MI-Gov: Bernero, Snyder Lead Primaries

EPIC-MRA for Detroit Free Press (7/26-27, likely voters, 6/? in parentheses):

Virg Bernero (D): 40 (24)

Andy Dillon (D): 32 (34)

Undecided: 28 (42)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

Republican primary:

Rick Snyder (R): 25 (20)

Mike Cox (R): 24 (26)

Peter Hoekstra (R): 18 (24)

Mike Bouchard (R): 16 (16)

Tom George (R): 1 (2)

Undecided: 15 (12)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

About the only thing we can say for certain about the Michigan gubernatorial primaries is that they’re both very unstable. On the Democratic side, state House speaker Andy Dillon has led most polls, but Lansing mayor Virg Bernero seems to be catching a late surge (to the extent that he’s been in the lead in the two most recent polls), perhaps as labor households finally find out that he’s the “labor” candidate.

EPIC-MRA finds Rick Snyder on top, although Snyder, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, and AG Mike Cox have all been taking turns on top of a closely-matched trio for months now, and there’s no reason to see Snyder as any likelier than the other two to win Tuesday’s primary. Snyder may have a path to victory though, in that he has the moderate side of the equation pretty much to himself; although the conservative part of the Republican primary electorate is certainly bigger, there are three viable conservatives in the field, splitting that segment. Snyder has the endorsement of noted moderates like ex-Gov. William Milliken and ex-Rep. Joe Schwarz, and moreover, he’s actively seeking crossover votes from Dems and indies in this open primary state. In a one-on-one primary, I don’t think this approach would work, but with such a conservative pile-up in the GOP field, Snyder has more than a fighting chance.

California: How Demographic Changes Impacted Partisan Changes (Part 2)

Our next stop is the inland area of Central and Northern California. Back in the old days, while the Republicans dominated the cities, Democrats dominated the countryside. The shift to the Republicans began in the 1960s after Civil Rights, though some areas held out until the 1980s. The only counties to resist the rightward trend were heavily urban Sacramento and college town Yolo (home of UC Davis).

In recent decades, population growth began a reversal of the Republican trend in counties such as San Joaquin as well as the tiny ski-based counties of Alpine and Mono and to a lesser extent Inyo. Other counties (Butte, Merced), with significant college towns, also reversed course. Fresno and El Dorado (suburban Sacramento) are beginning to follow those counties. Fortunately for California Democrats, aside from Kern and Kings, none of the counties that are still trending Republican are growing very fast, and this region has never made up more than 21% of the state’s population so the Republican shift has been far outweighed by the dramatic Democratic shifts in the NorCal and SoCal megalopolises.

Alpine

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
243
-21.4%
0.01%
R+25.8
1930
341
40.3%
0.01%
R+21.6
1940
323
-5.3%
0.00%
R+15.4
1950
241
-25.4%
0.00%
R+33.0
1960
397
64.7%
0.00%
R+24.4
1970
484
21.9%
0.00%
R+8.7
1980
1,097
126.7%
0.00%
R+7.9
1990
1,113
1.5%
0.00%
R+3.7
2000
1,208
8.5%
0.00%
R+3.5
2008*
1,061
-12.2%
0.00%
D+7.4

Amador

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,793
-14.2%
0.23%
D+1.9
1930
8,494
9.0%
0.15%
D+14.8
1940
8,973
5.6%
0.13%
D+12.8
1950
9,151
2.0%
0.09%
D+4.9
1960
9,990
9.2%
0.06%
D+6.8
1970
11,821
18.3%
0.06%
D+3.7
1980
19,314
63.4%
0.08%
R+3.2
1990
30,039
55.5%
0.10%
R+3.7
2000
35,100
16.8%
0.10%
R+9.4
2008*
38,238
8.9%
0.10%
R+11.4

Butte

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
30,030
10.0%
0.88%
R+1.5
1930
34,093
13.5%
0.60%
D+3.6
1940
42,840
25.7%
0.62%
D+4.4
1950
64,930
51.6%
0.61%
R+6.3
1960
82,030
26.3%
0.52%
R+4.5
1970
101,969
24.3%
0.51%
R+6.1
1980
143,851
41.1%
0.61%
R+8.0
1990
182,120
26.6%
0.61%
R+2.9
2000
203,171
11.6%
0.60%
R+10.1
2008*
220,337
8.4%
0.60%
R+3.1

Calaveras

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
6,183
-32.6%
0.18%
R+0.6
1930
6,008
-2.8%
0.11%
D+7.6
1940
8,221
36.8%
0.12%
D+7.1
1950
9,902
20.4%
0.09%
R+3.9
1960
10,289
3.9%
0.07%
R+1.7
1970
13,585
32.0%
0.07%
R+5.5
1980
20,710
52.4%
0.09%
R+6.3
1990
31,998
54.5%
0.11%
R+3.5
2000
40,554
26.7%
0.12%
R+10.2
2008*
46,843
15.5%
0.13%
R+10.6

Colusa

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
9,290
20.2%
0.27%
D+7.1
1930
10,258
10.4%
0.18%
D+7.3
1940
9,788
-4.6%
0.14%
D+7.0
1950
11,651
19.0%
0.11%
R+2.1
1960
12,075
3.6%
0.08%
D+1.4
1970
12,430
2.9%
0.06%
R+1.9
1980
12,791
2.9%
0.05%
R+7.0
1990
16,275
27.2%
0.05%
R+9.5
2000
18,804
15.5%
0.06%
R+16.1
2008*
21,204
12.8%
0.06%
R+14.9

El Dorado

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
6,426
-14.2%
0.19%
D+2.6
1930
8,235
28.2%
0.15%
D+15.5
1940
13,229
60.6%
0.19%
D+13.2
1950
16,207
22.5%
0.15%
R+1.7
1960
29,390
81.3%
0.19%
D+2.2
1970
43,833
49.1%
0.22%
D+0.1
1980
85,812
95.8%
0.36%
R+5.8
1990
125,995
46.8%
0.42%
R+7.5
2000
156,299
24.1%
0.46%
R+12.7
2008*
176,075
12.7%
0.48%
R+10.0

