New York City runoff thread

The runoffs for New York City Comptroller and Public Advocate take place tomorrow. Up for election are John Liu and David Yassky for Comptroller and Bill de Blasio and Mark Green for Public Advocate. Who are you voting for and why?

I plan to vote for John Liu, despite some misgivings based on Yassky’s campaign, which has accused Liu of lying about various things:

Yassky, who came in second with 30% of the vote in [the] four-way primary, cited Liu’s disputed claim that he caught the MTA using two sets of books.

He also knocked Liu for saying he returned questionable campaign donations and toiled in a sweatshop as a child – which was contradicted by his own parents and others.

(Source: “Controller hopefuls John Liu, David Yassky sling mud in debate”)

My main problem with Yassky relates to his campaign’s behavior toward me. I have detailed two attempts to persuade me to vote for him, in the guise of supposed opinion polls. I haven’t yet mentioned the constant barrage of emails (I mean just about every day and sometimes multiple emails a day) that I’ve gotten – unsolicited – from Mr. Yassky’s campaign, with titles such as “[x] Days to Victory.” I’m truly unsure of how his campaign got my email address but would strongly suggest to any politician or campaign worker who’s reading that politicians not send emails to non-constituents who never contacted them. (Sending an email through an organization they belong to is fine, though, so that if, say, MoveOn.org wants to support a candidate and that candidate sends an email explicitly through MoveOn to MoveOn’s members, they can take it or leave it but have little reason to be perturbed with the candidate.) Because of these personal experiences, I find it very difficult to get past the feeling that Yassky is overly power-hungry and given to sleazy and overly intrusive campaign practices, but I can understand why someone might consider such a highly-endorsed man a superior candidate.

Breaking away now from personal comments, here are some from Mr. Liu:

Liu then hurled some mud himself, bashing his opponent as “three-headed Yassky” for changing positions on key issues like term limits.

“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” Liu said.

Yassky originally opposed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid to have the Council let him seek a third term, but then cast a crucial vote in favor of it.

For the record, I am opposed to all term limits as undemocratic, though the process by which the City Council annulled the results of two referenda is objectionable and certainly a legitimate issue. But if it’s OK for Yassky to go back on his word in regard to term limits, is it really important whether the labor Mr. Liu did as a child was in a sweatshop or not? I’m not sure which of these things might be really important in predicting either candidate’s performance and honesty as Comptroller.

As for Public Advocate, I believe my choice is simpler, in that Mark Green has already served in the role and I felt that he did a good job in it. I have nothing in particular against Bill de Blasio except that I’m not so sure a member of the City Council is generally best to serve in that job. Rather, it seems to me that whoever is good at using a bully pulpit for the benefit of the people – and not for the benefit of the Mayor or City Council, who can already advocate for themselves – is really the best candidate for Public Advocate. I don’t mean to suggest that a member of the City Council couldn’t be the best candidate for the job or do well in it, but neither do I see an important reason not to vote for Mr. Green, and Mr. de Blasio’s City Council membership seems to me a weak additional argument against him, in a situation in which I think I’ll probably approve of either man’s performance if elected.

That said, I understand the argument that Green may be seeking the job of Public Advocate in order to try to win the Mayoralty through the back door, and my feeling is that the solution for this is to make the City Council President next in line for Mayor. It’s a much more similar job, although not subject to city-wide election. I’m not even sure that Public Advocate is an important enough position not to abolish, but given its very circumscribed powers, it certainly is poor preparation for Mayor.  

KY-Sen: Mongiardo Allegedly Caught on Tape Bashing Beshear

Um. Aww-kward:

Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo used profanity as he criticized Gov. Steve Beshear and his support of Mongiardo’s U.S. Senate candidacy in a recording posted last week on the Internet.

In the recording, which was placed on YouTube by someone using the name “senrace2010,” Mongiardo is heard saying he is so frustrated with Beshear that he is “close to saying f- it all. I do not need this job. I do not need the U.S. Senate.”

Mongiardo is also heard saying that Beshear, who has endorsed Mongiardo, will be remembered as the state’s “worst” governor and that a “blowup” is coming.

Mongiardo spokesman Kim Geveden said the audio tape was “edited” and that Mongiardo “strongly supports” Beshear. […]

In the recording of Mongiardo, he is heard saying “the only difference between (former Republican Gov. Ernie) Fletcher and Beshear is Beshear has not had a blowup yet. But it is coming.”

