Author: Crisitunity

Siena College (2/18-19, likely voters):

Scott Murphy (D): 34

Jim Tedisco (R): 46

(MoE: ±3.7%)

Here is the first public poll of the special election in NY-20 to replace Kirsten Gillibrand; compared with the Tedisco internal released a few weeks ago (which had Tedisco up 50-29), it shows Scott Murphy in a better position, although still in a pretty deep hole.

The good news is that Murphy, who has never held office before, is still little-known, giving him room to grow (his favorable/unfavorable is 29/10 with 61% undecided); Tedisco, by comparison, is much better known, although he’s viewed pretty favorably (47/20, with 34% with no opinion). The poll also asks an interesting question: whose endorsement will matter the most to you? The most common answer is Kirsten Gillibrand, who still maintains a stratospheric 75/15 favorability rating in the district. Gillibrand stumping in the district will go a long way toward helping Murphy here. Discussion is already underway in DTM,B!‘s diary.

At this point, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see Tom McClintock and Gary Coleman show up to run in the Republican senate primary in Louisiana. So far, we have a potential challenge to David Vitter, a man who allegedly paid for sex, from Stormy Daniels, a woman whose career is based around being paid for sex. (If Mary Carey’s candidacy for governor of California is any indication, the Daniels candidacy shouldn’t be expected to get any serious traction, if it even becomes official. As a marketing ploy it might not even pencil out for her, if the anticipated revenues from increased sales of DVDs to curious constituents interested in learning more about her positions are exceeded by lost residuals from campaign advertising laws preventing her cinematic works from being shown on Louisiana cable systems.)

As of today, add a more legitimate potential challenger: Tony Perkins, prominent religious right talking head and current head of the Family Research Council. This is what Vitter was trying to head off with his recent moves to the hard right (taking on Clinton for SoS, for instance), but Perkins apparently still smells blood, today telling Politico that he’s “considering” the race.

“I don’t think he needs to say anything else about it, but I don’t think he can do anything else about it,” Perkins said. “Can people feel a sense of trust in him to publicly stand with him and support him and help him? Maybe he has [gotten to that point]. I know I still get some questions. I think he is certainly vulnerable [to] a challenge from the right – a candidate without issues.”

Perkins does have a background in elective politics: he lost the 2002 Senate primary and prior to that was a state representative in Louisiana, where he helped pass the state’s “covenant marriage” law which allows couples to opt into a marriage where divorce becomes more difficult. He also managed the failed 1996 Senate campaign for Woody Jenkins (last seen losing the LA-06 special to Don Cazayoux).

This is an extremely difficult race to handicap, since it’s still unclear who will be running (no Dems have stepped forward yet). It’s also unclear how the Republican base would split in the case of one of the nation’s most right-wing senators being challenged from the right: the breakdown may not be ideological as much as based on religion and region, as Vitter is a Catholic who used to represent New Orleans suburbs, while Perkins is from Baton Rouge and will play better among evangelical Protestants in the state’s north. (And don’t forget that while Louisiana threw out its traditional jungle primary for federal races, it still uses runoffs for primary races where no one hits 50%, and if there’s a third candidate a runoff may result.)

It’s tempting to say that a Democrat would have a better shot against the ostensibly more polarizing Perkins (with his links to the Council of Conservative Citizens and, via the Jenkins campaign, David Duke) than Vitter, but with Vitter’s travails, maybe not. And with Louisiana one of the few states trending away from the Democrats, they might not have much of a shot against either one.

Yesterday the DCCC introduced its Frontline program for the 2010 electoral cycle. These are the 40 incumbents considered to be most vulnerable, who are targeted for independent expenditures as needed to keep their seats in the D column.

Not all of these incumbents will stay vulnerable; in the previous cycle, between solid Dem fundraising out of the gate and an auspicious political landscape, only 10 of the initial 34 wound up needing funding. This cycle may be a little different, though; we’re playing more defense in more Republican-leaning seats, and fighting the usual midterm tendencies to recoil against the party in power.

