Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 11/24

by: Crisitunity

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 2:06 PM EST


AZ-Sen: So, that anti-earmark stance from Republican leadership seemed to last a whole week or so, until everybody's attention had moved onto something else (something about sharks attacking people in airport security lines, maybe). Jon Kyl just got a $200 million earmark to settle an Indian water rights case with the government. Kyl's defense... and one we should expect to hear a lot from both sides of the aisle... is that it's technically not an earmark (which seems to have a profanity-style you-know-it-when-you-see-it standard).

CT-Sen: Joe Lieberman is hinting at an independent run as the preferred way forward out of his three-possible-ways-to-lose conundrum. In a recent interview, he said "I've enjoyed being an Independent so I guess that's the most natural way to run, but I haven't decided," as well as "I don't meet all the requirements of either party." Other insiders, or at least the ones Politico is talking to, say that Lieberman's choices at this point are essentially retiring or becoming a Republican. (One reason they cite is the recent collapse of the CfL "Party," which failed to get the 1% needed to maintain its ballot place... although that overlooks the fact that the CfL was, several years ago, hijacked by waggish Lieberman opponents).

FL-Sen: The first announced Republican candidate for the Senate in 2012 is both a Some Dude and a familiar face: college instructor Mike McCalister. If the name rings a bell, he got 10% in this year's gubernatorial primary by virtue of not being either Rick Scott or Bill McCollum. As for temp Sen. George LeMieux, a reported possible candidate, his current status is still "no decisions yet," albeit "I do feel a calling to serve."

KY-Sen: Here's some pointless post-mortem about Kentucky, but it's the first I've heard any major player from Team Blue say that the "Aqua Buddha" ad was a net liability for Jack Conway. Outgoing DSCC Bob Menendez said his main regret was not asking for better briefings about candidates' ads, and he cited the anti-Rand Paul ad as a particular "killer."

PA-Sen: The first announced GOP candidate in Pennsylvania has also surfaced, and he's also on the cusp between Some Dude and whatever's one step higher than that. Marc Scaringi was a legislative aide to Rick Santorum back in the 1990s, and is currently a lawyer in Harrisburg. (The article also cites one other potential GOP challenger in addition to the usual Jim Gerlach/Charlie Dent suspects: incoming state House majority leader Mike Turzai, whom you might remember weighing and deciding against a PA-04 run in 2010.) As for Bob Casey Jr., he's running again, although his main concern for the next year seems to be upping his low-key profile.

NY-23: After making some waves yesterday with saying he was at least considering voting for John Boehner in the floor leadership vote, Bill Owens is now just saying he was "blowing off steam" and will vote for her as long as she promises to focus on jobs. (In other words, he probably got a call from leadership explaining the consequences.)

CA-AG: Kind of a foregone conclusion at this point, given his 40,000 vote deficit, but Steve Cooley has just conceded the Attorney General's race, with Democratic San Francisco DA and rising star Kamala Harris the victor.

KY-AG: Here's a surprise: after a few weeks of hype concerning a 2011 battle royale between Jack Conway and Trey Grayson for Attorney General, Grayson suddenly reversed course. Rather than run again for SoS, where GOPers were already lining up, he apparently won't run for anything, other than the sweet embrace of the private sector.

Chicago mayor: One more poll gives Rahm Emanuel a sizable edge in the Chicago mayoral race. He has 39% support in a Chicago Retail Merchants Association poll, followed by Carol Mosely Braun at 12, Gerry Chico at 9, Danny Davis at 7, and His Accidency, Roland Burris, at 2. The real question here seems to be whether Emanuel can win on Feb. 22 without a runoff (which would be Apr. 5).

AR-St. House: Here's an interesting situation in Arkansas, where Dems still control the state House (albeit with reduced numbers) but an unusual special election is already on tap. Democratic State Rep. Rick Saunders was apparently going to be given a pass to serve another two years despite being term-limited out, because the guy who won the seat in November, GOPer Keith Crass, did so despite being dead. He beat Dem Larry Williams despite dying during the early voting period. Now Saunders says he'll resign in early January so a special election can be held (in April at the earliest).

Washington: It looks like all the counting in Washington is finally done, with turnout a whopping 71% (thanks to the mail-in nature of the election, which goes a long way toward evaporating the 'enthusiasm gap'). Patty Murray wound up winning by just shy of 5%, right where UW's polling put it, compared with the out-of-state robo-pollsters who saw a much closer race. Dems still control both chambers of the state legislature by decent (but not supermajority anymore) margins, after losing 4 seats in the 49-seat Senate and 5 in the 98-seat House. Three races where the Dem trails (Randy Gordon in the Senate, and Dawn Morrell and Kelli Linville in the House) are apparently going to recount, though, by margins ranging from 47 to 194.

Money: The Dems, after getting outgunned on the dark money front in 2010 by a wide margin, aren't going to be caught napping this time (and this time, unlike 2008, they seem to have Barack Obama's tacit approval). David Brock (in his quest to become the left's answer to Karl Rove) is busy revving up his own 527/501(c)(4) type-thing for corraling large donations from undisclosed donors. The good news: they've already lined up $4 million in commitments. The bad news: they're being led by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (although maybe she's better behind the scenes than she is as a campaigner).

History: Here's a great look back from Greg Giroux at Senate cycles where one party was defending more than 10 seats than the other party (as the Dems will in 2012). While the last three times this happened (2006 2008, 1986, and 1980), the defending party got hammered, many of the prior examples showed little movement one way or the other, including 1976, where a number of incumbents of both parties lost (in the post-Watergate environment) but it all balanced out to zero.

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 11/24
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

History
2008 not 2006. That being a presidential year when the White House changed party along with 1980 supports the contention that much relies on Obama in 2012.