Fresno

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
128,779
70.2%
3.76%
D+3.4
1930
144,379
12.1%
2.54%
D+8.7
1940
178,565
23.7%
2.59%
D+15.6
1950
276,515
54.9%
2.61%
D+7.4
1960
365,945
32.3%
2.33%
D+9.9
1970
413,329
12.9%
2.07%
D+6.1
1980
514,621
24.5%
2.17%
R+0.4
1990
667,490
29.7%
2.24%
D+0.4
2000
799,407
19.8%
2.36%
R+5.7
2008*
909,153
13.7%
2.49%
R+4.7

Glenn

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
11,853
65.3%
0.35%
D+0.7
1930
10,935
-7.7%
0.19%
D+0.8
1940
12,195
11.5%
0.18%
D+2.6
1950
15,448
26.7%
0.15%
D+7.0
1960
17,245
11.6%
0.11%
D+1.1
1970
17,521
1.6%
0.09%
R+5.9
1980
21,350
21.9%
0.09%
R+10.2
1990
24,798
16.1%
0.08%
R+10.7
2000
26,453
6.7%
0.08%
R+19.4
2008*
28,237
6.7%
0.08%
R+15.8

Inyo

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,031
0.8%
0.21%
D+0.9
1930
6,555
-6.8%
0.12%
D+4.5
1940
7,625
16.3%
0.11%
D+0.4
1950
11,658
52.9%
0.11%
R+12.1
1960
11,684
0.2%
0.07%
R+6.8
1970
15,571
33.3%
0.08%
R+9.9
1980
17,895
14.9%
0.08%
R+13.4
1990
18,281
2.2%
0.06%
R+11.4
2000
17,945
-1.8%
0.05%
R+14.6
2008*
17,136
-4.5%
0.05%
R+8.7

Kern

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
54,843
45.4%
1.60%
D+10.8
1930
82,570
50.6%
1.45%
D+5.1
1940
135,124
63.6%
1.96%
D+10.2
1950
228,309
69.0%
2.16%
D+2.5
1960
291,984
27.9%
1.86%
D+2.8
1970
330,234
13.1%
1.66%
R+1.6
1980
403,089
22.1%
1.70%
R+6.6
1990
544,981
35.2%
1.83%
R+9.5
2000
661,645
21.4%
1.95%
R+13.6
2008*
800,458
21.0%
2.19%
R+14.3

Kings

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
22,031
35.7%
0.64%
D+2.6
1930
25,385
15.2%
0.45%
D+9.8
1940
35,168
38.5%
0.51%
D+13.3
1950
46,768
33.0%
0.44%
D+7.6
1960
49,954
6.8%
0.32%
D+11.4
1970
66,717
33.6%
0.33%
D+2.8
1980
73,738
10.5%
0.31%
R+2.7
1990
101,469
37.6%
0.34%
R+4.1
2000
129,461
27.6%
0.38%
R+8.6
2008*
149,518
15.5%
0.41%
R+12.8

Lassen

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
8,507
77.2%
0.25%
D+0.6
1930
12,589
48.0%
0.22%
D+7.6
1940
14,479
15.0%
0.21%
D+16.2
1950
18,474
27.6%
0.17%
D+12.1
1960
13,597
-26.4%
0.09%
D+12.3
1970
16,796
23.5%
0.08%
D+6.0
1980
21,661
29.0%
0.09%
R+0.1
1990
27,598
27.4%
0.09%
R+6.3
2000
33,828
22.6%
0.10%
R+18.2
2008*
34,574
2.2%
0.09%
R+21.0

Madera

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
12,203
45.8%
0.36%
D+5.0
1930
17,164
40.7%
0.30%
D+8.9
1940
23,314
35.8%
0.34%
D+14.0
1950
36,964
58.5%
0.35%
D+6.7
1960
40,468
9.5%
0.26%
D+11.7
1970
41,519
2.6%
0.21%
D+5.3
1980
63,116
52.0%
0.27%
R+0.4
1990
88,090
39.6%
0.30%
R+4.8
2000
123,109
39.8%
0.36%
R+14.0
2008*
148,333
20.5%
0.41%
R+12.0

Mariposa

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
2,775
-29.9%
0.08%
D+8.0
1930
3,233
16.5%
0.06%
D+7.5
1940
5,605
73.4%
0.08%
D+11.6
1950
5,145
-8.2%
0.05%
R+11.0
1960
5,064
-1.6%
0.03%
R+3.6
1970
6,015
18.8%
0.03%
R+1.2
1980
11,108
84.7%
0.05%
R+3.4
1990
14,302
28.8%
0.05%
R+2.5
2000
17,130
19.8%
0.05%
R+12.7
2008*
17,976
4.9%
0.05%
R+10.2

Merced

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
24,579
62.3%
0.72%
R+0.9
1930
36,748
49.5%
0.65%
D+4.9
1940
46,988
27.9%
0.68%
D+9.9
1950
69,780
48.5%
0.66%
D+2.9
1960
90,446
29.6%
0.58%
D+9.9
1970
104,629
15.7%
0.52%
D+5.8
1980
134,558
28.6%
0.57%
D+2.0
1990
178,403
32.6%
0.60%
D+0.7
2000
210,554
18.0%
0.62%
R+3.7
2008*
246,117
16.9%
0.67%
R+2.7

Modoc

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
5,425
-12.4%
0.16%
D+4.3
1930
8,038
48.2%
0.14%
D+7.1
1940
8,713
8.4%
0.13%
D+4.9
1950
9,678
11.1%
0.09%
R+3.3
1960
8,308
-14.2%
0.05%
D+1.1
1970
7,469
-10.1%
0.04%
R+3.7
1980
8,610
15.3%
0.04%
R+9.7
1990
9,678
12.4%
0.03%
R+9.2
2000
9,449
-2.4%
0.03%
R+21.7
2008*
9,184
-2.8%
0.03%
R+22.8