Here’s the list of 40; rather than listing them alphabetically, I’m listing them according to the difficulty of the district’s estimated presidential lean in 2008 (and also including each rep’s margin of victory in 2008):

District	Rep.	2008 Pres. margin	2008 House margin
AL-02	Bright	– 27	1
ID-01	Minnick	– 26	1
MS-01	Childers	– 24	11
AL-05	Griffith	– 23	4
MD-01	Kratovil	– 18	1
AZ-01	Kirkpatrick	– 10	17
PA-10	Carney	– 9	13
AZ-08	Giffords	– 6	12
AZ-05	Mitchell	– 5	10
VA-05	Perriello	– 3	0
NY-29	Massa	– 3	2
OH-16	Boccieri	– 2	11
FL-24	Kosmas	– 2	16
NY-13	McMahon	– 2	28
CO-04	Markey	– 1	12
NM-02	Teague	– 1	12
IN-09	Hill	– 1	19
PA-03	Dahlkemper	0	2
VA-02	Nye	2	5
NY-24	Arcuri	3	4
TX-23	Rodriguez	3	14
NJ-03	Adler	5	4
NH-01	Shea-Porter	6	6
MI-07	Schauer	6	2
NC-08	Kissell	6	11
FL-08	Grayson	6	4
IL-11	Halvorson	8	24
OH-15	Kilroy	9	1
CA-11	McNerney	9	11
WI-08	Kagen	9	8
IA-03	Boswell	10	14
OR-05	Schrader	11	16
OH-01	Driehaus	11	5
IL-14	Foster	11	15
NV-03	Titus	12	5
NY-25	Maffei	13	13
MI-09	Peters	13	10
VA-11	Connolly	15	12
CT-04	Himes	20	4
NM-01	Heinrich	20	11

Take a moment to compare this with the House Vulnerability Index that we compiled last month. Pretty solid overlap: 18 of the 20 on the Index are also in the Frontline program. The two who aren’t are Chet Edwards, who’s well ensconced in his bright-red district, and Jim Marshall, who seems to finally be getting settled after a number of rocky cycles.

Note, also, the large number of sophomores who quickly locked down their iffy districts and have already graduated from their training wheels: Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler, Jason Altmire, John Yarmuth, John Hall, and Zack Space, among others. (Also observe who got the training wheels slapped back on: Mike Arcuri and the perpetually tottering Leonard Boswell.)

Who’s in the reddest districts without needing Frontline help? It’s all long-time representatives from the Blue Doggish end of the party, starting with Gene Taylor (36-pt McCain margin) and Chet Edwards (35). The rest of the top 10 includes some Tennessee and Arkansas reps who watched their previously safe districts fall out from under them, at least at the presidential level:  Dan Boren (32), Lincoln Davis (30), Bart Gordon (25), Charlie Melancon (24), Ike Skelton (23), Marion Berry (21), Mike Ross (19), and Rick Boucher (19).

And who had the narrowest margins in their own House races, without requiring Frontline help? Top of the list is Paul Kanjorski, who most people seemed to have left for dead and who escaped with a 3-point victory; apparently, the consensus seems to be that he was uniquely vulnerable to Lou Barletta and there aren’t any other threats on PA-11’s GOP bench. Following him are Chet Edwards (8), Ron Klein (9), Chellie Pingree (10), Jason Altmire (12), Jim Marshall (14), Paul Hodes (15), John Murtha (16), Dennis Moore (17), and Tim Bishop (17).

Finally, not to be outdone, the NRCC is about to roll out its counterpart, the “Patriots” program. (Apparently they don’t feel so sanguine as to call it ROMP, or Regain our Majority Program, any more.) No word on who the recipients are yet. One key difference seems to be while Frontline offers a lot of carrots, the Patriots program seems to involve a whole lot of stick:

As one Republican source put it Monday, the effort is also designed to “end the welfare state that the NRCC has become over the past six to eight years” by setting strict benchmarks for Members and adding one big stick to the process. Namely, those candidates who aren’t working to help themselves will be cut off from NRCC financial assistance.

After weeks of dribs and drabs of revelations that his stumbling upon the Illinois senate seat wasn’t so innocuous after all, the question was starting to become whether Roland Burris would survive the end of the month, not whether he’d be able to win re-election. Today, Burris will announce that he’s splitting the difference: he won’t resign, but he won’t run for re-election either.

This may not change the 2010 calculus that much; Jan Schakowsky and Alexi Giannoulis were probably going to run in the Democratic primary whether or not Burris was there; the main question was whether Burris could sneak through the primary based on African-American support and a split liberal vote. At any rate, it gives Burris a graceful (or at least less graceless) way to ride off into the sunset and carve another line on his mausoleum.

