Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 11/8

by: Crisitunity

Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 3:42 PM EST


MA-Sen: Well, that was a nice week off from forward-looking horse-race reporting. On to 2012: one of the first Dem names being floated as a potential challenger to Scott Brown is someone I'd never heard of till now, but who seems to have 'rock star' frequently appended to his name: Setti Warren, the mayor of the very affluent yet very liberal suburb of Newton. Warren, who is African-American, has been mayor of the city of 93,000 (which is 3% black) for only a year.

NV-Sen: In case it just wasn't clear what an astoundingly well-handled re-election effort came from Harry Reid's camp this year, check out Jon Ralston's re-cap. He recounts how the groundwork was laid years ago, lopping off potential challengers until the weakest one was left standing, details the post-primary ad blast that defined Angle permanently, and also goes into how Reid's team never lost faith that their own internal polls (the same ones Ralston saw) were right and the public polls were wrong.

And then there's the 2012 race, already fascinating, with the first question being whether the unpopular and impoverished John Ensign even tries to run again. The LVRJ looks at the four top Dem contenders and six potential GOP challengers as well, including (could lightning strike twice?) Sharron Angle. The article also looks at potential musical chairs and open seats in the House, given the imminent creation of a Dem-leaning NV-04 and the possibility of multiple House members running for Senate.

UT-Sen: One guy who shouldn't feel too confident going into 2012 is Orrin Hatch, despite his state's GOP lean: Bob Bennett's death by teabagging is a huge red flag, and now a poll from Mason-Dixon for the Salt Lake Tribune has him at a 40% re-elect, with 48% saying "someone else." (Of course, that 48% no doubt includes both Dems and Tea Partiers.) No head-to-head numbers in the general or primary, though.

VA-Sen: Jim Webb has sounded notably ambivalent about the prospect of a run for re-election in 2012; it's also been evident in his fundraising so far. A recent interview has him still continuing that tone, say he's "still sorting that out" and seeing him venting about the White House.

WV-Sen: I suspect this isn't likely to have the desired effect, but it certainly can't hurt them to ask: the GOP is already leaning on newly-elected West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to change parties. They're offering him his pick of committee assignments (in the minority, natch) and citing the difficulty of running downticket from Obama in 2012 in WV.

CA-Gov: Here's a nice bit of early perceptions-setting: Jerry Brown has ditched the offer of swank transition headquarters on Sacramento's K Street (apparently Sacto has its own K St. that serves a similar purpose?) in favor of keeping operations at his old campaign HQ in Oakland. Shades of the old Plymouth Duster from 35 years ago! (Although it's worth noting that the Duster, though considered an econobox at the time, today holds a minor place in the muscle car pantheon.)

IN-Gov: So this Mike Pence for Governor thing may not be a done deal yet. Moving to Gov was clearly done with an eye toward an eventual run for President (as nobody, if you're not named James Garfield, gets elected Prez straight out of the House). But he still seems to be gauging the possibility of a 2012 run straight from the House, buoyed by his popularity at the last Value Voters Summit and the lack of a dominant player in the current GOP field. He says he'll make a decision by the end of the year.

MT-Gov: This small state will have a big gubernatorial race in 2012, with Brian Schweitzer term-limited. Former Republican Rep.-at-large Rick Hill has just announced he's running; Hill served from 1997 to 2000 before retiring because of health issues which he says have been resolved. Two other GOPers, former state Sens. Corey Stapleton and Ken Miller, are also running; no Dem has thrown his hat in yet.

KY-AG: This could be an interesting matchup, of the Senate race that could have been. The Kentucky off-year elections are in just one year, and Trey Grayson (the SoS, and loser of the GOP Senate primary) is looking for a promotion of sorts, to AG. That would put him up against Dem Jack Conway (loser of the Seante general), who presumably will be running for re-election.

DGA: One committee that can feel pleased with its mild overperformance (not that -5 seats is a good thing, of course, especially what with the heartbreaker in Florida, but there was some definite beating of the spread going on here) is the DGA. Director Nathan Daschle lays it out in a memo that's worth reading if you need something to feel good about, pointing out that the GOP's gain is explicable purely by the races that the DGA didn't financially contest (KS, MI, OK, TN, and WY).

Leadership: It looks like we can call off the Pete Sessions Deathwatch. He'll be back for another term at the helm of the NRCC (after abandoning plans to run for majority whip, which looks like it'll fall effortlessly to Kevin McCarthy). Whether he can maintain the NRCC's gains this next cycle will be the real test of Sessions' abilities; although he'll get some aid from redistricting, there's an awful lot of deadwood washed up on the beach that'll need protecting. Also, John Cornyn will almost certainly also be back at the NRSC, eager to finish what he got halfway through this cycle.

Meanwhile, as we mentioned last night, the DSCC chair is the hot potato that no one, even Charles Schumer, wants to hold. The main unresolved issue for the Dems is the minority whip race, which pits Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn against each other in the #2 spot on the truncated leadership ladder in the minority. Surpisingly, it seems like Hoyer may (despite what looks like Nancy Pelosi efforts to box him out) be able to pull this out, given some crossover support from many members of Pelosi's camp (notably Ed Markey and Jerry Nadler). Progressive Caucus leadership (like Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva) has lined up behind Clyburn, though. Here's one weird suggestion for breaking the stalemate (from Jesse Jackson Jr.): both should get out of the whip race, and co-run the DCCC together (which, with Chris Van Hollen out, is also without a head right now).

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 11/8
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It's nice to see that Jerry Brown hasn't changed.
Also, is Marty Meehan thinking of runninga against Brown up in MA?  He still has like $4 million or more in his federal account.  Is Meehan well-liked still?

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


FYI, for those that don't know
As governor way back when, Jerry Brown spurned the governor's mansion in favor of a Sacramento condo in addition to driving his own car.

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


[ Parent ]
not that it matters
   but Gov. Brown Jr.* had a Plymouth Satellite not a Duster.  And yes, K Street is full of lobbyists whether it is the one in Sacramento or the one in D.C.

  *Interesting that Jerry Brown no longer uses his full given name. He is or was Edmund G. Brown Jr. The Jerry comes from his middle name (Gerald). I never knew where his father's nickname came from. He was Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Senior. It is too bad Jerry never had a son. He could have been Edmund G. Brown III and called "Eddie" or "Ted".

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28


[ Parent ]
I don't know how he was listed on the ballot
But the AG's website begins, "Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. was elected statewide to serve as the chief law officer of California."

[ Parent ]
he was just Jerry Brown
   and also used that as his name when he ran for Attorney General four years ago. I don't live in Oakland so I don't know about when he ran for mayor.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

[ Parent ]
The people who remember his dad are dying off.


[ Parent ]
Depends who you're asking.
Meehan made a lot of political enemies when he primaried Chet Atkins and when he flirted with running for Governor.  And because he has a reputation as a reformer.  At one point Finneran was threatening to gerrymander him out of a house seat.  Only an issue in that one of the primary ways Republicans win is when Democrats form their traditional circular firing squads.  So ideally you want the powers that be not to be overly agitated.

As far as his general popularity.  Most people don't know who Meehan is but he is a decent enough guy.  I'd prefer Capuano.  Just like I did last year.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
Probably not, and no.


[ Parent ]
On WV-Sen
Although I was too young to care about '94, I do know that this is like when Ben Nighthorse Campbell and dixiecrat Richard Shelby where offered key positions in exchange for defecting (note that even if they didn't defect, the GOP held a 51-49 majority).  Odd that the Senate Republicans are acting like it's '94 all over again and they won the Senate and can offer their juice to conservative Democrats to win them over.  Are they cocky or just in denial?  Who the heck would defect to the minority.

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


Griffith, Parker
How'd that work out?  

Though I will say the aide didn't seem to slam the door, just close it.

As for Mass., I really think that Scott Brown's opponent will be decided behind closed doors, and will end up being the Rep. whose seat is vaporized by redistricting.


[ Parent ]
That might be hard to do......
I bet there are multiple House members who want it and have the money for a bloody primary.  Capuano is the obvious candidate, but I bet others are ambitious enough to refuse to accede.

But I imagine you're right insofar as there will be pressure on someone, anyone, to make his intentions known before a redraw so they know they can eliminate his seat without consequence.

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


[ Parent ]
As I said earlier....
What about Marty Meehan.  He has the money.

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


[ Parent ]
He's one very real possibility, but doesn't solve the redistricting problem. (nm)
nm

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

[ Parent ]
Someone Will Walk
Several members of the delegation aren't spring chickens, they're all in the minority with prospects to return to the majority not looking great at the moment.

I could see at least one of Frank, Markey, or Olver in particular deciding to hang it up, with Neal or the scandal-tarred Tierney as additional possibilities.

I can see Capuano running for Brown's seat too.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03


[ Parent ]
I'd tend to agree that there'd be multiple interested...
Except why didn't any others take a flyer in '10?  Talk about a free ride.   Capuano did, to no ill effects in the delegation.  This time they'd have to risk their hide.  I just can't conceive more than 1 Rep. going for it in 2012.  Not when the game of musical chairs is going to be minus one anyway.  

[ Parent ]
No
Everyone seems to always point to Parker Griffith as an example.

He wasn't that well liked in the first place. He went from being liberal to somewhat conservative to very conservative in a short time.

It's just not the same.


[ Parent ]
That isn't the point as his shifting ideology never mattered
No person just elected as a Democrat can win a GOP primary the next time around unless I spose they do something heroic in their eyes.

[ Parent ]
Alright
You're missing my point. He wasn't well liked by anyone on either side of the aisle or spectrum.

He was seen as an opportunist, not because he switched parties, but because he truly stood for nothing.

Oh, and in Georgia, State Rep. Alan Powell, a longtime rural white Democrat, just switched parties. He'll breeze to re-election, like most of those in the past few cycles.

So yeah, there are some who can.


[ Parent ]
I don't think State Reps. really count
It's been my experience that party labels don't matter as much in state legislative races. Plus, it's much harder to find a credible primary challenger.

Congress, on the other hand, is a more important race that covers a wider area. Much easier to find someone willing to knock off an incumbent still setting down roots in a party.


[ Parent ]
Really?
Actually, quite a few party switchers have lost in Georgia. I'm thinking of a few who switched after Perdue became Governor and gave the GOP control of the State Senate.

The majority though usually do not have trouble.

But yeah, party labels are starting to have an impact in states like Georgia where the GOP has finally taken over.

It's on the local level where party label doesn't matter here.


[ Parent ]
the Georgia state legislature didnt vote for health-care reform


[ Parent ]
Um
Neither did Parker Griffith. Not sure where you're trying to go there.

[ Parent ]
It seems like a pretty bizarre thing to offer
at this point. After all, he won in a state that isn't friendly to Democrats right now--even more so, possibly, than it was unfriendly to them in 2008. And they are in the minority to boot.

I could see them making this offer as the 2012 election was heating up, but I have to imagine Manchin has been in politics long enough to know that what the situation is like now doesn't necessarily mean anything about what it might be like a year from now.  

"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 ]
Ben Campbell had been elected in 1992
and Shelby had been around for a while. For Manchin to switch immediately after being elected for the first time is unprecedented as far as I know.

[ Parent ]
It would be one thing...
if his defection would change the balance of power in the chamber, you're right.

But this makes even less sense given that Manchin is going to be a fairly reliable Republican vote on a lot of key issues. What does McConnell care if the letter behind Manchin's name is a D, as long as he's not voting that way?

Especially because if "Washington Joe" turns out to be any different from "West Virginia Joe" in the eyes of WV voters, he's not going to be returned to the Senate in 2 years. Either Manchin is going to be the epitome of ConservaDem, or that seat will probably go to a Republican in 2012 anyway.

20, GOP, NH-02


[ Parent ]
McConnell cares about optics
Maybe you're right that Manchin switching parties wouldn't change much in his voting pattern, but it would garner a great deal of negative media attention for Democrats and positive media attention for Republicans. Richard Shelby was voting like a Republican long before he switched parties in 1994, but having a senator switch parties further enhanced the view that the Democrats were in collapse, same with Specter's switch.

