election?"

However, the fact remains that she stretched the truth, dug in her heels when called on it, and waited for other people to help bail her out. It really wasn't her finest moment.

2. The "Push polling" scandal that is all the rage now is not being done by Republicans. The only person with the money to do it would be Steve Huffman, and he is busy push polling and outright negative advertising about Randy Graf. Equally silly is the assertion that it is being done by Patty Weiss herself. I mean, really, if you are seriously thinking that this is what is going on, you need to step away from the Oliver Stone movies (I mean the earlier stuff not his latest ;))

Here's the deal, this is probably not being done by Gabby directly, but either she, or her people know who is behind it, and knew beforehand. She may even come out and denounce it, but not before the calls are actually made. Again, we need to reference the fact that this is the moment that could make Gabby's entire life. To believe that she will not do everything possible to attain it is just not realistic. Those that continue to assert her prom queen innocence do her a great disservice, by the way.

To show that I am equal opportunity, however, I believe the reason that Patty has not said much about it is that she intends to engage in a little push polling of her own.

3. Gabby has raised over $800,000. To believe that all of this money poured in with no strings attached is also silly. When Gabby was in Washington (what is an Arizona legislator doing in D.C. anyway, especially while is session) she was attending meetings with just the type of people that are now donating to her campaign. Her state career was just a step in her national ambitions, which led to her vanilla voting record where she stayed clear of controversy. This is also why she never used clean election funds. Even if she has definite ideas about being her own person, she has taken money from those who think otherwise. This is not even debatable.

All that said, this does not disqualify Gabby from running. Indeed most of the candidates running for office all over the country are just as guilty. The other candidates, more often than not, lose spectacularly. This doesn't mean I will vote for Gabby, but I can understand where she is at. If you feel that she is indeed some virginal vessel of purity that will cleanse Congress by her very presence, you need to be reading Teen Beat instead of political blogs. Francine is actually closer to that type of person (and I will not be voting for her either).

What you need from your candidate is an action item list of realistic issues that they can accomplish on your behalf that the other candidates cannot. If they speak of solving all the World's ills, beware. If you feel that Gabby has those, you would do far better pointing them out than concocting conspiracy theories and excuses about things which Gabby herself wouldn't ask you to defend. Better to be more of an advocate than a fan.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

About the "Midnight Vote" Kerfuffle

Not going to say a lot about this except,

1. This was not a Republican "hit piece." Had Republicans been responsible the timing would have been different. I'm not really sure that Republicans are quaking in fear of a Gifford's win in the primary as some have believed.

2. I have seen many comments on many boards by a few people claiming that the writer cannot be trusted because he may have been, or associates with Republicans. The irony of this is delicious. Imagine a member of the press belonging to, agreeing with, being active in, and actually voting for another political party. Welcome to the world of Republicans, except it is not just a once in a while thing.

3. The fact that this is labeled as a hit piece at all is just hyperventalating. Newspapers do this schtick every election period. They see an add and fact check it. They will also do it for Weiss, Huffman, Graf, and perhaps Hellon if he buys any television time. Enterprising papers will also do it for debates as well. Everyone knows that when you put up an ad, you are going to fudge a little to place yourself in a good light. Just don't cite outright falsehoods and you will be OK. The Steve Huffman flashlight in his latest ad should have caused more of an uproar than this.

4. This entire uproar simply helps lend credence to my previous hypothesis. The only reason that this is of any moment at all is because Gabby will not separate herself from the people she is running against. If she were to show up to the next mixed forum and aggressively hound Randy Graf for the length of the forum the sniping would subside substantially. I'm not saying this would be an easy thing to do, but she will be facing a Republican in a month. Now would be a good time to confront Republicans outside of a thirty second television ad about an obscure parliamentary device. The next issue may be if she can face Republicans without yelling "quorum" and leaving town for three days to recover her calm.

Or perhaps it will be about the tenderfoot way she approaches the horses in her ads, or the weak tourqe that was placed on the lugnuts she used in her tire shop. The thing is, Gabby can end all this, but she will have to show up and lead and not rely on coasting.

Monday, August 07, 2006

State of the campaign - Democratic Primary

So, I have wanted to post something on the Democratic Primary race and have held back because I do not have as many contacts or sources among the candidates. I have spent the last several weeks, however, conducting some informal research on where things are going. I did my best to target solid Democrats and Non-Republicans to get their feelings on the race and step outside of the local blogging crowd.

What I found was pretty eye-opening.

Here's the deal. Patty Weiss is ahead, and if the primary were held tomorrow, she would be the winner.

The results among the people I spoke with were not as close as what I believe the race to actually be, but it certainly provided a counter-balance to what I had come to believe by reading the latest blog comments. Of the people I spoke with, almost every one of them knew Patty, and most intended to vote for her. Not in a "she's the only person I know so I will vote for her" way, but with a "I really like Patty Weiss." Of the people who were aware of Gabby, I got more negative reactions than positive. And of course there were a few Latas supporters.

Now I realize that my results were in no way scientific, but like I said, I was certainly surprised at what I found, and the reasoning behind people's thinking was the most enlightening.

It appears that many of the negatives towards Gabby were not anything that was immediately apparent like "she voted for Walmart!" It was more of a "meh" type reaction in that Gabby didn't really do anything for them. They have seen her commercials and there is nothing that really grabbed them. Her story really isn't that appealing to them, and they really haven't followed her career in the legislature. Again, this was contrasted by Patty's story where many feel like she has overcome oppression and is now is going to "stick it to the man." Gabby came across like a DNC insider, while Patty was more of an outsider to them. And we all know how Arizonans like their Mavericks.