Also, Pat Quinn, who took over as governor in the wake of Rod Blagojevich and who was one of the first to call for Burris to resign, announced that he will be running for re-election in 2010.

“I have no reason not to run,” Quinn told me when I asked him about the 2010 election. “I think I am doing a good job today. I anticipate I will continue to do that. Stabilizing the ship of Illinois is vitally necessary. I think even in the first three-and-a-half weeks we’ve done a decent job of turning a page in an unhappy chapter in the state’s history.”

By getting out in front of the Blago blowback, Quinn seems to have stabilized his situation and there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of primary competition for him (yet).

UPDATE by Jimmy Hell: Now Camp Burris is denying everything, saying that no 2010 decisions have been made.

OK, the title’s a little hyperbolic: the robots in question are only auto-dialers, not cyborgs with lasers. Anyone who’s tried to eat a quiet dinner in a swing state knows just how unstoppable they are, though. At any rate, the DCCC is unleashing the robot army against 12 of the most vulnerable House Republicans, and they’re engaged in a nice bit of jujitsu that might sow some doubts with conservative voters: going after the GOP for not voting for their precious tax cuts, and for not voting according to the wishes of their overlords at the Chamber of Commerce.

Did you know Congressman Thad McCotter voted against President Obama’s economic recovery plan, endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?  McCotter’s empty rhetoric can’t hide that he voted to raise the AMT tax on 22 million middle class Americans and against the largest tax cut in history.

McCotter (who’s ranked #5 on our Vulnerability Index) may be the marquee target here. Today’s New York Times has a piece on how McCotter, a junior member of leadership who represents a particularly economically-hard-hit district in Detroit’s middle-class suburbs (and one that Obama won 54-45), is getting an earful from constituents. Constituents, of course, who might specifically benefit from provisions in the stimulus, such as incentives for car buyers and federal purchasing of new car fleets. (The NYT article also includes quotes from Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon, who may be a top-tier 2010 opponent in this usually neglected seat, although he may also be eyeing the governor’s race.)

Here’s the full target list:

Representative Judy Biggert (IL-13)

Representative Ken Calvert (CA-44)

Representative Michael Castle (DE-AL)

Representative Charlie Dent (PA-15)

Representative Jim Gerlach (PA-06)

Representative Mark Kirk (IL-10)

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)

Representative Dan Lungren (CA-03)

Representative Thad McCotter (MI-11)

Representative Adam Putnam (FL-12)

Representative Dave Reichert (WA-08)

Representative Pete Sessions (TX-32)

While there are some unsurprising choices here (Reichert, Gerlach, Kirk, Dent), there are also some guys who held on by dangerously close margins in red districts (Luetkemeyer, Calvert, Lungren), and a few old-timers (Castle, Biggert) in blue districts who might need some encouragement to explore retirement. There are also a few current or former leadership members here, as is often the case in these kinds of targeted robocalls, but there’s some long-term thinking here, too: Putnam will be retiring, so it’s time to start priming FL-12 voters for an open seat race in 2010, while Sessions’ district is still red but undergoing a rapid yet under-the-radar demographics-driven bluening (McCain won TX-32 only 53-46).

In keeping with today’s economic climate, it looks like both the DCCC and the NRCC bought more election than they could afford in 2008, and are now both armpit-deep in debt. (The DCCC is replenishing its coffers more quickly, but it’s also deeper in the hole.)

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will report that it ended January with $2 million in cash on hand and $16 million in debt left over from the 2008 election cycle. The DCCC raised $3.5 million last month and spent $2 million.

Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee had $1.1 million in the bank on Jan. 31 and reported $6.5 million in debts. The NRCC raised $1.5 million and spent $1.3 million last month.

This has some immediate ramifications, though, because it leaves both parties pretty well tapped when it comes to funding advertising for the NY-20 special election. (Don’t look for the parties to trouble themselves in the IL-05 and CA-32 elections!) So far, both Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco have hit the airways; however, Tedisco’s ads have been partially funded by the RNC, while Murphy’s ads seem to be on his own dime.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (2/16-18, registered voters):

Patty Murray (D-inc): 53

Dave Reichert (R): 40

Patty Murray (D-inc): 55

Rob McKenna (R): 39

(MoE: ±4%)

Research 2000 takes a look at the 2010 Washington Senate race for Daily Kos, and there’s really not much to see here. Patty Murray wins easily against two of the few Republicans that people in Washington actually like, Rep. Dave Reichert and Attorney General Rob McKenna. But neither of them have given any indication of running for the Senate, and if either of them had any urges, this poll is likely to squelch those.