That's mainly why I was worried about Oliverio winning in WV-01. If he loses in the general, he's just one of many Democrats going down. Right now there are likely to be no party switchers, so Democrats look like they're maintaining a level head. But if he'd won and then switched parties, the media would be trumpeting the "panicked Dems fleeing a sinking ship" storyline which I think would do a lot of PR damage to the party.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL


[ Parent ]
Read downthread
Manchin is adamantly denying that he is or has ever considered changing parties.

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


[ Parent ]
If Webb's gonna be the walking dead in his '12 campaign...
I'd rather see him not seek re-election at all. Heck, at least Tom Periello would galvanize the party base (though I highly doubt he could even come close to beating Allen).

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

What makes you think he can't beat George Allen?
I hope Webb decides to run, btw.

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


[ Parent ]
The way things seem to be trending in Virginia...
I think it takes a special breed of energetic, grassroots, centrist Democrat to win statewide, especially if Obama looks poised to garner about 47% atop the ticket. Webb has the "centrist" part down, and Periello has the other two. My gut just tells me Allen will easily shore-up the GOP base and probably win Indies by at least high single-digits. Meaning, you need strong Dem GOTV in the north to make up for everything else.

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

[ Parent ]
You're mistaken to presume Allen would win indies......
It really depends on who runs, and Allen does not at all have an edge with indies.  Having lost last time weakens him.  And there will be Obama surge turnout again, that's a huge advantage to whoever is the Dem nominee.

Key stat:  McCain got 10,000 more votes in Virginia than Bush '04 and in fact McCain's raw vote total was the most ever earned by a Republican in Virginia history.  And still he lost decisively because Obama got a whopping 500,000 more votes than Kerry.  So the surge turnout in Virginia was huge, and they'll be back.

BTW, the exit poll claimed that only 20% of 2008 voters in Virginia were black.  That only matches census, rather than exceeds it.  I've explained before that exit polls sometimes are wrong, and have been provably wrong, and this is one instance where I suspect (but cannot prove) it was wrong.  I suspect out of that 500,000, a lot more were black voters than can be accounted for by a mere 20% vote share.  They will show up for Obama, and I suspect black turnout will be even higher in 2012 than it was in 2008.

Having Obama on the ballot makes for an anything-but-ordinary electorate in a state like Virginia, and Webb or someone else will benefit.

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


[ Parent ]
Do you have any
figures on how many potential voters there are to be registered in your state? I can only imagine that the Obama campaign would be back in Virginia in full force in 2012 and would certainly make registering Democrats a priority, which would only help Webb even more.  

"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 have any statistics, but I think...
...there will be a big push to register all the new black voters and young voters they can.  It's a young state and every new year's 18-year olds are slightly better for us demographically than the year before.  So the push will be made.  It's going to be a tossup state and a top battleground, no doubt.  Where a state like Indiana might reflexively fall back into GOP hands by a comfortable margin, if an antiseptic GOP nominee is found, Virginia will be hard-fought.  And that matters very much in the Senate race.  It's going to be interesting because the Senate race wasn't even contested last time, as Mark Warner crushed Jim Gilmore 65-34......people would've been shocked back in 2000, when Gilmore was still a reasonably popular Gov, if you would've told 'em that would happen less than a decade later!  But having both Prez and Senate hotly contested on the same ballot will be a new thing for this state, most voters here have never experienced such a thing.

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

[ Parent ]
I might do a diary along
these lines at some point, but I am starting to feel that in 2012, voter registration should be king even more than it was in 2008. In some states, where both sides have been fighting like dogs for a while, there aren't that many people left to register. But in others, there are probably quite a few waiting to be brought into the process. Virginia is certainly one of those states, but there are plenty of others. It just so happens that a lot of the states which have Senate races where the Democrats will need some extra help could also be swing states.

Montana should definitely be a focus for Democrats. Tester won by a little more than 3,000 votes in 2006. You have to think that Republicans will be doing everything they can to take this seat back. And while Montana might not as close in 2012 for Obama as it was in 2008, he still only lost by a little more than 11,000 votes.

You're going to call me a mental patient, but I think the Democrats should start a voter registration drive in January and run it until the end of October with the goal of registering 60,000 new Democrats. The state population isn't that big, but it seems big enough where it's possible, if not necessarily likely. Obama won Gallatin County by three percent in 2008, a county that has seen a 32 percent increase in population since 2000, so maybe there's a demographic trend working in our favor.

Maybe they can't register that many voters and will only get 30,000. But if that were the case, and there wouldn't be any huge drop off in support for Tester from 2006 and Obama from 2008, that should give them, at worst, a fighting chance.  

"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 ]
What makes Virginia
look so bad for the Democrats in 2012? If anything, I'd expect the climate to be slightly better compared to what it was like in 2006. (By that, I mean that Virginia was slowly starting to turn blue a few years ago and is probably further along that path now.) Is it any worse than, say, Ohio or Michigan? And what makes George Allen such an attractive candidate?



"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 ]
At this point Obama has to be favored in Virginia
There is no Republican that naturally appeals to Virginia voters, and ones like Palin and Romney are anti-appealing.

If Webbhas fire in his belly, he's faored over retread Allen, but without fire, obviously no candidate is very strong.


[ Parent ]
If Obama wins Virginia, so will Webb
I think its that simple.  

[ Parent ]
why do you say that?
I think Obama's approval has been underwater in VA for some time.

[ Parent ]
Mike Huckabee??
He won't get any of the new voters in NoVa, no doubt - but he'll clean up in Appalachia and southern Virginia in a way no Democrat could.

Hear me out...

I think of 2004 when Karl Rove made sure every Evangelical came out of the woodwork to vote for Bush.  It worked very well.  The Democrats thought they were going to win in Ohio based on their Cleveland numbers - but the rest of the state saw Republicans come out in droves.

Now in 2004, Bush won Virginia - an essentially uncontested state - by 8 points.  If the same sort of Evangelical outreach was employed in Virginia in 2004 as we  saw in Ohio...Bush's margin would have easily been double digits.  Yes, obviously Virginia is changing but demographic shifts take time.  White evangelical churchgoers, when properly motivated, will defeat urban 20-somethings and blacks.  At least for now.


[ Parent ]
The state certainly wasn't
targeted like Ohio, but don't evangelical voters have the sort of associations that make campaigns a little less important? Not unimportant, mind you, but less important to a campaign than, say, college voters, who aren't necessarily associated in the same way a church member is with another church member.  

"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 ]
Who cares?
If you don't assume both candidates for President will have underwater approval ratings going into the next election, then you haven't been paying attention.

Being underwater matters not at all in politics today.  The general public hates both parties, but they have to choose from them.

At this point Obama should cruise to reelection because all the top Republican candidates are more unpopular than him... or at least more unpopular than him in the states Obama won.  Even Indiana, with Bayh running, would be no worse than a coin flip against Palin-Romney-Gingrich-Huckabee.  Pataki or Thune or someone else sane would be a different story, but at this point there is zero evidence of such a person getting the nomination.


[ Parent ]
That's somewhat wishful thinking
Republicans don't HAVE to nominate someone with net negative unfavorables.  

At this point in 2006 would most people have thought that Obama was going to be the nominee?  In fact outside of blogs like this and the state of Illinois most people didn't even know who the hell Obama was.

It's a given that at best Obama will have slightly above water favorable numbers - because a lot of those Independents aren't going to go back.

But the Republicans could find a new face.  Essentially that's what they did this year - they rebranded the same policies under the "Tea Party" banner.  They could easily find a fresh face candidate that can come across as a competent alternative and motivate the various factions of the GOP.  What about someone like Sen. John Thune?  It doesn't have to be him, of course, but that's just one idea.

For better or worse - Obama is never going to be "new" again.  Once that wears off - it's tough to get back.  Especially in this era of 24/7 news and the internet.


[ Parent ]
What makes you
think independent voters aren't coming back?

"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 ]
Typically, indies are folks who vote republican....
...yet never admit to the practice...

It's hard to win them over to our side...


[ Parent ]
Bingo
It's right.  It HAS to be right.  Right?  Because Democrats have a several point registration edge nationally.  And if Independents didn't often lean to the right then Republicans would never win.

[ Parent ]
That's not true, exit polls show indies are all over the place......
Indies went Republican by a big margin this time, for Obama by a big margin in 2008, for Democrats by a big margin in 2006, and by Kerry by a statitistically trivial margin in 2004.

That Dems exceed Republicans in registration doesn't mean much, the turnout never matches that advantage.

Indies don't lean Republican at all.

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


[ Parent ]
Yes, but...
Kos was a big cheerleader all through 2009 when he made a point to show that Republican registration was collapsing.  He even concocted some "GOPosaur"  to make fun of the fact that the GOP was supposedly extinct.

We haven't seen much of the GOPosaur lately.  

The point is that Independents today are, to a not insignificant degree, composed of Tea Partiers.  Those Republicans that abandoned their party label (largely for opposition to GOP fiscal policy - but partly because of its hawkishness [part of Rand Paul's success] had to go somewhere.  They didn't become Democrats.

Independents don't have the same political ideology as in 2004.  And a lot of them just stayed home in disgust in 2006 and 2008.


[ Parent ]
I
remember printing out a cover for my AP Gov binder last year that had the picture of the TIME magazine issue saying the GOP was extinct and I put a big fat smile face below it. How fast things change....

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
They can swing
just as much back in our direction in 2012 as they did to the Republicans this year, can't they?

"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've heard
something similar many times, but where is the proof?

Anyway, it is pretty pointless to try to think we will know what the situation will look like six months from now, let alone two years. Still, if things are looking tough, there's a pretty obvious solution: bring new voters into the fold. I know I harp on this constantly, but there are till ten of thousands, if not a few hundred thousand, minority voters in states like Virginia that aren't registered.

And there's a substantial chunk that, for whatever reason, were registered but didn't vote in 2008. Take Georgia, for instance. (I'd use Virginia, but it's easier to use Georgia, since the statistics are more readily available.) About 30 percent of Georgia's 5.8 million voters, or 1.74 million, are black. About 75 percent of that pool, or 1.305 million, showed up to vote for him last time. That's a significant figure. Who knows how much more of the voting pool he could get to show up, but let's say he got 85 percent. That would translate into 1.479 million black voters, or an increase of 174,000 votes.

Or, let's say that the voting pool went from 5.8 million voters to 6.2 million, and the portion of the black electorate went from 30 percent to 33 percent. That's 2.046 million black voters. If they get the same turnout, 75 percent, that they got in 2008, that's 1.5345 million votes.

There's always the white vote, but to use Georgia as an example again, he only got 23 percent of that in 2008. Can it go lower? Sure, but even Kerry got that much of the white vote in 2004 in Georgia, so I'd say it's likelier that he goes up. Assume the voter pool from 2008 was stable (it certainly won't be, of course, but assume it for now), an increase of just five percentage points in the white vote, from 23 to 28 percent, would give Obama almost 200,000 more votes.

I'm being a little rough with the numbers, but generally speaking, if he can see slight increase in the white vote and increase the percentage of minority voters in the voting pool, he should be very competitive in some southern states.  

"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 ]
You're just making up a fantasy
"Republicans don't HAVE to nominate someone with net negative unfavorables."

and

"Obama doesn't HAVE to have net negative unfavorables dome the time of the Republican convention."

What's the point of such statements?  We only have what we have now, which is a crapload of unpopular politicians from both parties, and very unpopular leading Republican candidates. Some total unknown may win the GOP nomination, or the troops may all be home and the economy healed.  

The key point is people don't vote vote Obama or against Obama.  There will be a human being (maybe even a four way race with Pataki, Bloomberg and Palin all running) who faces Obama.  Either make the case that Palin will beat Obama in Virginia, or choose the most likely nominee in your mind.  The game requires at least two players.


[ Parent ]
Agreed.
Along the same lines, when I see a poll that shows Huckabee or Romney leading Obama by a few points, I'm worried in the sense of thinking that Obama needs to shore up his position, but not panicked. If nothing else, the public isn't familiar with these guys like they are with Obama. They aren't being exposed to ads about Romney and his penchant for changing positions ten times over the course of a day, for instance.  

"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 ]
That's the thing
The very fact that someone like a Huckabee or a Romney CAN poll higher than Obama, two candidates with obvious flaws, shows that Obama is hardly secure.

If I got paid the big bucks to be a Republican consultant, instead of an armchair commenter on blog like the rest of you here, I'd tell the Republicans to pick a telegenic, clean-as-a-whistle candidate without skeletons in the closet.