Mono

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
960
-53.0%
0.03%
R+4.7
1930
1,360
41.7%
0.02%
D+0.8
1940
2,299
69.0%
0.03%
D+0.7
1950
2,115
-8.0%
0.02%
R+21.0
1960
2,213
4.6%
0.01%
R+16.5
1970
4,016
81.5%
0.02%
R+14.0
1980
8,577
113.6%
0.04%
R+13.9
1990
9,956
16.1%
0.03%
R+6.9
2000
12,853
29.1%
0.04%
R+7.8
2008*
12,774
-0.6%
0.03%
D+2.2

Nevada

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,850
-27.4%
0.32%
D+0.3
1930
10,596
-2.3%
0.19%
D+6.4
1940
19,283
82.0%
0.28%
D+11.1
1950
19,888
3.1%
0.19%
R+5.8
1960
20,911
5.1%
0.13%
R+3.1
1970
26,346
26.0%
0.13%
R+1.5
1980
51,645
96.0%
0.22%
R+6.6
1990
78,510
52.0%
0.26%
R+5.6
2000
92,033
17.2%
0.27%
R+11.6
2008*
97,118
5.5%
0.27%
R+2.0

Placer

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
18,584
1.9%
0.54%
D+5.3
1930
24,468
31.7%
0.43%
D+11.6
1940
28,108
14.9%
0.41%
D+14.2
1950
41,649
48.2%
0.39%
D+6.7
1960
56,998
36.9%
0.36%
D+8.8
1970
77,632
36.2%
0.39%
D+6.5
1980
117,247
51.0%
0.50%
R+2.0
1990
172,796
47.4%
0.58%
R+7.7
2000
248,399
43.8%
0.73%
R+13.0
2008*
341,945
37.7%
0.93%
R+10.8

Plumas

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
5,681
8.0%
0.17%
D+0.8
1930
7,913
39.3%
0.14%
D+15.3
1940
11,548
45.9%
0.17%
D+17.7
1950
13,519
17.1%
0.13%
D+12.3
1960
11,620
-14.0%
0.07%
D+14.0
1970
11,707
0.7%
0.06%
D+10.8
1980
17,340
48.1%
0.07%
R+0.2
1990
19,739
13.8%
0.07%
R+0.3
2000
20,824
5.5%
0.06%
R+13.9
2008*
20,275
-2.6%
0.06%
R+10.6

Sacramento

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
91,029
34.2%
2.66%
D+0.6
1930
141,999
56.0%
2.50%
D+9.9
1940
170,333
20.0%
2.47%
D+15.5
1950
277,140
62.7%
2.62%
D+7.2
1960
502,778
81.4%
3.20%
D+9.5
1970
634,373
26.2%
3.18%
D+8.3
1980
783,381
23.5%
3.31%
D+2.0
1990
1,041,219
32.9%
3.50%
D+2.0
2000
1,223,499
17.5%
3.61%
D+1.1
2008*
1,394,154
13.9%
3.81%
D+3.7

San Joaquin

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
79,905
57.5%
2.33%
D+3.3
1930
102,940
28.8%
1.81%
D+2.1
1940
134,207
30.4%
1.94%
D+4.9
1950
200,750
49.6%
1.90%
R+2.1
1960
249,989
24.5%
1.59%
D+0.0
1970
291,073
16.4%
1.46%
D+0.5
1980
347,342
19.3%
1.47%
R+3.7
1990
480,628
38.4%
1.62%
R+1.2
2000
563,598
17.3%
1.66%
R+2.4
2008*
672,388
19.3%
1.84%
R+0.4

Shasta

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
13,361
-29.4%
0.39%
D+1.7
1930
13,927
4.2%
0.25%
D+10.8
1940
28,800
106.8%
0.42%
D+11.1
1950
36,413
26.4%
0.34%
D+2.6
1960
59,468
63.3%
0.38%
D+12.2
1970
77,640
30.6%
0.39%
D+9.1
1980
115,613
48.9%
0.49%
R+3.7
1990
147,036
27.2%
0.49%
R+8.3
2000
163,256
11.0%
0.48%
R+17.9
2008*
180,214
10.4%
0.49%
R+16.9

Sierra

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
1,783
-56.5%
0.05%
R+0.9
1930
2,422
35.8%
0.04%
D+10.4
1940
3,025
24.9%
0.04%
D+13.6
1950
2,410
-20.3%
0.02%
D+1.9
1960
2,247
-6.8%
0.01%
D+4.9
1970
2,365
5.3%
0.01%
D+6.9
1980
3,073
29.9%
0.01%
D+1.4
1990
3,318
8.0%
0.01%
R+1.5
2000
3,555
7.1%
0.01%
R+17.0
2008*
3,263
-8.2%
0.01%
R+14.6

Siskiyou

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
18,545
-1.4%
0.54%
D+4.4
1930
25,480
37.4%
0.45%
D+7.8
1940
28,598
12.2%
0.41%
D+8.2
1950
30,733
7.5%
0.29%
D+1.4
1960
32,885
7.0%
0.21%
D+7.2
1970
33,225
1.0%
0.17%
D+3.9
1980
39,732
19.6%
0.17%
R+4.0
1990
43,531
9.6%
0.15%
D+1.9
2000
44,301
1.8%
0.13%
R+13.0
2008*
44,542
0.5%
0.12%
R+9.7

Stanislaus

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
43,557
93.4%
1.27%
R+1.0
1930
56,641
30.0%
1.00%
R+3.3
1940
74,866
32.2%
1.08%
R+0.4
1950
127,231
69.9%
1.20%
R+1.7
1960
157,294
23.6%
1.00%
D+4.5
1970
194,506
23.7%
0.97%
D+5.3
1980
265,900
36.7%
1.12%
D+1.4
1990
370,522
39.3%
1.25%
R+0.3
2000
446,997
20.6%
1.32%
R+4.4
2008*
510,694
14.2%
1.40%
R+5.4

