Obama beat McCain 61%-37% in California, performing 7% better than Kerry in his 54%-44% win over Bush. Here are the county-by-county percentages for Kerry and Obama and the difference between those percentages. Counties that flipped from Bush to Obama are bolded.
County
Kerry
Obama
Diff
County
Kerry
Obama
Diff
County
Kerry
Obama
Diff
County
Kerry
Obama
Diff
Alameda
75.2%
78.8%
3.6%
Kings
33.8%
42.1%
8.3%
Placer
36.3%
43.4%
7.1%
Shasta
31.4%
36.0%
4.6%
Alpine
53.3%
61.0%
7.7%
Lake
53.2%
58.2%
5.0%
Plumas
36.9%
42.8%
5.9%
Sierra
33.2%
37.4%
4.2%
Amador
36.6%
41.6%
5.0%
Lassen
27.6%
31.5%
3.9%
Riverside
41.1%
50.3%
9.2%
Siskiyou
37.8%
43.3%
5.5%
Butte
44.2%
49.9%
5.7%
Los Angeles
63.2%
69.2%
6.0%
Sacramento
49.6%
58.5%
8.9%
Solano
57.2%
63.5%
6.3%
Calaveras
37.1%
42.2%
5.1%
Madera
34.8%
42.4%
7.6%
San Benito
52.7%
60.5%
7.8%
Sonoma
67.2%
73.7%
6.5%
Colusa
31.6%
40.0%
8.4%
Marin
73.3%
78.0%
4.7%
San Bernardino
43.6%
52.1%
8.5%
Stanislaus
40.4%
49.9%
9.5%
Contra Costa
62.3%
68.0%
5.7%
Mariposa
37.6%
42.5%
4.9%
San Diego
46.4%
54.2%
7.8%
Sutter
31.9%
40.8%
8.9%
Del Norte
41.4%
45.4%
4.0%
Mendocino
63.5%
69.6%
6.1%
San Francisco
83.1%
84.2%
1.1%
Tehama
32.1%
36.7%
4.6%
El Dorado
37.4%
43.7%
6.3%
Merced
42.3%
53.4%
11.1%
San Joaquin
45.9%
54.5%
8.6%
Trinity
42.8%
50.8%
8.0%
Fresno
41.7%
50.3%
8.6%
Modoc
25.8%
29.8%
4.0%
San Luis Obispo
45.6%
51.4%
5.8%
Tulare
32.9%
41.5%
8.6%
Glenn
31.7%
37.8%
6.1%
Mono
49.3%
55.6%
6.3%
San Mateo
69.5%
73.5%
4.0%
Tuolumne
38.6%
42.5%
3.9%
Humboldt
57.7%
62.3%
4.6%
Monterey
60.4%
68.2%
7.8%
Santa Barbara
53.2%
60.4%
7.2%
Ventura
47.6%
55.3%
7.7%
Imperial
52.5%
62.3%
9.8%
Napa
59.5%
65.2%
5.7%
Santa Clara
64.0%
69.5%
5.5%
Yolo
59.4%
67.1%
7.7%
Inyo
38.9%
43.9%
5.0%
Nevada
45.0%
51.5%
6.5%
Santa Cruz
73.0%
77.5%
4.5%
Yuba
31.6%
41.5%
9.9%
Kern
32.6%
40.2%
7.6%
Orange
39.0%
47.7%
8.7%
As you can see, a lot of the counties that showed the most improvement from 2004, including a lot of those that flipped, are in the areas of the state that experienced the fastest growth this decade. This is good news for us heading into the 2010 elections, because a lot of congressional and state legislative seats in these areas are ripe for the picking. This is also good news for redistricting, as the rapid growth of Democratic numbers gives the Democrats more room overall and allows for further gains by them.
You can also see that the counties in the multi-county Democratic stronghold of the Bay Area showed smaller Democratic growth numbers. This does not exactly mean that the region is trending Republican; rather, it has just pretty much maxed out its Democratic numbers. So just relying on our old strongholds in the Bay Area and L.A. County only takes us so far, and I am pleased to see the improvements in the fast-growing counties, which allow us to expand our playing field greatly.
Check below the flip for the juicy details on the numbers by districts.
Texas went for McCain, big whoop. But the real story is in the margins. George W. Bush carried Texas over John Kerry by a 61%-38% margin. Four years later John McCain has carried the Lone Star state by a comparatively weak 55%-44%. The gap has shrunk by 12% points in the democrats favor.
