SSP Daily Digest: 4/27

Senate:

FL-Sen: It’s official: Former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner, who filed paperwork last week, formally joined the GOP Senate field yesterday, making his announcement on right-wing radio host Mark Levin’s show. Despite his establishment pedigree, Hasner has endeared himself to movement conservatives, hitting almost all of the right notes in what I call “Tribal Clef” – like so, but when you sing just the right tune to please the teabaggers. He was for Marco Rubio before it was cool, likes to hate on Muslims, and tried to push a state constitutional amendment that would let Florida “opt out” of card check should the Employee Free Choice Act ever pass. One odd thing, though, is his support for electric cars, something that Rush Limbaugh likes to mock as some liberal attempt at social engineering.

MA-Sen: Activist Bob Massie has hired one-time Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi. Trippi was once a netroots icon but really fell out of favor after he went to run the Senate campaign of zillionaire asshole Jeff Greene in Florida last year.

ME-Sen: One possible Dem name we hadn’t yet heard of as a possible challenger to Sen. Olympia Snow is state Sen. Phil Bartlett. Bartlett is just 32 years old, but will already be term-limited next year. (Maine seems to have a lot of very young legislators!) In the classic formulation, he says he’s “not ruling out” a race.

MO-Sen, MO-02: It’s Apes-A-Poppin in the Missouri Senate race –  and beyond. As Rep. Todd Akin inches closer to a senatorial run, teabagger favorite Ed Martin says he’s thinking about running for Akin’s potentially vacant seat, rather than competing against him in the Senate primary. Martin came close to beating Rep. Russ Carnahan in MO-03 last year, but that district is all but certain to get caved into Akin’s present 2nd CD. Martin is a resident of St. Louis, though, so I’m not sure if he’d wind up in the new 2nd district (not that it necessarily matters).

Martin’s newfound open-mindedness seems to come in response to a move by former state GOP chair Ann Wagner to create an exploratory committee for a possible run in whatever winds up being the successor to Akin’s seat –  again, assuming Akin runs for Senate, which Wagner thinks is “likely.”

NE-Sen: Ben Nelson told a Rotary Club gathering that he hasn’t yet decided whether he’ll run again in 2012. Also, help me out here, because I’m not understanding this: Is Nelson also saying in this article that he voted for healthcare reform because if he hadn’t, a public option would have passed? I’m not getting this one at all.

NM-Sen: Dem Hector Balderas, another candidate who telegraphed his intentions last week, also made his entry into his state’s Senate primary official yesterday. He employed some good framing in his intro video:

Accountability and fiscal responsibility are not Republican words. And I’m tired of hearing them used as excuses to shortchange our children and break promises to our seniors.

As Sean Sullivan notes, he does take an indirect jab at Rep. Martin Heinrich, saying he doesn’t have “the most connections in Washington” and that he “won’t be the candidate of the lobbyists or the insiders.” The contours of this race seem superficially akin to those in Connecticut, where a more powerful congressman is facing off against a (former) statewide elected official, but I’m hoping everyone keeps their noses clean here.

NV-Sen: Silver State Dems are trying to do everything they can, it seems, to pressure Gov. Brian Sandoval into not appointing Rep. Dean Heller to John Ensign’s soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat. I’m doubtful any of this will work (why should Sandoval care?), but if you’re curious to see what Democrats are up to, click the link.

Gubernatorial:

IN-Gov: We’re getting close to landing a pretty strong gubernatorial candidate in the Hoosier State. Former Dem state House Speaker John Gregg (whom we’ve mentioned in the past) says that he’ll soon form an exploratory committee and that his “mind is made up.” He’s been pressing the flesh at Jefferson-Jackson dinners across the state lately, trying to re-build his name rec after a decade out of office. Still, with Mike Pence looking awfully lazy, I’m feeling perhaps a touch optimistic about this race.

House:

AR-04: The NRCC is airing a radio ad (I assume for peanuts) against Dem Rep. Mike Ross, attacking him for voting against all five budget proposals which came up for a vote in the House on April 15th. The main Republican Medicare-killing plan sponsored by Paul Ryan, the even crazier Republican Study Committee plan sponsored by Scott Garrett (which Dems almost tricked the GOP into passing), the Progressive Caucus plan sponsored by Raul Grijalva, the Congressional Black Caucus plan sponsored by Emanuel Cleaver, and I guess what you’d call the mainstream Democratic plan sponsored by Chris Van Hollen, which hasn’t gotten a lot of attention.

So amusingly, the NRCC is trying to ding Ross for not voting for everything from Scott Garrett’s vision for dystopia to a plan they’d readily denounce as neo-Stalinist. Ross should easily be able to turn this around and cast himself as an ardent defender of Medicare. (I’m sure I don’t need to give him any pointers about wanking on the Grijalva or Cleaver plans.) They’re also doing robocalls in another dozen or so seats held by other Dems who also voted against all five plans. Maybe this line of attack will work, but there are really very few districts left where it can.

IN-08: Former six-term state Rep. Dave Crooks, who left office in 2008, says he’s “pretty close to pulling the trigger” on a run against freshman Rep. Larry Bucshon. The 8th CD looks like it’ll get made a touch more Democratic, something that Crooks acknowledges has figured in his plans. What’s more, Bucshon so far has proven to be no great shakes – he had the poorest fundraising quarter of any congressman in Indiana. (Shades of John Hostettler, the last Republican to hold this seat before Bucshon?) I also like the fact that Crooks is already coming out hard against the Ryan plan.

In any event, Crooks says he’s likely to make a formal announcement in the next 30 days, which would be a very good get for Team Blue. Warrick County Democratic Party Terry White is already in the race (which we noted previously), and former state Rep. Trent Van Haaften (who ran last year) is also still weighing a run.

MN-08: Democrats have finally landed a challenger to the really meager Rep. Chip Cravaack: Daniel Fanning, the deputy state director for Sen. Al Franken and an Iraq war vet. I suspect that this will not be the last word on the Dem primary field, though. UPDATE: Seems I read the article a little too hastily. Fanning is just saying he’s likely to run. He hasn’t officially declared.

NV-02: Speaking of Dean Heller (see NV-Sen bullet above), Sharron Angle is supposedly threatening to do exactly what I predicted she would, which is run an independent campaign in the free-for-all special election to replace Heller if she isn’t tapped by the Republican Party. However, this “news” comes from the Las Vegas Review-Journal “newspaper” (as Jon Ralston would put it), and they admit it’s nothing more than a rumor, calling it “the word circulating Monday.”

Here’s something that’s not mere rumor: Dem Assemblywoman Debbie Smith says she won’t run in any special in NV-02. We do still have other options here, though, like Treasurer Kate Marshall.

NY-26: The first candidate-on-candidate Medicare attack ad belongs to Kathy Hochul, who nails Republican Jane Corwin for her support of the Ryan budget plan. The Fix says the buy is for 1,000 points, which is substantial. If I were Hochul, I’d hit this theme and little else for the next four weeks.