Ooops, thanks
Makes sense since the Dems gained in the Senate in 2000 but got hosed in 2002.

[ Parent ]
Kamala!!!
I project she wins the entire thing by around 61,000.  Well, CA is the new MA (minus Scott Brown).  Cobalt Coast is where it's at!

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

I know who I'm giving my thanks to tomorrow.
California voters!

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
You're welcome.
:-)

[ Parent ]
:-D


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
Hooray for us!
And a still-too-small percentage of our fellow Californians!

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

[ Parent ]
CA
It's more like Maryland than Massachusetts at least politically. Its Republicans mostly come from deep-red areas so they don't develop a bench of people who can win purple areas and they end up running hopeless right-wingers for statewide offices instead of moderates.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Dems also hold every statewide office
Which hasn't happened since 1861!

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Dems
actually held all statewide offices for a couple of months in 2003...then Gray Davis got recalled.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I remember that
I was trying to remember who the Insurance Commish was on at that time because the 186* statistic was throwing me off.

The chance of Brown being recalled is zero, so this configuration of folks in Sac should be pretty static over four years. A number of them, though, are from the "'02 class" when they'll be term-limited, so it remains to be seen if more "musical chairs" will take place or if a new crop will appear.

I'm sure Kamala will run for re-elect barring in any probs, in which case she sets herself up nice for a Senate run.


[ Parent ]
Probably
hopefully she'll do a better job as AG than she did as San Francisco DA. Though I agree with Harris possibly a senate candidate in 2016 or 2018. Newsom's going to try for the governor's office in 2014 if Brown decides to retire.

Anyway here's a video clip of Cooley having a "Dewey defeats Truman" moment on election night:



19, Male, Independent, CA-12


[ Parent ]
What an idiot


20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Shoulda
Listened to those "highly paid, trusted advisers" methinks.

[ Parent ]
Apt Comparison
In Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, given the state's partisan makeup and his own innate limitations as a candidate, did OK.

The House races represent something of a missed opportunity. I have nothing new to say about Jeff Perry that hasn't been said already. A scandal-tarred John Tierney survived in large part because not enough people wanted to vote for full-on whackjob Bill Hudak. The underwhelming Niki Tsongas would have been in big trouble against a better opponent. If tea-party nobodies from the "wrong" part of the district could approach 40% against Jim McGovern and Richard Neal, one wonders what someone with a higher profile and/or an agenda that isn't five clicks to the right of those districts could have done. (Barney Frank wasn't going to lose, however much the out-of-staters financing his opponent's campaign would wish otherwise.)

A lot of that boils down to the lack of a bench. The GOP got wiped out between 2002 and 2008 and lost their identity, which in the Bay State was as an alternative to either Beacon Hill hackdom or do-gooder liberal activism, as opposed to being a fuzzy carbon copy of a national party pushing a hard-right agenda that won't sell there. Nobody of note (other than in the vacant 10th) stepped up to run for Congress, so the field was left to this bunch.

The GOP picked up a bunch of seats (nearly doubling their total) in the lower house on Beacon Hill - while somehow still going backwards to 4 seats of 40 in the upper house. (Municipal elections in the state, sometimes a source of strength in an "out" party, tend to be in odd-numbered years and are AFAIK always non-partisan.) Institutionally of course, they still won't matter much, but there are a lot of new faces. I don't know much about any of them, but maybe they represent some sort of two-party future in the state.  

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few cycles.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03


[ Parent ]
What a great day
to be gay!

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
reaching 2200+ likely voters in one evening
riiiiight

There's a good shot that Rahm will be in the 40%s on election day if the unpolled demographics get out and vote. Or he might top 50% in the primary ala Jindal or Mitch Landrieu.

I don't see who else the Northwest side vote goes to other than Rahm. And I can see him doing well on the Lakeside too.


Aqua Buddha
I don't think that was a bad ad. Problem is Conway was counting on it being a "game changer." That kind of an ad makes a difference on the margins in a close race. Unfortunately, the way the 2010 KY electorate was composed, there was no specific "game changer" he could employ and he knew it.

No matter what you think-
PPP polled the impact of the ad prior to the election and something like 12% said the ad was appropriate and like 75% said it was bad and inappropriate.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

[ Parent ]
Negative ads always
Poll poorly with the public because people think its "the right thing to say." The swiftboat ad probably would've polled very poorly, the "call me Harold" ad from 2006 also would've polled very poorly. But I think both were extremely effective.

[ Parent ]
Bingo.
Nothing more to add.

[ Parent ]
Re: Aqua Buddha
I suppose you can say it's the kind of chance you take when you know that you're down. It definitely hit a wrong note with me when I saw it.

If Kentucky actually gets the austerity it voted for, which remains to be seen, they'll have to just find out the hard way what "small government" actually means for a poorer-than-normal state.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03


[ Parent ]
Bunning.
They've voted for Jim Bunning twice (albeit narrowly), and Mitch McConnell five times. While Bunning is more cranky and reactionary then hardcore libertarian, and until this year McConnell loved his pork (and the pork king Hal Rogers still reigns in his personal fiefdom in southeast Kentucky), it seems that if Kentucky voters had that much of a problem with faux-austere country club conservatism they would've shown it by now.

MI-06 (home), MI-02 (college)

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


[ Parent ]
KY post-mortem
Pointless is correct. So he lost by double digits instead of single digits. So what?

Only interesting because so many people on this site thought Conway had a chance.
And that ad, and the backlash, was when people (me for one) realized it was over.

In your defense Conspiracy, I don't remember you ever thinking Conway had much of a chance.    


[ Parent ]
The presumption was that DSCC internal polls were good
and showed Conway within striking distance.