Sutter

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,115
59.8%
0.30%
D+3.2
1930
14,618
44.5%
0.26%
D+9.2
1940
18,680
27.8%
0.27%
D+5.7
1950
26,239
40.5%
0.25%
R+9.2
1960
33,380
27.2%
0.21%
R+9.4
1970
41,935
25.6%
0.21%
R+9.2
1980
52,246
24.6%
0.22%
R+10.6
1990
64,415
23.3%
0.22%
R+15.0
2000
78,930
22.5%
0.23%
R+17.5
2008*
92,207
16.8%
0.25%
R+14.4

Tehama

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
12,882
13.0%
0.38%
D+1.0
1930
13,866
7.6%
0.24%
R+1.9
1940
14,316
3.2%
0.21%
R+0.6
1950
19,276
34.6%
0.18%
R+7.6
1960
25,305
31.3%
0.16%
D+1.7
1970
29,517
16.6%
0.15%
D+2.5
1980
38,888
31.7%
0.16%
R+3.9
1990
49,625
27.6%
0.17%
R+3.5
2000
56,039
12.9%
0.17%
R+15.3
2008*
61,550
9.8%
0.17%
R+16.2

Trinity

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
2,551
-22.7%
0.07%
D+2.3
1930
2,809
10.1%
0.05%
D+13.2
1940
3,970
41.3%
0.06%
D+7.9
1950
5,087
28.1%
0.05%
R+1.4
1960
9,706
90.8%
0.06%
D+9.2
1970
7,615
-21.5%
0.04%
D+4.4
1980
11,858
55.7%
0.05%
R+3.6
1990
13,063
10.2%
0.04%
D+2.5
2000
13,022
-0.3%
0.04%
R+10.9
2008*
14,317
9.9%
0.04%
R+3.1

Tulare

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
59,031
66.6%
1.72%
R+0.8
1930
77,442
31.2%
1.36%
D+0.6
1940
107,152
38.4%
1.55%
D+4.0
1950
149,264
39.3%
1.41%
R+1.4
1960
168,403
12.8%
1.07%
D+0.4
1970
188,322
11.8%
0.94%
R+3.5
1980
245,738
30.5%
1.04%
R+6.7
1990
311,921
26.9%
1.05%
R+8.2
2000
368,021
18.0%
1.09%
R+12.9
2008*
426,276
15.8%
1.17%
R+13.5

Tuolumne

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
7,768
-22.2%
0.23%
D+3.1
1930
9,271
19.3%
0.16%
D+6.2
1940
10,887
17.4%
0.16%
D+9.9
1950
12,584
15.6%
0.12%
R+3.7
1960
14,404
14.5%
0.09%
D+3.0
1970
22,169
53.9%
0.11%
D+1.7
1980
33,928
53.0%
0.14%
R+3.0
1990
48,456
42.8%
0.16%
R+1.3
2000
54,501
12.5%
0.16%
R+8.6
2008*
55,644
2.1%
0.15%
R+9.9

Yolo

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
17,105
22.8%
0.50%
D+1.2
1930
23,644
38.2%
0.42%
D+6.0
1940
27,243
15.2%
0.39%
D+5.8
1950
40,640
49.2%
0.38%
D+2.0
1960
65,727
61.7%
0.42%
D+7.3
1970
91,788
39.7%
0.46%
D+13.9
1980
113,374
23.5%
0.48%
D+6.4
1990
141,210
24.6%
0.47%
D+11.8
2000
168,660
19.4%
0.50%
D+9.1
2008*
197,658
17.2%
0.54%
D+13.3

Yuba

Year Population Change % of state PVI
1920
10,375
3.3%
0.30%
R+2.8
1930
11,331
9.2%
0.20%
D+11.0
1940
17,034
50.3%
0.25%
D+11.7
1950
24,420
43.4%
0.23%
R+3.1
1960
33,859
38.7%
0.22%
R+0.2
1970
44,736
32.1%
0.22%
R+1.2
1980
49,733
11.2%
0.21%
R+1.8
1990
58,228
17.1%
0.20%
R+8.8
2000
60,219
3.4%
0.18%
R+13.5
2008*
73,067
21.3%
0.20%
R+14.0

Legacy of the Class of ’94: Part One, Success Stories

In 1994, the GOP swept to power, picking up 54 House seats.  Of course, this led to numerous House freshmen.  I’m going to examine every single Freshman from that year and see how their legacy played out.

Category One: High Success: Still in Congress/Governorships/Cabinet (as of 2011)

 Brian Bilbray, San Diego —Lost in ’00 and came back to win a different House seat after the incumbent resigned due to corruption.  Successful and non-controversial representative.  Possibly vulnerable in 2012, depending on redistricting.

 Saxby Chambliss, S. Georgia (current Senator)—Has been very conservative, non-controversial Senator (other than the Cleland election, as sapelcovits pointed out).  Ranking Member of Ag. Committee.

 Ray LaHood, C. Illinois (current SoTrans.)—I don’t think he’s done anything wrong.  Obama likes him.

 Tom Latham, C. Iowa—A sane conservative.  Will probably fight Boswell in 2012 due to redistricting, but I think he’ll win.  He’s a good guy, even if he’s a Republican.

 Sam Brownback, Topeka—A non-sane conservative.  Future Gov. of Kansas, loved by Religious Right.  He won a Dem-held open seat in ’94 and proceeded to bring on teh crazy.  Now he wants to ban all centaurs (look it up).

 Ed Whitfield, W. Kentucky—Still a Representative, ideologically slightly moderate, but mostly conservative.  Free from controversy.

 Bob Ehrlich, Annapolis—Hopefully will not become Governor again this year.  But hopefully he’ll stay out of sight.  I really don’t know much about him.  

 Roger Wicker, N. Mississippi—Relatively new Senator, replaced Trent Lott.  In middle of GOP Caucus.

 Charlie Bass, W. New Hampshire—Will be a Rep. again next year after losing in ’06.  Sane as well, defeated SSP fave Dick Swett.  