And then just ask if we're better off than when Obama became president.


[ Parent ]
But Obama is
constantly in the news and being associated with what is happening; Romney, Huckabee, and the others are not. That alone makes a massive difference on how these candidates are perceived.

As I always do when someone says "Obama could be/will certainly be a one-term president," I'd like to ask you to describe your top three candidates and the coalitions they plan to put together. So, I'm curious, exactly which candidates would you suggest? John Thune? What will the Teabaggers think when they find out that he voted for TARP? Marco Rubio? He'll have been in office all of one year before the nomination process starts.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole here, but your suggestion is simply the equivalent of me wanting a telegenic military man who also happens to be a minority in 2004. I wanted such a person to be Kerry's running mate, but I just didn't know where to find him. Neither, apparently, did Kerry.


"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'll answer it this way...
In 2000, the Republicans were tired of Clinton.  All through the 1990's they were convinced that we were never going to have a worse president than Bill Clinton.  Throughout the nomination process mud was thrown all over the place.  It got ugly in South Carolina after Bush accused McCain of having an illegitimate black child.

Neither Bush nor McCain was perfect.  McCain voted with Democrats too many times in the congress.  Bush was a weak on the border.  Republicans knew it.  They knew he named his energy company "Arbusto Energy" - Spanish for Bush.  That really grated on them  

Yet - they came out in droves to support him anyway.  On most of the issues Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents knew where both of these candidate stood - and come hell or high water they weren't going to sit home and they weren't going to vote Democrat after EVERYTHING Bill Clinton had done during his time in office.  Imperfections didn't matter.  It also helped that Bush and Rove had very good organization - something that McCain didn't bother with in 2008.

But the point is that all of this is going to get hashed out in the primary contest - just like it did for Democrats in 2008.  Republicans are going to hear why Thune thought it necessary to vote for TARP - if he runs - and they're either going to accept his explanation or not.  And if not, there are other candidates out there.  Jindal, perhaps.  He's got high approval numbers.  He's sort of an unconventional candidate, and certainly one conservatives can support.  That also takes care of that pesky problem of having a legislative record to go through that senators typically have.  And let's remember that one yawner of a speech in 1988 didn't do Bill Clinton in.  Another governor, Mitch Daniels of Indiana is a possibility.  He's made a couple of head-scratching statements lately - but nothing he can't recover from in relatively short order.

I can't get any more specific of a candidate than you folks on the left could have at this point in 2006.  But as we saw, when one side mobilizes all they need is a competent vessel.  The tide has a tendancy to push the vessel (whoever he may be) to the shores of victory if it is strong enough.

As for the coalition - well we've just seen the coalition.  Republicans have done better with blue collar voters than any election in recent memory.  They won white voters by 23 points.  If Obama can't get 40 percent of the white vote - he loses.  Right now he is right at that threshold.  The GOP's job is to keep the other 60 percent happy and not piss off the Hispanic vote.

Incidentally it's interesting that you bring up Rubio.  Assuming he realizes his full potential - There is a candidate that could be a disaster for Democrats in 2016 or 2020.  He's got a great story, a great way to articulate it and a natural ability to energize conservatives, latinos and new voters without alienating the center.


[ Parent ]
I don't
find anything you said that unreasonable, yet I am still not convinced. I don't think there's anything automatically unelectable about any of the guys that you mentioned, but I don't think any of them are truly defined. We'll see that the Democrats can do about that--and that's assuming they don't have any scandals.

Before I say anything else, I'm assuming the economy is in such a state so that Obama has a decent chance. If it's doing well, he'll cruise to a victory, and if it's doing really, really badly, he'll struggle. This doesn't mean the Republicans have absolutely no shot, but in a so-so situation, he's still the favorite in my book.

Why? Consider the potential coalition. There's virtually no chance of the Republican nominee not being a hard core anti-abortion candidate. There goes any potential advantage with women. There's virtually no chance of them being anything but someone who denies global climate change. That's going to motivate the environmentalist voters. Who, exactly, will do anything to make in roads with the youth vote that Democrats get? And who is both a viable candidate (i.e. not Rubio, who will, once again, have been in office for little more than a year) who can both appeal to minorities and not turn off white voters at the same time? This is to say nothing of the Republican candidate having to propose some combination of tax increases and/or cuts in entitlements to deal with the budget. (If they get away with avoiding this issue throughout the campaign, they probably deserve to win.)

Basically, I don't see a coalition that doesn't sacrifice one group when it tries to add another. That might be because I am suffering from a lack of imagination at this point, but I am not seeing anyone who can appeal to the Teabaggers, who will will want some combination of a Nativist/Supply Sider/Pro-Life/Anti-Science nut, and the middle, who will want someone that isn't any of those things. I guess it's possible to thread that needle, but I am not seeing how.


"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 laugh at those who constantly
bring up Rubio as some savior for the Republicans in 2016 or 2020 and that he would be a Dem nightmare.  How does he energize young voters? Where is the proof?  How does he energize Latinos by merely being Latino by that definition Steele should have been the Senator from MD and Palin should be the VP right now.  

Republicans really do not do identity politics well. Latinos are not some monolithic group.  

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
To Rubio I say go for it!
Can't wait to see ya crushed by the Latinos in California, possibly Texas, and the Southwest, buddy!

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


[ Parent ]
But Romney and Huckabee
have not been under the microscope for the past 18 months! In a sense, they're substituting for Generic Republican. By the time 2012 rolls around, they'll no longer be Generic.

PS. I suppose they have "obvious flaws," but outside of the heat of a presidential campaign, these flaws are not well known to the general public.


[ Parent ]
Obama is not favored in Virginia
At least not today.  Obama is in the mid 40's nationally.  He did worse in Virginia than he did nationally.

That's not to say he COULDN'T be favored in Virginia in 2012.  But unless or until his polling average gets back to 50 - he's not favored in VA.


[ Parent ]
Sure he is
Would you honsetly take Palin over Obama in Virginia now?

C'mon.  Obama won't be running against "some other person", he'll be running against the Republican nominee, and at this point the most likely possibilities all would be underdogs against Obama.


[ Parent ]
Bob McDonnell
He didn't just win.  He won Fairfax.  He won by 18 points.  And the Republicans were massively enthused - completely unlike the situation in 2008.

I have no idea whether or not Obama will be favored.  But it's far from given that he will be.


[ Parent ]
Bob McDonnell is running against Obama???
Sorry, but no.

[ Parent ]
Not what I meant
O'Donnell isn't going to run against Obama.  But the fact that he was able to win Fairfax County and win statewide by 18-points suggests that automatically assuming Obama is favored in a state where he clearly has negative approval is dubious at best.

[ Parent ]
Depressed Democratic turnout probably helped, thanks to Deeds running a Republican-lite campaign.
Unless Obama really screws up big-time, then I will be extremely shocked if Dems stay home in equal proportions in 2012 as they did in off-year 2009.

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


[ Parent ]
Absolutely
I agree with you.  But 18-points?

[ Parent ]
I guess it's a combination of Dems staying home
plus independents seeing McDonnell as "better" than Deeds. Not surprising since Deeds ran an absolutely shitty campaign. I very much doubt Obama will pull a Deeds in 2012.

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


[ Parent ]
Mark Warner won by 31 points in 2008
Bad argument.

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 ]
Not the same thing.
Republicans didn't even TRY to contest that race.

[ Parent ]
They ran a former governor...
seems like contesting it to me.

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 ]
It is entirely unrelated
O'Donnell's performance doesn't have anything to do with anything.

If "assuming Obama is favored in a state where he clearly has negative approval is dubious at best", then how can you assume he is NOT favored against candidates like Palin who are even more unpopular???

Virginia had no exit poll (that I know of).  Neither did NC.  So let's look at Ohio...

Obama 42/57
Dem Party  43/54
Rep Party  42/54

At this stage, it appears the 2012 race will be between two people with negative approvals, so the nagative approvals of one of them means nothing in itself.


[ Parent ]
Strawman argument
I never said he WOULDN'T be favored against Palin.  What I said was that a) it's far from clear the GOP will nominate Palin or anyone like Palin and b) I have no idea whether or not he WILL be favored in 2012.  VA is essentially a tossup state and much will depend on the next two years.

You're arguing that he IS favored - and right now it's probably more like 50/50 - unless either of us has a crystal ball.

All O'Donnell shows is that there is a not insignificant GOP base that can GOTV when highly motivated.  It's going to depend on the overall environment.  Eggheads and African-Americans aren't the only groups that have the potential to GOTV.


[ Parent ]
McDonnell
We're talking about McDonnell.  O'Donnell is whole different story.

[ Parent ]
You said "Obama is not favored in Virginia"
You're just running away from your own argument.

If I had to bet today and the choices were Obama and the nominee of the Republican party, I'd bet Obama.

Virginia is a tossup state in some scenarios, and a clear Obama lead against Palin.  


[ Parent ]
Dude...
Maybe we're splitting hairs here.

My position, as I said all along, is that as of NOW Obama is not favored.  No one is favored.  I consider it a pure tossup.

And I agree.  Obama beats Palin.  You'd probably, almost certainly win that bet.

Obama against a To Be Determined (R) with Evangelical Cred?  One that mobilizes the conservative southern half of the state and keeps it relatively close in the north?  Someone telegenic like Thune?  I'd bet on the Republican.


[ Parent ]
But that's the point
Is Thune the likely nominee now?  Of course not.  Who would bet Thune versus the field?

Yes Obama can lose to someone, and he could sleep with a dead animal in October 2012.  Whatever.

Of course Virginia is a swing state.  But pure tossup, no.  The Republicans have a leading group of candidates, none of whom are very Virginia-friendly.  Also, none of whom are as strong as Mccain.  And, the likelihood of the GOP nomination process being an extremely contentious clusterfuck are pretty darn high.

Virginia remains a swing state, but it is at least 50.001% Obama favored rather than the other way around.  If you want to say 52/48 or something like that is a "pure tossup" fine, but the point remains, if forced to bet today I'd take Obama, and it would be an easy choice.  Your posts suggest if forced to bet you would take the other side of the bet.


[ Parent ]
I'm trying to
find polling information on Virginia, but I can't seem to get anything that is recent. What are you looking at?

PPP is going to release polling information on Virginia soon, hopefully by the beginning of next week. That should give us a little bit more of a baseline to use for 2012.  

"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 ]
Polls now are useless
Space aliens might burst out of Gingrich's head a year from now for all we know.

The point though is the most likely Republican's to be nominated have no natural affinity to Virginia, and are all more unpopular or just as unpopular as Obama.

It's all basically a pointless exercise since we don't know who the GOP Prez candidate will be.  They are not interchangeable.  Pataki's impact on VA turnout versus Palin's impact are not a similar thing.

The bottom line though is crystal clear... there is no wildly popular GOP presidential candidate right now.


[ Parent ]
It's merely
one statistic in a sea of numbers that will come out in the next two years, but it's still revealing. If he's at a relatively healthy approval rating in the state despite being at what is probably a low point for his presidency, I'd feel a little better about 2012--just a little.  

"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 ]
Should be interesting
though making predictions for an election in 2012 while we are still in 2010 is foolhardy IMO.

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


[ Parent ]
You are incorrect, Obama got the same 53% in VA and nationally......
He won 53-47 in Virginia and 53-46 nationally.

Now, those are rounded off, and if you take those out a couple decimal places then yes, Obama did about a half-point better nationally than in Virginia.  But that's a trivial difference.

I agree as of today he's "not favored" in Virginia in a vacuum, but realistically it's impossible to peg his odds in 2012 without an accurate guess of what his job approvals will be or who the opponent will be.  His job approvals right now are still good enough to beat several Republicans who are frequently mentioned in the political media after full-blown campaigns, and he'd be a slam dunk to beat Palin or Gingrich.

I do think, after having looked at Cillizza's early-bird Top 10 Senate races for chances of flipping, that our Senate races are tied to Obama.  If Obama wins the likes of Virginia and Ohio, then Webb (or another competent Democrat) and Sherrod Brown win.  If Obama wins Massachusetts by at least 15, then Scott Brown might go down, and Obama by 20 means a Dem beats him almost for sure.  If Obama wins reelection, then we hold the Senate; if he loses, we lose the Senate.  The Presidential election will carry too much weight downballot not to matter.