OR-01: Whoa. After a couple months of nothing doing, it looks like the Democratic jalopy is about to start getting very full. Former state Sen. Ryan Deckert is now the third Dem to get in or near the race to unseat Rep. David Wu, and current state Sen. Suzanne Bonamici is the fourth, with both saying they are “considering” a run. Guys, you realize what happens when everyone piles into this rustbucket, right? Former Jeff Merkley state director Jon Isaacs says he thinks Wu can probably score from 35-45% of the vote, which means that unseating him will be very hard with more than one opponent. I’m inclined to agree.

TX-14: LOL, I guess we have to put Ron Paul on the 2012 House Open Seat Watch now.

Other Races:

NJ-St. Sen.: Even though an administrative judge already said he could run, Republican Secretary of State Kim Guadagno ruled that Carl Lewis is ineligible to appear on the ballot this November as a Democrat. It just so happens that Guadagno is also the Lt. Gov., which means, of course, she’s under Chris Christie’s considerable thumb. Why does this matter? Because Lewis had the temerity to insult the thin-skinned Don Christeone when he decided to run for office while also pursuing a plan to develop a state youth athletic program under the governor’s auspices. That plan now sleeps with the fishes, and Guadagno’s latest move amounts to delivering the dead carp wrapped in newspaper. Fortunately, Lewis says he’ll appeal.

WI Recall: Good news for Dem state Sens. Lena Taylor and Fred Risser: The deadline for the GOP to submit recall petitions for them came and went with nary a whisper. Meanwhile, Democrats plan to file signatures against a sixth (and probably final) Republican, Rob Cowles, this week.

Redistricting Roundup:

Colorado: Any attempts at bipartisan compromise have totally fallen apart at this point, with the GOP saying they’ll produce a new plan of their own in response to the Democrats’ announcement they they’ll introduce a new map. With the legislature split, I have to believe this will head to court, unless the Dems can present something that the GOP fears less than the prospect of a judge-drawn map.

Missouri: Republicans are still scrambling to try to create a new map that both the House and Senate can agree on in time to put it on Gov. Jay Nixon’s desk and be able to schedule a veto over-ride before the current legislative session ends on May 13. The problem is that today is really the last day they can squeeze this in. Nixon has 15 days to review any bill he gets). It would take quite a breakthrough for this to happen, and lawmakers are apparently worried that if they have to wait until September to try an over-ride, Nixon will have the chance to sway wobbly legislators to his side. The GOP’s redistricting chair says: “If you’re term-limited out and looking for a job, the governor can dangle something in front of you.” Dangle away, Jay!

Virginia: Oh god. This is just not a headline I wanted to see: “Senate opens bipartisan negotiations on redistricting.” Dems claim they “won’t negotiate away our majority,” but what does that mean? The Democratic majority in the state Senate is already cut pretty close to the bone, so I don’t see how they have much room to give. At least if they go with a court-drawn map instead, they get a) a better map in the House even if they risk a worse map in the Senate and b) a shot at a second set of elections in 2012 with Obama at the top of the ticket  –  and fighting hard for VA, you can be sure. But if they play nice with Gov. Bob McDonnell, they could wind up with something resembling a dummymander. I’m pretty worried.

ND-Sen, ND-AL: Rick Berg Reportedly “Likely” to Run for Senate

From Nathan Gonzales:

Rep. Rick Berg is very seriously considering a run for Senate in North Dakota and is even likely to make the race, according to sources close to the freshman Congressman.

According to the GOP sources, the Republican had no plans to seek higher office until Sen. Kent Conrad’s (D) decision to retire and subsequent encouragement from supporters in the state forced Berg to re-evaluate his options. …

Some of Berg’s former colleagues in the state Legislature are circulating and signing a letter encouraging him to run. The letter is also signed by state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who was a potential Senate candidate, and other statewide officials.

Berg was just elected to the House last November, but he’d instantly be the front-runner if he got into the race. This news might also help explain why Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk’s fundraising was so abysmal: If powerful Republicans have been working to get Berg in the race, then it makes sense that they’d snub Kalk, even though he was the only person who’d expressed real interest in the race so far.

As Nathan notes, though the state does officially hold primaries, the GOP nomination is really decided, Minnesota-style, at a party convention, where Berg would have the inside track. (He beat former GOP state chair Kevin Cramer at last year’s convention.) So it’s hard to see Kalk (or anyone else) sticking it out if Berg gets in. And Dems still don’t have a candidate. This is going to be a very tough race for us if Berg makes the leap, but of course it will open up his at-large House seat at the same time.

Election Data Poll!

This will be a short diary, because there’s not much to say. As some of you already know, I’ve been compiling 2008 Obama/McCain precinct-level data for Illinois and translating it into the format on Dave’s App. The Illinois Project is essentially done and the data will hopefully be available on Dave’s App soon.

So, my question then is: Which state should I do next? I was planning on California, but I’m not set on that. My preliminary survey tells me that the six big states below are viable candidates (though I’m not entirely certain on Florida). Since this can be very time-consuming (though I doubt any of the states below will be as challenging as Illinois), I figured I’d run this poll to decide which state I should work on next. Happy voting!

PS. If anyone knows where I can get precinct-level results for New York then please let me know! (besides contacting county clerks, of course)

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

NV-Sen: Berkley Catching up to Heller

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/21-24, Nevada voters, 1/3-5 in parens):

Shelley Berkley (D): 43 (38)

Dean Heller (R): 47 (51)

Undecided: 10 (11)

Byron Georgiou (D): 28

Dean Heller (R): 52

Undecided: 20

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Rep. Shelley Berkley’s favorables have barely budged, and this poll’s partisan composition is little changed from January’s. So what explains the swift tightening here? It turns out that Dean Heller is actually a Republican elected official, and, well, Democrats don’t really like Republicans – once they know who they are:

The main thing fueling Berkley’s gain is that Democratic voters have soured on Heller since he launched his Senate campaign, significantly cutting into his crossover support. In January Heller posted a pretty decent 22/31 favorability spread with Democrats, allowing him a 46/23 breakdown overall. Now just 16% of Democrats express a positive view of him and 48% have a negative one. That’s caused his net favorability to drop 9 points from +23 to now +14 at 43/29.

Given that Democratic voters don’t like him as much anymore it’s no surprise that they’re also not as inclined to vote for Heller as they were earlier this year. In January Berkley had only a 44 point lead over Heller with Democratic voters at 64-20. Now it’s a 63 point lead at 76-13 and that 19 point shift in her direction within her own party is the main reason she now has the race within the margin of error.

This trend is only going to get worse for Heller, not better, as he’ll soon soar to prominence once Gov. Brian Sandoval taps him to replace John Ensign. Meanwhile, Berkley actually has a lot more upside among members of her own party than Heller has with his. Dems like Berkley by a 59-9 margin while Republicans adore Heller at a 74-10 rate. This translates to Heller winning 86% of Republicans while Berkley takes just 76% of Democrats – but it’s almost a guarantee that Berkley’s numbers with Dems will improve. Harry Reid got 91% of Ds against Sharron Angle last year and even Jack Carter got 81% in 2006. And trust me: Shelley Berkley’s no Jack Carter.