Here's the quick scorecard post election day:
US Senate: Cornyn 55%-43%, no change
US House: Dems - 1 for 20 R - 12 D
State Senate: Dems +1 for 18 R - 12 D and 1 outstanding (R defense)
State House: Dems +3 for 75 R - 74 D and 1 outstanding (R defense)
Dallas County moves to hard democratic, from weak democratic
Harris County (Houston) emerges as a purple county from solid republican
Tarrant County (Fort Worth) reflects the state as a whole
Bexar County (San Antonio) has a slight democratic lean
Travis County (Austin) is a liberal bastion of democrats
Want to help defeat conservatism right in the heart of Red America? How about Alabama, Heart of Dixie, where 29 year old attorney Josh Segall is the latest addition to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. If elected, Segall won't be just another Blue Dog Democrat -- he's a true progressive, a better Democrat in a place where merely more Democrats would be welcome.
The Democratic party can and should take back Alabama's 3rd District this year. The seat was held by a Democrat from 1875 until the 1996 election when Glen Browder retired and (now governor) Bob Riley won election to Congress as a moderate Republican. It was an open seat in 2002, a terrible year for Southern Democrats. The DCCC pulled out of the race late and Joe Turnham was completely off the air for a full two weeks before election day. He lost by only 3800 votes. It's kind of poetic justice that the DCCC is stepping in to help Segall -- late, but not too late to make a critical difference in the race.
Dr. Bill Durston, a progressive Democrat running for Congress in California's 3rd Congressional District has just released a poll that shows that he is in a dead heat against the Republican incumbent, Dan Lungren.
We've just received great news from a poll of 500 likely voters conducted by the respected polling firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, and Associates. Dr. Bill Durston is in a statistical dead heat with Dan Lungren in California's 3rd Congressional District!
When voters were asked who they would vote for if they were to vote today, 33% chose Lungren, 30%, chose Bill, 7% chose another candidate, and 30% were undecided. With a margin of error of 4%, the differences between Bill and Lungren were not statistically significant.
After hearing a positive profile about both Lungren and Bill, the tallies were even closer - 39% for Lungren and 38% for Bill. After hearing about some of Lungren's many shortcomings, including his Hawaii vacation paid for by special interests, his allegiance to the Bush-Cheney administration, and his fondness for taking money from Big Oil, voters chose Bill over Lungren by a margin of 43% to 34%, a difference which is highly statistically significant.
This news should bring more attention to the race for this seat. David Dayen from the Calitics blog wrote:
This could be a good time for outside groups to jump in. CA-03 is one of those under-the-radar seats nationwide that is very, very winnable, and a late push could easily put Durston over the top. Furthermore, he's a solid progressive Democrat who supports single-payer.
Once the voters of the 3rd Congressional District learn that Dr. Bill Durston is a decorated Marine combat Vietnam veteran and an emergency room physician, who has served both the country and his community, they will vote for him. They are even more likely to vote for Bill when they learn that their current Representative, career politician and carpet-bagger Dan Lungren, cares more about the big money corporate special interests than he does about the people of his district.
Hopefully, once the voters hear about some of Lungren's shortcomings, Durston will take the lead.
With your help, we will prove the politicos wrong and put Bill Durston into office!
Securing the votes in Congress to pass real immigration solutions into law isn't going to be easy. The next President - no matter who wins - will need to lead his own party first to get it done.
Why doesn't the DCCC put out ads against all 3 Florida Congressmen? The Orlando market covers Districts 7, 8 and 24, so they would kill three birds with one ad.
According to the NRCC, no Republican District is safe this year. All three Florida Congressmen are corrupt, so let's kick them all out this year.
I am not sure if this has already been posted, but it is a story that should interest everyone. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (a prominent Democratic outfit) just released a poll they conducted of the 45 most competitive GOP-controlled districts (as defined by them), and the poll shows that Democratic challengers lead 50-to-43.
The survey was conducted of 1,600 likely voters from May 19-26. Very interestingly, the firm did a similar poll four months ago which found Democrats trailing by one point. This change certainly shows substantial move towards Democrats as we get closer to November.
Before doing their poll, CQR decided on what they believed were the top 45 most competitive districts currently in GOP hands (I will go over those below), and then chopped them into a first tier and a second tier. In the first tier districts, Democrats held a healthy 51-to-42 lead. Perhaps even more interesting, in the second tier races, Democrats lead 48-to-45 percent.