We lost only 6 Senate seats in a bad wave.  It's going to be implausible for Republicans to pick up 4 more, "math" be damned, in a year that Obama is reelected.

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


[ Parent ]
I agree
If Obama wins reelection, Democrats likely hold the Senate.  Even if he doesnt, I could see Democrats holding the Senate just on the strength of incumbents, but with the decline of ticket splitting, it would be tough.

[ Parent ]
Far from that 23-10 thing being a liability
It helps Obama, and Obama's performance helps Dems.

In terms of rooting for Obama, I sure would rather have 23 Dem incumbents running that 23 Rep incumbents running.


[ Parent ]
^^^^^^This! Bingo! This is why the "math" is misleading......
It's a mistake to treat as the default that "defending" seats is a bad place to be.

What really matters is retirements.  If a bunch of those 23 retire, then yes it's tougher.  But even then it matters very much which ones retire.  Ben Nelson might be the cycle's Blanche Lincoln, DOA already (although I'm not willing to say that yet, it's way too early); if that's the case, his retirement doesn't matter too much.  Lieberman's retirement lets us get a more loyal liberal Democrat into the seat.  And so on.

But if our incumbents run for reelection, they're in the driver's seat as long as Obama's job approval gets above water and stays there.

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


[ Parent ]
Not necessarily
I agree with you that the senators' fortunes are going to be mostly tied to Obama.  It seems like most of our elections are becoming sort of "parliamentary."

But it's entirely going to be a matter of degree.  Obama is a lot less popular now than he was in 2008.  Of course it could change - but right now it's not unreasonable to at least suppose that the election could be close to 50/50 - like what we saw in 2000.

If Obama barely ekes out a win in 2012 by essentially rerunning the Kerry map from 2004 - plus VA and CO and NV - it's entirely possible that both Nelsons could lose, in addition to McCaskill, Tester, Brown and perhaps especially Manchin - because Reid and Obama are going to be no help that poor soul.

Also - while I think we both agree that Obama's and Senate Dems fates will be tied it's far from clear that Webb even still wants the job - or is willing to fight for it.  After all, it's pretty clear that Bennett and Reid hanging on were hardly foregone conclusions.  Even if it's just at the margins - candidate strength will still have some role to play.  That could be helpful to the GOP if they can give Ensign the boot - or if he sees the writing on the wall.


[ Parent ]
You have to remember these people's chances are shaped by what happens the next 2 years......
We had a bad election because we got the blame for the goings-on in the economy and in Congress the past 2 years.

The next 2 years, it's not our agenda that voters will judge; there won't be any cap-and-trade or "amnesty" or much else along the lines of liberal priorities.  That's going to help our incumbents, they're not going to have to defend much.  Whatever gets passed by definition will be bipartisan, through a GOP House and Dem Senate.

That's why I'm thinking the most likely 2012 result is status quo:  Obama reelected, Dems keep Senate, GOP keeps the House.

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


[ Parent ]
Allen
just barely lost in 2006. Even with Macaca, Webb only won by 0.4% If 2006 wasn't a bad year for Republicans, Allen would of won. As much as I love Periello, Allen would flatten him, though Periello would keep it in single digits though.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Why do you say that?
Is Allen really that popular in Virginia?  

"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 ]
FWIW, presuming it's a Webb/Allen rematch, I see a VA landscape like...
D - 37%
R - 35%
I - 28%

Allen - 12/93/54 = 52%
Webb - 88/7/46 = 48%

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


[ Parent ]
It's far too early to tell what the electorate will look like
At this point in 2008, the Democrats had just won 30 more seats and no one had any idea that they would lose all the seats that they had gained in one fell swoop.  Who knows what it will look like in 2012?  

[ Parent ]
Jim Webb and Harry Reid
1. I don't get it. He told the White House health care was going to be a disaster, but is that really manifested in exit polling? And are any of his other concerns about working class whites something that can't be dealt with by an improving labor market?

2. I really, really, really hope the Democrats devote a lot of time to studying just what Reid did. The results aren't exactly transferable to other states--my guess is, for instance, that Virginia and Missouri don't have exactly the same union presence as Nevada does--but the broader lessons of working early to define the opposition and turnm out a coalition of voters, whomever it is composed of, ring true.  

"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?


Re: He told the White House health care was going to be a disaster, but is that really manifested in exit polling?
Webb says that "the health care issue really took away a lot of the credibility of the new leadership - Obama particularly". That's kind of hard to measure - you can look at what the exit polls say about how Obama is viewed, but you can't know how that would have been different had health care reform not been pushed.

What the exit polls do tell us is that health care reform itself was not the unmitigated disaster Webb holds it to be. If anything, it seems like something a wash. The exit poll asked what Congress should do with the new health care law. Nationally, 48% was in favour of repealing it; but 47% either wanted to leave it as it is, or to actually expand it.

The latter camps combined outnumbered the proponents of repeal in a number of swing states: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Washington and Oregon. Those who favour repeal were in a majority in Ohio, West-Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada, though. But basically the voters split down roughly evenly on the question in most all of those states.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU


[ Parent ]
That's exactly what I think.
If anything, the problem, at least in the case of health care, was a communication problem. Would it have killed the Democrats to come up with a list, of ten to 15 items, that were in the health care bill that were popular (i.e. kids staying on parent's insurance until they are 26) and then force the Republicans to either (a) talk about why they would kill them or (b) why they should stay? Perhaps that would have blunted a lot of the attacks.  

"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 ]
Green shoots in economy to help us in 2012?......
I don't mean to derail, but given how central economic recovery is to our chances up and down the ballot in 2012, it's worth mentioning a few tea leaves of recent good news.  One, obviously, was the October jobs report which showed private sector job growth more than twice as big as experts had forecast.  Two, I've taken to following the Gallup daily track on several economic indicators, and a couple indicators that have been flat all year have been showing clear improvement more recently.  Gallup's underemployment measure has shown a very slow but clear decline over the past couple months, and the economic confidence index has sharply tacked upward the past couple weeks to a new high.  And the job creation index has suddently spiked, although that's still very recent and it's too soon to tell if it's part of a trend or just noise.

Still, if a real jobs recovery and confidence are starting to take off, it's going to be a boon for us in Senate races in 2012.  I don't think we'll get the House back, but I expect us to regain enough seats to climb back into the 200s almost no matter what (including redistricting).  But I regard the Senate and Obama's reelection prospects as tied to the hip, and both tied to the hip to the economy.  Even if unemployment ticks down only a tenth of a percent each month, as long as it does so consistently, people will feel better and get over their angry and scared selves.

Again, although I buried it in the above paragraph, I really think Obama's fate is centrally tied to Senate Dems' fate, after I look at what seats are up in 2012.  So we need a real recovery to save both.

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


MA-Sen
Going to be a very interesting cycle.

Half of me thinks Brown is going to lose by 20 points. Half of me thinks he has that Senate seat as long as he wants it.

One interesting, but true point made by Nevada Republicans is that the state gained by Harry Reid's disproportionate influence. So, even if you hated his guts, it might be worth it to keep the Senate leader onboard because he brings the bacon home.

That might hold true for Brown here. With an all D house, MA really lost out now that they have no members at all in the majority.


I don't think so
I don't see Brown "bringing the bacon home" for Massachusetts in the next couple of years. If Democrats nominate a decent person Brown should be in trouble.

[ Parent ]
Agree, and MA-Sen is "tossup" right of the gate......
A Republican in Massachusetts in a Presidential year can never be called anything better than a tossup to get reelected.

Nevada and Massachusetts are our top pickup opportunities.

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


[ Parent ]
I
think Maine will be a tossup as well. If Castle can lose then Snowe is very vulnerable.  

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

[ Parent ]
I can't imagine
that Snowe will run as a Republican. Is there any way she could win a Republican primary?

I bet she runs as an indie.


[ Parent ]
she'll win a Republican primary
If it's uncontested.  If LePage backs her early, his "say so" could have some heft.  But it will be interesting to see.

[ Parent ]
*I'd* win the Olympic giant slalom
if it's uncontested! ;-)

[ Parent ]
From what Snowe wrote in April of 09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...

Sounds like she aint leaving the GOP like Specter.

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


[ Parent ]
Snowe's loyalties to the GOP run deeper than Specter's
She has been a Republican her entire career, while Specter started and ended as a Democrat. Also, she is married to a former Republican Governor of Maine.

Snowe will run in the GOP primary, and if she wins, she'll coast to victory in the general. If she loses, this would become a likely D takeover, unless she pulls a Murkowski and runs as a write-in.

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


[ Parent ]
She'd win a write-in
and the legislature could change the the law to make it easier to count ballots for her.  Get it down to just needing to write in Snow and she'll get it.

[ Parent ]
Joe Miller has got to be the cockiest
candidate this cycle after winning the primary (this side of Coakley) ... tweeting about getting new office furniture. Seriously, this man was almost a Senator.  

[ Parent ]
I think she'll run as an indie,
while committing to caucus with Republicans. Her chance of winning a Republican primary, given the restless nature of Republicans activists in ME, are very small IMO.

[ Parent ]
Kerry?
I'm not sure if you just meant they have no one in the majority in the House, but with the Brown reference, I'm pretty sure you meant in total. John Kerry is in the majority.

23, Male, PA-05 (summer) PA-12 (winter)

[ Parent ]
What I mean is
Having nobody in the house might warn a few of the dangers of a complete 1 party delegation.

Kerry was never much of a bring home the bacon guy anyway, was he?


[ Parent ]
IA-01
Kind of got lost in the shuffle last week, but a Libertarian and an independent conservative candidate in IA-01 pulled more votes combined than Bruce Braley's margin over Republican Ben Lange. That has to sting for the Iowa GOP. Lange did carry Scott County (Quad Cities area), though.

NY-23
Anybody notice that Doug Hoffman blew the GOP's chances in NY-23 again?  Hoffman endorsed Doheny (R) but still appeared on the ballot on the Conservative line.  He got 6% of the vote.  His 6% plus Doheney's 46% would have put a unified (GOP + Conservative) candidate over the top.

[ Parent ]
mmmmmhhhhmmmm
Thanks again Doug Hoffman, he got us that seat twice in a row now.  Go for 2012!

[ Parent ]
They'll undoubtedly adjust the boundaries of that district now.
Thay way, we won't be reliant on Doug Hoffman to win again.

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


[ Parent ]
My guess is
areas like Madison Co., Fulton Co., Hamilton Co. etc will be removed and probably replaced by places like the remainder of Essex Co., maybe Utica. I wonder if Buerkle wins, would they go so far as to make a district stretching from Plattsburgh to Syracuse?

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 ]
still feel like OH-Gov and FL-Gov were winnable
It hurts.

FL yes, OH no......
Strickland's job approvals were in the ballpark of 40, not 50.  He outperformed his popularity by a bunch.  He was just like Corzine, although I think he was much more personally well-liked than Corzine was.

I really think Ohio really is a center-right state, much like Pennsylvania is a center-left state.  Either state can go either way in a top race, and by a significant margin to boot, but Ohio's reflex is simply more conservative than Pennsylvania's.  Combine that with a bad recession and a Governor with low job approvals, and you have an impossible situation.  And Kasich was an establishment Republican, very antiseptic, not some crazy teabagger.

Florida is a different matter, I think we had a bad candidate there who couldn't take advantage of the opportunity that was there.  Sink's foibles were overlooked once Scott won the GOP primary, but she still ran a very flawed campaign.

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


[ Parent ]
I don't know
if you would agree with me here, but you could view the governor's races as a type of worst-case scenario for the Democrats in Florida and Ohio. It was, generally speaking, a very bad year for them in both of those states, yet these candidates who, while not really being liked, weren't hated, managed to run the types of campaigns where they ended up very close. Obama will certainly have to work to win both of those states in 2012, but to me, the results of the races for governor say that all hope isn't lost--not by a long shot.  

"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 ]
Not "worst-case" scenario, but still proves your point......
The FL and OH Gov results show those states are purple and winnable.  So yeah Obama can win them with a good campaign.  But he needs an uptick in his job approvals and/or a weak GOP opponent.

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

[ Parent ]
Agreed.


"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 ]
Florida
I think was won until Sink looked at her Blackberry during the debate.