Oh, and speaking of that pending appoinment for Heller, Tom Jensen threw in an extra question about whether Nevadans are happy with the prospect of Sandoval naming a replacement, or whether they’d prefer to vote on the choice. Respondents chose “vote” by a 53-44 margin. At the end of the day, I don’t know how much people really care about this sort of thing, but perhaps Democrats will be able to make some hay out of Heller getting skipped to the head of the class. At the very least, it’ll paint a big target on his back, and I’m not sure I’d necessarily want the supposed advantages of incumbency in a race like this – not when greater prominence seems to be translating into crappier performance at the polls.

MA-Sen: Alan Khazei Enters the Race

Scott Brown gets a third challenger, and it’s a familiar face:

Democratic activist Alan Khazei announced Tuesday that he will vie for his party’s nomination to face Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R).

Khazei, co-founder of the non-profit group City Year, posted the announcement on his website and said he is holding a kickoff event in Boston.

“Today I’m announcing that I am an official candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 2012,” he wrote. “We have to grow our economy, create new jobs, and expand opportunity for the middle class. Together, we can do it.”

Khazei, you may recall, also sought the Democratic nomination in 2009 in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He finished with an unimpressive 13%, refusing to accept PAC and lobbyist money. I guess he hasn’t been actively fundraising yet this cycle, because his first quarter report showed him taking in only $2800. In any event, he joins activist Bob Massie and attorney Marisa DeFranco in a race which still (very noticeably) lacks a high-profile candidate. Khazei is the biggest name to enter so far, but Democratic power-brokers are undoubtedly still holding out for someone more prominent (and with more experience) to take on Brown, the most vulnerable Republican incumbent up for re-election next year.

It’s still only April, but given how blue Massachusetts is, and the fact that Barack Obama will be at the top of the ticket, the lack of a top-tier candidate at this stage has a lot of people feeling like it’s getting late early around here. You’d think someone big would want to jump in the race already, so why hasn’t anyone? Hard to say, but we’ll see if this state of affairs changes any time soon.

SSP Daily Digest: 4/26

Senate:

ND-Sen: North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk will announce his formal entry into the Senate race to replace Kent Conrad tomorrow. Kalk, a Republican, raised a really lame $32K in Q1.

NM-Sen, NM-03: Facing an already-crowded primary field and the prospect of giving up a safe House seat, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan said yesterday that he won’t seek the Democratic nod to replace Jeff Bingaman in the Senate.

OH-Sen: I think we didn’t spot this mid-April poll from GOP pollster Wenzel Strategies until now… but definitely take it with something stronger than mere salt. For one thing, they’ve regularly done polls for WorldNetDaily (I mean, seriously?), and for another, they released a seriously weird-ass poll last cycle that purported to show Rep. Norm Dicks losing to a perennial candidate. (Dicks won by 16.)

But even if you didn’t know all that, you’d have to laugh at their absurd spin: They call Sherrod Brown’s favorables “dangerous” and his re-elects “disastrous”… even though his head-to-head margin is 49-36 over Ken Blackwell, 50-36 against Mary Taylor, and 48-33 paired with Josh Mandel. In a Republican poll! Anyhow, if you want to chase this one all the way down the rabbit hole, Wenzel also had a component testing the anti-union legislation called SB5, which will very likely appear on the ballot this fall (people want it repealed by a 51-38 spread).

Gubernatorial:

WI-Gov: Another recall poll from another not-especially-prominent pollster. Republican polling firm Etheridge & Associates (based out of Tennessee) found 44% in favor of recalling Walker and 51% opposed. They also put Walker head-to-head with a real candidate (which is what would happen in a recall election) and found him tied with Russ Feingold at 48 apiece.

House:

ND-AL: This is a very good report from Kristen Daum, who writes the “Flickertales” blog for the Fargo-Moorhead Forum. She nails freshman GOP Rep. Rick Berg on two counts: First, last year Berg ran heavily on the theme that Earl Pomeroy was mostly relying on out-of-state money while he, Berg, was raking it in from North Dakotans. Well, with the Q1 reports in, Daum observes that about 80% of Berg’s campaign cash is now coming from interests outside of ND, including quite a bit from DC. Better still, Berg’s staff claimed he hasn’t held any fundraisers or solicited contributions… but the Sunlight Foundation’s “Party Time” website scrounged up a copy of an invite to high-dollar event held on Berg’s behalf by Eric Cantor and a couple of PACs. Whoops!

NY-13: I’m not even going to summarize what’s at the link, except to say it’s a truly explosive story about GOP freshman Mike Grimm. Just click and read it.

WI-01: Businessman Rob Zerban is already running against Rep. Paul Ryan, but The Fix suggests another possible Democratic name: state Sen. Chris Larson.

Grab Bag:

Americans United: That Americans United for Change ad buy against four Republicans we mentioned yesterday apparent totals $35K. That’s at least in the ballpark of real money, and I’m very glad to see groups like AUFC and House Majority PAC start doing these thousand-papercuts sort of campaigns early.

Polling & Demographics: Ben Smith has an interesting little exchange between a couple of pollsters with experience in working with the Latino community. One, André Pineda (who has polled for Obama, among others), says he thinks that pollsters who gather Hispanic samples by relying on surnames miss a lot of Hispanics who don’t have such names, typically because their families have lived in the US longer. These voters, says Pineda, lean more to the right than newer immigrants. But Matt Barreto of the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race says that Pineda’s estimates are “way off base.” Barreto says only 5-10% of Hispanics do not have Hispanic surnames, whereas Pineda’s memo suggests that the number is far higher.

Town Halls: Want to see if your member of Congress is having a town hall during this recess so that you can go and give them what for? MoveOn has a tool that lets you plug in your ZIP code and find town halls near you.

Voter Suppression: Unsurprisingly, the Florida legislature is moving forward with a big election law bill that’s principally designed to suppress the Democratic vote, as always in the name of preventing VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111. Changes include shortening the early voting period, adding onerous restrictions on third-party groups which register voters, and preventing voters from changing their addresses at the poll (something which Florida has allowed for forty years). Republicans are also moving forward with bills that would eliminate payroll deductions for union dues, force unions to get each member’s permission before spending money on elections, and make it harder for trial lawyers to bring medical malpractice cases. In short, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, it’s the entire GOP wish list.

Redistricting Roundup:

Florida: This is sorta interesting. One Florida lawmaker on the legislature’s redistricting committee is telling his fellow legislators not to talk to him about redistricting – at all. The new “Fair Districts” law says that districts can’t be drawn to favor or disfavor incumbents, so mapmakers are concerned that if their colleagues start telling them about how they’d like to see the lines crafted, that could later be used as evidence in court.

Virginia: And so it goes: A week after saying he wouldn’t change a thing about his party’s map, Dem Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw now says of Gov. Bob McDonnell: “We are talking to him. We are trying to meet all of his concerns.” I can’t see how this is going to end well for Democrats, who now seem to face a choice between a crappy gerrymander in the Senate and a court-drawn map… and I guess would prefer the former, based on Saslaw’s hints. Sigh.

Meanwhile, Republicans are apparently pretty pissed at McDonnell for vetoing their plans, supposedly with almost no warning, but there’s a lot that doesn’t add up here. For one, the article says that the legislature doesn’t have enough votes to over-ride McDonnell’s veto, but that’s simply not true. If House Republicans really wanted their map badly enough, they could have prevailed on their counterparts in the Senate to vote for the package deal, ensuring it was safe from McDonnell’s veto pen.