Otherwise, many of us figured that the DSCC would have been a fool to put money in KY with the follow-up "stomp" ad, at the cost of money for PA and IL.

With the benefit of hindsight, now we know that the DSCC was foolish.

Without access to actual numbers, this is a pure deductive guess. But I think the internal DSCC polls at least had a "kool-aid" element which made them spend money in KY at the last minute when there was no realistic shot at beating Paul.


[ Parent ]
I'm
sorry I take some offense to that. It wasn't just "some users" on this blog that thought Conway had a chance. Quite obviously the DCCC and national parties did as well if you look at all they spent on him. Polling had it close at a point. It wasn't completely unrealistic to think Conway could win. KY was closer than NH, MO, NC it was the year more than anything else.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
No offense intended...
I think the polls were very close for awhile, and certainly the professionals thought Conway had a chance. I definitely thought he could win.

[ Parent ]
Yes.
You saw both national dems and repubs and dem leaning groups and repub leaning ones spending loads here so yes it was looking close for awhile. If Rove and other Republicans hadn't spent so much here then maybe just maybe Buck would have won.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Heck, I remember...
some polling firm called cn|2 or something like that that actually showed Conway LEADING at one point.

[ Parent ]
It was clearly over when Conway threw the hail mary "Aqua Buddha" ad
It seems pretty clear that Conway's internals didn't move when he and the DSCC blitzed Paul with his own words about a Medicare Deductible. For whatever reason, he decided to go for the Hail Mary immediately after that.  

Then he decided to go for something more desperate by having the Democratic Party of Kentucky run that beyond rediclous stomp ad.  


[ Parent ]
I thought Conway had a chance
But always felt he would more than likely come up short. That was before the ad. The state is just too Republican in that environment.

[ Parent ]
Time Person of the Year
What do people think of the person of the year nominees?

I am surprised the generic 'Tea Party' option didn't seem to directly present itself (although it sort of did through Glenn Beck). Nancy Pelosi is of course the opposite side of the same coin.

I like the choice of Jintao myself.  


US
it should ALWAYS be us dammit!!!1!11!  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
It should be
Julian Assanage.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Didn't know who that was.
Googled him, he's the head of Wikileaks.

I dunno, just doesn't seem economic enough in today's economic times.


[ Parent ]
^This
Totally Julian Assange. If only so it makes it slightly less likely the CIA tries to assassinate him.

/tinfoil hat

But for serious. The guy is like Walter Winchell + James Bond + Max Headroom - Miranda Zero with a dash of Clarence Thomas' sexual misadventures thrown in for spice. When those diplomatic cables go out, all hell is going to break loose. And he might've just saved journalism from going the way of Rupert Murdoch. He gets my vote.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
Jintao
is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and overall president, right?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Who?
   Jintao is his given name. In Chinese the family name goes first, as in Mao (family) Zedong (given name).

  I am no fan of the current government of the "Peoples Republic" which combines the worst elements of capitalism and communism, but I think that its leaders should be called by their family names. I think his is Hu, if I am not having a brain cramp right now. I used to follow events in China more than I do now, back in the last quarter of the 20th century.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28


[ Parent ]
Yes, Hu Jintao
Who (Hu)'s the president of China and when (Wen)'s the prime minister? :P


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
I can't resist a good pun
   or even a bad one. It almost becomes an Abbott and Costello comedy routine, although L.A. baseball fans know that Hu's on second or shortstop, not on first. (Hu Chin-lung is a Taiwanese utility infielder for the Dodgers.)

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

[ Parent ]
Yes.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
I have a friend named Mai
when she studied abroad in Scotland the following conversation happened with her host family...

"What's your name?"
"Mai"
"Yes, your name"
"Mai"
"Yes, what's your name?"
"My name is Mai!"

etc...

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
There's also
a video game character named Mai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Lol.
the character for her name is the same as my friend, but my friend wears a LOT more clothes...  

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
If it's an American
It should be Mark Zuckerberg.

If it's not an American, I say the Prime Minister of Turkey, although that would not be a popular Western pick.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
Here's my take
POY is related to the central news story of the year. In 2008 the story was the election (Obama), and in 2009 the economy (Bernanke.) The story of this year for me was the Tea Party and the conservative backlash/anger that swept the country. And no one personifies that better than Palin. She generates headlines, good and bad, like no one else, and people are fascinated by her and have very strong opinions about her in both directions. I'd pick her for Person of the Year.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
If that's the case
I'd pick Glenn Beck over Palin. If you think of the tea party as a grassroots movement, they should pick a more grassroots guy.

[ Parent ]
Uhhh, in politics maybe
But a lot of other stuff happened that did not involve Sarah Palin. That said, if you're going to pick a personification of the Tea Party--aging, white, incoherent, confused, proudly ignorant--I'd say she fits the bill.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

[ Parent ]
Who are you calling aging?
:-)

But seriously, she really personifies aging white males?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Steve Jobs
ALWAYS, Steve Jobs. Emperor of Earth.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
KY-AG: So I guess Conway has a good chance at re-election now.
From what I've heard, he's a very good AG, but ran for Senate in the wrong year.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


Should he have run against McConnell in '08? (eom)


[ Parent ]
No.
He would have had to announce a run before being sworn in as AG. It would not have worked.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Not true at all
After the 2007 elections, there was plenty of jockeying between the statewide winners over how many of them could pass up the opportunity to take on McConnell.

