Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and I just released a new study that casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.

A major problem with using the popular vote as a measure of democratic will is that some states have held primaries while others have used caucuses, which have far lower turnout.

According to our analysis, an additional 4.1 million voters likely would have participated in the Democratic nominating process had every caucus state instead held a primary - people who are left out of current popular vote tabulations. Additionally, it is likely that the candidates' share of the popular vote would be different.

When we forecast the likely outcome of hypothetical primaries in caucus states by using their demographic profiles to project vote outcomes based on national demographic voting patterns, we find that Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote would increase from about 2.5 percentage points to about 3.5 percentage points. This translates into a lead of more than 1.3 million votes, up notably from the current number of about 717,000 votes.

A pdf of the study is available for download here.

"Politics have rarely been hotter." - The Rake Magazine on Glenn Hurowitz's new bookFear and Courage in the Democratic Party.

There's more...

I'm on the second day of my book tour in Iowa for my book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party and I'm seeing something amazing: John Edwards surging from conventional wisdom's forgotten candidate towards what seems to me an almost definite win on Caucus Day. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased: I'm personally a John Edwards supporter and the president of the Democratic Courage political action committee that ran this ad against Hillary Clinton.

But here's what I'm seeing. First - a taste of some big news: a major up-for-grabs statewide leader with a large and loyal following told me he is going to endorse Edwards in the next week. I'll report the person's identity as soon as I get the go-ahead. Second, Edwards supporters are super savvy about the caucuses. I remember attending a caucus in 2004 (as a Kerry campaign volunteer) and watching the Edwards folks, many of them union members, out-organize every other campaign to convince wavering voters to come to their side. Here's what one Iowa Dem told me when I asked her who she was supporting: "Well, I tell the pollsters Richardson so that he can stay in the debates and get his message out there, but really I'm going to caucus for Edwards."

Edwards is just about everybody's second choice (an observation echoed by this poll). This will have an impact for two reasons. First, support for Clinton and Obama is quite soft. As they tear each other apart, it will create a space for Edwards's positive message. On a more tactical level, candidates who don't get 15 percent of the vote have their supporters redistributed to caucusers' second choice: another Edwards boost.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign seems in free fall, with television news here repeating over and over again news of the Bill Shaheen scandal - news not likely to warm the hearts of Iowa voters who don't mind vigorous debate about the issues, but have a welcome aversion to this kind of cold, calculated personal attack.

On a deeper level, though, what we're seeing now is Iowa voters tuning into what the candidates are all about. And Iowa voters really do take these decisions extremely seriously and do a lot of their own research. And as they do, the progressive Iowa caucus goers reach beyond the media hype surrounding Clinton and Obama and learn more about the candidates themselves.

There's more...

By Glenn Hurowitz

Mike Bloomberg's announcement that he's leaving the Republican Party to become an independent should be scary news for Democrats.

He's a moderate, he's not shy about his disgust for the Bush administration, and he has (or will have) a very positive, progressive record on issues like education and the environment. It's hard to see this pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-war ex-Democrat ex-Republican having too much appeal to the GOP dead-enders who've stuck with Bush and the Republicans this far and are looking for a candidate who will continue Bush's hard-right governance and conservative cultural jihad at all costs.

There's more...

By Glenn Hurowitz

Do you trust George W. Bush - do you?

Some progressives are saying that when it comes to immigration, they're willing to cast aside all the past lies, suspicion, and betrayals and have faith that Bush's deal will help immigrants and help workers.

"I don't usually have nice things to say about President Bush, but this deal tends to separate people who have courage of their convictions and political opportunists," said Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum in a teleconference Thursday. "This is one time where President Bush deserves a real salute for having the courage of his convictions."

There's more...

The Spineless Dem has risen again.

Democrats have responded to months of Republican intransigence by cutting deals on GOP priorities like trade and immigration - and have now capitulated completely to Republican demands on Iraq.

Why are the Democrats acting so butter-boned?

A lot of it has to do with their seemingly innate fear of confrontation.  Democrats are afraid that in the great battle of rhetoric and ideas, they still can't go toe to toe with the Bush White House and the Republican message machine. They're also afraid that their liberal, mushy voters won't support hardball politics. But is confrontation for Democrats really such a politically hazardous strategy - and isn't it necessary to achieve the great goals to which we all aspire?

There's more...