Author: Crisitunity

WPIX is claiming that multiple sources tell them that David Paterson will announce tomorrow that Kirsten Gillibrand will be appointed as the new Senator from New York, to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton. This comes after yesterday’s announcement that Caroline Kennedy was withdrawing from consideration.

As one source noted, “in politics you never know,” but based on the information they have heard and shared with PIX News Governor Paterson intends to name Kirsten Gillibrand as New York’s next Senator at a noon news conference tomorrow in Albany.

So, if this actually happens (just watch it be Cuomo instead!), here are several thoughts:

* This leaves a big gaping hole to be filled by special election in NY-20, an R+3 district that has been bluening but has historical GOP advantage and not much of a Democratic bench at the legislative or county level. This could be a difficult retention in a special election.

* This potentially sets up two Democratic primaries in 2010 for the statewide races: Andrew Cuomo vs. Paterson in the governor’s race (seeing as Cuomo has the time to do so), and Gillibrand defending her seat. (Also rumored today was that Carolyn McCarthy from NY-04 threatened to challenge Gillibrand in a primary in 2010.)

* Some progressives won’t be happy to see this seat filled by a Blue Dog caucus member, and the least liberal member of the New York House delegation… although it seems likely she’ll move to the left once in office to match her new larger and more liberal constituency.

UPDATE (James): As the lead organizer of DavidNYC’s transition team, I feel it necessary to inform the public and members of the media that Mr. NYC is keeping all of his options open on the possibility of running in the 2010 and 2012 Senate primaries.

PPP (1/17-18, registered voters):

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 45

John Kasich (R): 39

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Ted Strickland has a lead going into the 2010 election against likely opponent ex-Rep. John Kasich, but it’s a surprisingly small lead (6 points, and under the 50% mark informally assumed to be the safety zone). Strickland started out extremely popular, but has perhaps suffered a bit in tandem with Ohio’s dismal economy.

Strickland’s favorables aren’t that bad (he’s at 48 favorable/35 unfavorable, compared with 34/24 for the dimly-remembered Kasich, who was a House GOP up-and-comer in the 90s but oddly retired in 2000). As PPP themselves point out, part of the problem with the topline may be a screwy sub-sample of African-Americans; only 52% support Strickland, while Democratic candidates typically pull 80-90% of the black vote in Ohio.

(H/t conspiracy.)

We’re going to fire up a new project here at Swing State Project, now that we’ve churned through the competitive senate and gubernatorial races in our statewide recruiting threads. We’re moving on to the House races where we’re facing the most vulnerable Republicans. We’ll be turning to the Vulnerability Index that I put together last week as a means of seeing who exactly those vulnerable Republicans are.

Actually, it’s not an entirely new project, as last week diarist peebles put up a couple very good diaries on this topic, on two of our best pickup opportunities in 2010, LA-02 and MN-03. Based on the traffic these diaries got, it’s a topic that belongs on the front page, and we’ll be discussing other top pickup possibilities in coming days.

So with LA-02 already discussed, let’s turn to what the numbers tell me is the 2nd most vulnerable seat: PA-06. Jim Gerlach, despite his moderate record, has labored to hold onto this D+2 seat in Philadelphia’s western suburbs. His margins have never broken out of the low single digits, even when faced with a little-known second-tier opponent like Bob Roggio in 2008. Added to the mix is the possibility that Gerlach, fed up with close races and the possibility of a redistricting-related demise in 2012, may be looking to vacate this seat to run for the governor’s seat in 2010. This would leave an open seat where Dems might well be favored (although longtime state representative Curt Schroder has dibs on the GOP nomination, and could be a strong opponent).

With that in mind, here are some possible Democratic contenders for the seat:

Bob Roggio: We’ve had a good deal of fun at SSP at Roggio’s expense, but you have to admit that he performed very well, in the final accounting, as an underfunded opponent starting out virtually unknown (coming closer than, say, Dan Seals or Darcy Burner, who had the big money and familiarity advantages while running in similar districts). Roggio himself says that he was feeling 50-50 about running again, if Gerlach didn’t run.

Joe Torsella: This is the same Joe Torsella you sometimes see mentioned in the context of the 2010 Senate race, where he’d be a major underdog. He was deputy mayor of Philadelphia under Ed Rendell in his early 30s, was director of the National Constitution Center for a decade until last month (indicating something’s brewing), and lost to Allyson Schwartz in the PA-13 primary to replace Joe Hoeffel. He was rumored to have been a 2008 candidate; he certainly seems interested in running for something next time, and PA-06 seems more within his pay grade than the Senate.

Christopher Casey: Seems like there’s a Casey waiting to go in almost every district, and that’s good, as the Casey name is still golden. Christopher is brother to the current senator, and is an attorney in Philly (though a Chester County resident). He turned down DCCC recruitment efforts for the 2008 election.

