Thank you James.

My first thought was, what the hell is NARPAC, then I thought to myself: read first, THEN ask, so you don't look stupid like you always do. You're just a bundle of information.

---

by: Venslor @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:37:10 AM UTC

I don't know how many times I've commented before reading all the way or clicking on a link.

A memorable moment was a post regarding PVI. I was ranting and raving but I really had no idea what PVI even represented. Oh well. Nothing like looking like a complete jackass to humble you a bit.

---

by: nrimmer @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:17:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And then the who's written the post...

Buries his head in his hands and asks: "Why do I even bother?"

:-P

---

by: James L. @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:24:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

C'Mon James

You're dealing with grownups with the attention spans of 12 year olds.  Populista and Menhen are more mentally sound then we are.  That's what parenthesis are for {NARPAC (insert meaning we'll forget about)}.

---

by: itistherabbit @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:47:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love these: they say so much

These numbers say no much about what the d-trip is seeing and thinking.  

--Clearly, they ain't worried about VA-11.  This is right.  Connelly is going to win very big.  

--The numbers must show NJ-07 is a bit tougher than NJ-03.  Interesting.  This makes sense as Leonard Lance is a stronger candidate than Chris Myers.  But I keep telling people: despite John Adler's strengths, that seat will not be a gimme.  The geography of the district makes it tricky for Dems.

--The numbers for Kanjorski must be bad.

--OH-15/16 and IL-11 are not the lay-ups many (myself included) thought they'd be.  

There are a lot of other places I'd like to see them playing, and I hope they will very soon.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:45:09 AM UTC

NJ has what was essentially an incumbent protection map

so it isn't surprising that NJ-07 has a Republican lean.

I'm worried about PA-11 too, and I hope we see a public poll.

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:51:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NJ-07 has a strong GOPer, NJ-03 does not

Leonard Lance is a much better nominee than Chris Myers.  While both of them have fundraised poorly, Lance can probably recover much more easily as he is very well known in a good part of the seventh.  Myers is an unknown entity outside of Burlington County.  

In terms of Jersey's cd, I wish they would scrap the damn non-partisan commission and let the legislature handle the map.  Just a little tinkering could help us oust Chris Smith, and in the third and seventh assuming we lose either this November.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:57:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't agree on the non-partisan redistricting

I'm in favor of it provided it is truely an independent panel, which seems to be the case in states like NJ and IA.  It's a hell of a lot better than the ridiculous gerrymanderes in places like MI, FL and TX.  Legislature redistricting is wrong regardless of which party is in charge.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:11:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

As a sidenote, I've recently started pondering whether a law requiring that districts be drawn along county lines would work.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I plead guilty to supporting hyper-partisan redistricting

The fact is that no matter what lines you draw, someone is going to find fault, whether it be the party or incumbent getting hurt, or good-government people who think that incumbent protection (a la what we have had in CA) is anti-Democratic.  Besides, by its very nature, gerrymandering is going to produce visually weird district lines.  

And quite honestly, as Texas taught us, you need to fight fire with fire.  This is why the behavior of the Illinois speaker Madigan when he refused to redraw the lines was so maddening.  And I admit fully that while his methods were outrageous, DeLay had a fair point: Texas was a GOP state, and its 20-Dem delegation (or whatever it was) was not reflective of the state's make-up, but a very effective map drawn by the Democrats right before the lost the Texas house.

Right now, New Jersey is 7-6.  For a state that has become so blue, and where the legislature and governor are Dems, that is untenable.  Iowa has only five seats, and with three of them, Dems should be mostly happy, though, District Four is probably attainable.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 17:16:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't blame the redistricting in NJ

Blame the voters.  There have always bee several dem-leaning seats held by long-term incumbent republicans in NJ.  But the people in the districts kept sending those fools back for another term.  Thankfully we'll pickup at least 2 seats in NJ this year to make is 9-4 or better.  

---

by: ChadInFL @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 18:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree but

Clearly, the fact that Reps like Chris Smith, Jim Saxton and Marge Roukema hung on so long made it harder to flip marginal seats, but the commission is not helpful either.  If Dems had gotten rid of the nonpartisan body, we would have likely done better, fast.  

I do agree things will improve a lot over the next two cycles.  The Third and Seventh are both toss-ups, but I we should not underestimate either Republican candidate.  And in the Second, which is a Dem district, if the Democrats can recruit state Sen. Jeff Van Drew to run in 2010, he would be even money to oust Frank LoBiando, or at least scare him into retirement.  The Fourth won't flip until Smith retires, and the Fifth and Eleventh are both pretty strongly GOP, with the latter safely in Rodney Frelinghuysen's hands.  

---

by: Andy Dufresne @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 18:51:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about Zeitz in NJ-04?

I keep on seeing him post diaries around here.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 20:02:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doubtful at Best

Chris Smith got a decent amount of in-district press for a trip he took to Georgia to negotiate the freedom of a family of locals stranded in Georgia during the recent Georgia-Russia conflict.  He was successful, which probably the the finishing blow in eliminating Zeitz as even a remote possibility.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer...

---

by: kje @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:09:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ambassador

Would Smith be a possible candidate to be suckered out of the House by an ambassadorial offer?  If Obama wins in November, could he be lured out in that way?

Smith certainly got the foreign policy interest and experience as the second ranking R on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I've read that he was refused the ranking minority spot due to his votes against the party line.