For the governor’s part, he’s also full of shit. His spokesman said that he would have preferred the House and Senate maps had been sent to the governor in separate bills, but jeez, this is classic “born yesterday” crap. There’s no way the Senate would have given away its one piece of leverage like that. Still, it does sound like the Republican anger at McDonnell is quite real (and not just limited to redistricting), which means a serious derail is not impossible. So maybe there’s still a way for Saslaw to snatch something other than defeat from the jaws of… defeat.

Utah: The state will apparently make redistricting software available to citizens on its website, but the linked article isn’t very clear where that will happen. Any ideas?

A look back at past Republican primary contests.

Before doing a review of the current Republican field for President I thought it might be useful to look at races in the past and how different prisms applied to the major candidates running.

Part 1: Republican Royalism: Myth or Fact?

It has been a longtime understanding that the Republican Party is more “royalist” than the Democratic Party.  The last three Democratic Presidents was a one-term Senator and two Governors from small Southern states.  The last three Republican Presidents was a long time party stalwart who was the runner-up in the previous Presidential contest, a sitting Vice-President as well as his son.  But looking down the years other factors were at play.  Sitting and former Presidents and Vice-Presidents were more likely to run on the Republican side just from the sheer fact that the Republican Party has been more successful on the Presidential level for most of the 20th (as well as the second half of the 19th  ) century.  You can also note the increasing relevance and power of Vice-Presidents.  The only two sitting Vice-Presidents (both Democrats) to be denied their party nomination were Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall. Both within the first half of the 20th century (1920 and 1952) when the position was much diminished compared to what it is now.

Republican royalism is also hard to pin down with multiple candidates fitting within it’s various potential parameters.   It’s meaning has also shifted.  In 1980 the “royalist pick” was debatably Ronald Reagan; the man who tried to overthrow the establishment and the sitting Republican president four years earlier.   In 1952 running against the establishment in 1948 didn’t convince anyone that Robert Taft was “next in line.”  You also had a completely different system of selecting Presidents in 1948 than you will have in 2012.  The Nucky Thompsons you see on Boardwalk Empire mattered far more in 1948.  While the support of say a sitting Governor in South Carolina or New Hampshire is certainly helpful nowadays their power lies almost solely in their organizational ability in helping get the vote on primary day..  The whole notion of who the establishment is differs and who gets to decide whose “turn” it is shifts with popular sentiment and name recognition taking a stronger role.  What one also has to remember is that often times the supposed “royalist” candidate won due to happenstance.  If Guiliani and Romney don’t go negative against each other in the closing weeks of the New Hampshire primary chances are McCain does not win the Republican nomination.  If Robert Dole does not put his foot in his mouth during a TV interview demanding that George HW Bush “stop lying about my record” he might have very well have won both the nomination and the presidency.  A few  razor thin contests separated President Gerald Ford from winning and losing the Republican nomination for President in 1976.

Part 2: Post War Republican contests

There are five categories I tried to assign:

  • Who is the “royalist” pick. This is defined as who was considered next in line, is in leadership, or the natural pick of the “establishment.”
  • Who is the Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick. In right-wing mythology they are the liberal wing who the conservatives battled for the soul of the party with. I’m however classifying this as the pick of the mainstream “business wing” of the Party who may or may not necessarily be moderates. Of course “Brahman” sensibilities are also taken into account and play more of a role in 1948 than in 1996. Hence the shift from Thomas Dewey to Steve Forbes.
  • Who is the pick of the moderate wing of the Party?
  • Who is a the pick of the conservative / “movement conservative” wing of the party?
  • Who is the pick of the religious conservative wing of the party?

1948. Republican nominee: Thomas Dewey.

  • royalist pick – Thomas Dewey was the 1944 nominee who unexpectedly gave Franklin Roosevelt a scare and came within 3 million votes of the unbeatable President.
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Thomas Dewey
  • Moderate pick – Thomas Dewey or Harold Stassen
  • Conservative pick – Robert Taft.
  • Religious – n/a

Analysis: After some turbulence the liberal New York Governor was renominated to try for the Presidency again. Though not on a first ballot.

1952. Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

  • Royalist pick – Dwight Eisenhower. As a five star general and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe he was as close to royalty as you could get in America. Beloved and courted by all parties. That said the choice of his chief rival, Robert Taft, known as “Mr Republican” and the runner up in the last Presidential contests would also be a royalist choice.
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Dwight Eisenhower
  • Moderate pick – Dwight Eisenhower
  • Conservative pick – Robert Taft
  • Religious – n/a

Analysis: Taft actually did better in 1952 than in 1948 but had a good portion of his delegates removed at the convention by Eisenhower forces in the name of “fair play.” But given these delegates were removed via a floor vote chances are Taft never had the necessary delegates to win to begin with. But Eisenhower did have to fight harder for the nomination than people realize. Part of the process of healing the schism between Eisenhower and Taft forces was the nomination of a young conservative firebrand, Richard Nixon, as Vice-President.

1956 Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

  • Royalist pick – Eisenhower. The sitting President is always the royalist pick.
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Eisenhower
  • Moderate pick – Eisenhower
  • Conservative pick – Eisenhower
  • Religious – n/a

Analysis: Even conservative critics of Eisenhower knew the Republicans had a good thing going and were content to wait for the more conservative Richard Nixon to step up to the plate..

1960 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

  • Royalist pick – Richard Nixon. Nixon was perhaps the highest profile sitting Vice President up until that point since John Calhoun thanks to the “Checkers” speech and his yeomen work supporting local Republicans around the country. Whether or not the establishment or Eisenhower himself trusted him he was seen as the natural successor to Dwight Eisenhower in the Republican Party.
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment Pick – Richard Nixon.
  • Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
  • Conservative pick – Richard Nixon. Though some would rather have had Goldwater.
  • Religious – n/a

Analysis: There were plenty of Republicans in all sections of the party who mistrusted Richard Nixon. But his association with Eisenhower moved him towards the center of the Republican Party. And rather than being squeezed he was a perfectly acceptable to conservatives who were afraid of the moderates and moderates who were afraid of the conservatives.

1964 Republican nominee: Barry Goldwater

  • Royalist pick – no one.
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Nelson Rockefeller
  • Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
  • Conservative pick – Barry Goldwater
  • Religious – Barry Goldwater. Goldwater’s “southern strategy” began to bring more Southern evangelicals into the Republican Party. I’ll also note that while the Goldwater of 1990 could be termed a “libertarian” to describe 1964 Goldwater as one is just revisionism. With the exception of abortion (his wife was involved with Planned Parenthood) you’d be hard pressed to find an issue he wasn’t lockstep with “cultural warriors” such as Strom Thurmond. Nelson Rockefeller also offended Religious voters of all stripes by divorcing his wife and marrying another divorcee sparking much unwanted debate.

Analysis: Henry Cabot Lodge won the New Hampshire primary in a write-in. The serious Republicans such as Nixon, Lodge, etc decided to skip the race because they saw post-Kennedy assassination Lyndon Johnson as being unbeatable. So instead the right-wing of the Republican Party had their Armageddon against the left that they had been itching for.