[ Parent ]
How
is anything I said not true Andrew? He got elected in Nov 07 he would have had to announced a exploratory committee before (before sworn in) January to get his stuff together. He would have been instantly (and rightly so, he made many promises when running for AG) labeled a constant office seeker. He would have been on the job a matter of months while giving all of his attention onto a Senate race, asking for people's votes just a few months into his new job. It would not have worked and he wasn't stupid enough to do it.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
After going through the 2008 cycle posts
Luallen opted out of a Senate run in Dec 7th and Lunsford, who won the primary and got within 6% of McConnell entered the race on Jan 30th

[ Parent ]
Luallen
was not in her first term and could have ran as she was not on the job for a very short time. Lunsford was never elected to anything. Had Conway announced Jan 30th he'd only be on the job of AG for a month! A month! He was elected in Nov 07, you just can't get elected to your first office, an important one and then right away announce for something else. Imagine Senator Franken passed away on January 30th, would it be ok for newly elected Governor Dayton to run for the seat in a special election in November less than a year into his Governship? No and it would not work, he'd get creamed if he tried. Plus Conway would have probably have to start putting the wheels together before being sworn in. That 6% Lunsford lost by would have been at least 12 probably more with Conway. I love Conway but it would have been very stupid for him to have ran and he was very smart not to have.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
ah, I neglected it was his first term
should have ran against him instead of AG then  ;)  (Not like he would have had any way of knowing.)

[ Parent ]
Yeah
his re-election just go A LOT easier.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Norm Coleman:
If Steele runs for RNC Chair again, I won't.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


wow
unless coleman and steel are very good friends, what a freaking weenie.  he's afraid to run against steele?  of all people?  steele's incompetent and everyone knows it.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
So, Emanuel needs to win 58% of the undecideds to cross the run-off mark
Strikes me as rather improbable, given the campaign, and all of the anti-Rahm ads to come with it, has yet to reach full-force. Looks like Carol Moseley-Braun might well win the runner-up slot on name recognition. I think Bobby Rush's backing of her was a real gut-punch to Davis, as was Martin Sandoval's endorsement of her over Chico.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

if grayson made the elections info on Kentucky's SOS page what it is
I'll be sad to see him go, it's a great site.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

fun question
name the 7 states where both senators graduated undergrad from the same college.

plus name the colleges.  hint: 4 public, 3 private

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)


heh
GA (UGA)
HI (U of Hawaii)
KS (K-State). Brownback is still a sitting senator.
MS? (Ole Miss). Wicker's wikipedia entry doesn't say where he went undergrad but he's listed as an Ole Miss alum at the botton.
NC (Wake Forest). See above but sub Hagan for Wicker.
OR (Stanford) mentioned earlier.
WI (U of Wisconsin). Feingold is still a senator.

I count 5 public and 2 private schools.

And the one state with a Harvard grad and a Yale grad for its senators is...Minnesota.  

41, Ind, CA-05


[ Parent ]
Lincoln and Pryor
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville

[ Parent ]
Lincoln
If her wikipedia page is correct, she started out at U of Ark but finished at Randolph-Macon Women's College.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
you weren't supposed to look it up!!!
should have specified

anyways, its

stanford: oregon
ole miss: mississippi
ar: arkansas
ut: byu
hi: hawaii
ct: yale
ga: georgia

i counted senators-elect as senators.

otherwise, both kansans went to kansas state, while ct, ut, ar wouldn't count
wi's also both went to uw-madison, but johnson didn't (he went to u of mn)

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)


[ Parent ]
heh
I wouldn't have gotten 5 of them if I had to guess. I knew that Conrad went to Stanford and that Webb and McCain went to the Naval Academy, plus Hoeven and Johnson because I looked them up a few weeks ago.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
Other fun facts about colleges and senators
One senator, Mark Begich, did not attend college.

In the next Congress, four states saw both US Senators attend Ivy League Universities for their undergraduate education

Connecticut: Blumenthal went to Harvard and Lieberman went to Yale.
Minnesota: Al Franken went to Harvard and Amy Klobuchar went to Yale.
New York: Gillibrand went to Dartmouth, Schumer went to Harvard.
Ohio: Brown went to Yale (wouldn't it have been cool if Brown went to Brown) and Portman went to Dartmouth.  (although Brown went to OSU for grad and Portman went to Michigan for Law)


[ Parent ]
Merkley and Wyden
Both graduated from Stanford.

27, Dem, CA-39 (home), OR-04 (school)

there's one of seven
keep going

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

[ Parent ]
Kohl and Feingold
University of Wisconsin

[ Parent ]
is delbert hosemann (MS SOS) running for re-election
if so, someone defeat him!!!  i don't care if he's a dem, or whatever he is!  i'm trying to get elections data for a project and it only goes back to 2008!  2008 for god's sake!  fire him Mississippi.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

Republican
http://www.delberthosemann.com/

Please donate to amcharities.org to help build more after school centers in the Miami area.  

23, Democrat, IA-2


[ Parent ]
Nope
He's probably running for gov.

[ Parent ]
he must be stopped!
data geeks unite and get someone in both offices who knows what they're doing!

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
Tom Delay CONVICTED!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

The greaseball finally gets justice.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


He'll likely face prison time.
up to life, but undoubtedly going to be something like 10 years or so.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
i wonder if obama will pardon him
as a gesture of free will to the reps.  can't imagine that'd go over well with the base.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
Why on Earth would he do that?
Also, I thought the GOP disowned him for the sake of damage control.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Wha?
Why even entertain such a ridiculous fantasy?  Why in the world would Obama (or ANY president for that matter) pardon Delay?  I couldn't even see Bush getting away with that.  Let alone a president of another party that has absolutely no connection o Delay.

[ Parent ]
Obama's DOL already pardoned Delay once...
They let him go last month.  They DOJ has also been busy pardoning every Gooper they can find while they let Siegelman twist in the wind.

[ Parent ]
I think it's an excellent idea
Redemption and forgiveness can be powerful tools.