Mongiardo is also heard saying he has “zero loyalties with Beshear” and criticizes Beshear for raising funds for his 2011 re-election campaign while Mongiardo is trying to raise money for his U.S. Senate campaign next year.

“He (Beshear) is screwing me every way possible … and what do I get out of it … We finally begged him to show up for one in Northern Kentucky. He is not going to lift a finger, he is not going to do a damn thing, he is just going to show up and his name is going to be on the … listen there is no love.

You can listen to the audio here. It’s a bit choppy and muffled, and its provenance is something of a mystery, though it did first appear on the KY Revolution blog, a site with a decidedly pro-Rand Paul (and anti-everybody else) message. Beshear’s people still say that his endorsement stands, and are refusing to comment on the audio — but you can bet that the release of this thing has caused a few gaskets to blow over at the Governor’s mansion.

One thing’s for sure: someone better put a bar of soap into those Kentucky Demmycrats’ mouths. Oh, the humanity!

UPDATE: Hat-tip to Johnny Longtorso in the comments for rightly reminding us of the big fat stink that Mongiardo made out of Jack Conway’s use of milder profanities at Fancy Farm in August.

RaceTracker Wiki: KY-Sen

CA-Gov: Brown Beats All Republicans, Newsom Loses To All

Rasmussen (9/24, likely voters):

Jerry Brown (D): 44

Meg Whitman (R): 35

Some other: 3

Not sure: 18

Jerry Brown (D): 45

Steve Poizner (R): 32

Some other: 5

Not sure: 18

Jerry Brown (D): 44

Tom Campbell (R): 34

Some other: 6

Not sure: 16

Gavin Newsom (D): 36

Meg Whitman (R): 41

Some other: 5

Not sure: 18

Gavin Newsom (D): 36

Steve Poizner (R): 40

Some other: 6

Not sure: 18

Gavin Newsom (D): 36

Tom Campbell (R): 42

Some other: 6

Not sure: 17

(MoE: ±4.5%)

I certainly would have predicted that ex-Governor Jerry Brown was doing somewhat better than San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom vis-a-vis their Republican competition, but I wouldn’t have guessed the disparity was so great that Brown is putting up double-digit victory margins while Newsom is losing to all three Republicans… yet that’s what Rasmussen is telling us. Brown wins by a margin ranging from 9 to 13, while Newsom loses by a margin ranging from 4 to 6. The differences in performance among the three Republicans — all, superficially, moderate Silicon Valley types — are negligible.

Rasmussen doesn’t give us any primary numbers, but all polls of the primary so far have Brown up, although some by a narrow margin and some with a wide edge (although no polling has been done since Newsom scored a Bill Clinton endorsement). Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman has been accorded front-runner status on the GOP side, but it would be interesting to see if that’s been affected by the recent pounding she’s taken by the media over her almost-non-existent voting history. (In fact, it’s worth noting that this sample was taken on the 24th, before the Sacramento Bee’s story broke… and now the launch of Steve Poizner‘s new ad hammering on that point.)

RaceTracker: CA-Gov

How important are the Blue Dog Democrats in the South?

For purpose of this discussion, I’ve included the following states as “Southern”.  They are TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, and AR.  I left out some states such as MO,WV, and OK, where some would include as part of the South.  I think they are better suited elsewhere.

After the 1970 House elections, the Democrats had a whopping advantage of 84-29.  Here are the numbers for the following elections:

1972 Dems 79-36 edge

1974 Dems 86-29 edge

1976 Dems 86-29 edge

1978 Dems 81-34 edge

1980 Dems 73-42 edge

1982 Dems 86-37 edge

1984 Dems 77-46 edge

1986 Dems 81-42 edge

1988 Dems 81-42 edge

1990 Dems 81-42 edge

1992 Dems 81-50 edge

1994  GOP 68-63 edge

1996  GOP 76-55 edge

1998  GOP 76-55 edge

2000  GOP 77-54 edge

2002  GOP 81-56 edge

2004  GOP 87-50 edge

2006  GOP 81-56 edge

2008  GOP 76-61 edge

As a note, it’s interesting that under Jimmy Carter’s presidency, we lost (net) 13 seats and under Clinton we lost (net)27 seats.

Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, it was quite acceptable for a Southerner to vote for a Democrat.  Some of it has to do with the old Yellow Dog mentality (or better yet, because of some silly argument that Lincoln ruined the South).  Anyway, when the Dems had a large advantage in the South, there were very few who would be called a true progressive, albeit a liberal.  Yet, they did provide some assistance in some progressive economic issues.  Around 1992, many Southerners truly demonized Bill Clinton, saying that his morals and his big-government friends were going to ruin the US.  The moral majority joined the fray by stressing cultural issues that were imortant to many Southerners.  It’s somewhat ironic that it was under a Southern President’s watch that the GOP gained a stronghold of the South.

There have been plenty of party switching during the last 38 years, with many conservative Dems leaving the party and joining the GOP ranks.  The last time we had a US rep from the South leave the party was in 2004, when Rodney Alexander of LA and Ralph Hall of TX left the party.  I’m hoping the exodus from our party is over.

Currently, we have 21 Blue Dogs that reside in the South:  4 in GA (Barrow, Scott, Bishop, Marshall), 2 in AR (Berry, Ross), 1 in FL (Boyd), 2 in AL (Bright, Griffith), 1 in KY (Chandler), 2 in MS (Childers, Taylor), 4 in TN (Cooper, Davis, Gordon, Tanner), 1 in TX (Cuellar), 2 in NC (McIntyre, Shuler), 1 in LA (Melancon), and 1 in VA (Nye).

Most of these Reps are culturally conservative, but some are willing to help the Democratic party on economic issues.  Even a few (ex. Shuler) will vote for some pro-environment legislation.  Yet, many of us on SSP have mixed feelings about the Blue Dogs.  We like them for being in our ranks and occassionally supporting some progressive legislation, but then we get quite mad on other issues (cultural issues, healthcare, etc.).  So what should we do with the Blue Dogs?

First, if the current Blue Dogs in the South bolted our party, the GOP would have a huge advantage (97-40).  That, my friends, is shocking, since prior to the civil rights act of 1964, there were only a handful of Republicans in the South.  

Anyway, I wanted to open this up to discussion, because the South could end up losing several Democratic Rep seats in 2010.  My questions are:

1.  Are we willing to support Blue Dogs in the South when very vew are willing to support us on key issues (i.e. healthcare)?

2.  Is there a way to triangulate our ideas with the Blue Dogs whereby we can get some meaningful legislation passed without having to “water down” the importance of the legislation?

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

SSP Daily Digest: 9/28

A weirdly Senate-free version of the Digest…

IL-Gov: State Rep. Jack Franks, a Democrat from exurban McHenry County, was a loud and frequent Rod Blagojevich critic, and he was considering parlaying that into a run in the Illinois governor’s primary against incumbent Pat Quinn. Franks just decided against it, though. (He does sound like he’s going for higher office in 2012, including a possible run against Rep. Don Manzullo in IL-16, a low-profile wingnut who’s gotten a free pass for almost two decades in a district that just went for Obama.) Meanwhile, Pat Quinn got another key union endorsement, from UNITE HERE’s Local 1 (giving him pretty much the big union trifecta, having already gotten the SEIU and Teamsters).

MI-Gov: I can honestly say I didn’t see this coming; businessman Rick Snyder, who’s been polling in the low single digits in the GOP gubernatorial primary in Michigan, won a straw poll this weekend at a confab of party insiders on Mackinac Island. Snyder (who looks like he’s positioning himself as the ‘moderate’ in the race) got 31%, while AG Mike Cox and Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard each got 24%.

MN-Gov: Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor just moved its statewide convention from June to late April. This change appears to be due in part to the expected shift in Minnesota’s primary from September to August (or earlier), thanks to a new federal law regarding the date by which absentee ballots for the general election must be mailed. The new convention date probably makes life a bit harder for candidates who are currently members of the state legislature, since the legislative session doesn’t end until May 17th, 2010. (D)

OR-Gov: Up-and-coming Clackamas County Chairwoman Lynn Peterson was the subject of some gubernatorial speculation a few weeks ago, but now she’s declared that she won’t be running for the Democratic gubernatorial nod next year (despite her Facebook page saying otherwise).