Andy Dinniman: There’s not much of a bench of state senators to draw from in this district (indicating that we still have a long way to go in turning the Philly burbs blue at the legislative and county courthouse levels). Dinniman, from West Chester in the 19th Senate district, turned down the chance to run in 2008. The only other Dem senator who may (or may not) be in this district is Michael O’Pake from Reading in the 11th Senate district. (Reading is gerrymandered in half, to keep its minority populations out of PA-06, so O’Pake may reside in PA-16. Also, he’s in the Dem minority leadership in the Senate, and may be focused on staying there.) Democratic state representatives in this district include Paul Drucker from Tredyffrin Twp. and Dave Kessler from Boyertown.

Melissa Fitzgerald: The former West Wing actress, who has local connections to the district, was reportedly interested in the race last time, but eventually faded from view. Other names that burbled up in the search that eventually gave us Bob Roggio, who could resurface, include Larry Platt, a Philadelphia magazine editor, and Mike Leibowitz, a Montgomery County real estate executive who lost the MontCo Dems endorsement to Roggio.

UPDATE: One other name that I hadn’t considered, but has been suggested both in a comment from a PA-06 resident and in an e-mail from an in-the-know tipster, is Dan Wofford, son of ex-Sen. Harris Wofford and the 2002 candidate who barely lost in Gerlach’s first race. He’s been out of the limelight since then, but apparently is considering another shot.

Any Pennsylvanians out there have any other scuttlebutt or ideas?

Quinnipiac (1/14-19, registered voters):

Alex Sink (D): 15

Kendrick Meek (D): 13

Ron Klein (D): 9

Allen Boyd (D): 8

Dan Gelber (D): 1

Don’t know: 54

(MoE: ±4.7%)

Bill McCollum (R): 22

Connie Mack IV (R): 21

Vern Buchanan (R): 10

Marco Rubio (R): 6

Allan Bense (R): 2

Don’t know: 39

(MoE: ±4.3%)

If the primary elections for the Florida senate race were held today, “Don’t know” would sweep both nominations in a landslide. At this point, this is a name recognition test, and Floridians seem to have no idea who these candidates are. At any rate, there seems to be something of a hierarchy here: statewide officials (Sink, McCollum) fare best, then U.S. Representatives, with state legislative leaders down in no man’s land.

On the Dem side, Kendrick Meek has the edge among current candidates. But assuming that he comes in with fairly high name rec from being in the state’s largest media market, and that he’s probably already consolidated the state’s African-American vote, he may not have as much room to grow as the other candidates.

Unfortunately, this poll has a major wrinkle; it was in the field when Alex Sink announced that she wasn’t going to be a Senate candidate, so presumably some respondents were operating under the assumption that Sink was a likely candidate while others knew that she wouldn’t be. In fact, the only head-to-head Quinnipiac tried out involved Sink as the Dem nominee (McCollum 36, Sink 35, with 29 don’t know). Here’s hoping they try again soon with some other permutations.

It’s become something of blogospheric conventional wisdom, over the last few years, that running for the House two times in a row was the right approach: that in some cases it takes one cycle to build name recognition and make fundraising connections, and one more cycle to close the deal with voters. Fans of Paul Hodes, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, or Joe Donnelly (he must have a netroots fan somewhere?) could point to their successes in 2006, on the second try, as evidence.

On the other hand, for every Hodes or McNerney in the House, there’s a “where are they now?” bin with Lois Murphy, Diane Farrell, Patty Wetterling, or Francine Busby in it. 2008 seemed to have a particularly large number of Democratic candidates giving it a second shot, so it may be worth stopping to examine those races.

Unfortunately, there wasn’t a particularly high success ratio: of the 14 races that were considered competitive where the Democratic candidate was making a second run, only three four made it over the finish line (Dan Maffei, Eric Massa, Mary Jo Kilroy, and Larry Kissell). These candidates seemed to benefit from a perfect storm of traction from a repeat run, and running against weakened opponents (a different opponent for Maffei in the wake of Jim Walsh’s retirement and a bungled GOP recruitment, and befuddled, unlikable opponents for Massa and Kissell). (On the following table, * indicates a different opponent in 2008.)

The others seemed to falter, either in the face of a nutty GOPer but too red a district (Brown, Wulsin, probably Esch) or an uncontroversial ‘moderate’ incumbent with a strong hold on a suburban district (Seals, Burner, Feder). By contrast, because of the confluence of swing districts and craptacular opponents, NY-25, NY-29, and NC-08 seem like races we likely could have won with or without a returning opponent (although the prospect of a Maffei rematch may have caused Walsh’s retirement)… which isn’t to say that we should avoid rematches, simply that it may not provide as much of an advantage as conventional wisdom currently holds.

Also, I can’t help but notice one troubling pattern: the male reruns improved on their 2006 numbers. The female reruns declined. If you look at the names above from the 2004-06 cycles, you see the same pattern (Nancy Boyda excepted). I won’t attempt to psychoanalyze that, but it’s disappointing nonetheless.

UPDATE: A reader helpfully points out that I left out Mary Jo Kilroy, who ran against a different opponent in 2008. I was prepared to have to admit that this screws up my theory, but interestingly, even though she won on her second try, the rate at which she improved her margin was still lower than any of the male rerun candidates.

UPDATE II: Another reader points out Gary Trauner, another repeat runner but against a different opponent. So there is, in fact, one male candidate who lost ground (albeit while running in Wyoming in a presidential year).