According to the poll, Bush is weighing down many GOP candidates, as his approval rating in these 45 districts -- many of them red districts -- stands at 33 percent.
When named in individually-polled districts, the GOP incumbents received an average approval rating of 38 percent. Democrats polled 17 points ahead of the GOP on the issue of the economy, and 11 points higher on the war in Iraq. Republicans polled three points higher than Dems on the issue of handling illegal immigration.
The poll found that Dems hold a five-point advantage on current party ID, and edge the GOP with independents by a slim 43-to-41.
Perhaps most troubling is that in these districts, Obama and McCain are tied 47-to-47.
Here are the districts included in the poll, broken up by tier:
Keep in mind, these districts were chosen not just based on our chances of winning them, but also on their breakdown (i.e. PVI index). So, while we may have a mediocre opponent in a district, in a vacuum it can still be considered Tier One.
While they hit all the close ones, at the outset you can probably pick a bit at some of these selections. CA-04, MO-06, OH-02, WV-02, WY-AL and probably NC-08 should all be in the second tier as they are fairly strong GOP strongholds and not that close to going blue in the long haul. While we will not win PA-06, it should be on in the poll as the district is winnable, we just did not recruit a top person.
In Tier Two, we could argue this, but in my opinion, as it stands now, ID-01, IL-18, VA-10 and probably MD-01 should be Tier Three districts. You could argue OH-01 being in Tier One. While NY-26, NY-29, WA-08 and probably CO-04 should be Tier One in terms of flipping, the districts themselves are Tier Two districts. While we will not win these two this cycle, NJ-02 and OH-14 are certainly competitive for us, we just have crummy opponents for them. (Incidentally, we need to target these two hard in 2010).
On balance, this poll is fascinating and I think they did a good job in bracketing the districts by current race and general character. Clearly, the GOP brand, even in pretty red districts is badly damaged (like we didn't know that already), and the Democrats have a spectacular opportunity this November. Heck, even if a handful of these districts are a little poorly-organized by tier, the fact that we are ahead nine points in Tier One -- which includes several really red districts like MO-06, OH-02, WV-02, and WY-AL bodes very well for us. Ditto Tier Two.
Obviously that Obama-McCain head-to-head is very troubling, but Obama has a lot of time to get and there and make his case to the independent voters in these swing districts. I like his chances, as it stands.
You can take this poll with a bit of salt because it is from a Democratic pollster. Also, with an overall sample size of 1,600, divided by 45 districts, that comes out to an average of just under 36 voters per district -- hardly a large sample.
Yet, while I will not look at this poll as gospel, I think the overall numbers we get are promising and show that at the very least, we have much better strength then the GOP going into November, even in red-leaning districts. If this poll is accurate, a 25+ seat gain is possible.
Rice followed a unique path to politics, winning a state senate seat after graduating from Harvard Divinity School, doing humanitarian work in Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, and working with nonprofits such as the Texas Faith Network and the Red River Democracy Project. After losing his brother David, who worked in the South Tower of the World Trade Center, on 9/11, Andrew became an advocate for open government and policy reform. Along with other 9/11 victims' families, he helped push for the formation of the 9/11 Commission and opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.
Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump... and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether "yes" or whether "no" on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the "new orthodoxy" on trade:
We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.
Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his "policy space" approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:
Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are "right" or "fair." That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.
And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:
* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling - they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.
*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something - this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.
*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote - no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.
So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.
(And so it begins. This is just a taste of what will be in store for many of our freshman class over the next two years. We need to be prepared to weather this storm and push back aggressively. On another note, it's pretty interesting that the NRCC would hone their attack on the subject of immigration, considering that it's next to impossible to find a race where that "hot button" issue gave the Republicans a decisive assist--with the exception of the CA-50 run-off, perhaps.
Update: It's also possible this this mailer was a holdover from November that somehow got "stuck" in the mail. Stranger things have happened. I'd keep your eyes peeled on the FEC's independent expenditure page to see if the NRCC reports spending any money in this district. - promoted by James L.)
UPDATE: This story has now been picked up by the largest newspaper in CA-11, the Contra Costa Times.
Last Thursday, Jerry McNerney took the oath of office as a member of the 110th Congress. A scant five days later, with what must surely be unprecedented speed, the NRCC has sent out its first anti-McNerney campaign mailers of the 2008 election to voters in CA-11.