Carter did commute G Gordon Liddy's sentence, after all.  


[ Parent ]
Delay was convicted in state court for violating Texas election law
and I rather doubt that Perry will pardon him considering they are old rivals.

[ Parent ]
i wonder if obama will pardon him
as a gesture of free will to the reps.  can't imagine that'd go over well with the base.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
Possible penalties seem harsh to me
IMHO Charlie Rangell did worse.  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
AK-Sen: When even Norm Coleman
is telling you to give up, it's really time you gave up.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


I would like to see Coleman say the same thing
to Emmer. He obviously would not do urge Miller to give up if it was between a Democrat and Miller.  

[ Parent ]
CA-11: McNerney wins
http://www.insidebayarea.com/o...


24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

PPP polls Obama in NC
Apropos of nothing, PPP looked at Obama's standing in NC among registered voters.

They find him trailing Huckabee 48/44, but against Romney, Gingrich, and Palin, he gets 44/44, 46/45, and 48/43 respectively.

Not bad overall. Doesn't mean a whole lot two years out, except to show that despite the overall narrative, he's hardly DOA and even with his current numbers, he'd have a decent shot at reelection.  


I think it says something about him two years out
He's probably towards the bottom of his possible popularity range, at least I'd hope as can it be any worse?  If he's not doing half-bad in NC, then he's probably doing pretty good considering what just happened three weeks ago.

[ Parent ]
The sample went 49-45 for McCain, meaning it's more Republican than reality......
As I said in my other comment in this sub-thread, PPP uses a soft likely voter screen, not all registered voters, and that soft screen is to accept only registered voters who say they voted in at least one of the past three general elections.

When you consider that screen alone should produce a sample that approximates the 2008 electorate except for the 2010 skew, really Obama is in better shape in NC than I would have guessed if PPP is right (and I have no reason to doubt them, they've have no Dem house effect in their results).

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
Makes sense, given their recent polling on Virginia
The thing with Huckabee and Romney is I think Huck plays incredibly well in VA/NC/IA, but will struggle in PA/FL/CO/NV/NH. Romney, on the flip side, should play well in those latter states, but could probably lose Virginia and Iowa, even if Obama's approval is in the mid-40s there. NC will be troublesome, too. I'm convinced, barring Obama approval below 45% nationwide, neither Gingrich nor Palin can do any better than retaking NC/IN.

So, at this supremely early point, in terms of their ability to flip '08 blue states, I see the four main GOP-ers probably managing...

Gingrich/Palin - IN, NC
Huckabee - IN, NC, IA
Romney - IN, FL, CO, NV, OH

That's presuming around a 47% Obama approval. Were Obama to slip into the low-40s nationwide, I think you'd see something more along the lines of...

Gingrich/Palin/Huckabee - IN, NC, IA, FL, CO, VA, OH, WI (Obama holds NV, PA, NM, NH)
Romney - the above states + NV, NH, MI

For Obama to lose PA, I suspect he needs lower than 45% approval in that state, which would mean about 42% approval nationwide.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast


[ Parent ]
Romney can't take back Nevada or Colorado, the mormon population there isnt that big
And the fact that Romney has always been pretty damn anti-immigrant makes his appeal to Hispanics almost non-existent.

Romney's only strength is his fundraising (a definite plus against a fundraising titan like Obama), but he has no real appeal outside of that.

If Obama wins New Mexico he probably wins Nevada as well (they've started tracking pretty close to each other as of late, the growing Hispanic population in Nevada in fact could make it more Democratic than New Mexico in time).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
But how does Romney
raise his money? Obama certainly did some traditionally fund raising, but unless I am remembering something incorrectly, the vast majority of his money was raised through small donors. Leaving aside the fact that taking a day or night to attend a fund raiser takes time out of the schedule, wealthy donors can only take you so far, even if they contribute to outside groups. It's simply much more powerful to have lots of small donors who can keep contributing throughout the campaign, who are usually provoked by e-mails and other appeals that don't require as much time and effort as other methods.

Just to give you an idea of how powerful Obama's small donor list is, he could give have just 500,000 people give $500, and no more, and he'd still have $250 million. And he supposedly has at least four times that many people that gave to his campaign last time.

Unless it's a truly ugly primary where there are heavy divisions within the party, I suspect the Republican nominee will start from a much stronger position when it comes to fund raising, whether that is through small donors or big donors. (It's probably hard to get much worse than McCain, after all.) They are likely to be far more eager than they were in 2008, but I still wonder if anyone on the Republican side can come close to matching the ability of Obama to raise money through small donors. Maybe this is just my partisan nature talking, but all of them seem to appeal to different ends of the party. Obama and even Clinton had a natural appeal to a far greater number of people in their party. I still think that no matter whom the nominee is, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin, will get their votes in the end, but they won't be as active, financially or otherwise, as they could be throughout the campaign.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
I don't think Huckabee will run
I was going through exit poll approval ratings and was stunned at the South Carolina numbers. Obama is underwater yes but better off there than in several states he won. Could it be moving faster than anybody thought? It is certainly my pick for a shocker come 2012.

[ Parent ]
Shocker is right!
SC would surprise me as much as TX. I think GA would flip before either of those, and that's pretty unlikely, all things being equal.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Oh sure
I'm not predicting it just saying it is a possibility. Georgia would definitely go first but then not many people thought he would win IN and NC.

[ Parent ]
He won a big victory
during an economic near-collapse that the overwhelming majority of voters blamed on the Republicans. The only way he's likely to get more states in 2012, in my opinion, is if:

(a) The economy is going great, with no more than 6% unemployment and foreclosures under control.
(b) Sarah Palin or a similarly unpopular Republican extremist is his opponent.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
If he is re-elected at all he will get more
Electoral votes than in 2008. I will predict that.