McKenna has his sights set on the 2012 gubernatorial race (which will presumably be an open seat), while Reichert is (as I’ve talked about at length) the GOP’s only hope of holding onto the Democratic-leaning WA-08 and the state GOP won’t want to sacrifice him for a longshot bid against Murray. With Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers climbing the House leadership ladder and Dino Rossi having seen the extinction of his career, there just aren’t any top-tier elected GOPers in the state to make this race.

Expect them to take the route they took in 2006 with Mike! McGavick and pick some super-wealthy self-funder you’ve never heard of, who won’t break 40% but will at least be able to pay for his own funeral. (It’s been long-threatened, but it may finally be John Stanton‘s turn in the dunk tank.)

RNC chair Michael Steele, in an interview with the Washington Times:

“We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles,” Steele told the Washington Times. “But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

“It will be avant garde, technically,” he said of the new public relations team he’s signing on. “It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone – off the hook.” He also added: “I don’t do ‘cutting-edge.’ That’s what Democrats are doing. We’re going beyond cutting-edge.”

Simpsons episode 4F12, “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show:”

EXECUTIVE

(pause) We at the network want a dog with attitude. He’s edgy, he’s “in your face.” You’ve heard the expression “let’s get busy”? Well, this is a dog who gets “biz-zay!” Consistently and thoroughly.

KRUSTY

So he’s proactive, huh?

EXECUTIVE

Oh, God, yes. We’re talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

MEYER

Excuse me, but “proactive” and “paradigm”? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I’m accusing you of anything like that. I’m fired, aren’t I?

MEYERS

No, no, no! He was supposed to have attitude.

SILVERMAN

Um… wh-what do you mean, exactly?

MEYERS

Oh, you know, attitude, attitude! Uh… sunglasses!

EXECUTIVE

Can we put him in more of a “hip-hop” context?

KRUSTY

Forget context, he’s gotta be a surfer. Give me a nice shmear of surfer.

EXECUTIVE

I feel we should rastafy him by … ten percent or so.

The presidential-results-by-congressional-district crowdsourcing project at Swing State Project just keeps rolling along, and we’re really getting close to total completion. We’re adding 31 more districts today, having scored precinct-level data from some of the largest counties still outstanding (most notably, Queens County, NY, and Wayne County, MI). That leaves only 18 districts with problem counties left to go! (Nassau and Erie Counties, we’re lookin’ at you…)

As always, big thanks to all SSP readers who’ve contributed to this project, with extra thanks for this batch to Democratic Luntz and jeffmd, who rocks an Excel pivot table like nobody’s business. If you want to see a handy list of all districts in one place, look here. If you want a fuller picture, waves one, two, three, and four are here. And if you want an absolutely crushing level of detail, just click on our master database and then on a particular state to see each district in all its precinct-level glory.