District	Dem	2006 margin	2008 margin	Diff.
NY-25	Dan Maffei *	-1.6 (49.2/50.8)	12.9 (54.8/41.9)	14.5
NC-08	Larry Kissell	-0.2 (49.9/50.1)	10.8 (55.4/44.6)	11.0
NE-02	Jim Esch	-9.4 (45.3/54.7)	-3.8 (48.1/51.9)	5.6
NY-29	Eric Massa	-3.0 (48.5/51.5)	2.0 (51.0/49.0)	5.0
CA-04	Charlie Brown *	-4.5 (45.4/49.9)	-0.6 (49.7/50.3)	3.9
IL-10	Dan Seals	-6.8 (46.6/53.4)	-5.2 (47.4/52.6)	1.6
OH-15	Mary Jo Kilroy *	-0.5 (49.7/50.2)	0.7 (45.9/45.2)	1.2
WA-08	Darcy Burner	-3.0 (48.5/51.5)	-5.6 (47.2/52.8)	-2.6
VA-10	Judy Feder	-16.3 (41.0/57.3)	-20.0 (38.8/58.8)	-3.7
NV-02	Jill Derby	-5.5 (44.9/50.4)	-10.4 (41.4/51.8)	-4.9
OH-02	Victoria Wulsin	-1.1 (49.4/50.5)	-7.3 (37.5/44.8)	-6.2
NJ-07	Linda Stender *	-1.5 (47.9/49.4)	-8.0 (42.2/50.2)	-6.5
WY-AL	Gary Trauner *	-0.5 (47.8/48.3)	-9.8 (42.8/52.6)	-9.3
FL-13	Christine Jennings	-0.2 (49.9/50.1)	-18.0 (37.5/55.5)	-17.8

Just to make sure that I wasn’t focused on high-profile losses while missing races that flew under the radar (which, as best as I can remember, was where Hodes, McNerney, Boyda, and Donnelly all flew in 2004), I looked at all the non-competitive races where I could find Democratic reruns as well. With a couple exceptions in California (which may have to do mostly with the surprisingly strong coattails Obama generated for Dems downticket in that state), the lower-profile reruns also gained little traction.

District	Dem	2006 margin	2008 margin	Diff.
CA-03	Bill Durston	-21.6 (37.9/59.5)	-5.5 (44.0/49.5)	16.1
CA-48	Steve Young	-22.8 (37.2/60.0)	-15.1 (40.6/55.7)	7.7
NC-03	Craig Weber	-37.2 (31.4/68.6)	-31.8 (34.1/65.9)	5.4
NJ-11	Tom Wyka	-25.5 (36.6/62.1)	-24.8 (37.0/61.8)	0.7
AZ-02	John Thrasher	-19.7 (38.9/58.6)	-22.2 (37.2/59.4)	-2.5
FL-05	John Russell	-19.8 (40.1/59.9)	-22.4 (38.8/61.2)	-2.6
PA-19	Phil Avilo	-30.5 (33.5/64.0)	-33.2 (33.4/66.6)	-2.7
PA-09	Tony Barr	-20.6 (39.7/60.3)	-27.8 (36.1/63.9)	-7.2
TX-04	Glenn Melancon	-31.0 (33.4/64.4)	-39.5 (29.3/68.8)	-8.5
IN-06	Barry Welsh	-20.0 (40.0/60.0)	-30.5 (33.4/63.9)	-10.5

Over the holidays, SSP readers seemed to have a lot of fun with the vulnerable House Republicans and vulnerable House Democrats threads. This left me wondering, as so many things seem to do, “is there a way to quantify that?” In other words, is there a data-driven way to approach the question instead of just relying on perceptions (and also to make sure that potentially overlooked races don’t fall through the cracks)?

Here’s what I tried. It’s actually a bit reminiscent of my PVI/Vote Index, in that it measures representative performance against the district’s lean, except here performance is measured by the rep’s margin in the last election. (The data for many of the 2008 electoral margins is available in the recent “How’d We Do?” post, conveniently arranged in order from closest to least close.)

Look at the top 20 most vulnerable Republicans to see how it works. As pretty much everyone would expect, Anh Cao in LA-02 is the most vulnerable GOPer. He had the 5th weakest margin of any Republican who survived 2008 (beating Bill Jefferson by 2.7%, behind only Fleming (0.4%), McClintock (0.6%), Calvert (2.4%), and Luetkemeyer (2.5%). Needless to say, he’s in the GOP-held district with the least favorable PVI (D+28, using “old,” i.e. 00-04, PVI). At #2 is Jim Gerlach in PA-06; he had the 9th worst margin at 4.2%, and he’s in the 6th worst district for a GOPer at D+2. And so on…

District	Rep.	Margin rating	PVI rating	Total
LA-02	Cao	5	1	6
PA-06	Gerlach	9	6	15
IL-10	Kirk	13	4	17
WA-08	Reichert	16	5	21
MI-11	McCotter	17	16	33
MN-03	Paulsen	22	12	34
NJ-07	Lance	24	13	37
OH-12	Tiberi	34	14	48
CA-50	Bilbray	11	40	51
MN-06	Bachmann	6	46.5	52.5
FL-25	Diaz-Balart	18	37	55
CA-44	Calvert	3	55	58
AL-03	Rogers	25	34	59
LA-04	Fleming	1	60	61
FL-15	Posey	31	30.5	61.5
MN-02	Kline	39	23	62
CA-26	Dreier	33	30.5	63.5
MO-09	Luetkemeyer	4	60	64
NY-26	Lee	38	27	65
PA-15	Dent	58	8	66