[ Parent ]
reelection
Presidents who win re-election tend to win more EV than the first time around.

[ Parent ]
My argument is that 2008
was a highly atypical election, and I explained why.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not.
Things could just as easily go in one direction as they could in the other in a state like Indiana, where he barely won, or Georgia, which he lost by just a few points. Nobody is talking about a situation where he actively contests Alabama.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Guess what I am going to say?
If he's in a position where he's not fighting for his life, he should definitely look into expanding the map. I go back and forth on Texas, but he should definitely work on Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina. In the last two, there are still a lot of unregistered black voters, and if anything, his position amongst white voters is probably only going to get better. (Can it really get much worse?) In fact, unless the exit polls are badly off, blacks somehow made up a smaller portion of the electorate in 2008 than they did in 2004, although South Carolina appears to be a state like Wisconsin where Republicans can get a slightly number of the black vote than they do nationwide (15 percent instead of five or ten, perhaps). If that is true, though, and Obama barely contested the state, perhaps simply having an active presence shoots that number back up to 30 percent like it was in 2004 rather than the 25 percent it was in 2008.

On a similar note, if I am reading Table 4b. Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2008 correctly, there are an astonishingly large number of black voters that are unregistered in Florida. As in, 500,000 to 600,000. This is another one of those states where blacks, according to the exit polls, vote for Republicans in slightly higher numbers than they do nationwide, but I just can't imagine that more than a small percentage of those unregistered voters are Republicans or highly likely to be open to them.

If this number is accurate, and we are not dealing with a group that is just flatly resistant to registering, I almost want to say Obama's election strategy in the state of Florida should depend mostly on registering and turning black voters, and the rest on doing the same with Hispanic voters.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Specifically, non-Cuban Hispanics
And also just young people, generally.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
I was surprised
to learn that Obama and Kerry each got only 42 percent of the white vote. Maybe there was some movement in each direction in different parts of the state that canceled each other out so that the end result was the same, but that's pretty interesting, to me at least. You'd think he'd do just a little bit better, if only because the environment was better for Democrats, but apparently not, if the exit polls are accurate. It looks like his entire margin of victory came from an increase in support amongst Hispanics and blacks.

Now, if the information I read is accurate, and the Obama campaign placed such an emphasis on voter registration the last time, you have to wonder if they just dropped the ball in Florida in particular or just ran into some problem that couldn't be overcome. But while I don't like to fixate on one number at the expense of the bigger picture, it seems like too juicy a figure to ignore. Obama's margin of victory in the state was 236,450 votes. If they register just 30 percent of 500,000 unregistered blacks and get half of those newly registered voters to turn out, they'd get an additional 75,000 votes, about 32 percent of their margin of victory from last time.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, I'm suddenly a lot more enthusiastic about winning Florida than I was yesterday.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Definitely Arizona
I think he's in bad trouble in the Great Lakes/Midwest and I'm not sure the voters will come back.  He'll definitely need EVs from Virginia/North Carolina, Florida, and all he can get in the Southwest.

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see an analysis of South Carolina
I see Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, but South Carolina seems to be a longer term project than those.  The growing population seems to be whites moving to the coast and while it is helping, that one feels like a state we could win 49% but it'll take 30 years for 50%+1.

And SB1070 in AZ is driving away the Hispanics who provide the future Democratic base there.  I suppose that could mean solidifying NM or gaining in TX.


[ Parent ]
I've been saying for awhile that SC was a possible pickup
I mean, I doubt he'll actually win it, but ever since '08 it has seemed like a fairly obvious place to expand the map. In '08, despite not contesting the state in the GE, he came within 10 points and won 26% of the white vote, which is substantially better than even Georgia (at least according to the exit polls) in addition to easily carrying the youth vote. And although there haven't been that many polls, several polls of the state have his approval rating not much worse than nationally - and often better than several states he actually won.

So yeah, I absolutely think he should contest SC.

BTW, what were his exit poll numbers in SC this year? I read they were 35%, which isn't great (but that's also with lots of Democratic non-voters).  


[ Parent ]
Extremely doubtful pickup!
The voters have been busy cleansing Republican ranks there of anyone engaged in any independent, logical, or reflective thinking and then electing such individuals in the general election.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Obama has a better job approval rating
There than in Iowa and Ohio.

[ Parent ]
That makes me more fearful about Iowa and Ohio
than hopeful about South Carolina.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Agreed, a state like SC
has enough of a black population and liberal white population to always provide a solid base for Democrats, as that 44% approve isn't bad but it's still an 11% deficit.  The question can that ever get higher or is that close to maxed out already?  According to the CNN exit polls, Indys went for McCain 57-40 while the state as a whole went 54-45.  If we cant win Indy's even in 2008, I'm not going to be hopeful here in the future for quite some time.

However, this is one area that makes IA and OH nonetheless healthier prospects as their Indy's are winnable.


[ Parent ]
If you look
at the exit polls from 2004 to 2008, Kerry lost Independents by a one-point smaller margin than Obama lost them to McCain. Maybe the pool of self-described Independent voters was just different in that election than in other ones and in other states.

I think it's more incredible black turnout was actually down, from them composing 30 percent of the electorate in 2004 to only 25 in 2008, with a one-point uptick in the number of Hispanic voters and a four-point uptick in the number of white voters. I have a hard time believing that turnout was down by that much, so perhaps their increase, if there was one, was simply dwarfed by increases from other races.

Obama did get a higher percentage of the black vote than Kerry, at 96 percent compared to 85 percent, and a higher percentage of the white vote, going from 22 to 26 percent. Those relatively small movements brought us from a 19-point deficit to a 9-point deficit. That's still a lot, but not that insurmountable.