1968 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

  • Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
  • Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
  • Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Religious pick – Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. I’ll comment here on why I have been keeping the “religious pick” mostly blank. Until the rise of the counter-culture in the 1960s and the corresponding rise of the moral majority it is unclear especially on the primary level where to assign these voters especially with their connection to the right not necessarily being established. For example the very moderate (though evangelical) Mark Hatfield was held up by Gerry Wills in his book about the 1968 United States presidential election, Nixon Agonistes, as being the quintessential representative of Christian politics. An assertion that would’ve been laughable twenty or even ten years later. There has always been a strong religious and socially conservative core within the Republican Party. And Nelson Rockefeller certainly offended them. But this category will take on more meaning after Jimmy Carter loses the evangelicals after the 1976 election and the explosive growth in these Evangelical churches at the expense of more moderate mainline Protestant churches who in the past were the rock bed of Republican support.

Analysis: Richard Nixon successfully repels both the liberal Rockefeller and the conservative Reagan. Both actually considered working with each other to stop Nixon. But what they really wanted to do was to squeeze Nixon and re-fight the battle of 1964. Of note and a sign of things to come evangelical voters are starting to show their strength enough that the reticent Quaker Nixon felt compelled to talk about God and religion. Though this was aimed more at the national electorate than the Republican electorate. What was aimed at the conservative wing of the party was the odd pick of Spiro Agnew for Vice-President. Though an erstwhile supporter of Nelson Rockefeller he gained a lot of conservative adulation for his hard nosed handling of rioters after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. That he felt the need to shore up his right flank shows how much things had changed since Nixon himself was just such a conservative pleasing pick in 1952.

1972 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

  • Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
  • Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
  • Conservative pick – Richard Nixon
  • Religious pick – n/a

Analysis: Nixon easily fended off attacks from both the left and right. Of course it was his general election rather than his primary campaign that did him in despite a historic 49 state landslide.

1976 Republican nominee: Gerald Ford

  • Royalist pick – Gerald Ford
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Gerald Ford
  • Moderate pick – Gerald Ford
  • Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. Religious interest in politics became more intense with the backlash over Roe v. Wade. While Gerald Ford condemned the court decision he faced criticism due to his wifes very public praise of the court decision.

Analysis: Gerald Ford came within a whisker of losing the Republican nomination for President. Reagan followed in the footsteps of other conservative Republicans such as Taft and Goldwater in appealing specifically to southern Republicans. With the Republican re-alignment of the south already starting and the Republican party taking in former southern Democrats defecting for cultural as well as racial reasons it was especially fertile territory for someone like Reagan. And Reagan certainly was not hurt by his frequent allusion to a “welfare queens” in the South Side of Chicago. ( http://www.threatofrace.org/th… ) as being representative rather than aberrational. I will however point out that Reagan himself was no racist and showed no support for institutionalized racism (though he did support Bob Jones University’s fight to regain it’s tax exempt status).

Ford won barely at the convention in part due to a conservative backlash against Reagan due to him choosing a more moderate potential running mate. Jesse Helms for example who was instrumental in Reagan winning the key state of North Carolina toyed with trying to nominate New York Senator James Buckley instead. Reagan however acquitted himself with dignity and gave a stirring speech at the convention that laid the groundwork for his 1980 campaign.

In terms of the Republican Party being “royalist” and them accepting whoever is in charge or is next in line, it is perhaps more fallacious than the track record suggests. Ford would probably have lost if the primaries were set up then like they are today (with a prominent position for South Carolina right after New Hampshire and just before a southern oriented “Super Tuesday”) . There were petty personalities involved and close votes in States that could have gone either way. The same way the Eisenhower win at the Republican convention in 1952 was not necessarily a given. But 1952 was a year when primaries were virtually irrelevant and the party bosses still held sway. Like with the Democratic Party that had mostly changed by 1976. While there was always a risk of a deadlocked convention (as there was in 1976) the voters rather than the old bosses were in the drivers seat. Then again you could argue given the deadlock among the elected delegates that it was in fact the unelected Establishment delegates who ultimately gave the Establishment candidate, Gerald Ford, the votes he needed for the nomination. But nonetheless the system had changed dramatically.

1980 Republican nominee: Ronald Reagan

  • Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan. In the sense that there was an air of inevitability to his nomination given how close he came to beating a sitting President and how he basically never stopped running from the moment he lost in 1976. Of course you can make a good case for the Republican leader in the Senate (Howard Baker) and the former chairman of the Republican Party (George HW Bush). Or even the former Republican nominee for Vice President four years earlier (Robert Dole).
  • Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – George HW Bush.
  • Moderate pick – George HW Bush
  • Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. The Moral Majority is in full force and issues such as abortion have changed traditional views among Evangelicals that politics is a dirty business and can only taint religion when religion becomes involves. Many were also ironically tuned in politically by the campaign of Jimmy Carter who was a Southern Baptist. Pat Robertson for instance backed Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course Pat Robertson came from a Democratic political family having a US Senator for a father and still talks with fondness and pride about his volunteer work for Adlai Stevenson. But like many evangelicals the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan realigned his political affiliation.

Analysis: A classic story we’ve heard many times in politics. A candidate far ahead of their opponents coasts and stays above the fray. Meanwhile one candidate picks up steam and unexpectedly gives them a race. This was the story of the 1980 Republican nomination. George HW Bush worked the state of Iowa hard and came out of nowhere to suddenly create a two man race where it was once Ronald Reagan and “the rest.” Ronald Reagan however got in the trenches and after a solid win in New Hampshire was in the drivers seat for the rest of the campaign.

Many Democrats were pleased with the nomination of Ronald Reagan seeing him as the weakest possible nominee. What many however missed is what a transformative figure he actually was. His social conservatism stole religious votes that had previously gone to Jimmy Carter and even other Democrats. But at the same time due the disarray in the country blamed on the Democratic president there was yet to be a corresponding realignment towards the Democrats among more moderate suburban voters. While it seems obvious now that the Republican Party would become the receptacle of social conservatism it was not at all obvious then. It also proved a wedge for socially conservative Catholics who may have backed Edward Kennedy for various reasons in his primary fight against Jimmy Carter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

In many ways it reflects the long running difference in strategy between the Republican and the Democratic Party. The Democrats like to move to the center to avoid being accused of being extreme or out of touch. Whereas the Republicans can often thrive on creating differences even in taking radical stands if they can draw the line in just the right way. Of course it can backfire. But so can being a milquetoast as John Kerry proved when trying to waffle about his position on the Iraq War in 2004.

1984 Republican nominee – Ronald Reagan

  • Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Moderate pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
  • Religious pick – Ronald Reagan

Analysis: Defeating the formidable forces of the Minnesotan duo of Harold Stassen and Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan easily wins re-election in one of the largest landslides in United States history. Of course this was not something many people would’ve expected little more than a year before. The United States economy suffered a new recession in 1982 and many blamed his radical economic policies. Though a recovery was well under way many Americans had yet to feel it at the start of 1983. The United States also had suffered a humiliation in it’s international reputation after it withdrew it’s forces from Reagan’s ill advised peace keeping mission in Beirut. Polls showed Ronald Reagan very vulnerable. But then the invasion of Grenada sent his poll ratings, particularly on foreign policy, sky high. Edward Kennedy unexpectedly dropped out of the Presidential contest leaving Walter Mondale who upon winning the Democratic nomination decided to eschew a traditional campaign for a “truth telling” campaign where he’d surely lose but gain a “moral” victory. The economy continued to pick up steam. And perhaps unnoticed by many political observers there was a shift in government policy and rhetoric as the most belligerent ideologues such as Al Haig and James Watt were removed or squelched as the Reagan administration took a more moderate course across the map prompting conservatives to bemoan that Reagan’s handlers were not allowing “Reagan to be Reagan.”