 Frank LoBiondo, S. New Jersey—Another moderate Republican, one of perhaps 10-15 in the caucus today.  Broke term limits pledge.  

 Rodney Frelinghuysen, NW New Jersey—Yet another moderate Republican.  Six members of his family have been in Congress.

 Richard Burr, Winston-Salem—The definition of Meh.  Anyone who reads SSP knows enough about this vulnerable Senator.  

 Sue Myrick, Charlotte—Former mayor, very popular, pretty conservative.  One of many anonymous GOPers who follow party line but don’t speak up.  

 Steve Chabot, Cincinnati—Will be back in Congress this year, most likely.  Another noncontroversial conservative.  

 Steven Latourette, Cleveland Suburbs—Another rational Republican, similar to Latham, Frelinghuysen, although pro-life.  He defeated an incumbent freshman and probably has this seat for as long as he wants it, in my opinion.  

 Tom Coburn, E. Oklahoma—Bring on teh crazy.  Coburn is the definition of a wingnut Senator, one of the 3 most conservative in the Senate, I believe.  However, he’s pretty safe in his seat and is a strong campaigner.  

 Lindsey Graham, Upstate SC—Yet another rational Republican.  Probably will lose in his next Senate primary, but still.  He’s yet another Senator from this class.  They had ambitious Congressmen.  

 Mac Thornberry, W. Texas—Crushed incumbent Bill Sarpalius in this yellow dog district, and has been safe since.  However, we can see that at this point, there will be fewer than 25 active politicians left from this 70-ish+ person class after only 16 years.  

 Doc Hastings, Yakima—WA’s delegation went from 8-1 Democrat to 7-2 Republican, but he’s the only one left.  GOP head of the Resources Committee, advocates for ruining our planet.

 Jon Kyl, Arizona—Now on to those elected as Senators.  Kyl is second-in-command for the GOP and has been very conservative and very successful.  He impresses me.

 Olympia Snowe, Maine—A moderate, although not so much on HCR. Will retire in two years, I believe.  Has had huge amount of tragedy in her life, read about her.

 James Inhofe, Oklahoma—Where to begin? Global warming mocker, religious nutcase, IDK what else to say.  At least no corruption, that’s the only plus.

And, that’s it for successful, non-corrupt politicians from the class of 1994.  22 members.  Part two will be the corrupt/scandal-plagued ones and part three the retired/retiring ones.  Please respond with what you think of this diary set, I’m interested.

 

House 2010: The 39 Steps

Thirty-nine is an important number to consider heading into this fall’s elections–it’s the net number of House seats the GOP will have to gain in order to take control of the chamber. There’s been quite a bit of prognosticating and guesswork going on as to how many seats will change hands this fall, and I’m not seeking to add to those, but to predict which seats are most likely to change hands, sort of like what Chris Cillizza does with his Friday Lines. So, without further ado, one humble SSP user’s suggested “path to 39.”

1. Tennessee’s 6th (Middle TN)–Democrats have given up on holding Bart Gordon’s district, this Thursday’s primary will determine the next Rep.

2. Louisiana’s 3rd (South)–See above. Republican Hunt Downer is likely to represent this district for its final two years of existence.

3. Arkansas’ 2nd (Central)–Joyce Elliott is an intriguing woman who would be a good candidate in many parts of the country, but not in Arkansas, and certainly not this year.

4. New York’s 29th (South Tier)–Ah, the Empire State, home to the country’s most pathetically dysfunctional state GOP (sorry, Florida, you’re a close second), as well as several freshman and sophomore Democrats in swing districts. If the House is going to flip, Republicans are going to need 3 takeovers in New York, and not even the state party should be able to screw this open-seat race up.

5. New Hampshire’s 2nd (West)–Most people have this ranked much lower, but Charlie Bass is a great candidate for this cycle and district. He’s led in every public poll of the race, and his fundraising disadvantage won’t be particularly significant in this small-market district.

6. Maryland’s 1st (Eastern Shore)–If Frank Kratovil is keeping things close here on election night, it will be a great sign for Democrats nationwide.

7. Kansas’ 3rd (KCK)–Some people are high on Stephene Moore as a candidate, but I’m just not seeing it. Again, if Republicans can’t win here, they won’t be winning many places at all.

8. Indiana’s 8th (Southwest)–Brad Ellsworth would have held this seat with little difficulty, but as an open seat it represents one of the Republicans’ easier pickups. Indiana has tacked rightward since giving its electoral votes to President Obama in 2008.

9. Virginia’s 5th (Southside)–It took Robert Hurt a while to get his campaign off the ground, but polling now indicates that he’s consolidated conservative support. Perriello is a great fundraiser but the money alone may not be enough.

10. Mississippi’s 1st (North)–The GOP fielded the best candidate it could in Alan Nunnelee, but Travis Childers hasn’t really given his constituents any reason to fire him. Should he survive, he may be in for a career like his colleague Gene Taylor’s.

Now, if Democrats curb losses at 10, that’s a great night for the President’s Party. However, given the current environment, we’ll keep going.

11. Ohio’s 1st (Cincinnati)–Steve Chabot is back for revenge after losing this seat in 2008, in large part because of unprecedented levels of minority turnout. If Driehaus loses here, watch for him to try again in 2012 with Obama atop the ballot.

12. New Mexico’s 2nd (South)–The battle of the oilmen! With fundraising not likely to be a problem for either side, the environment and the reddish nature of this district should give Steve Pearce an edge.

13. Virginia’s 2nd (VA Beach area)–Glenn Nye has done a better job of voting his district than has Tom Perriello, but there seems to be enough anger in his district to make that point irrelevant. This may come down to how much of his own money Scott Rigell is willing to spend.

14. Ohio’s 15th (Columbus)–Steve Stivers came oh-so-close to winning this open seat in 2008, and is back for another shot at now-incumbent Mary Jo Kilroy, who has been a reliable liberal vote so far. If Kilroy survives, it probably means Strickland and Fisher are on their way to victory.