[ Parent ]
did that end up being really big news in FL?
I just read somewhere where she blames it all on the WH, it was all their fault I lost, blah blah blah.  Dayton managed to beat Emmer who was a pretty shit candidate and Dayton was labeled an extremist unlike Sink.

[ Parent ]
Front page
for 3 days, led the news.

It was a disaster.


[ Parent ]
Rep. Spencer Bachus comes right out and says it
"The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/...

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


Someone's
not getting a Christmas card from Palin this year....

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Honestly
I think that's a bit much.

NV and DE, yeah. I don't think that Norton was guaranteed to beat Bennet by any means; he ran a good campaign and its not like Ken Buck was a complete nutjob.

I'm not sure where the 4th seat even is.

The bigger question is whether control of the Senate realistically matters anymore.


[ Parent ]
If he beat
Buck by that small margin, a sane opponent like Norton would have rolled over him.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, all Norton would've had to do to win
would be to win a few more women than Buck did thanks to the whole rape case fiasco.

[ Parent ]
See that's what I'm not getting
I think there's a difference between having a couple out of the mainstream positions (ie abortion, which probably doesn't matter much in this kind of cycle), and being batshit bonafide crazy lady who can't pay her own mortgage.

As far as I can tell, Ken Buck is really conservative guy who went to an Ivy League school and became an ADA. He's not Christine O'donnell.

I watched a couple of Bennet's ads. It's the exact same ads that Sestak pulled against Toomey, and Sestak lost.


[ Parent ]
Bachus
Just shot up my list of favorite Republican house members.  

[ Parent ]
Olympia Snowe and Maine
Maine has 2 congressional districts. Is it possible to carve a Republican one out?

It probably lessens the chance Snowe gets primaried.


A Maine Gerrymander would also have presidential implications
Since Maine (along with Nebraska) splits its electoral votes by CD.

My favorite (though rather implausible) scenario:

Maine Republicans gerrymander themselves a seat. The 2012 GOP nominee runs strong in Northern New England, winning New Hampshire and Maine, but loses the D packed First CD.  In a close election, this is enough to give Obama the edge 270-268.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08


[ Parent ]
just by looking at the electoral map for 2008 and 2004
it doesnt seem very possible.

[ Parent ]
I think Maine requires a 2/3rds vote for any map
At least, that's what the RNC redistricting chart posted on Politico said. So even if a GOP seat was possible in Maine, it won't be happening.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

[ Parent ]
"Health issues"
More precisely, Rick Hill had Lasik surgery that didn't go well. It's interesting that in the photo in the Missoulian piece he's wearing glasses.

Could be reading glasses. I had Lasik and...
...it doesn't prevent you from needing reading glasses later in life.  My Lasik was a decade ago, and now my vision is starting to show signs of 40something aging and within a few years I'll need reading glasses.

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

[ Parent ]
20/20 lasik means you will need reading glasses
just like everybody else as you age.

With monovision Lasik you may avoid it, but that isn't a sure thing either.


[ Parent ]
RNC Redistricting document
From Politco

http://www.politico.com/static...

It's from the RNC but it gives a good rundown on each states redistricting process. I have not studied the list closely but they have Minnesota losing a seat.

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


Minnesota is on the edge
Last I saw Missouri was more likely to lose one than Minnesota--it's going to be a close call.

[ Parent ]
If Minnesota loses a seat . . .
I wonder if Peterson just retires.  He's been around a while and may not want to wonder around in the minority.  

[ Parent ]
Another thing I just noticed
The RNC has Minnesota with a Democratic governor. They should tell Emmer, it would save us all some time.

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

Can somebody explain...
how Kevin McCarthy ascended to the third-ranking position in the GOP leadership so quickly?

He was first elected only in 2006 -- how could there have been so many more senior members who just stepped out of the way?  

20, GOP, NH-02


He has been working very hard over the past cycle
With the Young Guns program and all, he's been on a bit of a fast track.

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

[ Parent ]
He's young,
has a safe Republican district, was state Senator in the minority in Sacramento for a term or two, his district lies in California, the district is full of people whose parents/grandparents migrated from the Southern Plains, and the district has working oil fields and lots of agribusiness.

Translation as best as I can tell: he has a bright future, he's always safe for reelection, he's become smart/unfooled/cutthroat/managerial on par with the better class of House Democrats (and unlike the bulk of Heartland Republican House Reps), he's acculturated to the national Republican demographics but not a believer in the mythology.  And behind closed doors he's very good pals with the oil company and Big Agribusiness CEOs.


[ Parent ]
Do Republicans now have a lock on the House?
Is there any way Democrats get back the House this decade?  I mean, Republicans will be drawing the district lines in most states and will be protecting all of these new members that Democrats would need to beat to have a chance at winning back the majority.  Boehner is probably king for the next decade.

Maybe Democrats can make a comeback next decade, but its not going to be any fun losing election after election this decade.  


That is the exact wrong assumption
California is redrawing districts by a non partisan commission.  While this would normally be BAD for a democratic state like CA which you would think has this place gerrymandered to all hell for the dems, the democratic party made some big gains in 2000 (5 seats), and decided to shore up their incumbents instead of try to siphon off from republican districts to make the GOP districts competitive. We essentially were left with a bipartisan gerrymander.  The only seat that has flipped since the redistricting (and I believe will be flipped, because I have a firm belief that McNerney and Costa will pull this off) was when Richard Pombo lost to McNerney in 2006.

Now that this bipartisan gerrymandering is over, that dam will now be demolished, and with CA's Bluening over the past 10 years, I suspect that Democrats will make a lot of gain in the CA congressional deligation

Same thing to a lesser extent will occur in Flordia, because new there are rules for redistricting.  The GOP badly gerrymandered FL in 2001, and now it will not be so.

Remember, California is the largest state in the union, and Florida is the 4th largest in the union.  These changes immensely help the dems

Then you have to take into account that most of the governorships and legislatures the GOP gained last tuesday were already states that they had last time around, they can't do too much to change what they did last time they gerrymandered.

ALSO, the Dems hold the trifecta in IL, which could mean some gerrymandering for dems, whereas last time, the GOP did the gerrymandering. Illinois is the 5th largest state in the union.

I think that 2012 will be good to us congressional wise, unless FL fucks up the ballot initiatives that were passed last week somehow (court cases and what not.)

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


[ Parent ]
CA and FL
I don't see the commission making radical changes, other than to undo a handful of the more egregious gerrymanders from last time.

The Democrats get their ~20 highly D seats in SF and LA, but most of the rest of the state is red or purple.

FL I don't see changing much because of the Voting Rights Act. The big problem the Democrats have that that FL-3, FL-11, and FL-23 are pretty damn ugly. But they have to be in order to be majority black. And once these 3 are in place, the entire res of the state outside of the Miami area becomes Republican favored. That includes the 2 new Orlando area districts.

The only ugly R district is FL-22 where Alan West is.  


[ Parent ]
You honestly think that Amendment 5&6 won't change anything?
Look at these districts!  THEY ARE DISGUSTING.

Angry face

Angry face

I expect the dems to pick up at least 2 or 3 districts in FL because of these changes.  That is a very conservative estimate mind you.

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


[ Parent ]
You know what needs to be done?
There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment to require that ALL states do their redistricting by nonpartisan commission.  That way, VRA will no longer be needed and we won't be puking at maps like this and Texas.

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


[ Parent ]
Hey man, I'm right here with ya
The two biggest problems in our politics are gerrymandering, and money.

nonpartisan commissions and only publicly financed campaigns would fix SO MANY PROBLEMS!

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


[ Parent ]
That wouldnt eliminate VRA


[ Parent ]
Bingo
Look at the top of the map.

Northern Florida doesn't have a concentration of African American voters to create a 50% black compact district.

In order to hit 50% black, you get FL-3. Plus that district is 10% under population and needs to grow in a haphazard way to well, remain 50% black.


[ Parent ]
Wasn't the main reason VRA was passed was to make sure that AAs weren't marginalized?
I mean, sure, the VRA helps us dems, because it pretty much guarantees us a seat, but if we take it out of the hands of the legislature, couldn't it be rationalized that in independent commission isn't subject to the peoples will, and therefor, wouldn't necessarily be subjected to the white majority within the state to be marginalized by?

Of course, this doesn't affect FL, because the legislature still has to make a make, it just won't be as egregious (hopefully)

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


[ Parent ]
Well
The voting rights act was passed to prevent states like Alabama from drawing 7 districts with tendrils into Mobile, yeah.

You can rationalize that FL-3 should should not have to be drawn that way, sure. But the law is the law and the VRA is still the law until its dumped.

Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

You can easily argue that FL-3, FL-11, FL-17, and FL-23 fit the last standard.

Is there going to be some territory shifted between R districts? Yeah.

Is it going to make a couple of them easier to pick off in wave years, ala FL-8? Probably.

But like I said, as long as FL-3 and FL-11 exist, and can exist according to the last clause of that law, the entire rest of the state outside of the southeast tip is going to be R leaning or even.

And on the south tip?

FL-18, FL-21, and FL-25 are all hispanic majority Republican districts here, that are boxed in by FL-23 and FL-17.

FL-19, FL-20, and FL-22 are ugly shaped Democratic districts that will become properly shaped Dem districts.


[ Parent ]
Disagree
Well, I agree that FL-03 as it's drawn now is a trainwreck, but I disagree that the commission will have to redraw it in a haphazard manner.

A Jacksonville-Tallahasse-Gadsden County-Gainesville District would be entirely contained within Northern Florida, make a decent amount of sense from a community of interest POV, and be a lot more compact. And if drawn right it can end up plurality or maybe even majority African-American. There's no reason at all that FL-03 has to go to Orlando. In fact, that would free up FL-08 to become a minority-majority Orange County district.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
There is no commission, though
The districts are still being drawn by a partisan supermajority Republican legislature.

I don't know if that district you describe ends up majority AA, or if they could substitute a plurality district into a majority AA district even if they wanted to.

Obviously, they don't.

I just looked up the numbers. Jacksonville is about 30% Democratic, Tallahassee about 34%, and Gainesville 23%. And it wouldn't be as compact as you claim, Jacksonville to Tallahassee is 157 miles.  


[ Parent ]
It's not clear to me how the new amendment
is enforceable against the FL legislature.

FWIW, Congress is free to totally Federalize the drawing of Congressional districts.  


[ Parent ]
Iowa does the same thing
I think this is one of those things that are under the 10th amendment, wheras the states can do whatever they want as long as the federal government doesn't force it to be a certain way.

In summation, redrawing congressional districts is a states duty.

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


[ Parent ]
This comment manages to get
almost everything wrong.

Second part first, Art. I, § 4.:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

As to the FL amendments, they are not not like Iowa's. They do not create independent commissions. Rather, the purport to set standards for the legislature to follow. To the extent they are enforceable at all, they will not do much of anything to curb the excesses of the Republican's next year.  


[ Parent ]
What I meant regarding Iowa
was that the state set restrictions on how congressional seats are drawn (hence taken out of the legislatures hands).

While I am somewhat skeptical on how effective Amendment 5 & 6 are, I believe that it will remove the horrid things like district 22, because that is OBVIOUSLY in violation of that amendment.

And I'm not arguing about the ability for congress to set rules on congressional redistricting, I simply said that the federal government hasn't said how the must be drawn, so it is left for the states do decide how these districts are to be drawn.

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


[ Parent ]
Most of them aren't that disgusting, no
Except for the majority minority ones and the ones that border those.

The only one that might be is the 10th, and the 22nd.


[ Parent ]
Plus
MI, for one, was a masterpiece in redistricting last time, so outdoing that will probably be hard.

[ Parent ]
No, they'll lose it back in 2012.
They're overextended.  They have A LOT of seats now that Obama won but flipped because of the sour year for Democrats and lowered turnout.  For example, they now have five seats in Pennsylvania alone that went for Obama.

Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio were already Republican gerrymanders.  Those were their best case maps.  Yeah, they might can shore up some of those gains, but their ability to do so is going to be severely limited.  Come 2012, many of those split districts are going to be flipped back to us.  