In this backdrop Reagan changed the Republican Party. The Wall Street Eastern Establishment for instance really stopped being seen as the “liberal wing” of the Republican Party. They turned into the most adamant champions of Reagan’s tax cuts. And the “big money” business wing had long been moving beyond New York and the East Coast making the “eastern” part suspect.

The moderate wing turned more libertarian as the last of the economic liberals such as Javitz and Weicker fell. Many sought to identify with Reagan’s economic policies to provide cover for their other heterodox beliefs.

The conservative wing became the dominant wing. To the point where the fault lines that had always been there began to show more and more. Pat Robertson, Phil Graham, Pat Buchanan, Paul Laxalt, and William F Buckley had quite fundamental differences with each other. And especially once you add Republicans who formally identified themselves as “liberal” or “moderate” re-branding themselves “conservative” it became an open question what a “conservative” was. There was a bit of a running consensus that still stands among many that “conservative” was whatever Reagan defined it as. But Reagan himself showed a lot more pragmatism and a tendency to equivocate that many of his admirers would like to believe opening his beliefs to wide interpretation.

The religious wing felt like they had the ear of the President but wanted more control. While Reagan championed their causes and was a hero to them there was an impatiences and some suspicion under the surface. For example why would Reagan only address pro-life crowds by loud speaker and why did he appoint the pro-choice Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court? Michael Deaver, James Baker, and even Nancy Reagan were often blamed for steering Reagan towards a more moderate course and again not letting “Reagan be Reagan.”

1988 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

  • Royalist pick – George HW Bush. Bush went from calling Reagan’s economic plans “voodoo economics” in 1980 to running virtually as Ronald Reagan’s son. Bush stayed fiercely loyal to Reagan throughout his Presidency and while Reagan stayed neutral in the Presidential contest did nothing that would hurt Bush.
  • Eastern Establishment / Wall Street – George HW Bush. The Eastern Establishment was for the most part dead but to the degree it still existed there was no better representative than George HW Bush. This category will just be “Wall Street” for now on.
  • Moderate pick – Robert Dole. Was once the conservative firebrand blamed for Gerald Ford’s loss due to his over the top stridency. He also infamously used the abortion issue viciously against a Senate opponent. But with George HW Bush’s pivot to the right and Dole’s reputation as an operator able to cut compromises to get legislation passed he ended up being the moderate candidate in the race. However many leading moderates in the Party endorsed George HW Bush seeing him as one of their own. For instance Newton Mayor Teddy Mann and United States Representative Silvio Conte two of the most liberal Republicans in Massachusetts supported George HW Bush.
  • Conservative pick – George HW Bush or Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp had a lot of support among the conservative intelligentsia but thanks to some excellent work by his campaign team George HW Bush ended up becoming the conservative pick. First they were able to blur almost any difference between George HW Bush and his boss, Ronald Reagan. Second they had excellent outreach hiring or co-opting many leading voices on the Right. Conservative firebrand Representative Robert Dornan famously wrote an article in the National Review promoting George HW Bush titled, “My Conservative Pitbull.” While perhaps belonging in the religious category Bush picked up key support from Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell. But George HW Bush’s most impressive task was in framing the race between himself and Robert Dole. Despite Bush having called Reagan’s tax cut proposals “voodoo economics” he attacked Robert Dole for being “soft” on taxes. He was able to portray himself as a the principled conservative outsider(!) against Robert Dole the insider compromising creature of Washington. While many conservatives distrusted Bush by the time his campaign was done they overwhelmingly supported him against the more “liberal” Bob Dole.
  • Religious pick – Pat Robertson or George HW Bush. George HW Bush did everything he could to reach out to religious conservatives and succeeded for the most part despite once being a pro-choice socially liberal Republican who once stood against most of what they believed in. He famously sent his son George W Bush to be his liaison to their community. And quite conveniently the future President soon had a religious epiphany declaring himself a “born again Christian” who was one of them. George HW Bush also picked up the support of Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell as well as a number of other leading preachers within the Christian right. However there was considerable mistrust of him as well as considerable popular support for Pat Robertson who came managed to beat George HW Bush for second place in Iowa. While Pat Robertson’s run was unsuccessful it laid the foundation for the Christian Coalition he would soon found afterward. The man Pat Robertson would choose to run the Coalition would be a supporter of one of his rivals (Jack Kemp) by the name of Ralph Reed.

Analysis: This race showed just how much Ronald Reagan had changed the Republican Party with every candidate declaring their fidelity to the policies of Reagan and the “conservative cause” with even the moderate former Governor of Delaware moving radically to the right. It also set up the template for future Republican contests. Conservatives finding “problems” with all the candidates but willing to grudgingly accept a candidate they find too “moderate” out of fear of someone else they feel is even more “liberal” might win. At the same time the establishment is in terror that if not this time then next time the far right “barbarians at the gate” will take over the party dooming it’s chances.

1992 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

  • Royalist pick – George HW Bush – In fact one of Buchanan’s most famous attack lines was to call the President “King George.”
  • Wall street pick – George HW Bush
  • Moderate pick – George HW Bush
  • Conservative pick – Patrick Buchanan
  • Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Patrick Buchanan ran an unorthodox against the at first popular incumbent president straying from the Reaganite conservative orthodoxy into what can be termed paleo-conservatism with it’s more isolationist notes once sounded on by Robert Taft. He also focused on immigration picking up the nativist themes the more moderate Pete Wilson of California used to help himself get re-elected Governor of California in 1990. He was also a conservative “culture warrior” who took Dan Quayle’s 1988 “family values” message and turning the volume up fifty fold famously at the Republican convention. Buchanan’s strength probably had more to do with discontent over the economy and Bush breaking his “no new taxes” pledge than anything to do with Patrick Buchanan. But again it raised fears among the conservative Republican establishment of them being swept away in conservative populist furor.

1996 Republican nominee: Robert Dole

  • Royalist pick – Robert Dole – the runner up in the last election
  • Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes. Miles apart from Thomas Dewey showing just how much this category has changed.
  • Moderate pick – Arlen Specter
  • Conservative pick – Pat Buchanan or Phil Graham
  • Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Like in 1988 this open primary saw former real or perceived moderates moving to the right. Steve Forbes moving to the right on social issues and Lamar Alexander moving to the right in just about everything. Arlen Specter notably stuck to his moderate guns and went absolutely nowhere. Though of course his presidential campaign was far from serious and just a vanity run to get himself attention. This race also shows the dangers of trying to look at any Presidential race too far in advance. Phil Graham with his strong conservative support and large fund raising prowess from being the Senate Finance Committee Chairman was seen as a formidable top tiered candidate. Perhaps even a favorite. He fizzled hard and fast. Buchanan on the other hand came a close second in Iowa and actually manage to win New Hampshire in a crowded field. The heterodox Patrick Buchanan helped second place performer Robert Dole by polarizing the race. While Patrick Buchanan was arguably the “conservative” candidate his views on trade, wall street, and foreign policy concerned far too many conservatives who would otherwise have been suspicious of Dole. Steve Forbes flat tax proposal found resonance among some economic conservatives but questions about his degree of opposition to abortion drove many social conservatives away.