Is this much different from SSP readers’ predictions? No, not much; it’s the wisdom of crowds at work. Still, I see a few names on there that didn’t get much of any mention in our prediction thread: especially Pat Tiberi in OH-12 (34th worst margin at 12.6%, 14th worst district at R+1) who seems to fly under the radar every single freakin’ election. Other names revealed by this list that wouldn’t necessarily be intuitive picks include Thad McCotter, John Kline, Mike Rogers (AL), and Bill Posey, who benefited from our big-time recruitment failure in the FL-15 open seat.

Here’s the flipside: the Democratic seats that seem likeliest to flip, based on 2008 numbers. Some of these may not be much cause for alarm; Chet Edwards, for instance, is probably not in any imminent danger except in case of a 1994-sized event, but he’s probably doomed to uncomfortable margins for all eternity. On the other hand, time will tell whether Walt Minnick can quickly fortify himself, or if we’re only renting ID-01 for a couple years.

District	Rep.	Margin rating	PVI rating	Total
ID-01	Minnick	5	1	6
AL-02	Bright	2	5	7
MD-01	Kratovil	4	10	14
TX-17	Edwards	19	2	21
VA-05	Perriello	1	26.5	27.5
AL-05	Griffith	10	20	30
MS-01	Childers	25.5	8.5	34
NY-29	Massa	6	29.5	35.5
VA-02	Nye	15.5	22	37.5
CO-04	Markey	34	11.5	45.5
PA-10	Carney	35	14	49
GA-08	Marshall	39	13	52
FL-08	Grayson	12.5	44	56.5
MI-07	Schauer	7	49.5	56.5
NM-02	Teague	33	23.5	56.5
WI-08	Kagen	20	38.5	58.5
OH-15	Kilroy	3	58	61
AZ-05	Mitchell	23	38.5	61.5
PA-03	Dahlkemper	8	54	62
OH-16	Boccieri	27.5	40	67.5

More over the flip…

In describing this method to DavidNYC, he quite rightly asked “Wait, does this thing actually work?” So, after a lot more data entry and some testing based on how well the 2006 numbers would have predicted the 2008 results, I can conclude it does work fairly well. Here is what the 2006 numbers would have predicted for GOP held seats in 2008.

District	Rep.	Margin rating	PVI rating	Total
NM-01	Wilson	3	7	10
NY-25	Walsh	9	5	14
PA-06	Gerlach	7	9	16
CT-04	Shays	16	2	18
WA-08	Reichert	14.5	8	22.5
NV-03	Porter	10	13	23
IL-10	Kirk	24	4	28
NJ-07	Ferguson	8	20.5	28.5
OH-15	Pryce	4.5	24.5	29
MI-09	Knollenberg	22	16	38
OH-01	Chabot	20	18.5	38.5
NC-08	Hayes	1.5	38.5	40
PA-15	Dent	33	11	44
FL-13	Buchanan	1.5	46.5	48
IL-06	Roskam	12.5	36.5	49
MI-07	Walberg	41	10	51
NY-03	King	17	34	51
AZ-01	Renzi	28	30.5	58.5
IL-11	Weller	34	24.5	58.5
NY-13	Fossella	45	14	59

One problem leapt out at me: the role of open seats, and the accompanying loss of the benefits of incumbency. So, I performed a tweak that took open seats into account (by taking out the margin, and just leaving the open seat’s strength based only on its PVI rating). That takes it a little closer to the way things actually shook out. 13 out of the top 20 were pickups, which seems like a good but not amazing rate of prediction.

Without doing a lot of putting your thumbs on the scales of individual races, I don’t know how you’d build a model that somehow predicted, say, Tom Feeney’s implosion, or the fizzle in the open seat in NM-02, or Dave Reichert’s confounding staying power, or Bob Roggio’s amazing lack of name recognition… or that Bill Sali was vulnerable (he was #106) if only because of sheer malice and stupidity. Any good prognostication has to include at least some kind of qualitative analysis of candidates’ levels of, well, suckiness.

By the way, in case you’re wondering what this formulation means would happen to Peter King’s seat if he bails out to run for NY-Sen, it would vault up to #2 on the list if it were open. (It’s the 7th most Dem PVI of any GOP-held seat, so for 2010 the score of 7 would slot an open NY-03 right before LA-02.) So, a year from now, once we have a sense of where seats will open up, I’ll have to revisit this project.

District	Rep.	Margin rating	PVI rating	Total
NY-25	Open	0	5	5
NJ-03	Open	0	6	6
NM-01	Open	0	7	7
NY-13	Open	0	14	14
PA-06	Gerlach	7	9	16
CT-04	Shays	16	2	18
MN-03	Open	0	18.5	18.5
NJ-07	Open	0	20.5	20.5
VA-11	Open	0	20.5	20.5
WA-08	Reichert	14.5	18	22.5
NV-03	Porter	10	13	23
IL-11	Open	0	24.5	24.5
OH-15	Open	0	24.5	24.5
IL-10	Kirk	24	4	28
AZ-01	Open	0	30.5	30.5
MI-09	Knollenberg	22	16	38
OH-01	Chabot	20	18.5	38.5
NC-08	Hayes	1.5	38.5	40
NY-26	Open	0	42	42
PA-15	Dent	33	11	44

Finally, here’s what the 2006 numbers would have predicted for the Democratic-held seats in 2008, including the tweak for open seats (of which we didn’t have many). Three of the top 10 did, in fact, fall. Plus, LA-06 isn’t on the list because it changed hands during a special election. However, my back-of-the-envelope calculation for Cazayoux based on his 3% margin in the special election and an R+6.5 would’ve given him a score around 24, good for 4th place. On the other hand, the fifth Dem seat to fall, LA-02, clocks in at #187!

District	Rep.	Margin rating	PVI rating	Total
GA-08	Marshall	4	9	13
AL-05	Open	0	17	17
KS-02	Boyda	11	11	22
IN-09	Hill	15	12.5	27.5
PA-10	Carney	18	10	28
TX-22	Lampson	29	4	33
NC-11	Shuler	23.5	12.5	36
WI-08	Kagen	6	30.5	36.5
TX-17	Edwards	39	1	40
FL-16	Mahoney	5	38.5	43.5
IL-08	Bean	21	23	44
AZ-05	Mitchell	14	30.5	44.5
UT-02	Matheson	43	2	45
NY-19	Hall	12.5	36	48.5
PA-04	Altmire	7.5	41	48.5
IN-02	Donnelly	25	26	51
IN-08	Ellsworth	44.5	8	52.5
CA-11	McNerney	20	33	53
TX-23	Rodriguez	26	27.5	53.5
OR-05	Open	0	55	55

The elves were busy while I was taking Christmas off, and now that I’ve picked the crowdsourcing project back up, we’ve made another big jump, taking us to the point of having presidential election results for 3/4s of all congressional districts.

Results from the first wave are here, and results from the second wave are here. If you want to see all results in one place, they’re permalinked here. Also, please check out our master database; although we’ve made a lot of headway, there’s still plenty to do if you have access to precinct-level data (however, the remaining states are the ones that tend to be most coy about releasing precinct-level data, so those remaining districts may never see daylight until Polidata somehow solves those enigmas).

District	Obama #	McCain #	Other #	2008 %	2004 %	2000 %
CA-01	199,835	96,530	8,264	65.6/31.7	60/38	52/39
CA-02	125,291	161,636	7,041	42.6/55.0	37/62	33/61
CA-03	165,617	164,025	6,440	49.3/48.8	41/58	41/55
CA-04	167,604	206,385	8,368	43.8/54.0	37/61	36/59
CA-05	165,776	67,625	4,709	69.6/28.4	61/38	60/35
CA-06	253,087	73,345	6,802	76.0/22.0	70/28	62/30
CA-07	179,037	66,272	5,450	71.4/26.4	67/32	66/31
CA-08	266,210	38,665	7,519	85.2/12.4	85/14	77/15
CA-09	260,662	29,186	5,919	88.1/9.9	86/13	79/13
CA-10	204,138	104,624	6,972	64.7/33.1	59/40	55/41
CA-12	214,850	69,029	5,213	74.3/23.9	72/27	67/29
CA-13	175,838	56,299	4,270	74.4/23.8	71/28	67/30
CA-17	171,180	61,163	4,932	72.1/25.8	66/33	60/33
CA-22	110,910	172,792	5,879	38.3/59.7	31/68	33/64
CA-25	134,222	131,201	6,010	49.5/48.3	40/59	42/56
CA-26	149,249	137,329	5,885	51.0/47.0	44/55	44/53
CA-27	157,100	75,286	5,219	66.1/31.7	59/39	60/36
CA-28	147,958	42,815	3,492	76.2/22.0	71/28	73/24
CA-29	159,947	71,860	4,840	67.6/30.4	61/37	58/38
CA-30	242,022	95,869	5,710	70.4/27.9	66/33	68/28
CA-31	113,941	25,441	3,280	79.9/18.3	77/22	77/19
CA-32	119,726	52,356	3,557	68.2/29.8	62/37	67/31
CA-33	205,470	27,672	3,539	86.8/11.7	83/16	83/14
CA-34	106,695	33,056	3,023	74.7/23.2	69/30	72/26
CA-35	165,761	27,789	2,923	84.4/14.1	79/20	82/17
CA-36	176,924	92,105	5,754	64.4/33.5	59/40	57/39
CA-37	157,219	36,940	3,388	79.6/18.7	74/25	76/22
CA-38	130,092	48,599	3,846	71.3/26.6	65/34	70/28
CA-39	128,579	63,680	4,117	65.5/32.4	59/40	62/36
CA-40	114,025	125,066	5,456	46.6/51.1	39/60	41/56
CA-41	119,255	147,982	5,890	43.7/54.2	37/62	41/56
CA-42	128,474	152,256	5,529	44.9/53.2	37/62	39/59
CA-43	112,020	49,594	3,216	68.0/30.1	58/41	64/34
CA-44	133,535	131,003	5,169	49.5/48.6	40/59	44/53
CA-45	142,305	129,664	4,251	51.5/46.9	43/56	47/51
CA-46	145,393	150,937	6,921	47.9/49.8	42/57	42/55
CA-47	77,144	48,461	2,672	60.1/37.8	49/50	56/42
CA-48	163,063	160,584	7,091	49.3/48.6	40/58	40/58
CA-49	117,283	137,739	4,805	45.1/53.0	36/63	39/59
CA-50	172,962	158,845	5,616	51.3/47.1	44/55	43/54
CA-51	135,960	76,438	3,021	63.1/35.5	53/46	57/41
CA-52	135,848	161,332	4,827	45.0/53.4	38/61	40/57
CA-53	177,863	77,930	5,101	68.2/29.9	61/38	58/38
GA-01	96,818	167,122	2,149	36.4/62.8	34/66	38/62
GA-02	130,109	111,559	1,322	53.6/45.9	50/50	52/48
GA-03	129,895	235,263	3,178	35.3/63.9	29/70	32/68
GA-04	208,874	54,868	1,974	78.6/20.7	71/28	70/30
GA-05	249,927	63,053	2,734	79.1/20.0	74/26	73/27
GA-06	133,716	227,701	4,301	36.6/62.3	29/70	32/68
GA-07	140,009	212,721	3,710	39.3/59.7	30/70	31/69
GA-08	123,877	162,376	1,978	43.0/56.3	39/61	42/58
GA-09	70,366	225,929	3,611	23.5/75.3	23/77	29/71
GA-10	113,915	183,441	2,773	38.0/61.1	35/65	37/63
GA-11	103,112	204,275	3,987	33.1/65.6	29/71	35/66
GA-12	143,624	120,150	1,733	54.1/45.3	49/50	52/48
GA-13	200,567	80,327	2,180	70.9/28.4	60/40	57/43
IN-01	184,871	111,895	2,582	61.8/37.4	55/44	56/42
IN-04	141,946	184,389	3,509	43.0/55.9	30/69	32/66
IN-05	143,447	210,103	3,172	40.2/58.9	28/71	30/69
IN-07	191,381	76,530	2,056	70.9/28.4	58/42	56/43
IN-09	149,587	151,543	3,783	49.1/49.7	40/59	42/56
KS-01	79,638	184,501	4,813	29.6/68.6	26/72	29/67
KS-02	133,759	170,279	6,003	43.1/54.9	39/59	41/54
KS-03	186,196	177,019	5,148	50.6/48.1	44/55	42/53
KS-04	113,418	166,705	5,440	39.7/58.4	34/64	37/59
NY-18	184,182	112,214	2,294	61.7/37.6	58/42	58/39
NY-19	160,645	153,424	3,100	50.7/48.4	45/54	47/49
OH-01	164,824	133,576	3,147	54.7/44.3	49/51	46/51
OH-02	126,796	190,109	4,297	39.5/59.2	36/64	34/63
OH-03	155,610	167,897	4,830	47.4/51.1	46/54	45/52
OH-04	112,543	176,973	5,882	38.1/59.9	34/65	35/62
OH-05	136,666	159,433	5,981	45.2/52.8	39/61	37/59
OH-07	142,154	171,568	5,194	44.6/53.8	43/57	42/56
OH-08	118,915	189,578	5,499	37.9/60.4	35/64	36/61
OH-09	194,682	113,095	4,925	62.3/36.2	58/42	55/41
OH-10	174,575	115,005	5,489	59.2/39.0	58/41	53/42
OH-11	245,149	41,606	2,463	84.8/14.4	81/18	79/18
OH-12	213,177	183,233	5,172	53.1/45.6	49/51	46/52
OH-15	167,441	139,425	5,486	53.6/44.6	50/50	44/52
OH-18	112,545	128,735	6,122	45.5/52.0	43/57	41/55
OR-02	155,301	192,627	10,632	43.3/53.7	38/61	35/60
OR-04	200,841	161,645	11,572	53.7/43.2	49/49	44/49
PA-01	246,006	32,174	1,310	88.0/11.5	84/15	84/15
PA-02	270,695	26,521	1,264	90.7/8.9	87/12	87/12
PA-08	186,372	157,544	3,814	53.6/45.3	51/48	51/46
PA-11	164,451	121,559	3,229	56.9/42.0	53/47	54/43
PA-12	131,544	132,497	3,892	49.1/49.5	51/49	55/44
PA-14	209,771	86,927	2,886	70.0/29.0	69/30	70/28
PA-15	162,471	122,163	3,804	56.3/42.4	50/50	49/48
PA-16	150,341	161,844	2,719	47.7/51.4	38/61	36/62
PA-17	144,897	152,406	3,737	48.1/50.6	42/58	41/56
PA-18	149,824	186,297	3,215	44.2/54.9	46/54	47/52
TN-01	75,052	181,912	3,829	28.8/69.8	31/68	38/61
TN-02	104,287	195,540	4,600	34.3/64.2	35/64	39/59
TN-03	103,817	174,248	3,600	36.9/61.9	38/61	41/57
TN-04	92,924	173,841	4,917	34.2/64.0	41/58	49/50
TN-05	166,293	128,615	3,636	55.7/43.1	52/48	57/42
TN-06	112,064	189,729	4,721	36.6/61.9	40/60	49/49
TN-07	123,063	230,779	3,397	34.4/64.6	33/66	40/59
TN-08	110,390	144,957	3,255	42.7/56.1	47/53	51/48
TN-09	196,824	56,130	1,432	77.4/22.1	70/30	63/36
TX-02	105,736	159,141	1,805	39.7/59.7	37/63	37/63
TX-03	124,027	171,119	3,283	41.6/57.3	33/67	30/70
TX-04	90,191	206,621	2,992	30.1/68.9	30/70	34/66
TX-05	90,135	158,356	2,128	36.0/63.2	33/67	34/66
TX-06	112,025	167,778	2,243	39.7/59.5	34/66	34/66
TX-07	121,472	173,162	2,673	40.9/58.2	36/64	31/69
TX-08	73,428	213,450	2,464	25.4/73.8	28/72	31/69
TX-09	137,619	40,240	850	77.0/22.5	70/30	69/31
TX-10	149,112	183,908	3,987	44.3/54.6	38/62	34/67
TX-11	56,939	182,074	2,332	23.6/75.4	22/78	25/75
TX-12	99,083	171,408	2,539	36.3/62.8	33/67	36/64
TX-13	52,691	175,174	2,087	22.9/76.2	22/78	25/75
TX-14	88,532	177,370	2,230	33.0/66.2	33/67	36/64
TX-16	118,178	60,279	1,773	65.6/33.5	57/44	59/41
TX-17	78,756	166,649	2,351	31.8/67.3	30/70	32/68
TX-18	150,973	43,292	1,104	77.3/22.2	72/28	72/28
TX-19	64,541	168,789	1,912	27.4/71.8	23/77	25/75
TX-20	115,470	64,724	2,163	63.3/35.5	55/45	58/42
TX-21	149,261	214,569	4,299	40.6/58.3	34/66	31/69
TX-22	129,414	183,172	2,454	41.1/58.1	36/64	33/67
TX-23	124,568	117,704	2,348	50.9/48.1	43/57	47/54
TX-24	124,128	153,758	2,688	44.2/54.8	35/65	32/68
TX-25	176,016	118,183	4,805	58.9/39.5	54/46	47/53
TX-26	135,285	185,468	2,746	41.8/57.3	35/65	38/62
TX-28	103,037	80,192	1,251	55.9/43.5	46/54	50/50
TX-29	66,808	40,884	815	61.6/37.7	56/44	57/43
TX-30	170,826	37,465	1,306	81.5/17.9	75/25	74/26
TX-32	96,203	110,397	2,509	46.0/52.8	40/60	36/64

A few words about some of the states. Many of you have already seen the California numbers, which californianintexas published in her excellent diary; for those of you who haven’t, here they are on the front page again. There are unfortunately some California districts missing; a number of large counties (Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Ventura, and Fresno especially) haven’t provided precinct-by-precinct data, so districts incorporating parts of those counties can’t be completed.

The missing precinct-level data problem explains missing districts in certain other states, too. (In some cases, there was missing data for smaller counties, but I made a judgment call that the counties in question were small enough that they wouldn’t affect the overall percentage much, so they’re included.) In Indiana, we’re still missing data for Allen and Elkhart Counties, so that rules out IN-02, IN-03, and IN-06. (I already did the 8th in the first wave.) The partial totals for the left-out districts are still available in the Indiana database (the same is true for OH, PA, and TX as well), if you click the link. They may well be very close to the actual percentages, but there’s just no way of knowing.

In Ohio, large counties we’re missing include Mahoning, Trumbull, and Medina, so we’re short OH-06, OH-13, OH-14, OH-16, and OH-17.  Pennsylvania is missing Montgomery, Butler, and Cumberland Counties among others, so there we’re also missing the PA-03, PA-04, PA-05, PA-06, PA-07, PA-09, PA-10, PA-13, and PA-19. (MontCo also occupies a tiny bit of PA-02, PA-08, and PA-15, but it’s such a small percentage of those districts I decided to let it slide.)

In Texas, Cameron County is missing, so that leaves out TX-15 and TX-27. (I also did the 1st and 31st in the first wave.) Finally, there’s the matter of New York, where only a few counties bother to report by precinct. Luckily, two of them are Westchester and Rockland, so at least we can do NY-18 and NY-19 there.

There was also one missing county in Oregon, which kept me from including OR-02 and OR-04 in the first wave. I found enough information about Josephine County to decide how to allocate its votes (66.8% of the county’s voters voted for a candidate in the OR-02 congressional race, while 33.1% voted in OR-04, so I just applied those percentages to the presidential race).

In Georgia, as with many of the other southern states, early votes aren’t broken down, so what jeffmd did, as before, was to use both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ totals, where soft totals included early votes allocated proportionately. I’m including the soft totals (otherwise, we wouldn’t have even won GA-02 and GA-12, where victory clearly depended heavily on black turnout).

So what are some of the highlights in this data set? Check out some of the traditionally Republican districts in California (where in many, not coincidentally, we came very close to surprising long-term incumbents) like CA-03, CA-26, CA-44, and even GOP strongholds like CA-25 and CA-48: all won by Obama.

Some of the biggest gains were in Indiana, especially in the Indianapolis area, where both the city itself (IN-07) and its right-wing suburbs (IN-05) zoomed to the left. Amazing what you can accomplish when you actually try to contest a formerly uncontested state.

One area where the GOP might take heart is western Pennsylvania, where there’s apparently the one district in the nation that flipped from going for Kerry to going narrowly for McCain: John Murtha’s PA-12. Also, the Philly burbs didn’t move as much as one might expect (the needle barely budged in PA-08 in Bucks County); where the biggest progress occurred in Pennsylvania was out in places like Lancaster and Harrisburg (see PA-16 and PA-17).

Texas is a very complicated tapestry: in many rural parts of the state, there was no real improvement from 2004, despite the loss of the favorite son effect. For example, expect TX-13 to replace UT-03 as the district with the worst PVI once they recalculate. And look at TX-08, where both growing right-wing exurbs and declining Dem fortunes in the Beaumont area were a double-whammy. Contrast that, though, with not just hugely improved percentages in the minority districts, but also a lot of progress in the suburban districts that we’ve discussed a lot recently where the minority growth is accelerating: TX-10, TX-22 (where the growth wasn’t enough to save Nick Lampson, sadly), TX-32, and especially TX-24 in the area around DFW airport.

And, as always, if more results trickle into the master database, I’ll be sure and post them to the front page. So keep on number-crunching!

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch is probably the most popular Democrat in the state, and seems like the ideal candidate to take on Senator Judd Gregg in 2010. However, today at a press conference he’s taken himself out of the running in pretty definitive fashion:

“I can tell you that although I don’t know what I’ll be doing in 2010, I’m not going to run for the United States Senate. So, that shouldn’t be a distraction as I continue to work on the budget.”

Given that Washington has seemed to be outside of Lynch’s comfort zone, however, his demurral shouldn’t be seen as too much of a surprise. Speculation will continue to focus on New Hampshire’s two Democratic representatives, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter.

PPP (1/10-11, registered voters):

Robin Carnahan (D): 45

Roy Blunt (R): 44

Robin Carnahan (D): 47

Jim Talent (R): 43

Robin Carnahan (D): 47

Sarah Steelman (R): 36

(MoE: ±3.3%)

As we suspected, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is more or less the front-runner for the open seat left behind by Kit Bond’s retirement. At the same time, it’s not currently a cakewalk for her, as Rep. Roy Blunt and ex-Sen. Jim Talent poll within close striking distance of her.

I’ll admit I’m surprised to see Blunt so close to Carnahan and in fact doing better than Talent, considering that Blunt, at least in his House leadership role, seemed like an unlikable, polarizing figure (and add to that the fact that Talent has run statewide a number of times, while Blunt may not be that well known outside MO-07). That’s just not my gut talking; PPP finds that Blunt is the only one of the four candidates with greater unfavorables than favorables (he’s at 40/43, while Carnahan is at 45/36 and Talent is at 45/39.

PPP has a good explanation, though. Their crosstabs suggest that Blunt has a large bipartisan core of support in his conservative southwestern House district, and some of that support includes a fair number of Democrats in his district who apparently would support Carnahan in a Carnahan/Talent matchup.

Last week we had some unexpected fireworks in the Texas State House of Representatives, where the Republicans have a narrow numeric edge but a coalition of Democrats and non-insane Republicans joined together to kick out long-time, thuggish Speaker Tom Craddick in favor of a more moderate Republican. Today, a very similar scenario played out on in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

The Democrats have long held the Tennessee House, and the GOP’s pickup of the chamber (by a 50-49 margin) was one of the few surprises on the state legislative front in the 2008 election. Tennesseans seemed resigned to at least two years of wingnuts-gone-wild, under the leadership of House Republican leader Jason Mumpower (not to be confused with one of SSP’s favorite punching bags, eccentric failed NC-11 candidate Carl Mumpower).

However, outgoing Democratic Speaker Jimmy Naifeh came up with a bright idea: promote Kent Williams, probably the most moderate member of the GOP caucus, as Speaker. The result: Williams beat Mumpower by a vote of 50-49 (all the Democrats, plus Williams himself). While Williams will continue to be a Republican, he promises that a number of committee chairs will be Democrats.

Tennessee Republicans, in the aftermath, conducted themselves with their usual level of decorum and graciousness:

Speaker Williams said he heard expletives being used by fellow Republicans. He said he still considers himself a Republican and emphasized that he would be fair to Republicans and Democrats. He predicted that history will show that this will be a “great thing” for the state.

When state Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, approached the new Speaker, Rep. Williams warned him that if he used “the f-word,” he would be thrown out.

Rep. McCormick responded by telling the new Speaker that he is a “disgrace to the state. You are a disgrace to the state.”