If he was offered an ambassadorial post in Africa, say, would he be likely to take it - and what would be the chances of picking up an open seat in this situation?

---

by: londonlabour @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Redistricting Commission Isn't All Bad ...

Republicans will tell you that the NJ Redistricting Commission meant the different in guaranteeing Democratic control of the Legislature for a decade.  Each party gets appointees, and then the chair is an independent who breaks the ties.  In the 2001 cycle, Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton University was the independent, and he broke for the Democrats in almost every contested issue in the state house.

Why didn't congressional redistricting work this way?  The district plan never quite hit the commission - the 13 congressmen in the state sat down, and worked out an incumbency protection plan amongst themselves.  The commission accepted it nearly verbatim.

Three of the 13 seats are open this year, and it looks like all 3 are good bets to go blue.  Redistricting won't be so bipartisan in 2011.

---

by: kje @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:21:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TX's 20-Dem delegation unrepresentative?

You're thinking way too much along partisan lines here.  What if those 20 representatives were actually quite fitting for the districts they represented?  Maybe they were conservative Democrats, but what if many Republican voters were satisfied with their representation?

I fail to see how your or Tom DeLay's perspective is more appropriate than mine here.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 20:05:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with hyper partisan redistricting

Simply only in our favor because we get fucked in the districting department, we are lucky so many Republican PVI districts only vote that at the presidential level but elect Democrats.

The fact that like 90% of the Democratic population is centered around large metro areas where there is absolutely zero way for us to also create gerrymandered districts with lines that are "creative" to also screw over the Republicans.

I think it's most indicative that our most Dem PVI is PVI+41 or something while their most Republican areas are R+23ish.  They simply have more Republican space to divide over other districts to dilute our vote totals while our seats are centered around small in land size population centers where we are basically forced to make districts centered on downtown major areas or the district would clearly be bullshit.

Furthermore, before of our centralized areas, people can make really bs maps like in Ohio, where they divide out Columbus and Cincinatti to create 4 Republican districts instead of 2 solid D and 2 solid R districts.  This is a great way to further screw us over in major cities that aren't quite Chicago, LA, or NYC big.  

On the flip, one great thing we did in MN was we put Minneapolis in one CD and St. Paul in another, creating 2 solid Dem seats instead of one extremely solid Dem seat with a swing district.  Just gotta do it smartly and to our advantage by putting the lines where they still make sense.  Minneapolis and St. Paul both have completely different vibes, crossing the Mississippi just seems to change everything.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:20:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Man, have you seen that "Where's the Red?" campaign by College Republicans?

They say something like "You can go from coast to coast in Republican congressional district". It's true like you said. Big districts they have. But if Minnick pulls it off in ID-01 or Teague in NM-02, the College Rethugs can't do their stupid campaign anymore! I can't wait. I'm totally going to call every single phone number on that retarded website and inform them that their 2009 summer plans have changed.

---

by: nrimmer @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:44:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I meant "developmentally disabled" website. n/t

---

by: nrimmer @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:45:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually don't see what ID-01 gets us

...in terms of putting up a blue roadblock for the Republicans. ID-01 is basically just a finger hanging down from B.C.

However, if Gary Trauner and Harry Teague (or Ann Kirkpatrick) both win, it's GAME OVER for the "Where is the Red?" clowns.

---

by: James L. @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:17:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your right, it is Wyoming. My bad. n/t

---

by: nrimmer @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:18:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All the more reason to help him out!

GO TRAUNER!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:31:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The numbers for Kanjorski might not be that bad

You never know what non-party groups are thinking.

Also, I'm guessing that OH-15 and IL-11 aren't as "gimme" as most of us thought.  Maybe we're not aware of on-the-ground info that the DCCC knows.  Or maybe they're being incredibly defensive early on to scare the s*** out of the NRCC, like advancing an impenetrable wall before their eyes.  First, the defensive races, and now, the most competitive of flipping races, and so on, somethin' like that.

Or whatever.  I'm not a paid professional political consultant, what do I know.

Also, I've heard that Connelly is generally well-known, well-liked, and well-respected in VA-11.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:29:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given that the DCCC...

...has spent $260K on Kanjorski's wrinkly ass already, I'm willing to bet his numbers suck. I'm hoping that Roll Call commissioned a SUSA poll here...

---

by: James L. @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:06:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm

Wrinkly ass? Personal experience?

---

by: Rtael @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:36:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we've seen most of the DCCC's battle plan when

it comes to reserving ad time, and most of their spare money will go into mailers and phonebanking, etc.  With the exception of last minute decisions to binge on loans and react to poll numbers.  

Hence, why I'd like a cumulative chart for reserved ad time to date.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:28:02 AM UTC

Plans change

Money shifts around. The more time passes, the less valuable that reservation chart will be. Sure, the DCCC probably has a rough budget for their targeted races, but it's highly adaptable. Case in point: as you may recall, in October of 2006, the DCCC felt that CO-04 was slipping away and canceled a "a couple hundred thousand" dollars worth of ad time. (In retrospect, a poor move given the ultimate closeness of the race.)

---

by: James L. @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:35:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CO-4: I myself wasn't

expecting that close a race after Eidsness (the Nader of Colorado's Fourth District) and his bitchin' Harley jumped in.  I'd give anything to see Musgrave gone.

---

by: itistherabbit @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:06:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You don't win by spending nothing

Even when things look good on paper. And these numbers are still pretty much drops in the ocean.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:58:03 AM UTC