2000 Republican nominee: George W Bush

  • Royalist pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle
  • Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes
  • Moderate pick – John McCain
  • Conservative pick – George HW Bush
  • Religious pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle

Analysis: Going into the 2000 race many saw the nomination as being Dan Quayle’s to lose. Better than anyone he was able to rally the conservative base. His unexpected withdrawal left a void that was ultimately filled by George W Bush. Following the template of his father George W Bush was able to cast himself as the “conservative” candidate against the more “liberal” John McCain. He also banked heavily on the financial and political base his father had built during years of public service. While conservatives looked down on George HW Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein and breaking his “no new taxes” promise he was even in defeat on a personal level a well regarded figure both among Republicans and the public at large. George W Bush also used his contacts within the evangelical community he nurtured during his father’s campaign for President as well as his own for Governor to his advantage.

2004 Republican nominee – George W Bush

  • Royalist pick – George W Bush
  • Wall Street pick – George W Bush
  • Moderate pick – George W Bush
  • Conservative pick – George W Bush
  • Religious pick – George W Bush

Analysis: With the sad passing of Harold Stassen in early 2001 no one could stand in the way of George W Bush being renominated.

2008 Republican nominee – John McCain

  • Royalist pick – John McCain was the runner up to President Bush in 2008.
  • Wall Street pick – Unclear.
  • Moderate pick – Rudy Giuliani
  • Conservative pick – Unclear.
  • Religious pick – Mike Huckabee

Analysis: This race is a classic motif common to most Presidential contests. After a long grueling campaign voters become wary of the entire face and yearn for someone from the outside. There were many Republicans who thought Howard Baker should run in 1988 or Colin Powell in 2000. The entrance of Fred Thompson just showed how much this phenomenon was simply the classic “the grass is always greener on the other side” syndrome. Once he got in his numbers sank like a rock. Guiliani was the early favorite with strong fund raising and a surprising ability to appeal to social conservatives based solely on his supposed terrorist fighting skills as Mayor of New York during September 11th. Mitt Romney was able to place himself on the national radar with his own strong fund raising tapping wealthy Mormons in much the same way Michael Dukakis did within the Greek community twenty years earlier. He was also the “lesser evil” of many Conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter. Mike Huckabee took advantage of the former or current social liberalism of the top of the field as well as his own background as a preacher to build a strong even if not formidable challenge of his own. But ultimately Guiliani and Romney doomed each other after going negative on each other giving John McCain a surprising win in New Hampshire and the momentum he needed to ultimately triumph.

Part 3: Problems Applying Labels to 2012

I was tempted to write something about how the current crop of potential Republicans fit into these categories and the problem is just how much these definitions have changed without anyone even noticing. Let’s take the term conservative. In 1964 one’s position on race was a key indicator of where someone such as Barry Goldwater stood on the political spectrum. While perhaps the language of racism moved into the realm of code words in many parts of the country within four and certainly within eight years hardly anyone anywhere was a formal segregationist anymore. In 1968 Ronald Reagan was the darling of conservatives even after signing one of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation as California Governor. By 1976 abortion was a key issue Ronald Reagan used to attack the more moderate Gerald Ford. Robert Taft in 1948 and 1952 was seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party while at the same time supporting the expansion of public housing for the poor. Something now that even the most liberal Democrats wouldn’t touch.

In 2008 Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina endorsed Mitt Romney citing his Massachusetts health care plan as an example of conservative public policy that should be expanded to the rest of the nation. In 2012 the same Jim DeMint won’t support the same Mitt Romney unless he repudiates this now “liberal” policy initiative that is too similar to that passed by Barack Obama. The Mitt Romney who was seen as perhaps the best “conservatives” could do in 2008 is now seen by many of those same folks as the “liberal” in the current field despite moving as far to the right as he can.

But who knows where Romney or anyone for that matter will be seen and defined in another year. The fact is history can only be written after and not before the fact. The candidates and even the issues have yet to define them. At this point we can only guess and give a rather uneducated one at that. Even if it’s safe to say that no one is going to be calling Michelle Bachman a lefty.

How the DFL Lost the MN Legislature

The Minnesota DFL, even in the face of a GOP wave-year in 2010, were nonetheless optimistic with Mark Dayton polling very well and with majorities in the state legislature large enough to withstand a wave election.  While Mark Dayton was elected, one of the bigger 2010 election shockers was losing the MN legislature, meaning the state wouldn’t be looked to to rack up a few rare wins for progressives with marriage equality and a redistricting map that at the irritates the hell out of Michele Bachmann.

After doing this analysis, losing the state legislature is no longer that surprising as the majorities were very bloated, relied on districts the DFL had very recently won.  What I personally assumed was that even if it’s a wipe out in the suburbs and Dayton gets killed there, we’ll win with Greater MN and still hold onto a slim-downed majority.  Also, our legislature map-making process makes it so that losing one chamber probably means losing the other.  This is because one state senate district equals two state house seats so if you lose both state house seats, you probably lost the state senate seat associated with them, or vice versa.  (REDO, YOU’LL ACTUALLY HAVE THE NUMBERS TO GIVE SOME PRIMER SOON ENOUGH.)

State Legislature Representation


Year
Legislature
Majority
       
       
Percentage
Turn Over
2003
House
GOP
82
52
61%/39%
2005
House
GOP
68
66
51%/49%
DFL+14
2007
House
DFL
85
49
63%/37%
DFL+17
2009
House
DFL
87
47
65%/35%
DFL+2
2011
House
GOP
72
62
54%/46%
GOP+25
2003
Senate
DFL
35
31
52%/48%
2005
Senate
DFL
38
29
57%/43%
DFL+3
2007
Senate
DFL
45
22
67%/33%
DFL+7
2009
Senate
DFL
46
21
69%/31%
DFL+1
2011
Senate
GOP
37
30
55%/45%
GOP+16

The most important thing this table shows is the high amount of fluctuation that occurred this past decade.  After redistricting, the GOP were at their height of legislative power but this quickly collapsed over the decade.  This means the majority the DFL had coming into 2010 was weak electorally due to such a large percentage of the caucus coming from formerly Republican districts and as newly elected incumbents themselves.  A pro-GOP year came along too soon for our own wave-elected incumbents to solidify themselves so the outcome was everyone getting wiped out.

Also note that the 2009 senate elections are only the changes in two special elections that occurred.

Plenty more after the jump including lots of maps!