District	Obama #	McCain #	Other #	2008 %	2004 %	2000 %
CA-11	169,183	139,863	5,495	53.8/44.5	45/54	45/53
CA-14	213,671	72,707	5,883	73.1/24.9	68/30	62/34
CA-15	174,571	75,753	4,837	68.4/29.7	63/36	60/36
CA-16	154,324	63,975	3,585	69.6/28.8	63/36	64/33
CA-18	104,299	68,629	3,141	59.2/39.0	49/50	53/44
CA-19	124,533	141,013	4,990	46.0/52.1	38/61	39/58
CA-20	77,158	50,146	2,257	59.6/38.7	51/48	55/44
CA-21	93,578	125,293	3,591	42.1/56.3	34/65	37/61
CA-23	172,348	85,261	6,312	65.3/32.3	58/40	54/40
CA-24	160,738	151,678	5,916	50.5/47.7	43/56	43/54
IN-06	133,459	151,596	3,933	46.2/52.5	35/64	40/59
MI-11	196,909	163,190	6,075	53.8/44.6	47/53	47/51
MI-12	212,850	108,752	5,626	65.1/33.2	61/39	61/37
MI-13	167,242	32,722	1,763	82.9/16.2	81/19	80/19
MI-14	189,406	33,533	1,906	84.2/14.9	83/17	81/18
MI-15	219,674	106,322	5,680	66.2/32.1	62/38	60/38
NJ-01	198,196	103,992	3,687	64.8/34.0	61/39	63/34
NJ-02	165,983	137,448	3,967	54.0/44.7	49/50	54/43
NJ-04	150,975	169,848	3,914	46.5/52.3	44/56	50/46
NJ-12	198,145	139,367	3,575	58.1/40.9	54/46	56/40
NY-06	185,890	22,302	598	89.0/10.7	84/15	87/11
NY-07	148,242	38,170	943	79.1/20.4	74/25	75/21
NY-09	111,237	88,307	1,533	55.3/43.9	56/44	67/30
NY-12	154,394	23,504	1,283	86.2/13.1	80/19	77/15
NY-14	212,802	56,946	2,402	78.2/20.9	74/25	70/23
OH-06	142,474	150,551	6,268	47.6/50.3	49/51	47/49
OH-13	183,254	136,316	4,640	56.5/42.1	56/44	53/44
OH-16	152,509	160,914	6,355	47.7/50.3	46/54	42/53
OH-17	179,531	104,773	6,011	61.8/36.1	63/37	60/35
TX-15	100,398	66,501	922	59.8/39.6	49/51	54/46
TX-27	97,830	84,366	1,283	53.3/46.0	45/55	50/50

So what are the highlights and lowlights for this installment? As we’ve seen earlier, California just went from dark blue to even bluer, and that seeped all the way down to some of its reliably red districts (CA-24 in Ventura County went narrowly for Obama… which hopefully will convince Elton Gallegly of the many botched retirement attempts to actually get off the pot this time… and we even came close in CA-19, which stitches together the Sierras and the whiter parts of the Central Valley). A lot of that movement may have to do with California’s huge Latino population, fed up with the GOP’s increasing reliance on immigrant-bashing; parallel movement is seen in Texas, where two mostly-Latino districts (TX-15 and TX-27) also show wide swings in the Democratic direction.

Also, as we’ve seen in other districts, Indiana had some of the biggest Democratic swings in the nation, simply by virtue of the Democrats showing up and competing there for once. Check out IN-06. Remember, this is the district represented by Mike Pence, arch-wingnut who just got promoted from leading the RSC to the #3 position in the whole GOP caucus… and now he’s in a district that McCain won by just 6 points.

On the bad side of the ledger, we’re seeing continued declines in some of the blue-collar white-ethnic districts in the NYC area. These districts suffered some of the biggest declines in that nation from Gore to Kerry, and I thought that might be a temporary 9/11 effect since those districts were some of the ones hardest hit. However, we’ve continued to lose ground in NY-09 (the old-school parts of Brookyln and Queens), and are stagnant in NJ-04 (Ocean and Monmouth Counties, where people from NY-09 go to retire). Not that it matters too much; these districts are outweighed by the overall blue trends in these already-blue states. And in NY-09 they still managed to kick out state senator Serphin Maltese to finally flip control of the New York senate; Obama’s performance may have to do more with 2008-specific racism/latent PUMAism than an overall trend.

Also troubling is what’s going on in eastern Ohio, where we lost ground in OH-06 and OH-17. It’s not hard to explain — OH-06 is considered the Appalachian part of Ohio, while OH-17 is centered on Youngstown, a place similar to Pittsburgh’s collar counties where the once-strong union base is dying off or drifting away as the manufacturing sector evaporates. This is more worrisome since Ohio is a swing state where every vote counts, but as this part of the state is hollowing out while the Columbus and Cincinnati areas are starting to move into our column, it’s not a killer.

Finally, I’m making good on my promise of some updates, based on further refining of early-vote or split-precinct data, or finding more data from small counties where we’d previously made a “close enough” judgment. As you’ll see, the numbers haven’t moved that much, with a few exceptions (perhaps most significantly in IL-18, which we originally thought Obama had won by a few thousand votes but turns out he lost by a few hundred; see also improvements in FL-06 and FL-07, SC-01 and SC-06). This will only be of interest to people who are real sticklers for accuracy or who are keeping their own spreadsheets on this subject. (Of course, since we’re talking about Swing State Project here, that probably describes most of our readership!) The updates tables is over the flip…