Plus, they've picked off most of our low-hanging fruit in terms of presidential leanings (GA-08, AL-02, TX-17, MS-01,04, ID-02, SD-AL, ND-AL, VA-09), so their ability to offset losses with gains is limited.  I counted something like twenty pickups for Democrats in 1996.  They were largely offset, though, with Republican gains in places like Alabama and Missouri.  With very few exceptions, they have nowhere to gain from.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


[ Parent ]
20 pickups would put Democrats at around 213 seats in 2012
That would mean Democrats would need just five seats to win back a majority in 2014.  That would depend on who is elected President.  If Obama is reelected, the economy in 2014 will likely be pretty good and we could see a 1998 type environment.  

[ Parent ]
It has the potential to be more than 20.
I wasn't using 20 has a prediction, but to illustrate that Democratic gains were largely offset by Republican gains, something that is less likely now.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Id like to think that 10 is the floor
Hopefully, there is no way Democrats can possibly lose more seats given the hole that they are in.  

[ Parent ]
What?
The GOP's gerrymander in Georgia was done to specifically knock out Barrow and Marshall.

You really think this is as good as they can do? Remember, we'll be getting another seat as well.

Look at all of the legislative chambers the GOP picked up across the country.

Anyway, here's something interesting from that FiveThirtyEight blog that was posted today.

"Republicans, meanwhile, will now hold 55 seats in which Mr. Obama carried a majority in 2008 - up from 28. But mostly, they're in places where Mr. Obama had only a slim majority. They'll hold only 14 seats in which Mr. Obama had at least 55 percent of the vote (up from 8 before). And they'll hold just one seat, the Illinois 10th congressional district, in which Mr. Obama got at least 60 percent of the vote (he received 61 percent there instead); this figure is actually down from 4 seats before."

We'll win some of them back, but it's far fetched to think they will not do what we were able to do, especially if moderates or independents start to lean R.


[ Parent ]
But moderates don't lean R
Even this year exit polling showed Democrats won 55% of self-described moderates, which was also the group that showed the biggest drop off from 2008 to 2010 in terms of turnout. Lots of moderate voters who backed Obama and Democrats in 2008 simply didn't vote for various reasons, they were disgruntled with the economy.  

[ Parent ]
Right
I didn't say they did.

"especially if moderates or independents start to lean R."

I guess I could have worded it better, but I meant if they began to, not that they are right now.


[ Parent ]
I guess this year proved the Democratic coalition
is dead. And will stay dead until African Americans are a majority of the population in that state.  

[ Parent ]
in Georgia I mean
with Deal's margin.

[ Parent ]
Not Really
There has been no real attempt at using the coalition, other than Barnes (and maybe Hodges, due to his South GA background).

There was not an effort by the DPG to rebuild the coalition.

Barnes could only do so much.

Just look at who's running for the leadership spots in the state legislature. No one even remotely considered to be a moderate.

If the DPG could put someone at the top that knows how to mix Rural Georgia with the metro area, there might be some success.

Instead, we'll have party insider after party insider utilizing the same strategy and ending up with the same result.

2012 will be a better indicator of the coalition. It'll be interesting because most counties will have local races up on the ballot. We'll see if the GOP finally tries to make inroads there.

If they do, then yes, the coalition is done with.

For now, there's still a chance it can be rebuilt.


[ Parent ]
Which specific
coalition are you referring to?

"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 ]
Augusta + Savanna plus Athens
plus Atlanta, along with rural southwestern and central Georgia allowing Democrats to win statewide. I think this coalition is dead and will be replaced by a new coalition in about 10-15 years of moderate, highly educated Atlanta suburbanites, plus minorities. I do think that within 10 years or so Democrats will start winning Cobb and Gwinnett on a regular basis.  

[ Parent ]
That makes sense.


"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 ]
There is a difference between moderates...
...and independents.  This year, self described independents went hard right, even as self described moderates preferred the Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Sure
That's why I said OR :)

[ Parent ]
Well post-Bush
a lot of people are really stringent conservatives and for all intensive purposes Republicans, now describe themselves as "independents".  

[ Parent ]
Republicans/conservatives
can tolerate 55-45 Democratic split among moderates. Once again - because there are substantially more conservatives then liberals ("progressives"). For Democrats to have a majority they need 60+% among moderates OR/AND very high (on level 2008) activity among young voters and minorities.

[ Parent ]
Georgia
Regarding Georgia, this is the best map they can get, I think.  I think it's damn near impossible for them to get a sustainable 11-3 or 10-4 map.  In Central and South Georgia, there is just too much contiguous (or near contiguous) Democratic turf.  Not to mention, most of that is black, so a court order requiring more VRA districts is a possibility.  Going after Bishop would potentially threaten Austin Scott, Kingston, and Westmoreland.  Going after Barrow means more Democratic turf for A. Scott, Kingston, and Broun.  

In Metro Atlanta, the Republicans' grip on Henry, Douglas, Rockdale, and Newton Counties is slipping if not gone; even Thurmond won Rockdale and all four were at most within single digits for Deal.  Plus, the Republicans are going to be having a Gwinnett problem very soon.  Chances are the current 7th will have to shed some of its more Republican areas due to growth (and to fill up Broun's district).  

Basically, there's a lot of areas in Metro Atlanta with growing Democratic strength and the Republicans are running out of places to put them.  D. Scott, Johnson, and Lewis' districts will have to contract, freeing up even more Democratic turf.  The ability for Gingrey or Graves to absorb it will be limited as those districts will contract, too.  So, I think there is a distinct probability that GA-14 will be blue.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


[ Parent ]
Georgia is one of the few states
Where minority districts match the population. There are three minority districts in Georgia and the state is about 25% black.  

In South Carolina, the new district should really be a minority majority district in the Charleston area simply based on population,.  

In Alabama and Louisiana, blacks are far underrepresented when compared to the population as a whole.

In Alabama, you could easily draw a Montgomery/black belt district that dips into Mobile while keeping the 7th district a district that includes most of Birminghman plus the black parts of Tuscaloosa.

In Louisiana, you could draw a district that connects Shrevesport with Baton Rouge.

It just boils my blood to see that African Americans are so underrepresented in these Southern states.  


[ Parent ]
Louisiana had a VRA district struck down
The shape was like a Z and was a thin strip around the state border, which connected many black populated areas, but it was too much even for a VRA district.

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

[ Parent ]
You could clean it up a bit
Its really not fair that in a state where African Americans are 33% of the population, they only get 17% of the Congressional seats.  

[ Parent ]
The Justice Department may mandate another VRA district
If they do, I'm sure the legislature could maneuver something out that the courts would approve of.  

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

[ Parent ]
I sure hope they do
Because African Americans are horribly underrepresented in the South.  

[ Parent ]
Re: Alabama
Either you've read my diary on creating another VRA district in Alabama or great minds think alike.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
District representation should match the state population
26% of Alabama's population is black, yet they only get 14% of the seats in the delegation.  Giving them two seats would give them 29% of the delegation, a much more equitable number.  


[ Parent ]
South Carolina?
South Carolina has 2 black representatives out of 6 right now. They aren't underrepresented.

You probably want to be really, really careful if you take this to the Roberts court.


[ Parent ]
Where were all of you claiming the Democrats were "overextended" in early 2009?
I recall a lot of people thinking that single digit losses for the Democrats were most likely. Even Nate Silver, generally seen as relatively unbiased in his predictions, claimed that Democrats were merely "somewhat more likely than not" to lose seats in the House in March 2009.

People were drawing "sustainable" New York maps of 27-1 or even 28-0 to the Democrats. Now, New York is a lot more Democratic than say PA. However, Upstate votes similarly to PA in Presidential elections. And yet, people thought that the then current 9-2 (and then 10-1) Democrat advantage could have been more or less sustained over the next decade.



[ Parent ]
I expressed my opinion more than once
a year ago that keeping everybody happy upstate was going to be a heavy lift.  

[ Parent ]
Pretty much, yes...
I don't expect we'll be able to compete until at least 2022, and that is assuming a good election in 2020.

[ Parent ]
That's looking ahead waaaaayyyy too far.
Just because they held the House for 12 years last time doesn't mean they will this time.

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


[ Parent ]
I think people on this site are over stressing about redistricting
yes it will lose us a few seats but it won't shut us out of the house. Calm down   already.

[ Parent ]
It's because many dont know enough about it yet ;)


[ Parent ]
which is why they should stick around
even with the election over.  The only thing we need to worry about in these states are now we'll get screwed with what seats are eliminated.  That's the only real damage that can be done in OH, PA, and MI.

[ Parent ]
RE: Michigan
Isn't MI a Democratic gerrymander right now? Why wouldn't the GOP be able to fuck over someone like Kildee in addition to eliminating Peters' district?

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
no
The GOP had the trifecta last time. We looked like we would have the Michigan House this time, but it didn't turn out that way.

[ Parent ]
It was a GOP gerrymander
Messing with Kildee's district could hurt Camp or Rogers.  I guess they could combine Peters and Levin, but adding heavily Democratic South Macomb to Candice Miller could hurt her.  

[ Parent ]
If that's true, Democrats should have thrown the 2008...
Presidential election.  

[ Parent ]
These are the same points
a commenter named Jacksby was making a couple weeks ago.

[ Parent ]
Purely
coincidental I'm sure.  

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

[ Parent ]
LordMike has been around for quite awhile and...
...I don't think is the same person.

But he is alarmist, yes, most frequently before now about Hispanics abandoning the Democratic Party.  But it's hard to continue that argument after we won Hispanics yet again 2-to-1 even in our most punishing wave election, and we can credit Hispanics for saving a couple Senate seats including our Majority Leader.

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


[ Parent ]
No, I'm not the same person.
I have no idea who that Jacksby guy really is, and I certainly would have NEVER advocated throwing the election like some trolls like him have suggested.  You take every win you can get and you pile on when you can.  Democratic wins are few and far between to somehow "strategically" take a pass... whic h is ridiculous to begin with.

I do admit that I'm a pessimist regarding our political future. Over the years, I've found that the GOP are like cockroaches--once they get in, one has a very hard time getting them out!

When you have someone like Zack Space (who was a great fit for his district) get stomped in OH-18, it makes you remember that the district was drawn to be republican forever, and it probably will stay that way, barring some very unlikely circumstances.  You can't win back congress without winning those types of districts, and I don't see how we can in the next 10 years.  The theory that the GOP will implode and we can win again is belied by the fact that the GOP is at the lowest favorability in a century, yet they still managed to win 65 seats.  How are you going to dislodge a gooper, when said gooper had a worse favorability rating than our guy and yet beat us by 15 points.  The bar is very low for the GOP  to win, and exceptionally high for us.

I'm not saying we can't get back a good chunk of seats...  Oberstar's seat.. Melissa Bean's seat... there's a fair number of seats that are easy takebacks.  But, we need a lot more than the dozen or so GOP overreaches to take back congress, and that's going to be very hard to do with redistricting and the collapse of our voter coalition everywhere but in the West and Northeast (now including New York State--ouch!!!)

As for the hispanic thing, I'm very happy to be wrong about that... However, it should be noted that the GOP in New Mexico and Texas had great hispanic support.  Perry won over 40% of hispanics and several GOP house members actually won the majority of the hispanic vote.  Yes, more liberal hispanics did not come out to vote in Texas, still it is a warning--hispanic voters will not be taken for granted and are more than happy to flip to a party that hates them if said party courts them enough (as Perry and the Texas/New Mexico GOP has).


[ Parent ]
Well,
when the only other viable option is the Republican party. Who knows what would have happened if there was a legitimate third party candidate in some of these races?

I wouldn't say the point is that we can easily take back most of the seats. Some? Yes, as you said, but not all. But wouldn't we have at worst a decent shot, assuming there wasn't a complete collapse in support for our side, in the majority of the districts in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and similar states? If nothing else, a greater turnout effort on our party could change the composition of the electorate.

"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 ]
Rick Perry won 38% of Hispanics
Brian Sandoval won 33% of Hispanics, Susana Martinez only won 38% of Hispanics (according to a cited Pew exit poll of New Mexico on Lawrence O'Donnell's show), and I have no idea where "several GOP house members actually won the majority of the hispanic vote" comes from or what that's even based on, but GOP Hispanics winning elections in Texas isn't proof that the GOP won a majority of Hispanics anywhere (especially in races that the Democrats had a Hispanic candidate).

