Month: May 2009

AZ-01: More GOP Recruitment Woes

From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room:

Arizona state Rep. Bill Konopnicki (R) is again weighing whether to get into the state’s 1st congressional district race, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. …

But don’t look for news from Konopnicki anytime soon. He sounds like he’s content to wait a few months to see how Kirkpatrick does. It should also be noted that he opened an exploratory committee last cycle, only to opt out.

There’s also the matter of just how excited he does – or rather, doesn’t – sound. According to the Capitol Times:

Konopnicki said he isn’t interested in serving in Congress unless Republicans take back the majority in the 2010 elections – something that will be difficult to predict in time to mount a serious campaign.

“I’m not interested, quite honestly, in going and being the minority party,” he said.

This is obviously good news for Kirkpatrick, and you have to admire Konopnicki’s candor – most politicians are smart enough not to mouth off like that. But Konopnicki’s bout of honesty just demonstrates how salient this issue is. Around the country, Pete Sessions and his NRCC are trying to dig up candidates to take on Democrats and return the GOP to majority status. There are undoubtedly plenty of state senators, county DAs and rich businessmen who would make decent if not good candidates.

Yet every last one of them has to contend with the near-certainty that even if they win, come January 2011, they’ll go to DC as members of the minority, and likely stay that way for some time. Meanwhile, Democrats hold out the enticement of being in the majority – and have landed at least two major recruits, as well as several more “mid-major” names. It’s hard out there for an NRCC chair.

IA-Sen: Another sign Grassley will not retire

I’ve never thought Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was likely to retire, especially after Tom Vilsack’s appointment as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture took the A-list challenger out of contention. (Only an unexpectedly tough re-election campaign, in my opinion, might have pushed Grassley toward retirement.)

The Hill reported today that Grassley has reached an agreement with his colleague Jeff Sessions of Alabama:

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member [of the Senate Judiciary Committee] until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.

Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, will then become ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

It’s a good deal for Grassley. Even though the Judiciary Committee will consider at least one Supreme Court nominee before 2011, the Senate Finance Committee will help write important health care and tax legislation this year.

Grassley has long wanted to be the ranking member at Judiciary, a position that opened up last week when Senator Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party. His deal with Sessions removes any doubt about whether Grassley intends to stick around for one more term.

I’m sorry to say that I see little prospect of any Democrat beating Grassley in 2010.

For a long time my money’s been on Grassley retiring in 2016, when his grandson, Iowa House Representative Pat Grassley, will be old enough to run for the U.S. Senate.

PVI/Vote Index for 2008

One year ago I tried out an experiment where I plotted US Representatives’ voting records against the presidential lean of their districts, in an effort to identify what representatives were not the most liberal or conservative, but who most overperformed or underperformed their districts. After some hemming and hawing, it was called the PVI/Vote Index. The point of the exercise was to give some clarity and focus to one of the most frequently heard refrains of the liberal blogosphere: “We’re going to primary that ratfink so-and-so,” usually delivered without much consideration as to what kind of candidate that district might actually support.

It’s time to revisit the topic, partly because another year has gone by, and aggregators have released another year’s worth of data, letting us look at the 110th Congress as a whole (instead of just 2007). Also, with the creation of the blogger/labor Accountability Now PAC for purposes of nudging (or primarying) recalcitrant Dems, with Progressive Punch adding a similar function to their website, and with even the Cook Political Report (subscription req’d) tipping a toe into this type of analysis, it seems like other people are starting to zero in on who is and isn’t a good fit for his or her district.

As before, the Index is based on a pretty simple idea: rank every district from 1 to 435 in terms of how Democratic its presidential voting record is, rank every representative from 1 to 435 in terms of how liberal his or her voting record is, and find the difference, with a larger difference in one direction or the other meaning that representative is overperforming or underperforming the district’s lean. (There are a host of methodological issues that go along with this assumption, and I’ll discuss some of them over the fold. In the meantime, let’s get right to the numbers.)

Let’s start with Democrats who are underperforming their districts (in other words, Democrats whose voting records are less liberal than their district composition would ordinarily support):

Rep. District PVI PVI rank DW/N Liberal rank Difference
A. Davis AL-07 D+17 65 – 0.286 183.5 – 118.5
Meeks NY-06 D+38 6 – 0.397 122 – 116
Meek FL-17 D+35 11 – 0.390 126 – 115
Jefferson LA-02 D+28 28 – 0.371 139 – 111
Doyle PA-14 D+22 42 – 0.363 142 – 100
Engel NY-17 D+21 45 – 0.378 137 – 92
Brady PA-01 D+36 9.5 – 0.439 96 – 86.5
Sires NJ-13 D+23 39 – 0.398 121 – 82
Berman CA-28 D+25 35.5 – 0.406 117.5 – 82
Fattah PA-02 D+39 5 – 0.454 84.5 – 79.5
D. Scott GA-13 D+10 112 – 0.257 191 – 79
Moran VA-08 D+14 81 – 0.345 152.5 – 71.5
Crowley NY-07 D+28 29 – 0.431 100 – 71
Rush IL-01 D+35 12 – 0.455 83 – 71
Lipinski IL-03 D+10 106.5 – 0.312 174 – 67.5
Reyes TX-16 D+9 117.5 – 0.286 183.5 – 66
Towns NY-10 D+41 3 – 0.492 69 – 66
Harman CA-36 D+11 103.5 – 0.319 169 – 65.5
Rangel NY-15 D+43 2 – 0.493 67 -65
Cooper TN-05 D+6 144.5 – 0.211 208.5 – 64

Three of the top four underperformers here were also in the top four last year: Artur Davis, Kendrick Meek, and Bill Jefferson, which indicates that the pattern is pretty consistent. (The fourth, Greg Meeks, not coincidentally the only African-American member of the New Dems besides Davis and Meek, replaces Charlie Rangel.)

Notice something else interesting? We don’t have to primary any of those three! Jefferson learned the hard way that the future is Cao, while Davis and Meek are doing us a solid by opening up their seats to run for higher office. (And if they somehow win, they’ll immediately switch from goats to heroes in my book, since if they stay consistent policy-wise, they’ll suddenly be vastly overperforming the lean of their states as a whole.)

But it does shine a spotlight on the open primaries in AL-07, FL-17, and LA-02. These primaries should be absolute top priority for blogosphere action: these are districts that can support progressives, not just centrists, and we have basically free shots at electing Better Democrats here. (These mostly-African-American districts may be a little outside the familiarity zone of the mostly-white blogosphere, but remember that one of our signature achievements is knocking off Al Wynn in MD-04, which is what can happen when the netroots and the local grassroots actually work in concert.)

As with last year, the list is heavy on Congressional Black Caucus members, some of whom are also Progressive Caucus members. The latter may not be terribly fruitful targets (although, again, the primaries will be very important once they retire), who are being penalized a bit unfairly for living in some of the nation’s most Democratic districts. They’d need to be in McDermott/Kucinich/Lee territory to be truly apt ‘fits’ for their districts.

Some better targets might be a little further down the list, including frequent netroots foils like Dan Lipinski and the newly-vulnerable Jane Harman. To my eye, one of the juiciest targets is Jim Cooper, about the only representative in a district with a solidly Dem PVI who’s not just voting poorly around the margins but on some of the important stuff as well (like the stimulus). Pressure on Cooper is particularly important as the focus turns to health care, as his singular influence in the health care arena gives him unique power to obstruct progessive health care policy.

Now let’s turn to the good news: the Democrats who are most overperforming their districts, and who are most deserving of our praise (or in the case of the bluest Dogs, our tolerance). As with last year, it’s a mix of flat-out progressives in swing or light-blue districts, and Blue Doggish types who are entrenched in deep-red districts that would likely flip without them (or, in the sad cases of Lampson and Boyda, Blue Doggish types who failed to get entrenched):

Rep. District PVI PVI rank DW/N Liberal rank Difference
C. Edwards TX-17 R+18 417 – 0.240 196 221
G. Taylor MS-04 R+16 404.5 – 0.248 193 211.5
Matheson UT-02 R+17 408 – 0.154 222 186
Pomeroy ND-AL R+13 379 – 0.245 194 185
DeFazio OR-04 D+0 200 – 0.602 27 173
Lampson TX-22 R+15 390 – 0.038 234 156
Doggett TX-25 D+1 187.5 – 0.533 49 138.5
Herseth SD-AL R+10 337 – 0.234 199 138
Skelton MO-04 R+11 347 – 0.203 212 135
Hinchey NY-22 D+6 147 – 0.685 13 134
Stupak MI-01 R+2 228.5 – 0.436 97 131.5
Filner CA-51 D+7 137 – 0.723 9.5 127.5
Oberstar MN-08 D+4 160 – 0.570 36 124
Kucinich OH-10 D+8 125 – 0.791 3 122
Spratt SC-05 R+6 283.5 – 0.325 165 118.5
Obey WI-07 D+2 185 – 0.486 72 113
Chandler KY-06 R+7 300.5 – 0.256 192 108.5
Rodriguez TX-23 R+4 254.5 – 0.348 150 104.5
Boyda KS-02 R+7 308 – 0.218 206 102
Boucher VA-09 R+7 303 – 0.232 201 102

One advantage of the PVI/Vote Index is that, at the same time as shining a light on Democrats who are lagging their districts, it also illuminates right-wing Republicans camped out in moderate districts, who should theoretically be vulnerable a good Democratic challenger because of their poor fit with their districts. If there’s any doubt, check out which of these nutjobs who’ve overperformed their districts got defeated in 2008, and how many more got a serious scare.

Rep. District PVI PVI rank DW/N Liberal rank Difference
Ryan WI-01 R+2 224 0.690 397 – 173
Feeney FL-24 R+3 241 0.744 409 – 168
Chabot OH-01 R+1 205.5 0.626 372 – 166.5
Garrett NJ-05 R+4 261 0.771 417 – 156
Shadegg AZ-03 R+6 288.5 0.903 429 – 140.5
Rohrabacher CA-46 R+6 291 0.826 424.5 – 133.5
Kline MN-02 R+3 233.5 0.616 365 – 131.5
Bilbray CA-50 R+5 264 0.684 394 – 130
Fossella NY-13 D+1 191 0.507 317 – 126
Walberg MI-07 R+3 230.5 0.589 356.5 – 126
Weldon FL-15 R+4 251.5 0.622 367.5 – 116
Campbell CA-48 R+8 311 0.826 424.5 – 113.5
Bachmann MN-06 R+5 273.5 0.663 385.5 – 112
Manzullo IL-16 R+5 263 0.630 374 – 111
Franks AZ-02 R+9 322 0.910 431 – 109
Tiberi OH-12 R+1 210 0.508 318 – 108
Royce CA-40 R+8 315 0.794 421 – 106
Roskam IL-06 R+3 236.5 0.552 341 – 104.5
Mica FL-07 R+4 251.5 0.583 355 – 103.5
Castle DE-AL D+7 142 0.291 245 – 103

Finally, one last table: the Republicans who are “underperforming” their very conservative districts. While there are a few moderates here (like the primaried-out Wayne Gilchrest), mostly it’s semi-sane conservatives in some of the darkest-red districts in the nation. I’m keeping this list to 10, as either way, there’s not much we can do about these guys, other than sit back and watch as the Club for Growth goes after them with chainsaws. (Note that Jerry Moran, who’s vacating his seat to run for Senate, is one of them. His moderation, relatively speaking, may be an asset for him when running statewide.)

Rep. District PVI PVI rank DW/N Liberal rank Difference
W. Jones NC-03 R+15 395 0.279 242 153
Simpson ID-02 R+19 421 0.397 271 150
Moran KS-01 R+20 427 0.442 286 141
Platts PA-19 R+12 366 0.327 255.5 110.5
D. Young AK-AL R+14 387 0.420 278.5 108.5
Lucas OK-03 R+18 414 0.493 310 104
Crenshaw FL-04 R+16 407 0.489 308 99
Bachus AL-06 R+25 433 0.538 335.5 97.5
Gilchrest MD-01 R+10 335 0.254 238 97
Aderholt AL-04 R+16 399 0.476 303 96

Much more discussion of the methodology and what this all may mean, over the flip.

We need to talk methodology briefly. I’ll do this as a Q&A in order to make it a little livelier.

What the heck is DW/N? As my primary vote-aggregating resource, I’m using DW/Nominate scores, which are a tool I used in a number of vote-scoring-themed diaries last summer. The main advantage DW/N has over other scores is that they aggregate absolutely every vote, instead of cherry-picking. (ADA ratings and CQ party unity scores, for instance, pick so few votes that it’s terribly insufficient gradation among representatives; nearly all Dems have an ADA score of 90, 95, or 100, while nearly all have a CQ score in the 96-98 range… which is why I don’t use either of those metrics.) In each case, I’m using the DW/N score of whatever representative ended the session holding the seat, even if someone else held it the majority of the term.

On the other hand, most everyone else (Progressive Punch, National Journal, CQ, the ADA) uses a 0-100 score, with 100 being most liberal, which is easy for people to mentally convert to the A-B-C-D-F grading scale. By comparison, DW/Nominate scores are difficult to interpret. The scores generally run from – 1 (most liberal) to 1 (least liberal). The scoring algorithm seems to measure similarities between voting records among representatives; a number further away from 0 indicates a greater amount of distance between your record and those of other reps. In fact, if your voting record doesn’t look anything like anybody’s elses, you can exceed the 1 to -1 range (as with Ron Paul’s 1.4).

You may recall last year, to do this project, I created one averaged-out liberal rating using both Progressive Punch and National Journal scores. While I’d very much like to use Progressive Punch scores again — I think they do the best job of the “just right” amount of vote cherry-picking and turning it into an easy-to-understand score — they’ve already turned their attention to the 111th Congress now in session and their old scores from the 110th have already vanished from public view.

And rather than try to average out DW/Nominate and National Journal scores, I’ve just decided there’s too much apples and oranges going on there. This is partly because of the different scoring techniques, which results in some odd discrepancies… National Journal’s method is insensitive to ‘purity’ votes (i.e. voting against something not because you disagree but because it doesn’t go far enough) so the furthest-left or right members of the caucuses (like McDermott, Kucinich, Stark, DeFazio, Woolsey, Waters, or Capuano for the Dems, or Paul for the GOP) tend to get buried in mid-caucus or even treated as centrists.

More importantly, though, there are 19 seats for which there is no National Journal composite score for both 2007 and 2008, mostly because the seat changed hands in a special election (or because of a lot of absences, either for sickness or leadership duties). As a result, what I’ve decided to do is run entirely separate tables based solely on National Journal numbers. As you can see, many of the same people appear relatively in the same places. Members for whom there are scores, and the PVI of their districts, are rated 1-416 instead of 1-435. (The missing parties are Pelosi, Lantos/Speier, Millender-McDonald/Richardson, Crenshaw, Norwood/Broun, Rush, Hastert/Foster, Carson/Carson, Jindal/Scalise, Baker/Cazayoux, Wynn/Edwards, Meehan/Tsongas, Wicker/Childers, Andrews, Gillibrand, Gilmoor/Latta, Pryce, Davis/Wittman, and Cubin.)

Here are the tables based on National Journal composite scores instead. (There is a rating for both 2007 and 2008, so I averaged the two to get one score for each. Again, representatives and districts are ranked only 1 to 416 in this series, because scores aren’t available for 19 seats.) Here are the underperforming Dems:

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
A. Davis AL-07 D+17 60 58.15 181 – 121
Jefferson LA-02 D+28 25 74.35 119 – 94
Meek FL-17 D+35 10 78.25 95.5 – 85.5
Capuano MA-08 D+33 17 77.85 101 – 84
Stark CA-13 D+21 38 74 120 – 82
Serrano NY-16 D+43 1 80.75 80 – 79
G. Green TX-29 D+8 124.5 54.1 198 – 73.5
Lipinski IL-03 D+10 99.5 61.95 172 – 72.5
Emanuel IL-05 D+18 56 72.8 128 – 72
C. Brown FL-03 D+16 63 71.6 134.5 – 71.5
Ryan OH-17 D+14 71 70.05 142 – 71
Maloney NY-14 D+26 27 78.15 97 – 70
Meeks NY-06 D+38 6 81.05 75.5 – 69.5
M. Udall CO-02 D+8 118 57 186.5 – 68.5
Engel NY-17 D+21 40 77 108 – 68
Woolsey CA-06 D+21 42 76.75 109 – 67
Reyes TX-16 D+9 110.5 61 176 – 65.5
Berkley NV-01 D+9 113 60.55 177 – 64
Waters CA-35 D+33 18 80.25 81.5 – 63.5
Cooper TN-05 D+6 136.5 53.95 199 – 62.5

Here are overperforming Dems:

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
C. Edwards TX-17 R+18 400 55.7 193 207
Pomeroy ND-AL R+13 363 61.55 175 188
Matheson UT-03 R+17 391 48.85 218 173
G. Taylor MS-04 R+16 388.5 48.65 219 169.5
Skelton MO-04 R+11 332 58.55 180 152
Lampson TX-22 R+15 374 45.4 227 147
Obey WI-07 D+2 177 85.15 42 135
Herseth SD-AL R+10 323.5 52.6 203 120.5
Spratt SC-05 R+6 272.5 65.75 153 119.5
Price NC-04 D+6 138 89.1 22 116
Mollohan WV-01 R+6 275.5 63.75 163 112.5
Delahunt MA-10 D+9 116 91.4 11 105
Hinchey NY-22 D+6 139 86.4 35 104
Boyda KS-02 R+7 296 55.4 194 102
Boucher VA-09 R+7 291 56.55 189 102
Hooley OR-05 D+1 185 80.1 85.5 99.5
Holden PA-17 R+7 288.5 56.1 191 97.5
Chandler KY-06 R+7 288.5 55.15 195 93.5
Capps CA-23 D+9 108 90.35 16 92
Grijalva AZ-07 D+10 103 91.2 12 91

Here are the overperforming Republicans:

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
Kline MN-02 R+3 223.5 10 398 – 174.5
Mica FL-07 R+4 241.5 11.75 386 – 144.5
Feeney FL-24 R+3 231 14.1 372.5 – 141.5
Ryan WI-01 R+2 215 16.4 352 – 137
Shadegg AZ-03 R+6 277.5 5.5 412 – 134.5
Bachmann MN-06 R+5 262.5 10.55 396 – 133.5
Weldon FL-15 R+4 241.5 14.35 370.5 – 129
Saxton NJ-03 D+3 162.5 30.95 280 – 117.5
H. Wilson NM-01 D+2 170 28.7 283 – 113
Garrett NJ-05 R+4 251 15.45 360 – 109
Walberg MI-07 R+3 221 20.6 328 – 107
Putnam FL-12 R+5 267.5 14 374 – 106.5
Franks AZ-02 R+9 310 4.7 416 – 106
Chabot OH-01 R+1 197.5 24.9 301.5 – 104
Fossella NY-13 D+1 183 28.2 286 – 103
S. King IA-05 R+8 305 6.5 407.5 – 102.5
Latham IA-04 D+0 188 28.25 285 – 97
M. Rogers MI-08 R+2 212 24.1 308.5 – 96.5
Royce CA-40 R+8 303 9.9 399 – 96
Akin MO-02 R+9 311 6.6 406 – 95

And finally, here are the underperforming Republicans:

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
Moran KS-01 R+20 408 33.45 268 140
W. Jones NC-03 R+15 379 38.5 247 132
Simpson ID-02 R+19 403 31.5 275 128
D. Young AK-AL R+14 371 36.25 257 114
Paul TX-14 R+14 373 35.3 261 112
Gilchrest MD-01 R+10 322 49.4 217 105
Bachus AL-06 R+25 414 23.2 314 100
Platts PA-19 R+12 351 36.75 254.5 96.5
Inglis SC-04 R+15 375 31.1 279 96
Emerson MO-08 R+11 335 40.55 240 95

Is this old or new PVI? This is Classic PVI, calculated using the Cook formula and based on 2000-2004. My rationale is that their 110th Congress votes all predate the 2008 election, so if representatives actually were taking their districts’ lean into consideration, it would be based on the previous elections.

Still, this raises the interesting question of whether the 2008 election results have changed the dynamic for representatives in those few districts that changed dramatically one way or the other (for instance, are Marion Berry or Mark Kirk more endangered now?). Perhaps some of them might change their records in the 111th Congress, for better or worse, to reflect what they can see is happening on the ground in their districts. Accordingly, I’m creating yet more tables… this time, based on the newly released Cook PVIs reflecting the 2004 and 2008 elections. (I’m leaving out defeated or retired representatives from these lists, which, for instance, removes Jefferson from the underperforming Dems list, or Chabot and Feeney from the overperforming GOPers list.)

Here are the underperforming Dems. Not that many dramatic changes, but note that David Scott has zoomed up to near the top of the list, as his previously D+10 district in the Atlanta exurbs became D+15 on the strength of a huge influx of African-American residents. He’s one of only two black Blue Dogs (Sanford Bishop in rural GA-02 is the other one, and is a fine fit), and might want to rethink that.

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
A. Davis AL-07 D+18 60 – 0.286 183.5 – 123.5
D. Scott GA-13 D+15 71 – 0.257 191 – 120
Meeks NY-06 D+36 7 – 0.397 122 – 115
Meek FL-17 D+34 13 – 0.390 126 – 113
Moran VA-08 D+16 64 – 0.345 152.5 – 88.5
Doyle PA-14 D+19 55 – 0.363 142 – 87
Brady PA-01 D+35 10 – 0.439 96 – 86
Fattah PA-02 D+38 4 – 0.454 84.5 – 80.5
Berman CA-28 D+23 37 – 0.406 117.5 – 80.5
Engel NY-17 D+18 58 – 0.378 137 – 79
Schiff CA-29 D+14 75 – 0.347 151 – 76
Reyes TX-16 D+10 109 – 0.286 183.5 – 74.5
Sires NJ-13 D+21 48 – 0.398 121 – 73
Harman CA-36 D+12 98 – 0.319 169 – 71
Rush IL-01 D+34 14 – 0.455 83 – 69
S. Davis CA-53 D+14 74 – 0.362 143 – 69
Crowley NY-07 D+26 32 – 0.431 100 – 68
Lipinski IL-03 D+11 106 – 0.312 174 – 68
Towns NY-10 D+38 3 – 0.492 69 – 66
Rangel NY-15 D+41 2 – 0.492 67 – 65

Here are the overperforming Dems. Gene Taylor overtakes Chet Edwards at the top, based on the different direction their districts are going. There are definitely more Blue Dogs and their ilk on the new list than the old list, thanks to a number of southern uplands districts plunging from GOP-leaning to dark-red (Boren, Berry, Lincoln Davis, Gordon, Mollohan, Rahall).

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
G. Taylor MS-04 R+20 415 – 0.248 193 222
C. Edwards TX-17 R+20 417 – 0.240 196 221
Matheson UT-02 R+15 386 – 0.154 222 164
Skelton MO-04 R+14 374 – 0.203 212 162
DeFazio OR-04 D+2 183 – 0.602 27 156
Boren OK-02 R+14 368 – 0.128 224 144
Pomeroy ND-AL R+10 336 – 0.245 194 142
Berry AR-01 R+8 300 – 0.338 159 141
Boucher VA-09 R+11 342 – 0.232 201 141
L. Davis TN-04 R+13 359 – 0.177 218.5 140.5
Melancon LA-03 R+12 344 – 0.220 205 139
Oberstar MN-08 D+3 174 – 0.570 36 138
Childers MS-01 R+14 369 – 0.010 236 133
Mollohan WV-01 R+9 321 – 0.268 189 132
Stupak MI-01 R+3 228 – 0.436 97 131
Gordon TN-06 R+13 350 – 0.171 220 130
Hinchey NY-22 D+6 140 – 0.685 13 127
Spratt SC-05 R+7 289 – 0.325 165 124
Rahall WV-03 R+6 286 – 0.331 163.5 122.5
Grijalva AZ-07 D+6 138 – 0.655 18 120

Here are the overperforming Republicans. There’s a lot of turnover on this list from the old PVI list, but that has more to do with defeats and retirements than vastly changed districts (Chabot, Feeney, Walberg, Tancredo, Musgrave, Keller, Tom Davis, Heather Wilson, Weldon, and Knollenberg would all clock in higher than Dave Camp). However, note the sudden appearance of a lot of Illinois, Michigan, and California districts on the new list, based on Obama’s strong performance in those states.

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
Ryan WI-01 R+2 218 0.690 397 – 179
Rohrabacher CA-46 R+6 262 0.826 424.5 – 162.5
Bilbray CA-50 R+3 232 0.684 394 – 162
Campbell CA-48 R+6 263 0.826 424.5 – 161.5
Manzullo IL-16 R+2 222 0.630 374 – 152
Roskam IL-06 Even 193 0.552 341 – 148
Tiberi OH-12 D+1 192 0.508 318 – 126
Garrett NJ-05 R+7 291 0.771 417 – 126
Kline MN-02 R+4 239 0.616 365 – 126
Royce CA-40 R+8 303 0.794 421 – 118
Lungren CA-03 R+6 261 0.641 377 – 116
Castle DE-AL D+7 133 0.291 245 – 112
Shadegg AZ-03 R+9 317 0.903 429 – 112
Biggert IL-13 R+1 210 0.512 321 – 111
Kirk IL-10 D+6 142 0.320 251.5 – 109.5
Petri WI-06 R+4 246 0.568 350.5 – 104.5
Sessions TX-32 R+8 302 0.727 403.5 – 101.5
Rogers MI-08 R+2 212 0.498 313.5 – 101.5
Pitts PA-16 R+8 304 0.728 405 – 101
Camp MI-04 R+3 236 0.538 335.5 – 99.5

And here are the underperforming Republicans…

Rep. District PVI PVI rank NJ Liberal rank Difference
W. Jones NC-03 R+16 397 0.279 242 155
Moran KS-01 R+23 424 0.442 286 138
Simpson ID-02 R+17 406 0.397 271 135
Emerson MO-08 R+15 385 0.329 257 128
Aderholt AL-04 R+26 430 0.476 303 127
Lucas OK-03 R+24 425 0.493 310 115
R. Hall TX-04 R+21 422 0.503 315 107
Whitfield KY-01 R+15 381 0.430 281 100
Bachus AL-06 R+29 435 0.538 335.5 99.5
Crenshaw FL-04 R+17 407 0.489 308 99

Why aren’t you using regression instead of discrete ranks? Good question. Last year, I used discrete ranks because that’s all I knew how to do. I’ve gotten a lot more familiar since then with some of the more advanced tools in Excel, so when I set out to re-do this project this year, my first attempts tried turning this into a regression exercise. The results, however, weren’t as satisfactory, so I went back to what I knew worked.

To illustrate this, take a look at the results graphed as a scatterplot (DW/Nominate data on the vertical axis, PVI on the horizontal axis).

DW-Nominate 2007-08

For the most part, you can see very clear correlations, as the two parties cluster tightly but also have nice slopes indicating the relationship between voting record and PVI. (And the gap between the two parties shows how even the worst Dem is still much better than the best GOPer.) However, notice that the tight cluster of Dems start to flatten out and then turn into more of a spray as you get into the districts with super-high PVIs.

The representatives in the highest-PVI districts aren’t especially more progressive than the ones in the lower but still solid-blue districts. A regression line, however, would predict that because of the great distance between say, the D+43 standing of NY-15 and NY-16 and the other districts, therefore the reps from these districts should also be much, much more progressive than anyone else. This is particularly a problem when using National Journal scores, which max out at 100; even if we somehow elected Angela Davis in those districts, she still would be underperforming because the “TREND” function on Excel says that to be a good fit, you have to bend the laws of mathematics and get a National Journal score of 105.

Just for the sake of comparison, here’s the Top 10 most underperforming Dems according to a true regression model (based on residuals, which are the differences between the projected voting records according to the trendline and actual voting records): Serrano, Rangel, Meeks, Towns, Meek, Fattah, Brady, Rush, Pelosi, and Clarke. As you can see, there are a number of commonalities between this list and the list above… but a perceptive reader will also notice that these are basically just the people in the districts with the top 10 highest PVIs, in approximately the right order (although Kendrick Meek is still somewhat out-of-whack). On the Republican side, the method also views Ron Paul as the most overperforming and potentially vulnerable Republican (although after that it settles down to the usual suspects: Franks, Rohrabacher, Ryan, etc.).

So, I discarded the method that just tells me that our juiciest primary targets are the representatives who are in our bluest districts. Switching back to discrete ranks comes with its own problems: while it flattens out the distortion at the margins, it may create some distortion in the middle, where it may place more importance than should be accorded on small DW/Nominate score differences among members who are clustered near the median of their caucuses. So, as always, I welcome any thoughts on the methodology here and how to make this the fairest-possible assessment of House members’ fits.

One other idea I’ve mulled over is the possibility of ranking representatives only against a cohort of the representatives in 5 or 10 most similar districts, similar not just in terms of presidential voting but other demographic characteristics. For example, let’s take a look at AL-07, of interest to us not just because it’s where the most out-of-whack Dem (Artur Davis) is, but because it’s a district that points to the flaws of using only PVI as an indicator of who’s a good fit, as it’s a good bit more socially conservative than most other districts in the D+18 range.

One would want to compare Davis to the representatives in MS-03 and SC-06, similar not just in terms of their PVI but also their racial composition. Beyond that, TN-09, NC-12, FL-03, and VA-03 are also similar in region, PVI, and race, though somewhat less similar, in terms of being less impoverished and more urban. If you average out the DW/N scores for Bennie Thompson, Jim Clyburn, Steve Cohen, Mel Watt, Corrine Brown, and Bobby Scott, you get – 0.462 (ranging from – 0.544 for Watt to – 0.403 for Clyburn), so Davis’s – 0.286 still points to a significant under-performance. Of course, I’d need to develop a statistical method for analyzing which districts truly are the most similar to each other using a similar technique as Nate Silver’s state similarity index (rather than simply saying “Hmm, these ones seem similar”), so while this method seems the most promising to me, it’ll still need a lot of work too.

UPDATE: See the entire dataset at Google Docs.

SSP Daily Digest: 5/4

• KY-Sen: It wouldn’t occur to me to assign great meaning to Jim Bunning’s decision to skip attending the Kentucky Derby this year, but apparently that’s a big deal, as there’s lots of behind-the-scenes elbows-rubbing with potential donors. It’s one more clue in the retirement puzzle, in view of GOP SoS Trey Grayson’s formation of an exploratory committee, supposedly with Bunning’s blessing, and the likelihood that Grayson’s emergence will further dry up Bunning’s fundraising.

• FL-Sen: With Gov. Charlie Crist poised to make a decision on whether or not to run for Senate upon the end of the Florida legislative session Friday, former state House speaker Marco Rubio has kept turning up the heat on him, suggesting that he’s running in the primary with or without Crist. Regarding Crist’s support for the stimulus package, said Rubio: “If you agree with Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe on some of these issues, you might as well become a Democrat.”

• LA-Sen: David Vitter posts some mediocre numbers in a new poll from Southern Media & Opinion Research. He gets an approval rating of 58%, but only 30% say they would definitely vote to re-elect him (with 28% saying definitely not and 35% open to an alternative). Most ominously, only 35% of white voters said they would definitely vote to re-elect. In related news, potential primary challenger Stormy Daniels is embarking on a “listening tour” of Louisiana. I got nothing here; make up your own lascivious pun.

• OH-17: Turns out that Gov. Ted Strickland talked the 36-year-old Rep. Tim Ryan out of jumping out of a promising House career and into the #2 slot on his ticket. (Strickland said that when he does announce his Lt. Gov., it’ll be a “huge surprise.”)

• Redistricting: Dave’s Redistricting blog is about to release a new feature that should keep SSP’s many redistricting fans awake into the wee hours: a free and allegedly easy-to-use Flash-based online redistricting tool. It sounds like it’s only based on Census population data and not precinct-level voting data, but even that would be a huge help for tinkerers like us. Keep your eyes peeled for the tool’s launch some time this week.

PA-Sen: Specter Crushes Toomey as Democrat, but Ridge is Close

Quinnipiac University (4/29-5/3, “Pennsylvania voters,” no trendlines):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 53

Pat Toomey (R): 33

Undecided: 10

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 46

Tom Ridge (R): 43

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±2.9%)

Specter gets an impressive 77-8 approval rating among Democrats, though that may fade as the afterglow wears off. His overall approvals jumped a bit, too, from 45-31 to 52-34. Former Gov. Tom Ridge, though, has an even better 55-19 rating – but if Arlen Specter was hopeless against Pat Toomey in a GOP primary, does the also-moderate Ridge really have a shadow of a chance? Nonetheless, he’s apparently considering a run.

On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Rep. Joe Sestak continues to seriously explore a challenge to Specter. Appearing yesterday on CNN, he said of Specter, “I’m not sure he’s a Democrat yet,” and acted undaunted by Obama’s support for party-switchin’ Arlen. Sestak’s also apparently meeting with SEIU’s iconoclastic leader Andy Stern. The labor movement is of course deeply unhappy with a different Specter flip-flop: his shameful decision to abandon the Employee Free Choice Act.

Unsurprisingly, Specter also appeared on the Sunday talk shows, and he just provided the script for Sestak’s (or Joe Torsella’s, or Patrick Murphy’s, etc.) first attack ad. Specter supposedly told Obama over the phone last week that “I’m a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.” But he told David Gregory yesterday:

I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, just like the Republican contest, is closed, a fact Arlen already seems to be ignoring.

(Hat-tips: Political Wire & Politico)

UT-Sen: Democrats Have a Candidate

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

Well, this is interesting.  It looks like Democrats will have an at-least-somewhat-prominent candidate for Senate in 2010:

Popular deli chain owner Sam Granato will run for Sen. Bob Bennett’s seat in 2010.

Granato, who owns several Granato’s delis throughout the Salt Lake Valley, also is chairman of the Utah Liquor Control Commission. He confirmed to me Thursday that he is in the race for sure as a Democrat, and he has secured early support from several Democratic insiders and officials. He will make the formal announcement June 1. …

Meanwhile, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told me Thursday he has made the decision personally to challenge Bennett for the Republican nomination, but he has given his wife one more week to talk him out of it.

Sure, Utah’s Utah.  Ruby red.  I get it.  But if Shurtleff v. Bennett does turn nasty and expensive, a prominent figure like Granato could take advantage.  We’ll see if lightning strikes.

Georgia candidate doesn’t think past sex with mule will hurt his chances for Governor

I dunno how this race could’ve gotten overlooked for the SSP Daily Digests:

Georgia candidate doesn’t think past sex with mule will hurt his chances for Governor

More on GA Gov candidate Neal Horsley, with a picure:

Georgia candidate for governor says sex with mules, watermelon behind him

Don’t miss the comments, some are simply hilarious.

NH-01: Guinta Files to Run Against Shea-Porter

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta (R) has filed to run against Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. CQ has more:

Guinta recently announced he would not seek re-election as mayor and was mulling a run for federal office in 2010. But Guinta has not publicly announced whether he will run for the open Senate seat or for the 1st Congressional District seat.

Guinta’s advisor, Mike Biundo, stressed Friday that the mayor has yet to make an official announcement, adding that one is expected in the coming week.

Guinta is a pretty good grab for the GOP, but as the folks at Blue Hampshire argue, he’s a pretty rabidly right-wing dude who may find his own mouth to be his undoing once he spends some time on the stump. An NRCC-sponsored poll found CSP leading Guinta by only 43-34, but who knows what kind of sampling skullduggery their pollsters were engaging in order to make the race more enticing for their leading recruit.

In the meantime, though, CSP’s sluggish fundraising (only $111K raised in the first quarter of 2009) will certainly keep this one interesting.

Isakson in trouble?

I had always assumed Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would have an easy time being re-elected to his senate seat in 2010, but according to this poll, he may be vulnerable. Here is the link. http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The poll shows him with a lead of 47-43 against former governor Roy Barnes, and a lead of 48-40 against Rep. Jim Marshall. Hopefully a top tier candidate can be persuaded to run against him, and we won’t have a replay of the 2008 senate election, where we failed to nominate a top tier candidate and then realized Chambliss was vulnerable.