15. Florida’s 8th (Orlando)–Lightning rod Alan Grayson, the Michele Bachmann of the left, is just as good as the Tea Party Queen at raising big money from national donors. The difference? Bachmann’s district is R+7, Grayson’s is a tough R+2.

16. New York’s 24th (Central Upstate)–The second GOP target in New York is the seat of sophomore Michael Arcuri, who’s been an underwhelming Congressman to this point and again faces his 2008 challenger, quirky businessman Richard Hanna. The further away from this race the state party stays, the better Hanna’s chances will be this time.

17. Pennsylvania’s 7th (Philly Suburbs)–Like New York, Pennsylvania is chock-full of one- and two-term Democrats in swing districts, the result of the 2001 GOP “dummymander.” And like New York, the Republicans will need at least 3, and probably 4 seats out of the Keystone state to retake the House. The easiest pickup is Joe Sestak’s open seat, which despite its PVI is fertile Republican turf (see Nate Silver’s excellent article on “PPI” from this week for more details on this).

18. North Dakota (the whole state)–Earl Pomeroy is a political survivor, and Republicans haven’t even bothered seriously challenging him in almost a decade. But Rick Berg is Pomeroy’s toughest opponent since the 90’s, and John Hoeven will provide some good coattails atop the ticket. If Pomeroy wins this year, this will be his seat for life.

19. Illinois’ 14th (North Central)–Yet another large state with several freshman and sophomore Democrats in swing seats (broken record, I know). Illinois looks tougher than NY or PA for Republicans, but Bill Foster is an obvious target in the 14th. He’s won twice against a less-than-perfect opponent, and now faces St. Sen. Randy Hultgren in Dennis Hastert’s old district. Full Disclaimer: I’m dating a Hultgren volunteer, and she’s ordered me to keep this race in the top 20. Interpret this ranking as you will.

20. Pennsylvania’s 11th (East Central)–Another Keystone opportunity for Republicans, this time for the seat of the embattled Paul Kanjorski. Touted small-city mayor Lou Barletta has is back for a third run at this seat after a close loss in ’08, and his signature issue of immigration has been on the forefront of everyone’s minds this year. Is this the cycle Barletta breaks through?

21. Colorado’s 4th (East)–On paper, this looks like a fairly easy pickup, but the Colorado GOP’s self destruction in the gubernatorial race gives Betsey Markey a better shot at holding her seat after flipping her HCR vote. Still, Cory Gardner is a strong challenger who will keep this one interesting regardless of how the statewide elections go.

22. New Hampshire’s 1st (East)–Here’s the other, and more conservative, Granite State seat, held by the enigmatic Carol Shea-Porter. Once again, this is an easy target on paper–an incumbent elected on a now-unimportant single issue (getting out of Iraq) who is about two clicks to the left of her district and has never fundraised well. Yet Shea-Porter has won twice against the odds, and I’ll only believe she’s beatable if January rolls around and she’s out of office.

23. Tennessee’s 8th (West)–The second open seat in Tennessee will be a much tougher takeover than the first. Republicans have three strong candidates, but need someone to survive the primary intact in order to have a shot. Well-funded Democrat Roy Herron awaits the winner in this ancestrally Democratic district.

24. Michigan’s 1st (North and Upper Peninsula)– See “Tennessee’s 8th” above. Open seat, traditionally Democratic, GOP primary, good environment, good Democrat, gubernatorial race to drive turnout………let’s just call ’em both pure tossups for now. The PVI here is a little better for Dems though.

25. Florida’s 24th (Space Coast)–Suzanne Kosmas also got herself into trouble by vacillating on HCR and this time must face a Republican who is not Tom Feeney. Sandy Adams excited the base when she entered the race but has been an unimpressive fundraiser, and the other Republicans in the field all have their flaws as well. But, if the national mood persists, might “generic R” be good enough here?

At 25 seats gained, this is the dividing line between a “good” and “very good” night for the GOP. All seats below this point are uphill battles, yet still winnable.

26. Nevada’s 3rd (South Vegas Suburbs)–Dina Titus is a tough politician who will not go down without a fight, but it’s hard to envision a Republican controlled 112th Congress that doesn’t include Joe Heck.  This tossup may come down to how well the Reids are faring atop the ticket.

27. North Carolina’s 8th (South Central)–Democrat Larry Kissell narrowly lost his first bid for this seat in 2006, and then roared back to win it in 2008. The key difference? The 8th is 26% black, and Obama’s presence atop the ticket turned out the voters Kissell needed to put himself over the top. Can he validate that win this year against a rather generic Republican opponent? Stay tuned.

28. Ohio’s 16th (South of Cleveland)–This looks like a slugfest. Challenger Jim Rennacci has matched freshman Rep. John Boccieri dollar for dollar in the fundraising department each quarter so far in this slight McCain district. A pure tossup that will probably indicate the direction the other Ohio races are going in this year.

29. Michigan’s 7th (South)–Another freshman in a marginal district, Mark Schauer scored less than 50% last time and now faces a much more difficult environment. However, his saving grace may be that Republicans could nominate Tim Walberg to run for his old seat again instead of the more electable Brian Rooney. This will move up or down the list depending on who wins the primary.

30. Arizona’s 5th (Scottsdale area)–Harry Mitchell is a very lucky politician. First, he had the chance to knock out erratic Rep. JD Hayworth in 2006. Then, a brutal Republican primary seriously weakened his opponent in 2008 and Mitchell ran up a big margin. And now, with the national headwinds finally on their side, Republicans run the risk of beating themselves up again. If the primary is more civil this time, we’ll learn if Harry Mitchell is really lucky or just plain good.

31. New Mexico’s 1st (Albuquerque)–Never expected to see this on the road to retaking the House, but Jon Barela has been one of the most pleasant Republican surprises of the cycle. He’s running strong against freshman Martin Heinrich, who posted a big win here in ’08. There are other options for the GOP if Heinrich recovers before Election Day, but a loss here would make the math a lot harder for Democrats.