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 ]
There's probably
a huge distinction between a Republican who can do relatively well with Hispanic voters in a particular state and one who could do that nationwide. I might get some crap for saying this, but there's a small yet vocal part of the Republican base that won't respond well to any sort of outreach to minorities. Maybe the Republicans could gain more voters by reaching out to them than they'd lose by trying to please this portion of the electorate, but that's a big if. You also have to imagine that any sort of bones thrown to the Nativist base of the party would alienate not just Hispanics but the sort of moderate swing voters who aren't voting purely on economic matters.  

"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 ]
Thank you. And I agree that it's dubious to say...
...Hispanic Republicans getting elected to local and state legislative seats in Texas means they won Hispanic votes.  Virtually all minority GOPers get elected with white votes from mostly-white districts.  There's the occasional exception like Canseco who beat Rodriguez in TX-22, but even there Canseco won mostly white votes.

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

[ Parent ]
I think you mean TX-23
I agree with you completely though, there's no way that Canseco could have only won by 5 points if he had won anything close to a majority of Hispanics (especially given that the Hispanic vote in that district was probably something close to 50% of the vote and that the white vote there is fairly conservative).

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 ]
Yah, 23, right, thanks. (nm)
nm

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

[ Parent ]
I
didn't think we were talking about LordMike.  

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

[ Parent ]
Generally speaking,
aren't these swing districts being redrawn into...swing districts? In other words, how can the Republicans draw safe districts, where they have a partisan say in the matter, for all of their incumbents while not giving anything to the Democrats?  

"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 ]
No
The two previous reactionary Republican initiative-winning or wave elections- 1994 and 2002- were defeated/reversed four years later.  I don't see why this one is any different.  These things burn out and backlash.

The Gingrich wave was ultimately all about attempted restoration of an older (1940s/50s) domestic social/cultural order.  The Bush wave was ultimately about an attempted restoration of an older (1960s/70s) international political order.  The present wave is essentially an attempt at restoration of an older (1970s/80s) domestic economic order.

Gerrymanders work until the opposition party musters about 53% (or a bit more) of the popular vote at that level in a state.  Then they break down even though technically the particular districts that do tip, shouldn't.  This seems true also at the level of the country as a whole.

There's a deeper bit, which is that the fundamental line between the Parties is the 'cultural' difference associated with the year 1968.  On the one side is a hierarchical, tribal/caste-based, post-colonial and corporatist, somewhat feudal/imperial, traditionally religious society.  On the other a Modern, egalitarian, social democratic, post-religious society.  The latter slowly gains over time as young people join on the one side and the Grim Reaper slowly diminishes the other.  

We have a demographic tipping from majority of the first group in the electorate to majority of the second sometime in the middle or end of this decade.  The reactionary waves we've had- 1968/72, 1980, 1994, 2001/02, and now 2010- are, to their fervent adherents, always counterrevolutions to crush and undo The Sixties and what politically emerged in 1968.  Must have been quite a revolution to cause at least five efforts to crush it in 42 years....



[ Parent ]
1994 was not reversed...
We regained a measly 9 seats in 1996... We clawed are way back to a 5 seat minority after 2000, only to see it washed away a couple of years later.

It took 12 years to reverse 1994, and then only as a result of a failed foreign war.


[ Parent ]
If there had been no 9/11, Democrats would have taken the House in 2002
Democrats have had generally bad luck for the last two decades.  

[ Parent ]
Actually we gained 22, but gave up 13 more of our own. That won't happen this time......
We now are down to 15 seats with GOP PVIs, while the GOP has 17 seats with Dem PVIs.

I'm confident we'll gain 10-15 in 2012 simply if Obama gets reelected, and that will help going forward.  If he doesn't, we have bigger problems than some marginal gain or loss of House seats.

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


[ Parent ]
2012 is actually our best shot
for several cycles IMO. Even if the new Congressional lines are drawn by Republicans, they will be new. That means that almost every member of Congress will face more new constituents than normal. On top of that, Presidential turnout.

[ Parent ]
Could be 2014
If Obama loses reelection, I would actual think that Democrats might even be favored to take back the House in 2014, assuming Democrats can pick up five or ten seats in 2012.  If he's reelected, it will probably take a lot longer.  

[ Parent ]
Not in terms of a House majority, true
but in political terms, the Gingrich Revolution was over with the de facto Republican electoral defeat in November 1998.  Gingrich resigned in late November 1998, realizing there wasn't a mandate for his policies/desires or will in his caucus for it.

That led to the Bob Livingston debacle, which led to Dennis Hastert.  And in December 1998 Tom DeLay got the impeachment vote through the House that Gingrich had recognized to be a political loser.  That led to the March 1999 removal vote in the Senate that failed, which ended in Henry Hyde standing on the Capitol steps telling the media horde that America was morally irrecoverable.  That was the death de facto of the Gingrich Revolution.  Bush/DeLay/Lott pulled the "compassionate conservative" con and used the Religious Right shamelessly, but they never seriously tried the Gingrich project of attempting to restore the social and religious order of the 1940s/1950s.

The backlash against the attempted removal and sense that the Republicans were expended/useless got Daschle the gain of five Democratic Senators in the 2000 election.


[ Parent ]
20 months ago smart people
like Chris Bowers were arguing there was a permanent Democratic Majority.

"Events, dear boy, events" said Harold McMillan, a British PM.  We are always assuming that tomorrow is a straight line from today.

It never is.


[ Parent ]
Sage advice
And it ought to be obvious to anyone who's been paying more than 18 months of attention to U.S. politics.  

[ Parent ]
DCCC
Cillizza says that Steve Israel (NY-02) has the inside track to becoming the next DCCC head.  I'm not particularly familiar with Israel's record, so I'll leave analysis to somebody that is.  I did find it interesting that Pelosi's team don't really trust Wasserman Schultz and friends, especially on top of the Florida endorsement fun from the '08 cycle.

Also the DSCC bit of that story is just another piece of "nobody wants it" to pile on. Seems like the Bennet talk around here might not be too far off though....

23, male, Democrat, IA-02 (previously CA-26, PA-06, CA-06)


How interesting.


"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 ]
Israel's probably the most conservative downstate NY Democrat
Not quite Blue Dog conservative, but he's a foreign policy hawk, plus his district is the lightest of blue (it's Rick Lazio's old district). Kerry won his district by 8 points, Obama by 13. I actually wouldn't mind Israel in this position...he can't be worse than Van Hollen.

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

[ Parent ]
Here's
a likely silly question. Could Jim Matheson make a race out of a Senate race vs. a random tea bagger who defeats Hatch for the R primary in 2012? Let's say Hatch is so mad he endorses Matheson and the R nominee has a lot of baggage, like Miller in AK. Is it completely insane for Matheson to win under these not implausible circumstances? Also the D nominee for Governor this year could potentially hold Matheson's CD. It would be hard but even if we lost it, a Senate seat would be great. Matheson probably wouldn't want to throw away a safe CD for a long shot Senate race, I know. Still fun to speculate though.  

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

Democrats need to keep as many House seats as possible
And no, I dont think Matheson or any other Democrat could win a Senate race in Utah.  

[ Parent ]
The only way Matheson would have a chance at a Senate seat
is in a terrible Republican midterm, against a terrible Republican candidate, with an unpopular Republican in the White House. And even then it'd still favor the Republican.

Also, Jason Chaffetz is going to run, he's been salivating over Hatch's Senate seat since the minute he got elected.


[ Parent ]
How do you this about Chaffetz?
Is nothing sacred to him?!

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


[ Parent ]
I
bet Chaffetz regrets not running this year.  

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

[ Parent ]
Not likely....

Utah gets a fourth CD for 2012.  If they're moderately sensible, what the Republican state legislature will do is create three safe Republican districts and make Salt Lake City a Democratic or D-leaning one.  Utah is at 62-65% Republican-voting and the number has been dropping 1% per year.  (Tick, tock.  Tick, tock.  The selfidentifying proportion of Mormons is also dropping 1% per year, btw, despite their birthrate.  Not good news for the Quiverfullers and other natalist fundies.) The bulk of the Democratic vote is in SLC, of course.

Matheson would be the logical choice for Rep for such an SLC district.  He'd be the most conservative Democrat Utah Republicans could realistically hope to see elected, and for Utah Democrats he'd have the advantages of a decade of experience and seniority.

I think he might be the one conservative Democrat who might survive as a Democrat past the '12 election- by fleeing into a liberal district.  


[ Parent ]
Four districts can split Salt Lake County into four equal quadrants
According to DRA, each would have about 250,000 people. I can't see why the Republicans wouldn't roll the bones and hope that Matheson gets knocked out in 2012.

[ Parent ]
Well I'd be baffled by such a move
Because they've tried everything they could to gerrymander him out. They radically changed his district in 2002 when he was just a first termer and he still held on, and his much more conservative district reelected him by double digits in the best Republican year in a long time. I don't really see what more they could do to get rid of him.  

[ Parent ]
He'd probably still win
They drew the worst possible district for him in 2002 by splitting SLC three ways.

[ Parent ]
Why would they bother giving him a safe district when they can keep trying to get rid of him?
It doesn't make sense to cede a district in a state that's overwhelmingly Republican. They can continue to dilute UT-02 without endangering their other Reps.

[ Parent ]
Well I think a lot SLC
people would bothered by that, including many Republicans. It would be seen as taking away SLC's ability to have representation by weighting it down in its suburbs which have different political interests. It would do a lot to drive the city further into the Democratic party and it would be a gross abuse of continuity of interests.  

[ Parent ]
Because Utah is ever less
"overwhelmingly Republican".  On trend it'll drop under 60% national Republican voting in 2012-2014, under 55% in perhaps 18.  A 4-0 Republican gerrymander is only worthwhile if it lasts some substantive period of time.

Utah Republicans can certainly gamble and try the 4-0.  But there's risk that they lose one or two seats in a wave.  The sensible strategy to maximize power and minimize risk is a 3-1.

There's a very strong outside perception that Utah is undoubtedly supermajority Mormon, Mormans have large families and are always outpopulating other groups, their children stay in the LDS with high frequency and loyalty, and Mormons are invariably Republican voting.

Ergo, Utah should be getting more Republican and more Mormon over time.  But in fact it's getting less of both.

For one thing, there's a lot of Gentile inmigration, mostly white professionals, particularly to SLC and the retirement cities near Las Vegas.  Secondly, people tell me that the proportion of ex-Mormons in Utah is a lot higher than outsiders think and is growing fast.  These reject Mormon Republicans and conservative politics along with the LDS.

Real LDS numbers aren't known outside the top leadership- the official numbers are fudged upwards at least as badly as the Southern Baptist ones used to be- but ex-Mormons looking into the matter make a fairly good case that more people in the U.S. leave the LDS these days than come in.  What growth the LDS has is in foreign countries.  The problem the LDS has with gay people is a lot of the reason- these days a gay family member often leads to whole nuclear and extended families walking out of the LDS over the course of a few years rather than the complete ostracism of the member that used to be the case.  New converts to the LDS have a short lifetime- retention rate after a year is neglegible.  (They come in for the attractive family life, but few can stomach all the other things they have to conform to or give up upon becoming full members.)

The people inside the LDS are increasingly hardcore adherents as the softcores slowly drift out and converts don't stay.  That combination is a recipe for internal hardening, infighting, and the piecemeal defection, exiling, and dropping out of the membership.  In short, it's looking like the spiral down process for the LDS has begun.


[ Parent ]
Here is an interesting tidbit regarding Orange County
Tom Torlakson, who has been a democrat in the State legislature for around 14 years, running for Superintendent of Public Instruction WON orange county (the whole county, not CDs, or LGs, the whole thing) 50.6%-49.6%.  This is interesting, because while both are democrats, it was suspected that GOP voters would get behind Aceves because he was more palatable than Torlakson, who had been a Sacramento Politician for so long.

Guess that wasn't the case.

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


Supe of Education is non-partisan so
there are no party labels in the race. I suspect that since the race was fairly close, most of the county were close as well.  

[ Parent ]
Re-elect numbers
Are re-elect numbers actually predictive of electoral success/failure?

It always seems like underdog candidates, particularly on the House side, will release internals that say things like "Congressman X's re-elect numbers are only 35%! He must be DOOMED!"

But in reality, the question on the ballot isn't "Would you re-elect your Senator or not?" In that case, I think we'd see a lot more attrition than we do in both chambers.

I just don't think re-elect numbers (or even job approval numbers) mean that much in the broader context of a campaign. Oh hey there, Sens. Reid and Bennet...

