Author: JonathanMN

After seeing a lot of people predict that Ben Nelson and Scott Brown will lose because of their states’ respective presidential voting patterns, I was reminded of a section of one of my political science textbooks from last semester. In Chapter 6 of The Politics of Congressional Elections, the author, Gary Jacobson, details the events leading up to each set of congressional elections from 1980 to 2006 as well as the overall results. One thing I found particularly interesting at the time was that the percentage of Senate seats won by the party of the presidential candidate that also won that state has been on the rise over the past decade. Here are the relevant passages from page 218-219 of the book:

The same trend toward greater consistency in voting for president and U.S. representative in 2004 (Figure 6-3) appeared in Senate elections as well, resulting in a four-seat addition to the Republicans’ Senate majority. . . The Democrat’s main problem was again structural. They had to compete with the more-efficient distribution of Republican voters. Although Gore had won the national vote in 2000, Bush carried thirty of the fifty states, including twenty-two of the thirty-four states with Senate contests in 2004. Democrats had to defend ten seats in states Bush had won, including five left open by retirements, all in the South, where support for Democrats has been eroding for several decades. Meanwhile, Republicans were defending only three seats in states won by Gore. . . Seven of the eight Senate seats that changed party hands in 2004 went to the party that won the state in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections; Salazar’s victory was the lone exception. . . More generally, twenty-seven of the thirty-four Senate contests were won by the party whose presidential candidate won the state’s electoral votes, tying 1964 for the highest level of congruence in president-Senate election results in the past half century. When the 2004 winners were added to the continuing Senate membership, fully 75 percent of Senators represented states where their party’s candidate won the most recent presidential election, the highest proportion in at least fifty years.

So what does this mean for the parties going into 2012. More below the fold.

In 2012, Democrats have 23 Senate seats up for election. These are listed below and the states in bold were won by McCain in 2008.

Democratic-Held Senate Seats

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

In contrast, Republicans only have 10 seats up in 2012. These are listed below and the states in bold were won by Obama in 2008.

Republican-Held Senate Seats

Arizona

Indiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Nevada

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Wyoming

So right away you can see that each party holds Senate seats that would tend to go to the opposite party given normal conditions. Republicans should win Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and West Virginia while Democrats should pick-up Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. That works out to +1 R even after removing West Virginia and Indiana which are not likely to flip unless something dramatic happens such as Lugar losing to a Tea Party challenger in the primary. Maine is harder to judge, though I predict Snowe would win if she survives a primary challenge, bumping Republicans to +2.

One problem with this analysis is that it is based on the results of the 2008 elections because I can’t see the future and tell you who will win each state in 2012. Some speculation is possible though based on the results from 2008 and recent polls. The only Republican-held seat won by McCain that Obama has a realistic chance of winning is Arizona which he lost by 8.5%. Arguments can be made for Texas or maybe Tennessee but that’s unlikely barring a Regan vs. Mondale type wave. Obama also has a chance at winning Missouri (lost by 0.13%), Montana (lost by 2.38%), and North Dakota (lost by 8.65%) which would increase the chances of holding these Democratic Senate seats.

The Republican presidential candidate could win states with Democratic-held seats in Virginia (lost by 6.3%), Florida (lost by 2.81%) and Ohio (lost by 4.58%). Other states that seem less likely to flip right now but could depending on the environment include Pennsylvania (lost by 10.31%) and Michigan (lost by 16.44%). States that McCain lost last time but may be won by the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 include Indiana (lost by 1.03%) and possibly Nevada (lost by 12.49%). Winning back these states would increase the chance that Republican incumbents could hold their seats.

So where does all of this leave us? Here are three scenarios.

1. Obama wins all of his 2008 states and most Senate seats go with the presidential winner that state – R+1 or 2

Democrats pickup Massachusetts and Nevada, possibly Maine, and fail to pickup Indiana.

Republicans pickup Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota and fail to pickup West Virginia.

2. Obama improves on his 2008 map and most Senate seats go with the presidential winner in that state – D+2 or 3

Democrats pickup 4 or 5 of Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada.

Republicans pickup Nebraska and North Dakota and fail to pickup West Virginia.

3. Obama does worse than his 2008 map and most Senate seats go wi the presidential winner in that state – R+2 to 8

Democrats pickup 0 to 2 of Massachusetts and Nevada and fail to pick up Maine.

Republicans pickup 4 to 8 of Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Senate Democrats’ best chance at keeping their majority involves Obama expanding the playing field and it appears this is the plan after Charlotte was chosen to be the site of the DNC. With the continued polarization of electorate, it may not be possible for vulnerable senators like Tester, McCaskill, Webb, and Brown to localize the election in hopes of drawing crossover support. This could certainly help their chances but the trends over the last decade indicate that their electoral survival depends heavily on the President.