District	Obama #	McCain #	Other #	Updated %	What we’d said
FL-01	112,793	234,185	4,349	32.1/66.7	32.2/66.7
FL-02	163,954	199,591	4,207	44.6/54.3	44.7/54.3
FL-03	169,406	60,062	1,636	73.3/26.0	73.0/26.4
FL-04	143,324	233,446	3,765	37.7/61.4	37.6/61.5
FL-06	174,701	228,651	4,662	42.8/56.0	38.4/60.6
FL-07	183,619	213,831	4,516	45.7/53.2	42.0/57.0
FL-08	189,402	168,842	2,742	52.5/46.8	52.4/46.8
FL-11	178,935	89,793	2,691	65.9/33.1	65.7/33.3
FL-12	163,745	168,399	3,112	48.8/50.2	47.7/51.3
FL-13	178,967	199,216	4,525	46.8/52.1	46.7/52.3
FL-14	169,067	226,967	3,827	42.3/56.8	42.3/56.9
FL-15	186,597	200,229	4,638	47.7/51.2	46.9/52.0
FL-16	175,017	192,431	4,038	47.1/51.8	47.2/51.8
FL-23	194,488	39,578	1,152	82.7/16.8	82.8/16.7
FL-24	189,895	197,541	3,937	48.5/50.5	47.3/51.7
FL-25	127,290	129,940	1,382	49.2/50.3	49.3/50.2
IL-08	167,812	129,030	4,208	55.7/42.9	56.6/42.1
IL-11	175,033	147,758	5,059	53.4/45.1	53.6/44.9
IL-14	168,611	132,838	4,298	55.2/43.5	54.4/44.2
IL-15	143,659	151,477	5,264	47.8/50.4	48.8/49.4
IL-17	149,220	112,197	3,837	56.3/42.3	58.1/40.4
IL-18	143,140	143,551	4,823	49.1/49.2	49.6/48.7
IL-19	139,335	171,883	5,616	44.0/54.3	42.0/56.2
IN-04	142,930	185,843	3,557	43.0/55.9	43.0/55.9
IN-08	140,063	151,570	3,727	47.4/51.3	47.4/51.3
IN-09	154,628	160,248	3,930	48.5/50.3	49.1/49.7
KS-02	134,337	170,635	6,013	43.2/54.9	43.1/54.9
KS-03	187,372	177,814	5,186	50.6/48.0	50.6/48.1
LA-01	78,325	221,781	4,868	25.7/72.7	25.3/73.1
LA-02	137,748	46,205	1,873	74.1/24.9	74.3/24.7
LA-03	101,428	167,046	5,411	37.0/61.0	36.6/61.4
LA-04	108,273	162,198	3,152	39.6/59.3	39.6/59.3
LA-05	106,097	177,277	3,718	37.0/61.8	36.7/62.0
LA-06	132,556	184,422	4,297	41.3/57.4	41.4/57.3
LA-07	105,117	188,576	4,953	35.2/63.1	35.0/63.4
MA-01	195,983	102,450	6,984	64.2/33.5	66.0/34.0
MA-02	178,090	117,272	6,269	59.0/38.9	60.3/39.7
MA-05	175,986	117,710	4,968	58.9/39.4	59.9/40.1
MA-06	192,502	135,956	5,474	57.7/40.7	58.6/41.4
MA-07	189,228	97,123	4,948	65.0/33.3	66.1/33.9
MA-08	202,152	32,445	1,612	85.6/13.7	86.1/13.9
MA-09	188,863	120,436	3,545	60.4/38.5	61.2/38.8
MA-10	196,304	155,992	5,461	54.9/43.6	55.8/44.2
MD-01	147,543	215,918	7,136	39.8/58.3	39.8/58.3
MD-02	178,241	113,929	5,684	59.8/38.3	59.6/38.5
MD-03	192,690	128,593	6,523	58.8/39.2	58.6/39.5
MD-04	270,377	45,014	2,486	85.1/14.2	85.1/14.1
MD-05	233,917	119,020	4,520	65.4/33.3	64.9/33.9
MD-06	139,744	200,475	7,528	40.2/57.7	40.2/57.7
MD-07	234,422	59,183	3,929	78.8/19.9	78.7/20.0
MD-08	232,533	77,730	4,461	73.9/24.7	73.4/25.2
MO-08	101,889	173,128	4,651	36.4/61.9	36.3/62.1
OH-18	115,868	132,972	6,226	45.4/52.1	45.5/52.0
OR-02	154,848	193,002	10,473	43.2/53.9	43.3/53.7
OR-04	201,143	161,079	11,698	53.8/43.1	53.7/43.2
PA-02	298,834	31,584	1,435	90.1/9.5	90.7/8.9
PA-08	192,570	160,695	3,905	53.9/45.0	53.6/45.3
PA-15	179,589	139,396	4,158	55.6/43.1	56.3/42.4
SC-01	146,919	196,389	4,298	42.3/56.5	39.9/58.8
SC-02	159,063	189,949	3,567	45.1/53.9	43.2/55.8
SC-03	103,434	188,316	3,803	35.0/63.7	34.4/64.3
SC-04	119,259	190,113	5,254	37.9/60.4	37.9/60.4
SC-05	144,267	167,072	3,635	45.8/53.0	45.2/53.7
SC-06	189,507	103,057	2,829	64.2/34.9	61.9/37.1
TX-01	81,872	184,963	1,433	30.5/69.0	30.5/68.8
TX-04	93,316	213,565	2,262	30.2/69.1	30.1/68.9
TX-06	114,283	172,535	1,870	39.6/59.8	39.7/59.5
TX-08	74,545	215,377	2,058	25.5/73.8	25.4/73.8
TX-10	150,713	187,496	2,941	44.2/55.0	44.3/54.6
TX-11	58,275	184,814	1,915	23.8/75.4	23.6/75.4
TX-13	53,860	181,541	1,786	22.7/76.5	22.9/76.2
TX-17	82,326	172,822	1,992	32.0/67.2	31.8/67.3
TX-19	65,020	170,969	1,693	27.4/71.9	27.4/71.8
TX-23	124,716	117,817	1,630	51.1/48.3	50.9/48.1
TX-26	137,613	193,132	2,213	41.3/58.0	41.8/57.3
TX-31	124,608	172,570	2,879	41.5/57.5	41.5/57.3