I find it hard to believe that black turnout was really down, unless it was just overshadowed by the number of white Democrats that showed up and voted for Obama. But the fact that it went down suggests, to me at least, that turnout wasn't being maximized. According to my (slightly rounded calculations), out of voting pool of 1,917,000 voters, if Obama gets 26 percent of a 67-percent white voting pool, 96 percent of a 30 percent black voting pool, and 60 percent of everyone else (that number is basically a guess, because there just aren't that many Asian or Hispanic voters in the state), he'd get 48 percent of the vote. That's not enough for a win, but we're moving in the right direction.

McCain actually got about 96,000 more votes in the state than Bush did, so it wasn't as if Obama's votes merely came at his expense. We added a lot of voters from 2004, but they added more. Can we make up the difference? I think we could, but a large chunk of that difference would probably have to come from registering white voters as Democrats in addition to mopping up and turning up the remaining remnants of unregistered blacks.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
And that was without contesting the state
He would have to win by more nationally than he did in 2008 to take it but if and when the economy gets going that isn't totally out of the realms of possibility especially if Republicans commit electoral suicide and nominate Palin. That isn't impossible either. Anyway, as we have discussed before if Obama is in decent shape in mid-2012 in the states he won last time and finances allow he should definitely think about doing something in SC, the Dakotas and maybe even Texas. I assume they will target Missouri, Montana, Georgia and Arizona from the start.

[ Parent ]
I don't know the
extent of his campaign in the state outside of the primary contest, but I am pretty sure it wasn't fought in the same way as other states. I assume they spent some money there, just as they did in Montana, but not nearly as much they spent in, say, Virginia or Ohio. If that is the case, then I wouldn't assume he necessarily has to win the country by a bigger margin if he is to win South Carolina.

I almost want him to try a strategy of spending a lot of money in the state to register and turnout voters and just a little on traditional advertising. It'd be interesting to see how well that works, especially if he ends up losing a state like Ohio or Florida even as he ends up getting closer or actually winning South Carolina. If that were the case, it'd change the way we'd look at winning elections.

I know that I keep harping on this concept, but while I realize a registration and turnout strategy can't override some strong fundamentals, it could make the difference, or so I think, in a close race. In a race where he ends up winning anyway, the benefits would probably flow downhill, helping us win other, smaller races. If we lose? Well, perhaps we lose by a small margin, and end up losing fewer, smaller races. And as far as I understand it, the information we collect doesn't just disappear once the election is over. It can help us win races in the future when the fundamentals are more in our favor.

That last bit is why, if he's in a position of strength, I almost want him to focus on registering voters and turning them out in every state. I might make an exception for New York and California, since they are so big and expensive, but seriously, if he's just rolling in dough, why not try to register voters in Kansas and Tennessee? He's probably not going to win those states unless he's winning in a truly massive landslide, but why not make an investment for the future? I can't imagine we are maximizing our potential returns in a lot of states.

Will this happen? Well, for better or worse, people seem to stick with what works, or seems to work, in politics, so I expect, or maybe hope, that Plouffe and Axelrod and the others decide to begin the race with the same expansive mindset that they approached the last one with.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Kansas?
You truly are visionary. He couldn't even quite win Missouri last time. Kansas? Yikes!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Seems to me you missed the entire point
Look, he would struggle to win PA next Tuesday. Nobody knows what the environment will look like two years from now. Obviously there is a chance he may well have to scramble for 270 electoral votes but if he happens to be in a stronger position then why not try expand the map as far as possible even just for party building purposes? It would help with a second-term agenda for a start. Did ANYBODY think Reagan would win 40 states in November 1982 let alone 49?

[ Parent ]
OK
In the extremely unlikely event that Obama is doing so much better in 2012 than in 2008 that he has a huge surplus of money and nothing really necessary to do with it, he could do something like that.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
It was also extremely unlikely
That the GOP would win 66 House seats in early 2009. That Obama would win North Carolina and Indiana in 2008 and that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the nominee in 2007. Anything is possible. Personally, I think it'll be similar to 2008 but I wouldn't rule out any scenario either side of that.

[ Parent ]
Points well taken n/t


"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Exactly.
I think the point is even more valid because Obama can raise money unlike anyone we've seen, well, possibly ever. I don't know if he can raise the same money he did last time, but he's got a huge donor list that I don't expect the Republicans to match. (I think they will do better with fund raising than last time, if only because their chances might be better and they are motivated to take out Obama, but I am not sure who on the Republican side will have both institutional support that exists beyond what is on the surface and support from the broad base of the party. I could be wrong, but do Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney appeal to the same people as Huckabee and Palin, and if one person tries to cross over to the other side, will they end whatever chances they had at winning a general election?) It's basically like Obama is our rich uncle who tells we have an hour to go into a store and buy whatever we want, but only one hour--and he's never making this offer again. Why not use his ability to raise money to help our party in areas where it is desperately needed while we can?

Of course, as you would acknowledge, it's possible that he will have to fight to get over 270. But that's why I want them to plan for several different situations. Say what you will about his policies, but he doesn't have stupid people working his political operation, so I expect that they are doing this already.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Heh,
I thought you'd like that one.

But no, I don't think he'd win Kansas. I wonder if he'd even keep the margin within ten points--and if he even came close, surely he'd already have won reelection in a massive landslide.

My point was that if he's got a lot of money to burn--if he wouldn't have an issue tossing down a few million into some deeply red state--he should work on party building in red states. That essentially involves registering and mobilizing new voters and using those and the ones that are already registered to elect candidates to lower level offices. That way, when we need to find people to run, we already always going with a fifth-best option.