PA-Gov: AG Tom Corbett got another high-profile (if somewhat stale) endorsement in the GOP gubernatorial contest: Dick Thornburgh, Pennsylvania’s former governor and US Attorney General.

IN-02: GOP St. Rep. Jackie Wolarski (who has earned the sobriquet “Wacky Jackie” for her right-wing views) turned down the NRCC’s entreaties for a run against Rep. Joe Donnelly in 2008, leaving them with the woeful Luke Puckett. However, she’s sounding more interested about a run in the R+2 2nd for 2010.

NV-03: Back to the drawing board for the NRCC in Nevada: their touted recruit John Guedry, a deep-pocketed banker who announced his bid last month against freshman Rep. Dina Titus, withdrew from the race over the weekend, citing family concerns. They may turn to former Clark County GOP chair Brian Scroggins instead, who had considered the race. Former state Sen. Joe Heck could be another replacement, but he says he’s staying put in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

NY-14: Our condolences to Rep. Carolyn Maloney and her family; her husband, Clifton Maloney, died while on a climbing expedition in the Himalayas, having just summitted the world’s sixth-highest peak.

NY-23: More trouble for moderate GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava on her right flank: the Club for Growth has endorsed her Conservative opponent, Doug Hoffman (although they’d certainly telegraphed their intents, having released a poll showing him making it a 3-way race). Also, Hoffman got another boost among the social conservative set, via an endorsement from Fred Thompson (of 2008 presidential nap race fame). Democrat Bill Owens isn’t wasting any time; he’s up with his second TV spot of the campaign already.

TN-03: Robin Smith, the leading GOP candidate to replace Zach Wamp, is claiming that Barack Obama personally called her “everything from racist to terrorist to extremist”. Smith, who served as chair of the Tennessee GOP during the last cycle, gained some previous notoriety for taking a hard run at Michelle Obama. The Smith campaign has yet to issue a retraction. (J)

WV-01: Rep. Alan Mollohan, long-serving Democrat in northern West Virginia, has easily dispatched GOP opposition in his R+9 district over the decades. In 2010, it looks like he’ll face off against state Senate minority whip Clark Barnes. One glitch: although Barnes grew up in the 1st, his Randolph County residence and almost all of his Senate district are in the 2nd.

Census: Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah — feeling the heat from the right in his primary — is introducing legislation to require the Census to ask a citizenship status question for purposes of apportionment. Such a bill is unlikely to gain any traction in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

End of Quarter Fundraising Push for Democratic Candidates for Senate

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

The last day of the third fundraising quarter of 2009 (whoa, time really flies!) is this Wednesday, September 30.  Our Democratic candidates for Senate need to make as big a fundraising splash as possible in the third quarter to help refute the growing conventional wisdom among the traditional media pundits that 2010 could be a Republican year.

Please, please, please consider making a contribution today to our Democratic candidates for Senate via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.  I’ve set some lofty, pie-in-the-sky goals that, if we were able to meet them, I’d be wonderfully surprised and gratified and blown away by your generosity.

Democrat Currently At
Goal
Distance to Goal
Robin Carnahan
$681
$1,000
$319
Paul Hodes
$780
$1,000
$220
Joe Sestak
$758
$1,000
$242
Charlie Melancon
$193
$400
$207

Please click on over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to help stop ongoing Republican obstruction in the Senate.  Every contribution makes a real impact whether it’s $100 or $25 or $10 or, well, any amount.  Want to rebel against multiples of five and contribute $63 or $39 or $27, knock yourself out!

Remember, the fundraising quarter ends this Wednesday, so please contribute today if you can.  Thank you SO much!

Ohio, Part 2

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the second part of an analysis on the swing state Ohio.

Photobucket

Unlike Florida and Pennsylvania, Ohio cannot be easily divided into geographically distinct regions (although they do exist). Instead, I will be examining it through the lens of both partys’ strongholds in the state.

History

During the late eighteenth century Ohio was a consistently Republican state, the equivalent today of North Dakota or Arizona. Democrats often came close behind – four or five points – but never quite won the state until 1912. Their stronghold lay in a ring of rural counties populated by German immigrants (a pattern that has completely disappeared today). But this was never enough to overcome Republican strength everywhere else.

It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed this pattern forever. He laid the foundations of Ohio’s structural politics, which exist to this very day. Roosevelt brought in previously hostile working-class counties along the northeast section of the state. He also shifted most of Ohio’s northern cities to the Democratic side – which had previously leaned Republican.