So once I had heard all this, I tried to reconcile this with the facts I knew on the ground. Here is what I came up with:

1. Gabby scorched everyone with her signature gathering. Indeed this feat was impressive. It goes to show that Gabby had a tremendously effective gameplan and staff. This was to be expected as she has run for office before. Indeed, had Patty not run, she probably would have been coronated for the slot quite quickly. Patty entered a little later and made some rookie mistakes. She seems to have evened that out now.

2. Gabby has a lot of endorsements and money. This is indeed the case. However, the whole endorsement thing is kind of a sham anyway. In the case of the Democratic candidates, their stand on most issues is so similar that no one candidate is a flat out better choice than another. In these case an organization will do their best to prognosticate the winner, as you wouldn't want to back a loser, especially in the primary. Donations are the much the same way. Who wants to spend $1000 on a person that won't last past September. I actually think that Gabby had a lot of her donations lined up before she decided to run. This was probably a precondition on her decision to run.

3. Gabby has a lot of boots on the ground. This one may be a bit deceptive. She certainly has a large contingent on the blogs and did a good job with her signatures, but I haven't seen a lot of Gabby bumper stickers or signs. Also, in the silly poll that was done in the Citizen, she didn't get a lot of support in that popularity contest. It is perhaps of no consequence, but I highly doubt that Gabby and all her supporters thought that this was beneath notice or they "didn't wish to cheat." They simply didn't get enough support soon enough to register. This would probably speak of a highly centralized campaign that doesn't have a lot of "freelance" leaders that could gather supporters quickly. Winning campaigns need those type of people.

Now I certainly do not believe that this is all sewn up. Patty certainly has a lot of work to do, and she cannot take even a moment off. She certainly has more previous television time than she will ever need. What she needs to do is get out to see people personally with every chance she gets and take nothing for granted. The fact that she is showing for all the forums is great for her and is definitely in contrast to Gabby's absences. Taking on the Republicans on their own turf is certainly what Democrats wish to see in their candidate and will only add to her maverick credentials.

Gabby needs to pick up her game. She needs to not skip events and she needs to stand out on issues. Her current "play it safe" stance could and will cost her in the primary. She needs the Democratic base, as I would assume that her advantage with independents isn't incredibly large if a lead at all against Patty.

Also in Gabby's favor is the fact that her negatives aren't really all that material, it's just that she doesn't stand out as much as she otherwise could. She needs to find an issue important to voters in the district and own it. So far, this just hasn't happened. A message and $800,000 would be tough to beat. If her strategy is to out-television Patty, she may have more time to ride those horses I keep seeing in her commercials.

Then again, I'm not a pollster, I just play one on this blog.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Broken Conventional Wisdom

One thing that can be agreed upon from the start of the GOP campaign primary season was that the conventional wisdom was almost completely wrong. Some of what we were treated to:

The Kolbe endorsement will declare the frontrunner.

This really has helped Huffman raise money, but hasn't yet translated to a groundswell of support from likely voters.

The Kolbe Endorsement was the end of Mike Hellon.

A lot of people were thinking that Hellon would drop out once he failed to get the backing of Kolbe. None of these people were that familiar with Mike Hellon.

Jim Kolbe picked the most dynamic candidate out of Huffman and Hellon.

From the campaigning so far, Hellon has run circles around Huffman. If he had been given the financial support that fell to Huffman, I guarantee he would have done a far better job of utilizing it. Currently, I expect him to get more votes than Huffman, possibly a significant number.

Steve Huffman would go negative at the first opportunity.

I posted that because Hellon had been allowed to move in a position between Huffman and Graf, an overly negative campaign would not help him as much as it had in the past. This may change but has held true so far.

Randy Graf was too extreme to get the nomination.

This was shorthand for Graf being a "racist xenophobe." So much so, that Hellon and Huffman have now adopted pretty much all of his official positions with regard to securing the border.

Mike Hellon was wasting his money airing ads early in the summer.

These ads cemented Mike legitimacy and allowed him to define himself free of other chatter. It also allowed him to move toward his current position on border enforcement without being challenged.

The Aiken scandal was the end of Graf.

I was quotedin AZ Congress Watch as saying " A campaign manager is not the candidate, and there is plenty of time to repair the damage and regain momentum." I took a lot of heat for that. I also said that it may be a chance for Graf to bring somebody in that could help better raise money which also happened.

The Huffman media blitz would be relentless.

I must admit to buying into this one. I have to say I have been underwhelmed so far. His first commercial was a complete dud, and his second, although incorporating many of the fixes I suggested misfired in that he just underlined a drastic policy shift. Had the same production been about earmark reform or a non-Graf and Hellon issue, it would have been a lot more effective.

District 8 is more interested in Universal Health Care and the Iraqi War (name any other issue) than securing the border.

We have yet to see how this plays out, but I am extremely skeptical based on the dramatic policy shifts of Hellon and Huffman. They have definitely seen polling that shows otherwise. I believe that Democrats saying this are simply whistling past the graveyard.

This District will only elect a Moderate like Jim Kolbe.
Complete Hogwash. This district was solidly pro-Bush, pro-prop 200, and will pass the marriage resolution if it is on the ballot. Kolbe has enjoyed the advantages of a 20 year incumbent where reelection rates run as high as 96%. There is a chance that the GOP may lose the district, but it will not happen because of some Moderate litmus test. It will happen because a specific candidate has better ideas and runs a better campaign, not because they resemble Jim Kolbe. This goes for Democrats as well.

Summary- The point is that I am not a master pundit. I am a rookie. The ability to see past most of these pieces of "Conventional Wisdom" this was available with just a small amount of research and questioning assumptions, little of which was done by the media or others reporting on the primary. It would be interesting to do a study of this on the Democratic side as well. I haven't made much prognostications on that side, so I am probably not the ideal person to do it, but it would be interesting.