Well, seeing as how I just finished a short research paper on Minnesota congressional districts for one of my classes, I thought it would be a good idea to give the diary thing a try before I get too busy with finals. This is the first in a series of Minnesota maps, some possible and others, unfortunately not. The first map is below:

My goal with this map was to predict the outcome of the redistricting process given the current situation – Republican legislature and Democratic governor. I assumed that Minnesota will keep its eigth seat becasue new estimates suggest that will happen and Minnesota had a very high census response rate. I may have been too optimistic by drawing Craavack out of the 8th (God I hope that happens) but if that were to happen to anyone, it would be him since he has the least seniority and influence. Close ups of the districts are below. In some of the close ups, green represents new additions to the district and purple/pink represents areas that were lost.

First District – Blue – Walz (DFL)

Likely DFL

The 1st remains largely unchanged, picking up Sibley county (53-30 Emmer, 58-39 McCain) and small pieces of Le Sueur, McLeod, Goodhue for population balance. This new district voted 40-46-13 Dayton/Emmer/Horner but reelected Tim Walz. Obama would likely have one this district in 2008 as well since very little has changed.

Second District – Green – Kline (R)

Safe R

Not much happens to Rep. Kline’s southern suburbs district either. It pulls out of Washington and Carver counties to make way for the urban districts to expand. It takes West St. Paul back from the fourth to preserve county lines and gives up a few precints on the southern edge for population balance. Emmer won this district 38-49-19 as well as McCain. The new Chariman of the Education and Labor Committee won’t have a problem holding this.

Third District – Purple – Paulsen (R)

Likely R

Hennepin County has lost some population and so Paulsen’s district has to expand outward. It picks of Carver County and a small part of Anoka County that used to be in the fifth district. This district currently has a PVI of D+0 but the expansion into Carver County (57-42 McCain, 28-58-13 Emmer) it becomes more Republican. This may be winnable for a moderate Democrat in a good year but otherwise, Paulsen should be safe.

Fourth District – Red – McCullom (DFL)

Safe DFL

This district gives its part of Dakota County back to the second district and picks up the southern half of Washington County. I wanted to add all of Washington so that Bachmann’s home would be here but that isn’t realistic to expect the Republican legislature to agree to that. It may happen if the courts draw the lines and only pay attention to population but that is unlikely. This district is currently D+13. It may have dropped slightly in this map with the addition of part of Washington County but not significantly.

Fifth District (College) – Yellow – Ellison (DFL)

Safe DFL

There isn’t much to see here. The fifth district gives up the little piece of Anoka County (Fridley and Columbia Heigths) and picks up a slightly bigger piece (population wise atleast) in the southwest inner suburbs (Edina). This district is currently D+23 and probably would stay that way.

Sixth District – Teal – Bachmann (R)

Likely R with Bachmann, Safe R with anyone else

Bachmann’s district undergoes the biggest changes. The sixth district trades Sherburne and part of Stearns (St. Cloud, home of Tarryl Clark)for Isanti and Chisago (Chip Cravaack’s home). It also picks up Meeker County and small parts of Anoka, Washington, and McLeod while giving up part of Washington to McCullom. With the loss of St. Cloud and the addition of Meeker, this district becomes more Republican. Since Bachmann is so crazy, this may be likely R with a great DFL candidate and a good year. This would definitely be safe with any other Republican. Cravaack also lives in this district but would Bachmann would easily defeat him at the district convention or primary.

Seventh District – Grey – Peterson (DFL)

Safe DFL with Peterson, Lean R when open

This district is mostly the same with just few changes in central Minnesota. It picks up the rest of Beltrami as well as all of Hubbard, Cass, and Wadena from the eigth district. It loses Meeker, Sibley, and part of McLeod to balance out the population. This mostly rural district voted for McCain 47-50 and likely voted for Emmer over Dayton. This is Safe DFL with Peterson running but would probably be lean R at best when he decides to retire.

Eigth District (Home) – Slate Blue – Cravaack (R)

Lean DFL

A few weeks before the election, I confidently declared that Jim Oberstar would not lose. Unfortunately, I was wrong but now Rep.-elect Chip Cravaack is high on the target list for 2012. His new district trades Chisago and Isanti for part of Stearns (St. Cloud) and Sherburne. Cravaack no longer lives in this district but could easily move 20 miles up I-35 if he wanted to. Drawing Cravaack may not be possible with the Republican legislature but, since he has no seniority and very little influence, pretty much everyone has little incentive to listen to him. With Cravaack as the incumbent, this district is Lean DFL and woud be Likely DFL if the incumbency effect was not in place.

Overall, this map produces a 5DFL-3R split that would hold up in all but the worst years (like 2010). Once Peterson retires, it would become 4DFL-4R unless the DFL could find a moderate/populist to run.

Any suggestions and comments are welcome. this is my first complete map and diary so any insight would be greatly appreciated especially since I’m young don’t know a lot about the history of politics in Minnesota and how that might affect the results using this map or any historic district boundaries. Any information on that would be helpful too. Thanks!