To see the effect, here is Roosevelt’s 2.85% victory in 1932:

Photobucket

Here is his 4.4% victory eight years later:

Photobucket

The maps are practically inverses of each other – courtesy of the New Deal.



Democratic Ohio

Today Roosevelt’s coalition remains, for the moment, intact; Democrats still dominate the union vote and northern cities. Because both populations reside along Ohio’s northern and eastern borders, Ohio’s Democratic results often form a blue “7.” The greater the Democratic margin of victory, the “fatter” and more defined the shape becomes.

For example, below the flip is Bill Clinton’s 1996 performance, in which he took the state by 6.4%.

Barack Obama is not a traditional Democrat as understood in Ohio. Unlike Bill Clinton, who was incredibly strong with working class folk, Barack Obama was and is an ill-fit for the Democratic base in Ohio. Nevertheless, because Obama represents what the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming (and because Barack Obama – not Bill Clinton – is our president), an analysis of the 2008 election is more pertinent to the state of affairs in Ohio today.

Obama’s county performance is at the top of this post. Let us look instead at his margins.

Photobucket

Obama won by assembling a coalition quite different from Clinton’s.  He did best in the southern cities of Columbus and Cincinnati, while doing fairly poorly in the east and southeast – places strong Democrats typically win.

Note the importance of industrial northeast Ohio. Democratic votes in Akron and Youngstown (Mahoning County) are vital for countering the Republican tilt of other parts of the state.

Then, of course, there is Cuyahoga County – Cleveland. Both the most populous and most Democratic county in Ohio, it is the foundation of Democratic strength in Ohio. Without Cleveland, Ohio would be convincingly Republican in each and every close presidential election.

Photobucket

Like many dying Midwestern cities, Cleveland is strongly segregated by race. White flight devastated the city, and it has never really recovered. Cleveland is not a liberal city like Seattle and Manhattan are; it votes Democratic due to the union-workers and African-Americans who live in it.

The same holds true for Ohio’s traditional Democratic base in general. Like much of the state itself, the industrial unionized workers and great northern cities have been declining together for decades. Cleveland has been losing population for five decades now. Toledo and Akron are both shedding population. The plight of Youngstown and its once-great unionized steel industry has continued through Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton and now Obama.

The day may soon come when these people become susceptible to Republican appeals on cultural issues, especially as the Democratic Party changes into the natural home of the coastal wealthy. Already a Rust Belt steelworker probably has more in common with a deep-fried Southern conservative than a Seattle environmentalist. If Ohio’s working class has anything in common with next-door West Virginia, they will start voting the same way too – although this has not happened yet.

There is one exception to this, however: the city of Columbus. In many ways Columbus is the opposite of Ohio. It is growing. It is diverse. It is liberal – in every sense and connotation of the word – and is moving swiftly to the Democrats, much like Fairfax County in Virginia.

So there may come a day – unlikely as it now seems – when Democrats anchor their strength not in the union workers in Youngstown and Akron but in Cleveland and Columbus, two opposite cities in every sense.

Ohio, Part 2

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the second part of an analysis on the swing state Ohio.

Photobucket

Unlike Florida and Pennsylvania, Ohio cannot be easily divided into geographically distinct regions (although they do exist). Instead, I will be examining it through the lens of both partys’ strongholds in the state.

History

During the late eighteenth century Ohio was a consistently Republican state, the equivalent today of North Dakota or Arizona. Democrats often came close behind – four or five points – but never quite won the state until 1912. Their stronghold lay in a ring of rural counties populated by German immigrants (a pattern that has completely disappeared today). But this was never enough to overcome Republican strength everywhere else.

It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed this pattern forever. He laid the foundations of Ohio’s structural politics, which exist to this very day. Roosevelt brought in previously hostile working-class counties along the northeast section of the state. He also shifted most of Ohio’s northern cities to the Democratic side – which had previously leaned Republican.

To see the effect, here is Roosevelt’s 2.85% victory in 1932:

Photobucket

Here is his 4.4% victory eight years later:

Photobucket

The maps are practically inverses of each other – courtesy of the New Deal.