20, GOP, NH-02


Agree totally, reelect numbers don't say much......
Horse race numbers and favorables/job approvals tell the story, reelect is worth nothing in comparison.

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

[ Parent ]
Why isnt MN-GOV being called?
Dayton has clearly won and is 9000 votes ahead.  There is no way Emmer can make that up.

It's still within the margin necessary for an automatic recount
It's just a matter of whether Emmer's down for the costs of implementing it.

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

[ Parent ]
they have to legally do a recount
that will (hopefully) be done by mid-December.

[ Parent ]
Obviously
Dayton is going to be the next Governor but what are the chances that his swearing in get's delayed and Pawlenty rams through a bunch of right wing crap? On the bright side that amount of arrogance would kill Pawlenty's future chances in Minnesota politics. But it could help him if he runs for President.  

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

[ Parent ]
From reading the paper
the GOP legislature has zero interest in ramming stuff through to help T-Paw run for President.  They know not to overreach or their majority won't last.  Granted, this was a tea-bagger year so the majorities may be a bit more laden with right wingers than a normal GOP majority in MN.

[ Parent ]
What is that about?
How bizarre is it that he'd pretty much end his chances of winning in Minnesota in order to possibly, but not definitely, win voters in other states? The same could be said about Romney, except that it's pretty much a given they wouldn't even contest Massachusetts, whereas there are still some people thinking Pawlenty could have a chance to take Minnesota.  

"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 ]
Reminds Me
Norm Coleman was on Morning Joe or some other show recently talking about the MN Gubernatorial recount and the Senate recount from 2008.

He kept harping about how he won but then Franken won after the recount. He probably mentioned 5-6 times about how "I won and then after the recount the votes changed". His main argument was that the lawyers did it and whoever has the better legal team will win.

He seems very bitter.


[ Parent ]
Oh, nonsense.
If he had a case at all, he'd be a senator right now.  

"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 was just reading up on the top 2 primary that will be implemented next cylce in CA
And it severely dimished the ability for the GOP to eat their own catfud, but conversely, it helps dems throw fud into the GOPs field if the dems only have one candidate on the ballot.

Its and interesting dynamic that I wish could have proven itself in WA before being implemented here in CA.

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


Tom Jensen over at PPP
wants suggestions for Virginia & Montana.


28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

I'm very interested to see
the numbers for Obama in those states. This is probably one of the lowest points for his presidency so far, and while he's almost certainly not polling over 50 in either of those states, I wouldn't panic at anything unless it's truly horrendous. In fact, if it's at least 45 percent, I'd almost be comforted.  

"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 ]
PPP's job approval and favorability numbers are not worth anything......
For whatever reason, they give everyone the worst numbers.  Once in awhile they give good numbers to someone, but by and large they have everyone underwater.  And no other pollsters show that.

The exit polls showed Obama with much higher job approvals in state after state than PPP showed in those states.

Even Rasmussen always gave Obama higher job approvals in a lot of states, purple and even red states, than PPP showed.

So I really won't take PPP's job approvals for Obama seriously in VA or MT, except maybe to assume it's several points better than they say.

PPP's horse race numbers are much, much better, but for some reason they get it wrong on job approvals and favorables.  And as I mentioned, it's not just Obama, their numbers are bad for almost everyone.  I guarantee right now they'll show Tester and Webb underwater, and they might show all the Republicans they test underwater.

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


[ Parent ]
Who stands out to you as somebody who should be "overwater" but isn't?
And the exit polls didn't poll approvals...

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
A lot of people here seem to think that Stabenow in MI will be at least Lean Dem
PPP shows her favorables at 38/50 though. And the MIGOP has a pretty deep bench to run against her.

Candice Miller's been elected statewide twice and is a popular congresswoman in a safe district.

Mike Rogers REALLY wants to run and is well-liked in the state party.

Pete Hoekstra could conceivably come back to run. Terri Lynn Land has been elected statewide twice and has a natural west Michigan base from having been Kent County Clerk. In my dream race, L. Brooks Patterson (Oakland County Executive) goes for one last hurrah and crushes Stabenow. There are many options and I think that if MI looks to go R (or comes close, neither implausible if say Romney is the guy) in the Presidential race in 2012, Stabenow will fall by a few points.


[ Parent ]
She strikes me as 2012's Patty Murray...
In that while her approval probably isn't so hot (though not horrible either), there doesn't seem to be huge, Boxer/Reid/Feingold/Lincoln-esque enthusiasm to get rid of her. Plus, I think Obama will carry Michigan by at least 5 points, meaning, if worst comes to worst, she can ride his coattails to the finish line. Wayne County might just save her.

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

[ Parent ]
She certainly could be vulnerable.
And someone certainly worth watching.  But that said.  It's two years before the next election at a low point in the Obama presidency.  To use a counter-example right after Obama won there were folks talking about Isakson being vulnerable in George in 2010.  Now perhaps if you could've carried over the 2008 environment that was a possibility (even if not likely).  But two years is an eternity.  And things certainly changed.

Michigan has shown a consistent even if not always overwhelming Democratic lean at the national level for the last 20 years.  All things being equal Stabenow should be fine.  But of course things are never equal.

It's probably premature to venture a guess until the latter part of 2011 at the earliest.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
MI-Sen Stabenow challengers
the MIGOP has a pretty deep bench to run against her.

Deep, but not really solid.  I suppose part of that is term limits, but another part is the Republican party internal politics -- many moderates no longer feel welcome, and they can't get through enough primaries to be ready for statewide office.

I predict that the primary will be hard fought, but I expect it will be won by someone far less prominent, who will then go on to lose unless there is a wave to hurl him over the top.

Candice Miller's been elected statewide twice and is a popular congresswoman in a safe district.

She wanted to be governor, but settled for Congress because she realized she couldn't win.  Her negatives have faded, but I still wouldn't count on her winning the general even if she got through the primary undamaged -- which she probably wouldn't.

Mike Rogers REALLY wants to run

Then why hasn't he, yet?  2006 and 2008 were not good years to be a Republican, but it isn't clear that 2012 will be either.

That said, either he or McCotter are very real possibilities based on the fact that Michigan is losing a seat.  With another Republican map, they can probably both be protected, but ...

Pete Hoekstra could conceivably come back to run. Terri Lynn Land

Might as well throw in Cox too.  All also tried and failed to become governor in 2010.  That won't disqualify them, but I'm not sure the wounds will have healed.  (And of course, Bouchard could make yet another run.)

L. Brooks Patterson (Oakland County Executive) goes for one last hurrah

This might be a real threat, except, why would he do it now, if he didn't before?


[ Parent ]
The GOP may....
have a lot of options but none of them are great candidates.   I don't think Miller will run.  She has been mentioned for governor and senator for many years.  If she hasn't run already, I get the feeling she won't be running for higher office.

Rogers might be "well-liked in the state party" but it's another story when one looks at the state as a whole.  Most people probably don't even know who he is.

I would love to see Hoekstra run and defend why he voted for NAFTA.

Terri Lynn Land wasn't even able to get the support and funding to stay in the primary for governor.  

Romney is NOT strong in Michigan.  I'll never understand why people have this belief that the Romney name is gold in MI...it's not.  He won the 2008 primary by only 39%...meaning 61% of his own party thought he wasn't the best candidate.  His brother and former sister-in-law have also failed at their attempts for political office.  I can't see Romney getting the GOP nomination anyway.

If 2012 is like 2010, Stabenow will be in trouble.  If Snyder is a big disaster as governor (which I think he will be) and/or Obama does well, she'll be fine.  


[ Parent ]
The classic example I like to cite is...
...George Voinovich in OH.  PPP tested his job approval in an OH poll in the spring, and found him underwater.  That made no sense, and other polling confirmed Voinovich remained quite popular.  He is a mainstream, relatively moderate establishment Republican with a history of crossover support, and he did nothing to distinguish himself in a bad way the past couple years.  And he announced his retirement early, meaning there was no reason for anyone to turn their ire against him, as he was leaving office after this Congress anyway.

There are others, plenty of others, but ultimately that's the example I considered shark-jumping when I saw it last spring.

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


[ Parent ]
Really?
SurveyUSA has his approval underwater at  -5.  

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
I had not seen that...from when? Quinnipiac and others...
...had Voinovich in positive territory on the occasions they've tested his numbers.  He didn't get tested a lot since he was retiring, but when tested, he was above-water in live caller polls--which frankly I'm concluding are generally better than robopolls.

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

[ Parent ]
OK, just looked it up on Pollster...
...and sure enough, there's a sharp divide between Q-poll and robopollers, mostly PPP.

Q had Voinovich well into positive territory at all times, the most recent at 48-31 job approval in late June.  A PPP poll overlapping with that Q poll had Voinovich at 21-48 job approval--a stunning difference.  There was a RV vs. LV distinction, but that doesn't explain that massive a divergence.  More generally Q always had Voinovich positive, and PPP and SUSA (polled his job approval only twice) always negative.

On favorability there is hardly any data, but Suffolk had him positive at 39-33 with high undecideds in early October.  You have to go back to 2008 for anything else.

I just don't buy PPP or SUSA on Voinovich's job approvals.  They don't pass the laugh test.  There's nothing about Voinovich to have made him unpopular the past year, as he's a retiring Republican, getting no criticism from anyone at all in what is a good Republican year.

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


[ Parent ]
Well, as you said,
you can assume that the numbers they show are probably several points less for Obama than they actually are. It's a very blunt way to look at the situation, but if PPP has him at 42 in Virginia, wouldn't that almost be a reason to be optimistic, because he's probably closer to 50?  

"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 ]
assorted
1) Think that Jim McGovern would be down with challenging Scott Brown in 2012? It would make the whole redistricting one person's seat away from them easier to put Worcester and Springfield in the same district (hey, we need exciting primaries for when Neal retires!).. probably creating an open New Bedford/Fall River district.. giving Barney Frank a normal district (Newton/Brockton/Taunton).. and coincidentally making a Capuano/Lynch primary in a Boston/Cambridge/Somerville district. Really, the whole division of Southeast Massachusetts thing is a bit ridiculous and even if it means pairing two Dems, having an open seat there would undercut some of Scott Brown's appeal in that area.

2) When it comes to the future prospects of Dina Titus, who draws the map when Sandoval vetoes the map and they can't figure it out? Just curious since hopefully the parts of Clark County in the 4th will be Republican to make the 3rd bluer. And I don't see the benefit of a Hispanic majority district in Nevada either.


I don't think McGovern would do it
He's set to be the top Democrat on the Rules committee when Louise Slaughter retires (which could be any time now.) Also, it's hard for a Democrat not from Eastern MA to win a primary, especially when at least one Boston-area candidate (Capuano) would be in the mix.

Also, I hope that Worcester and Springfield are never put in the same district. Central Mass, anchored by Worcester, is a completely different animal from Western Mass, and people don't like to hear them lumped together as "everything west of Framingham." Ideally, all of Worcester County would be united into one district, but most folks here would prefer the current Worcester to Fall River configuration than to be combined with Springfield.

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


[ Parent ]
Mancihin slams down rumors of him switching...
And the GOP claims an offer was never made:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-...

"Joe Manchin is a lifelong Democrat, and he is not switching parties. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington - individuals try to put politics before our nation," said Melvin Smith, a spokesman in the governor's office. "Joe Manchin wants to go to Washington to encourage Members of Congress to stop partisan bickering and start putting our nation's needs at the forefront."



No surprise.
Never trust Fox News.  

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

[ Parent ]
WA-02 called for Larsen?
NYT just switched it to dark blue.

Vidak's lead down to 145 votes
http://www.kmjnow.com/pages/la...

Fresno will count more ballots on Wednesday, which will probably put Costa ahead.


Democrats should thank god for the incumbent protection map in CA
It looks like Democrats may come out of California without a single seat lost.  

[ Parent ]
That's really not due to any map...
Democrats kicked ass in California - both up and down the ticket.

[ Parent ]
That is what I have been trying to say all along.
This incumbent protection was meant to solidify our 5 seats gained in 2000 plus protect the disgraced Gary Condit's seat (now held by Dennis Cardoza). Looks like it worked.

And we came out with zero losses in the state legislature (and in fact one Dem gain in the Assembly).

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


by: ca