Quinnipiac (2/10-15, registered voters):

David Paterson (D-inc): 23

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 24

Carolyn McCarthy (D): 34

(MoE: ±4.6%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 43

Rudy Giuliani (R): 43

Andrew Cuomo (D): 51

Rudy Giuliani (R): 37

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42

Peter King (R): 26

(MoE: ±3%)

In the political chess game, David Paterson may have felt he was thinking ten moves ahead by picking Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacant Senate seat, by picking a young, charismatic woman with monster fundraising capacities who may well be holding the seat 40 years from now. However, it’s starting to look like, in doing so, he wasn’t thinking two moves ahead… as Quinnipiac now shows both Paterson and Gillibrand highly vulnerable in the 2010 primary. Picking Andrew Cuomo to fill the Senate seat would have killed two birds with one stone in the short-term for Paterson (get a Senator who’s known statewide and ready to stand on his own, and give his electoral archrival something to do other than challenge him in the 2010 election). Instead, he gambled on long-term dividends, and it’s possible neither he nor Gillibrand will be around to enjoy them.

The Gillibrand/McCarthy numbers seem likely to evolve over time, as 39% remain undecided. And both candidates seem largely unknown outside their respective corners of the state; Gillibrand’s favorables are 24/9 with 65% “haven’t heard enough,” (and 81% “haven’t heard enough” in the NYC Suburbs) while McCarthy’s are also 24/9, with 66% “haven’t heard enough” (with 88% “haven’t heard enough” upstate). An uncontroversial two years for Gillibrand, combined with tacking left on guns and immigration issues, should bring her numbers up (although revelations like the one today that she keeps two guns under her bed can’t be helping matters). Gillibrand has little trouble disposing of Rep. Peter King in the general (there’s no polling of an all-LI slugfest between King and McCarthy).

Paterson, however, trails Cuomo by a 2-1 margin, and, unlike Gillibrand, everyone knows who he is. His favorables are a fairly grim 41/35, while Cuomo clocks in at 63/15. Cuomo also dominates a hypothetical matchup against Rudy Giuliani while Paterson only ties him. Much of this does, in fact, seem to be blowback from the senator selection process. Paterson gets a mark of 35/52 for approval/disapproval of how he handled the process, down from 44/42 from last month. We may be looking at a truly epic miscalculation from Paterson here, one for the history books.