Democratic Ohio

Today Roosevelt’s coalition remains, for the moment, intact; Democrats still dominate the union vote and northern cities. Because both populations reside along Ohio’s northern and eastern borders, Ohio’s Democratic results often form a blue “7.” The greater the Democratic margin of victory, the “fatter” and more defined the shape becomes.

For example, below the flip is Bill Clinton’s 1996 performance, in which he took the state by 6.4%.

PBI (Party Brand Index) Part 7: Ohio

PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI.  PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn’t explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who’s PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn’t win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?

Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I’ve tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, WV, and NH. Now I will look at the swing state of Ohio.

I had to take a break from my analysis for personal reasons, but I will try to return to my pattern of one diary a week. Like always I would like to post the data, then I will offer some analysis. My basic pattern is to work my way “out” from the “Purple States” to the more Blue and Red ones. (Although once in a while I like to skip my normal pattern of working out from purple states.  I’m often curious on how my model would work in states like that are deeply blue at the local level, but deeply red at the presidential level.) Let’s examine the swing state of Ohio, the first large state I have examined.

OHIO Part 1

OHIO Part 2

Based on the difference between PVI and PBI I will conjecture the following. Rep. Tiberi R-OH who according to PVI is in a D+1 District will continue to survive as PBI shows him to actually to have a 4% GOP edge in a house race. Representatives Driehaus (+1D PVI, – 2 PBI), Kilroy (+1D PVI, – 2 PBI), and  Boccieri (+4 R PVI, – 8 PBI) will be in for slightly tougher than expected races, while Rep. Space will win by a slightly larger than expected margin (+7 R PVI, – 5 PBI) My source for the election result data for Ohio is the Ohio Secretary of State.

One final note after I come across a few “conservative” Democrats, I run a “correction” factor to account for them being Blue Dogs. The general idea is that the distance they are able to maintain from the national party may help them win over voters who are more reluctant to vote for Democrats. I want to examine another swing state before I “recompute” Ohio’s Blue Dogs.

As a recap, here are the first “batch” of Blue Dogs, and rural Democrats (West Virginia’s Democrats aren’t members of the Blue Dogs) that I examined correcting for partisanship and ideology.

FOUR BLUE DOGS

THREE BLUE DOGS

As a reminder ranking a members ideology is a somewhat subjective decision. Potentially what’s one person “liberal” position, is another person “conservative” ones, remember the wingers developed a model that ranked the Sen. Obama as more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold. But partisanship, how often a member votes with their party is an absolute number. A Democrat who represents a “republican district” would be expected to “break with their party” on votes that don’t reflect their districts values.

I couldn’t find a website that ranks all the districts based on their PVI (I only could find list of them by state not rank, help please anyone), therefor I substituted a PVI ranking with where each member ranked in the Democratic caucus. In the 110th Congress the average Democrat had an ideological ranking of 170 (by the way this is a result of several members being tied, this is the medium not the midpoint). The average of members towards the center was 191, former Daily Kos celeb Ciro Rodriguez fell at exactly 191. The average of members towards the liberal side was 121, which falls between Rep. Larson of Conn. and Rep. Eshoo of CA. As or partisanship in the 110th Congress the average Democrat voted with their party 92.3% of the time.

As a clarification in Adjustment #1, I used a deviation factor based on how far each member was from the center of the Democratic caucus. Adjustment #2 was based on how far each member was from outside the standard deviation of the caucus. In Adjustment #3 I removed the partisanship factor to see what effect it would have. As I explained a few diaries ago I will use ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 2 in all subsequent corrections.

Because there are “only” 50 states (as opposed to evaluating 435 house members), I will at a later date have all the states ranked by PVI so I can adjust the Senator’s rankings. I developed Senate factors for the four states the four blue dogs came from. In the interest of full disclosure, my source for ideological rankings is Voteview, and for partisanship it was the Washington Post. This is still a work in progress, I’m making adjustments, and continuing to crunch numbers for more states. I also will use the adjustment factor on a liberal member of congress to see what effect that will have.

Anthology

PBI (Party Brand Index) Part 6 WV and NH

PBI (Party Brand Index) Part 5 Nevada and Iowa

PBI (part 4) MO, AR, OK

Party Brand Index (part 3) North Carolina

Party Brand Index (part 2) Colorado and Virginia (updated)

Introducing PBI, Party Brand Index (Updated)