32. New York’s 19th (Hudson Valley)–I promised you 3 New York seats, and here’s the third and final. In the 19th, we find 70’s crooner John Hall seeking a third term against moderate Republican Dr. Nan Hayworth. The grandmotherly challenger has been a fundraising machine, and was one of the few non-Democratic beneficiaries of the NYGOP’s dysfunction, as her too-conservative primary challenger Greg Ball unexpectedly quit the race. Hall has a tough race on his hands, but will be helped out by Cuomo, Schumer, and Gillibrand’s big margins atop the ticket.

33. South Dakota (the whole thing)–Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is another incumbent who has done nothing to deserve a pink slip, aside perhaps from voting Pelosi for speaker, and seems to fit South Dakota well. However, she faces a strong challenge from young State Rep. Kristi Noem, and could become a casualty if it’s a big national night for Republicans.

34. Pennsylvania’s 3rd (Northwest)–Freshman Kathy Dahlkemper outran Obama by 2 points as she ousted Rep. Phil English, and now faces the underfunded Mike Kelley. However, the district remains fundamentally Republican, and the GOP needs a few wins in Pennsylvania if their pickups are going to be in the mid-30’s or higher.

If 25 seats is a very good night, 35 seats is a national wave, and most waves are marked by the fall of an entrenched titan of the opposing party. If the Republicans get to that point in 2010, the fall guy is likely to be……..

35. South Carolina’s 5th (Midlands)– John Spratt, the stately Southern gentleman whose district has not elected a Republican since Reconstruction. Mick Mulvaney is seeking to break that streak, and his fundraising has been good enough to keep him in the race–which is all he needs to do at this point. If DeMint and Haley can fire up some grassroots anger and seats across the country are flipping, the Budget Chairman will be in trouble.

36. Washington’s 3rd (Southwest)–It’s hard to get a good read on Washington, and particularly on this open-seat race. On the one hand, the district voted for Bush twice and Republicans have an intriguing candidate in Jamie Herrera. On the other, the Democrats in the race are winning the fundraising war and the Pacific Northwest seems to slip further to the left every year. I only see this one flipping if the GOP is close to retaking the House. In fact, given that this is the Pacific time zone, this may be the race that everyone will be up watching on election night.

37. West Virginia’s 1st (North)-This one was much higher on the list until two very favorable bounces for the Democrats. First, they replaced scandal-plagued Alan Mollohan with the cleaner Mike Oliverio, who is just the type of ConservaDem that can win in this district. Then, the Senate special got moved to this year and Joe Manchin will be leading the ticket. However, Appalachia continues to move away from the Democrats and David McKinley is the best candidate the GOP has fielded here in a lo-o-ong time.

38. Pennsylvania’s 8th (NE Philly Suburbs)-The fourth and final Pennsylvania district on this list is an Irish O’Rematch of one of the closest races of the 2006 cycle. Incumbent Patrick Murphy, a rising Democratic star, again faces former Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, who has fundraised well since his late entry into the race. Fitzpatrick came very close to holding this in a tough environment four years ago, and now must dismantle the goodwill Murphy has built up while in office.

Which brings us to (drum roll, please)……..

39. Florida’s 22nd (North of Miami)-There’s some big money being raised here. In fact, the $5 million combined that Rep. Ron Klein and challenger Alan West have amassed is probably the highest in the country for a competitive race without a lightning rod (Bachmann, Grayson.) This is an old, white, Jewish district gerrymandered to be a partisan battleground, and Klein beat West by 10 two years ago. A West win would be monumental for the GOP-not only he be a rare black Republican in Congress, he would also be the 218th vote, by my math, for Speaker Boehner.

But wait, there’s more!

As I’m sure you’ve realized, Democrats are looking to play some offense this year as well. And while they’ve won most of the marginal seats over the past two cycles, there are four obvious Democratic pickups on the horizons this year:

Illinois’ 10th, where Dan Seals should win on his third try

Delaware, although Michelle Rollins and her money will keep this interesting

Hawaii’s 1st, where Colleen Hanabusa gets Charles Djou to herself this time

Louisiana’s 2nd, where barring another miracle Joseph Cao will go down

Democrats are targeting about a dozen other seats, but since we’re envisioning an environment where the GOP is in position to take over the House, let’s assume their gains are limited to those four. Which would necessitate:

40. Iowa’s 3rd (Central)-Is this heaven? No, this is the 3rd, and the Field of Dreams is in the 1st. I originally had this higher, but user desmoinesdem has provided consistent good news for Leonard Boswell, and as our resident expert on Iowa politics, I’ll take his/her word here. Still, the road to a Republican majority probably has to run through Iowa, and Brad Zaun will have to find a way to eke one out over Boswell.

41. Illinois’ 11th (Exurban Chicago)-Debbie Halvorson, a strong recruit in ’08, ran up the score in this open swing district. Her first challenger is Iraq Vet Adam Kinzinger, who offers an intriguing, non-generic R, candidacy. If he’s to beat Halvorson, however, he’ll need strong performances from Brady and Kirk to drive Republican turnout here.

42. Alabama’s 2nd (Southeast)-Yep, I have Bobby Bright this low because the man can vote his district, and there’s a good chance that he hangs around even if the GOP takes over the house. But this race remains enticing if only because of the PVI and the fact that Bright barely won two years ago with Obama driving black turnout. The 2nd is unlike some other Southern districts in that it has elected Republicans since reconstruction, so challenger Martha Roby has a shot at knocking off the House’s most conservative Democrat.

And finally, that leaves……(second drum roll)

43. Wisconsin’s 8th (Northeast)-No one is talking about this swing district, where sophomore Steve Kagan has maintained a pretty low profile. Yet this race jumps out at me for a couple of reasons. First, Kagan ran about even with Obama, and has yet to run in anything but a favorable environment for his party. Second, Wisconsin is a good grassroots state, and Scott Walker and Ron Johnson will both be campaigning heavily here. Finally, Kagan’s principle challenger is an outsider with one of the best names in politics: Reid Ribble. It’s nothing overwhelming, but all the small factors are telling me that Green Bay Packer country could be the region that upon which control of the House pivots.

And there you have it. Forty-three possible Republican pickups, countered by four likely Democratic gains, leaves the House with a 218-217 Republican majority. Chet Edwards and Walt Minnick survive, and Dave Reichert becomes the swing vote under this scenario. I’ll leave it to you to draw the cutoff line in my list as to where you think the gains will stop (personally, I have it around 30), and will update as the races begin to take shape this fall.

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

How Lee Fisher Can Win

Cross posted at http://frogandturtle.blogspot….

Yet again, Ohio will be a battleground state for a hard fought race. In 2004, this state was ground zero for campaigning as Bush and Kerry focused all their efforts here. Kerry did well in traditionally Democratic cities and even did well in urban swing counties. He unfortunately could not match Bush’s margins in rural and suburban counties so he lost. In 2008 though, Obama turned out the cities even more. He improved in certain rural areas, most specifically the northern and western parts of the state. The area Obama was most successful in improving over Kerry was the suburbs of the big cities. Still, the national trend to Obama over Kerry was higher than the trend in Ohio. In the 2010 Senate race, Lee Fisher (D) will need to perform well to be successful in winning Ohio like Obama. Fisher is the Lieutenant Governor and he is from Cleveland. Before he was elected Lieutenant Governor in 2006 , Fisher was a State Senator from Cleveland. Polls show him in a tight race for George Voinovich’s (R) open U.S Senate seat against Rob Portman (R). Besides being a former congressman from the Cincinnati area, Portman worked under the Bush Administration. Although 2010 should be a good year for Republicans, Fisher has a chance of actually picking up a Republican Senate seat by beating Portman. Fisher will soon have to face Portman’s deep pockets but Fisher can still win this race. Here are some good ways for him to do that:

Make the race about Portman and his background. Rob Portman was a U.S trade representative under the Bush Administration.  On his website, Fisher does mention how he will not be a continuation of Bush policies. Unfortunately, this strategy is starting to become stale with the Democrats’ popularity falling. The strategy works though because Portman is not an outsider Republican, he was a Republican in the Bush Administration. Fisher must remind voters about how bad Bush was while portraying himself as someone with new ideas. Already, Fisher mentions on his website frequently how he  does not represent the policies that lead us into this economic decline but Portman does. Something else Fisher does well is that he has a page devoted to jobs with a detailed plan for creating them. He needs to keep focusing on jobs. It did not work for Kerry in 2004 in Ohio but it will work now.

Focus more on the rural voters. Fisher’s website does have a page for rural voters but it should be more detailed and show specific ways Fisher helped farmers and others in rural communities. Farmers and others in rural areas were the reason Bush won Ohio in 2004 so if Fisher can swing some of them to the Democrats, he should be successful. Fisher should run an ad showing how Portman wanted to cut farm subsidies by 60% while Fisher has strongly supported the 2008 farm bill and development for rural communities. Fisher highlights how he strongly fought crime and helped children in urban areas. He also has mentioned his immigrant background to help with white voters in the Cleveland area. These issues should help with votes in Cleveland, Akron and will probably play well in Columbus (except for the immigration issue becaus Columbus is not a big immigrant city.) Farmers working on their crops will not be thinking about crime in urban areas right now though.

Win the rural counties near the Ohio River (also known as Southeast Ohio.) This is similar to the paragraph about rural farmers but people with roots in coal will have different concerns than farmers. Fisher has roots in Northeast Ohio while Portman is popular in the Cincinnati and Southwest Ohio areas. The union presence may help Fisher in Southeast Ohio but if Fisher wants to win, he must run up numbers here. In 2006, successful Gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland (D) and Senatorial candidate Sherrod Brown piled up large margins in these counties. In 2004, Kerry tried to win by winning big margins in Northeast Ohio. Even though he won areas outside of Northeast Ohio like Columbus and Dayton, it still was not enough to win. Overall, Kerry proved that unless you do well in rural areas (or run up margins in urban areas outside of Northeast Ohio,) you cannot win in Ohio. Also, Fisher needs to highlight strongly how he helped workers rights with his support of the Paycheck Fairness Act for example.

Win the progressive base that supported Jennifer Brunner (D) before Fisher beat her in the Senatorial primary. This should not be too hard for Fisher even though Brunner said she will not endorse him. This should not impact Fisher strongly because there is not a large progressive base in Ohio. Many of the Democrats here are more liberal on issues like the economy but are not the environment liberals you find in California or the social liberals you find in New York City. Columbus and Athens are two of the few areas where progressives are strong. Fisher is trying to appeal to the base by highlighting his work on civil rights. Also, the results from the primary show Fisher not doing poorly in progressive areas so maybe he never had any trouble with them at all.

Match Portman on the money front. Rob Portman is beating Fisher on the money front. Fisher could consider pandering to the progressive base but that could hurt his standing among moderates. Anyway, Brunner was considered the progressive but she received little money from donors, even the progressive base. At the primary, Brunner interestingly won some rural counties with few progressives though. If Fisher successfully painted Portman as a product of the Bush Administration, he could energize some progressives which would cause him to raise money. Still, Fisher should not nationalize the race. I believe the best way for Fisher to get money is through the unions because they are powerful in Ohio and he has a record of supporting workers rights.

Overall, Fisher is running a good campaign with putting jobs as front and center and making comparisons between Portman and Bush. He is also solidifying his lead in urban Ohio by talking about how he helped reduce crime. What he needs to do is focus more on rural issues and rural voters. Highlighting his family’s background as immigrants from Russia and working in the steel industry helps him along the Ohio River and strengthens him in  Northeast Ohio. Many farmers and other rural residents cannot relate to Fisher’s family story though. Fisher does not give specific examples of bills he helped work on or sponsored to help rural areas. Saying you support rural residents is good but Fisher must give specific examples of how he helped them. If urban voters turn out strongly for Fisher because he highlighted important issues for them such as crime and workers rights but if Fisher also keeps down margins in rural areas, Fisher can be Ohio’s next Senator.  

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...