BLAH

As for the maps themselves, I didn’t do different colors for gains versus holds simply because there has been so much turn-over and I didn’t think it’d be as useful for comparative purposes.  I also used a very tight definition for the metro area so I’d estimate it at only a 30 mile radius from the center-point.  (This made it better for map-making purposes.)  It’s also hard to see but there are two state house districts for both the cities of Duluth (NE corner) and Rochester (SE corner).  (The Rochester ones only once they go blue.)

State House

Photobucket

Photobucket

2011 State House Election Statistics


   District  
      Area      
   Losing Margin    
   2008 Pres    
   2010 Gov    
1A
Greater
17.4%
R51/47
R45/44/9
1B
Greater
1%
D51/46
D46/43/10
2B
Greater
4.8%
R50/48
R46/42/10
3B
Greater
2.5%
D50/47
D47/41/11
8B
Greater
12.2%
R52/45
R49/40/10
11B
Greater
17.1%%
R55/43
R52/35/12
12B
Greater
14.1%
R57/41
R52/35/12
13B
Greater
5.4%
R52/46
R47/39/13
15B
Greater
0.1%
D57/41
D46/41/12
16A
Greater
11%
R55/42
R52/35/11
17B
Greater
18.6%
R54/44
R51/36/12
25B
Greater
0.2%
D54/44
R46/42/12
27A
Greater
0.4%
D58/40
D49/39/10
30B
Greater
4.8%
R53/45
R51/33/14
37B
Metro
16.3%
D50/48
R48/37/14
38A
Metro
5.4%
D56/42
R44/43/13
38B
Metro
4%
D53/45
R46/39/14
40A
Metro
3.5%
53/45
R46/42/11
41B
Metro
5%
D54/45
R45/39/15
42A
Metro
.6%
D54/44
R45/40/15
49B
Metro
2.9%
D49/49
R48/40/11
53A
Metro
12.7%
D50/49
R49/37/13
56A
Metro
4.1%
D51/48
R48/38/13
56B
Metro
6.3%
D53/46
R48/39/13
57A
Metro
3.2%
D57/41
D45/41/13

TEXT!!!dufhaeiu ghacnlithn3ch4tacinuh4auihrixucnht L4YT AGHY ACLT

DFL State House Losses


Class
Losses
% of Total Losses
Total Class
Survival Rate
2003
6
24%
—–
—–
2005
3
12%
14
79%
2007
11
44%
19
42%
2009
5
20%
6
17%

State Senate

Photobucket

Photobucket

2011 State Senate Election Statistics


   District  
      Area      
   Losing Margin    
   2008 Pres    
   2010 Gov    
4
Greater
9.2%
R51/47
R47/40/11
10
Greater
9.7%
R56/42
R54/35/10
15
Greater
1.7%
D51/46
R45/41/12
16
Greater
14.9%
R58/39
R56/31/11
17
Greater
12.2%
R55/43
R52/35/11
22
Greater
18.9%
R52/46
R50/37/8
25
Greater
2.6%
D49/48
R47/39/8
28
Greater
10%
D50/48
R47/38/15
30
Greater
1.6%
D50/48
31
Greater
11%
R55/42
R52/35/11
38
Metro
3.6%
D55/44
R44/41/14
40
Metro
2.1%
D54/44
D44/43/12
47
Metro
5.1%
D51/47
R48/41/8
51
Metro
5.3%
D52/46
R44/43/11
53
Metro
5.5%
D51/58
R48/38/13
56
Metro
3%
D52/47
R48/38/13

DFL State Senate Losses


Class
Losses
% of Total Losses
Total Class
Survival Rate
2003
4
25%
—–
—–
2007
10
63%
11
9%
2009
2
13%
2
0%

BLAH BLAH iunuon euangua4w here is some text.

Massachusetts Map

Did this map assuming that the Mass redistricting cmte decides to get rid of Olver, or gently force him into retirement. Mass is hard to draw because Keating lives in Quincy, which means that no matter what SE Mass looks ugly. If O’Leary had won that primary, map could be a lot cleaner. The only way to clean SE mass would be to toss Keating and Lynch into a primary, which then creates an open seat in Barnstable (and wouldnt solve the seat elimination problem)

Photobucket

The map eliminates a district by parcelling out Olver’s district between McGovern, Neal and Tsongas. No PVI’s available, but lets assume they are all safe D. Let me know if they are otherwise (Tsongas’ district might be close to a tossup, not sure.)

Also tried to not split counties, towns etc.

Photobucket

Out west, CD 1 (Blue) has Springfield, Amherst (olvers home) and the Mountain towns. NEAL

CD 2 (Green) takes in most of Worcester County, Franklin County and a little of Berkshire County. McGOVERN.

Photobucket

CD 3 (purple) takes in Fitchburg from Olver, Lowell and most of N Middlesex county. Loses Lawrence and Metheun to Tierney. TSONGAS

CD 4 (red) takes in almost all of Essex county. Just about contiguous with county lines. TIERNEY  

CD 5 (yellow) takes in Medford/Malden area, goes around to Waltham, Watertown, Framingham. MARKEY

CD 6 (dark green) takes in Somerville, Cambridge and 3/4 of Boston. It is exactly 50 % white. CAPUANO

Photobucket

CD 7 (crimson) takes in some of Boston (loses a little bit of that base to Capuano), Norwood, Taunton and Brockton. The non-Boston area stays pretty similar to current district. LYNCH

CD 8 (grey) takes in Franks home base in Needham/Newton/Brookline area, and sweeps down to take Fall River (from McGovern) and New Bedford (which he currently represents). FRANKS

CD 9 (light blue) takes in Barnstable county, the eastern half of plymouth county (Plymouth and Weymouth) and snakes up into Quincy, where Keating lives. KEATING

WI-07: Former State Sen. Pat Kreitlow to Challenge Duffy

Life just got a whole lot tougher for one vulnerable Republican:

Former state Sen. Pat Kreitlow announced Monday that he intends to run for a U.S. Congress seat in 2012, saying he will fight against “this new war on the middle class.”

Kreitlow, who served one four-year term in the Wisconsin Senate as a Democrat from Chippewa Falls, plans to challenge first-year incumbent Sean Duffy (R-Ashland) for the 7th Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Kreitlow (whom we mentioned as a possible candidate just a couple of weeks ago) was also a local TV anchor before he first ran for office in 2006, so he’s well-known in the region. Better still, Republicans will be hard-pressed to shore up Duffy’s swingy seat in redistricting, given their need to protect a 5-3 delegation in a 50-50 state. (And if anyone has dibbs on a safer district, it’s Paul Ryan.)

Of course, no one can save Duffy from himself. You remember, I’m sure, when he kvetched about his meager $174,000 salary at a town hall last month. Now he’s done himself in by acting like a jerkface at yet another town hall:

DUFFY: If you look at PPACA, we’re taking 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund this program.

CONSTITUENT: That’s not true!

DUFFY: (laughs)

CONSTITUENT: This is about fraud and abuse. You see these things happen all over the country. They’re talking about money into Medicare fraud enforcement. 60 Minutes did a huge story, billions into Medicare fraud annually.

DUFFY: Let me tell you what. When you have your town hall you can stand up and give your presentation.

Seems odd that a guy best known for his appearance on a reality TV show would be not ready for prime time, but there it is! I’m willing to bet that Kreitlow, on the other hand, is quite ready.