I suspect this would show positive returns if only because Democrats seem to have written off some parts of the country. Some initial success, should we try this and have some some success, would be almost guaranteed in the same way that an obese person trying a reasonable diet is almost guaranteed to lose weight at first.

Will they go into the next election, if he's not struggling where stuff like what I am describing is simply not an option, with the same mindset at they did in the last one? My guess is yes, they will, because people seem to stick with old habits, especially in politics.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
AREN'T
That should be "we aren't always going with a fifth-best option."  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
According to which polls?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Your argument makes me more hopeful about SC
w/r/t those who have been purged turning D in response. I think we saw some of it w/r/t the SC Chamber of Commerce going D this year.

[ Parent ]
I don't think that Huckabee would win VA vs. Obama
I don't see him doing well in the DC exurbs in NoVA that Republicans need to win if they want to carry the state (Loudon and Prince William counties). These areas tend to be centrist to center-right on economic issues but socially liberal. In other words, the exact opposite of Huckabee.  

Male, VA-08

[ Parent ]
He indeed won't do well in NoVA...
Vs. Huckabee, I'd fully expect Obama to net a 15-point margin out of Fairfax County. The thing is, I think Huckabee would over-perform McCain's margins in the SW; that is, instead of McCain's 2-to-1 victories, it'd be closer to 3-to-1 with Huck. He'd get out the rural vote a lot more effectively.

I think Romney could keep Obama to a low double-digit win in Fairfax, but he'd have real trouble holding onto some of the rural counties McCain barely won. My hunch is whoever wins Loudoun County wins Virginia.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast


[ Parent ]
But if
Huckabee loses Fairfax by such a huge margin, and probably the rest of NoVa, too, but manages to rack up huge margins in the southwestern part of the state, what would that matter? Are there enough voters there to make a difference? And what about the rest of the state?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
If recent elections are any guide
than it would be almost impossible for Huckabee to win the state while doing terribly in NoVA. Whoever wins Loudoun and Prince William Counties almost always tends to carry the entire state, and often by very similar margins. For example, in 2009, Bob McDonnell won the entire state 58-41%. McDonnell won PWC with an almost identical 59-41%. In 2008, Loudoun was the more predictive county. Obama won the entire state 53-46, while winning Loudoun 54-46. And in 2005, Tim Kaine won statewide by a margin of 52-46 while carrying Loudoun by 52-46 and PWC 50-48. So history seems to suggest that Huckabee would probably lose if he couldn't manage to carry Loudoun or PWC.

Then again, higher turnout in the south of the state could make a big difference. To see why, take a look at this map of turnout in individual counties compared to the statewide average in 2008: http://www.vpap.org/elections/...
Yellow counties are counties with turnout less than the statewide average, whereas green counties are counties with turnout above the statewide average. Not surprisingly, Democratic areas tended to have much higher turnout. In Fairfax County, turnout was 76%, while in Scott county in the very southwestern tip of the state turnout was 62%. Obama carried Fairfax 60-39, while McCain won Scott county 70-28. Erasing that discrepancy could put Huckabee much closer to victory, but it just doesn't seem like there is any example in recent state history of a candidate getting crushed in NoVA but winning statewide. I have a hunch it could happen in an off year governor's election when turnout is generally low, but I am skeptical in a presidential year.

Male, VA-08


[ Parent ]
Percentages are important, but
absolute numbers are just as important.

Let's use the counties that you mentioned, Scott County and Fairfax County. According to your link (which is awesome, by the way), there are a total of 16,082 registered voters in Scott County, while there are a whopping 682,190 voters in Fairfax County. And there are only 23,403 people in Scott County, some of whom are children and others who obviously can't or won't vote. Huckabee could quite literally get every single voter in Scott County but it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Now, obviously, that's an extreme example. But it looks as if he he'd have to rack up truly insane totals around the rest of the state, meaning not the biggest counties, but the smaller ones but also those near the biggest ones, to take carry Virginia it he lost the biggest counties like Fairfax and Loudon by a wider margin than McCain. It'd essentially be as if Obama received almost no votes in those counties, while Huckabee somehow took votes away that Obama got the last time and brought lots and lots of new ones to the polls.

So yes, it looks as if you are right.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
It's not "registered voters," it's a soft likely voter screen, meaning...
...all respondents in the sample said they both are registered to vote and voted in at least one of the past 3 general elections.  That soft screen produced Dem-friendly skews for PPP's 2010 polling before they switched to stricter likely voter screens.  But with 2012 a Presidential with likely yet-again record-high turnout, the soft screen probably is not far off from the actual electorate.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
It just shows that even after their peak performance
Team Red is not going to win back the White House with any of the four stooges.

And it really shows Palin is DOA so (with apologies to Bambi)... run Sarah run!


[ Parent ]
In case you didnt dislike Politico already
Here is what their supposed Foreign Policy expert blogger thinks is news-worthy; a story of a TSA agent luring a woman to where ever once he got off-work at the airport, abducting her and sexual assaulting her.   If you go through her blog, she's devoted quite a bit of time lately on TSA related stories.

So not only do they run crap stories because they abide too fully to the 24/7 news cycle mantra, but they also force their bloggers to write dumb crap just because it's what's hot.


Would there be this stink if Bush were still president?
No.

[ Parent ]
Well, in those morons defense
the Patriot Act was our rights being abused behind our backs, this up front and personal so I can see the difference.  But no, they would not have said a word.  The world could be at perfect peace but when Bush is around, everyone is on edge like we're all gonna die.

I love how honest the Redstate position is, only do this to people of color.  To think Erik Erickson is brought onto news stations to talk politics and people like us aren't.  SSP > CNN anyway.


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox