Author: Crisitunity

Rasmussen (10/2, likely voters, 9/10 in parentheses):

Chris Gregoire (D-inc): 48 (46)

Dino Rossi (GOP Party): 48 (52)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Last month’s Rasmussen poll showing Republican challenger Dino Rossi suddenly shooting up to a 6-point lead (from the within-a-point-or-two stasis that had reigned almost all year) probably resulted in a lot of pants-soiling among Washington Dems. Well, I have no idea if that poll was a fleeting snapshot of Palinmania at its most fervent, or just one of Rasmussen’s occasional weird gyrations, but everything seems to have returned back to normal in the Washington gubernatorial race. (FWIW, the last Rasmussen presidential poll had Obama up by only 2, while today’s sample has him up 53-43.)

This poll was taken shortly after Builder-gate broke into the public consciousness, so it appears that Builder-gate has yet had little if any impact on the race, despite hopes that it might give Rossi a black eye… not that I would expect it to, as it turns on arcane aspects of state campaign finance law rather than anything sexy (or easily comprehensible). And while it does serve to make Rossi look a little sleazier, there are (as the latest poll shows) very few undecideds left to be swayed by a little more sleaze.

However, as of a few hours ago, Washington’s Republican Attorney General, Rob McKenna, just filed suit against Washington’s Republican Party for its involvement in the matter. So this will linger around on local newspapers’ front pages for a little while longer…

Here’s a relatively short introduction to Builder-Gate, courtesy of Goldy at Horse’s Ass, who, as he often does, beat the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer in breaking the story:

Rossi was an active participant in the [Building Industry Association of Washington]’s illegal fundraising scheme… a scheme for which the [Public Disclosure Commission] found the BIAW guilty of multiple “egregious” violations of Washington’s campaign finance and disclosure laws, and which is now being prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office.

But it is important to note that even if the BIAW had scrupulously conducted its campaign within the letter of the law (and it didn’t), Rossi would still be guilty of a major violation of our campaign statutes, for it is absolutely positively 100% illegal (not to mention grossly unethical) for a candidate to coordinate activities with an independent expenditure campaign.

The original economic rescue package that went down to narrow defeat on Monday was notable for the strange coalition that formed. Rather than a clear left/right split, the opposition was an interesting grouping of vulnerable incumbents and representatives from districts geographically or economically far removed from Wall Street, from across the ideological spectrum.

Today’s second-try vote that passed the bailout 263 to 171 (with Dems splitting 172-63 and the GOP splitting 91-108) necessarily involved a lot of people flipping from nay to yea. As with the original vote, the flippers weren’t heavily concentrated at one point on the ideological spectrum, but scattered throughout. 33 Dems switched from nay to yea, as did 25 Republicans. (Only one representative, Jim McDermott, switched from yea to nay. And one GOP representative, Jerry Weller, switched to no vote to yea.)

If there was one place the switches came from, though, it was the Progressive Caucus, which was originally 35-32 in favor of the bailout. Today, 16 caucus members flipped to yea, making it 50-17 (accounting for McDermott going the other way). The Progressive Caucus shares many members with the Congressional Black Caucus, which also turned direction (reportedly because of heavy lobbying by Obama himself, based on his promises to revisit the issue in January), with 13 flippers, changing its numbers from 18-19 to 31-6. Likewise, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also turned, with 5 flippers, going from 8-13 to 13-8.

As was predicted, there was little movement among the Blue Dogs, who reportedly weren’t happy with the additional pile of debt thrown in as a ‘sweetener.’ Only 5 Blue Dogs flipped, as they went from 31-22 to 36-17. Likewise, 8 New Dems flipped (some of whom are also Blue Dog members), going from 38-21 to 46-13.

On the Republican side, the ultra-right Republican Study Committee still remained the main bastion of resistance. Of the 205 25 GOPers who flipped, only 11 came from the RSC, as the RSC went from 26-81 to 37-70. On the other hand, the country-clubby Main Street Partnership moved to the most pro-bailout caucus in the whole House, with 7 flippers, taking it from 21-15 to 29-8 (including the addition of Weller).

More over the flip…

Few vulnerable representatives wound up changing their votes, as they (especially on the GOP side) continued to hold out in the face of perceived public opposition. On the Democratic side, only 3 vulnerable members flipped (Giffords, Mitchell, and Yarmuth, all Lean D). On the Republican side, 9 vulnerable members flipped (Knollenberg at Tossup, Kuhl and Schmidt at Lean R, and Boustany, Buchanan, Dent, Ros-Lehtinen, Shadegg, and Terry at Likely R).

(I say ‘perceived’ because a new Democracy Corps memo, based on polling of competitive GOP-held districts taken after the first bill’s failure (and subsequent market crash), suggests that the bailout isn’t as much of a political loser as the “100 to 1 calls against” anecdotes first suggested. This, of course, assumes that the specifics of the bill are properly explained, rather than simply rammed down everyone’s throats, as happened last week.)

By a 47 to 42 plurality, voters say they want their representative in Congress to support the 700 billion dollar plan to purchase troubled mortgage assets as modified by Congress to include limits on CEO pay and repay taxpayers in the long-term…. The winning Democratic message notes the need to turn the economy around and protect the middle class but mainly focuses on the improvements made by Congress to the Bush administration’s original bill, including limits on CEO compensation and protections to ensure taxpayers are paid back when the economy rebounds.

Two One retiree also flipped, remarkable since there were so few retirees voting nay in the first place: Ray LaHood and Jim Ramstad.

One other thing I would have expected was more representatives from what we’ll call ‘investor-class’ districts flipping from nay to yea (in the face of angry constituents upset about their 401(k)s rather than the cost of the bailout). However, they didn’t seem to flip at any greater rate than the rest of the House (although that may be because representatives from these districts were pretty heavily in favor of the package to begin with). Of districts where the 2007 median household income was over $65,000 (approximately the top 20% among districts), there were only 9 flippers: four from the Dems (Donna Edwards, Hirono, Tierney, and Woolsey), and five from the GOP (Biggert, Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Knollenberg, and Ramstad).

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (9/30-10/1, likely voters):

Harry Teague (D): 47

Ed Tinsley (R): 43

(MoE: ±5%)

In the wake of the recently-released (though slightly stale) Dem internal from New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District that gave Harry Teague a five-point lead, here’s a new poll from R2K that almost matches that.

The poll gives McCain a 49-42 edge over Obama, but this is by far New Mexico’s most Republican-leaning district (at R+5.7), one where Kerry lost 58-42. Teague (an oilman and a County Commissioner in dark-red Lea County in New Mexico’s oil patch) maintains a conservative profile, which seems apt for this district, as seen by how far he’s beating the district’s lean.

Swing State Project upgraded this race to Tossup yesterday.

Update (James): Also of note is Teague is just plain better liked than Tinsley: his favorables are at 46-33, a much better spread than Tinsley has (40-37).

Rasmussen (9/30, likely voters, 8/13 in parentheses):

Bev Perdue (D): 46 (51)

Pat McCrory (R): 50 (45)

Michael Munger (L): 2

(MoE: ±4%)

Elon University (9/29-10/2, residents, 9/15-16 in parentheses):

Bev Perdue (D): 33 (35)

Pat McCrory (R): 37 (37)

(MoE: ±4.6%)

Two new polls give more bad news for Bev Perdue, who seems to be slipping in her quest to hold the open North Carolina gubernatorial seat for the Dems. Rasmussen shows a big reversal from mid-August, when Perdue seemed to be at her peak. Elon University also shows Perdue losing a little ground from several weeks ago.

Elon University (9/29-10/2, residents, 9/15-16 in parentheses):

Kay Hagan (D): 37 (35)

Elizabeth Dole (R-inc): 35 (35)

(MoE: ±4.6%)

On the plus side, the same Elon University poll sees Kay Hagan gaining ground in the Senate race. (Bear in mind that the Elon poll is rife with methodological problems: it’s a sample only of residents, and respondents are only asked for each race whether they’re supporting the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Nevertheless, their margins seem generally in line with numbers we’re seeing elsewhere, with the presidential race in NC tied at 39-39.)

Ciruli Associates for Economic Development Council of Colorado (9/19-23, registered voters, 9/12-15/2007):

Mark Udall (D): 45 (36)

Bob Schaffer (R): 38 (35)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Recently a lot of the polls of the Colorado Senate race have seemed either suspiciously close or suspiciously far apart, but here’s one that’s close to the mark if you average them all out. The same sample shows a closer presidential race, with Obama leading only 44-43.

The sponsor’s name might sound like this is a Republican internal poll, but this is apparently a nonpartisan poll conducted once a year by local pollsters Ciruli Associates.

Research 2000 for South Bend Tribune/WSBT (9/28-30, likely voters):

Jill Long Thompson (D): 46

Mitch Daniels (R-inc): 47

(MoE: ±4%)

The Indiana governor’s race was starting to slide off the map, with GOP incumbent Mitch Daniels leading Democratic ex-Representative Jill Long Thompson by double digits in most polls over the last few months (with the exception of a 4-point spread in a Selzer poll several weeks ago). However, R2K’s first poll of this race shows a dead heat.

Is it an outlier? Is it another indication that the economic chaos is lifting every Democratic boat, even JLT’s leaky dinghy? Or is it a sign that Obama’s uncontested ground game in Indiana is not only turning Indiana into a swing state but generating strong coattails (the same sample gives McCain a lead of only 46-45)?

PPP (9/28-29, likely voters, 9/17-19 in parens):

Bev Perdue (D): 41 (44)

Pat McCrory (R): 44 (43)

Michael Munger (L): 5 (6)

(MoE: ±3%)

Hmmmm. While most pollsters are seeing Barack Obama and Kay Hagan suddenly and surprisingly pulling away in North Carolina, it also seems that most pollsters are also seeing Democrat Bev Perdue fall behind Pat McCrory in the open North Carolina gubernatorial race.

What’s significant is that PPP is the pollster that has been most favorable to Perdue; this is the first PPP poll showing her trailing McCrory. This is also apparently the same sample that gave Hagan that staggering 8-point edge, so there seems to be some troublesome ticket splitting that’ll need to be overcome.

In the wake of yesterday’s failed vote on the colossal Wall Street rescue plan, let’s take a look at how the members actually voted. This is one of the most confusing votes in recent memory, as there aren’t clear ideological fissures in the voting blocs. There’s something more fundamental going on here: self-preservation… and the question of whether each representative is more in fear of the constituents who keep him or her in office, or the financiers who keep him or her in office. (As often happens, Nate Silver already got there first, but I’m adding some additional details.)

As you’ve probably already seen, the bill failed 205-228, with Dems splitting 140-65, and the GOP splitting 95-133 (with one GOP non-voter and one vacancy). The votes, however, were pretty evenly distributed throughout the ideological spectrum.

Follow over the flip for much more:

For instance, the 10 most liberal Democrats according to Progressive Punch split 6-4. Aye: Baldwin, McGovern, Olver, Schakowsky, Danny Davis, and Markey. Nay: Donna Edwards, Linda Sanchez, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Payne.

The 10 least liberal Democrats according to Progressive Punch split 3-7. Aye: Marshall, Donnelly, and Ellsworth. Nay: Lampson, Childers, Barrow, Shuler, Hill, Taylor, and Altmire.

The 10 least conservative Republicans according to Progressive Punch split 5-5. Aye: Gilchrest, Shays, Kirk, Castle, and Ferguson. Nay: Chris Smith, Lo Biondo, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones, and Reichert.

Only the 10 most conservative Republicans showed much uniformity, splitting 1-9, with Boehner himself providing the only aye.

The same inconsistency applies if you break results down by caucus: for instance, the Progressive Caucus was split 35-32. The New Dems were split 38-21. The Blue Dogs were split 31-22. Unaffiliated Dems split 42-24. The Congressional Black Caucus was split 18-19; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was split 8-13 (these were the only Democratic caucuses to give a majority of nays). The centrist Main Street Republicans split 21 ayes and 15 nays. Unaffiliated Republicans split 17-39. The greatest cohesion was in the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee, which split 26-81 (and this becomes even more stark when you account for retiring members, and wannabe leadership like Putnam, Cantor, and Ryan).

So, there’s very little correlation between bailout vote and ideology (except at the right end of the spectrum). Where are the correlations? The most important factor is: safety. The Retiree Caucus, as a whole, voted 24 ayes and 10 nays. Among the Dem retirees, the vote was 4 ayes and 2 nays. Among the GOP retirees, the vote was 20 ayes and 7 nays.

This becomes even more pronounced when you discount retirees who are currently running for higher office. If you eliminate both Udalls, Hulshof, and Pearce, that’s four more ‘nays’ off the table. (Tom Allen voted aye, but at this point he unfortunately seems pretty much free to vote his conscience.) If you also pick off Ramstad, who’s supposedly a likely candidate for Minnesota governor in two years, that leaves only five retirees who apparently bucked leadership and voted ‘nay’ for ideological reasons: the corrupt John Doolittle, the corrupter Rick Renzi, the insane wannabe-prez Duncan Hunter, the primaried-out wingnut David Davis, and lone sane person Ray LaHood.

Contrast this with the Tossup Caucus (incumbents defined as Tossup by Swing State Project). These profiles in courage contributed 3 ayes and 7 nays. Of the Dems, Kanjorski voted aye, while Cazayoux and Lampson voted nay. (In doing so, Kanjorski may have dug his electoral hole even deeper. As a key member of the Financial Services committee, he couldn’t bail on this, but voting aye plays right into the hands of Barletta’s demagogic right-populist campaign, and his blue-collar district probably doesn’t contain a lot of six-digit 401(k)s.) On the GOP side, Shays (who lives in the one district where the constituents were probably 100 to 1 in favor of the bailout) and fellow affluent suburbanite Porter voted aye, while Feeney, Musgrave, Reichert, Walberg, and Young voted nay.

The Lean Democratic Caucus (all Dems) split 4 aye and 11 nay. Foster, Mahoney, Marshall, and McNerney voted ‘aye’ (note that all other than Marshall are from affluent suburban districts, and Marshall, a former bankruptcy law professor, has been unusually aggressive in explaining his position). With the exception of Mitchell and, to an extent, Shea-Porter, the ‘nay’ votes came from more downscale digs.

The Likely Democratic Caucus (also all Dems), on more comfortable terrain, split 5 ayes and 2 nays. Rodriguez and Walz were the nays, while rural Blue Dogs Arcuri and Space perhaps surprisingly joined the more suburban Dennis Moore and both Murphys.

The Lean Republican Caucus (all GOP) had probably the greatest uniformity of all, giving us only 1 aye and 12 nays. The one holdout: Mark Kirk, again voting his district (one of the nation’s wealthiest).

The Likely Republican Caucus (also all GOP) also huddled together in fear, voting 3 ayes and 14 nays. The three ayes were Frank Wolf (voting his wealthy district), Alabama’s Mike Rogers, and Mark Souder, who as usual seems to be either indifferent to his reelection or out to lunch.

One other interesting way to break this problem down is by region. Basically, the greater physical proximity you have to Wall Street (or to a lesser extent, another major metropolitan area), the likelier you were to vote for the bailout.

For example, representatives from the Northeast voted 60-32 in favor of the bill. This broke down to 49-19 for Democrats, and 11-13 for Republicans. For the most part, the Dems voting nay weren’t the most progressive northeasterners, but the ones furthest from the urban fast lane, ranging from the progressive (Welch, Hodes) to the conservative (Altmire, Carney).

In the Midwest, the overall breakdown was 41-57. Democrats broke 28-21, while Republicans broke 13-36. (And if you remove leadership, retirees, and affluent suburban districts from the equation, the GOP share of ayes drops down to almost zero.)

In the West, the overall breakdown was 44-54. Dems broke narrowly against it, 27-30, while the GOP broke 17-24. The near unanimity of western CHC members against it (only Blue Dogs Cardoza and Costa were ayes) provided the margin for nays among the Dems, while a number of ayes from rich-guy Republicans in California (Campbell, Dreier, Lungren, etc.) keep it closer among the GOP.

In the South, the overall breakdown was 59-86. Democrats broke in favor 36-25, and the GOP went against it 23-61. Interestingly, the majority of white southern Democrats were ayes (although some of the more vocally-populist Blue Dogs, like Childers and McIntyre, were nays); the Democratic nays in the south came mostly from the CBC (which contrasts sharply with the CBC members in the northeast, who were mostly ayes). The GOP ayes were again largely dependent on retirees, but also members from affluent suburbs (Bachus, Sessions).

So, while the simplest explanation is that voting ‘nay’ has the strongest correlation with being the most endangered and ‘aye’ has the strongest correlation with counting days to retirement, there’s something else going on, too. And it would tend to give some credence to the ‘populist uprising’ theory popular in some quarters of the blogosphere, that instead of a clear left/right fissure, we’re seeing something we haven’t seen much of before: a fissure that’s more rural plus urban core vs. suburban, blue-collar vs. knowledge economy, even, dare I say, proletarian vs. bourgeois. Representatives from rural areas from both parties, in concert with urban CBC and CHC representatives, somehow converged in great enough numbers to overcome united leadership plus suburban representatives of both parties.

Lycoming College (9/21-25, likely voters):

Chris Carney (D-inc): 46

Chris Hackett (R): 36

(MoE: ±4.6%)

We’ve gotten up-and-down results in the race for Pennsylvania’s 10th District (a.k.a. “Chris vs. Chris”). Democratic internals have shown Chris C. doubling up on Chris H., but a recent SurveyUSA poll showed only a 4-point margin.

A new poll from Lycoming College (located in Williamsport, the population center of the district) gives Carney a bit more breathing room in this R+8 district, although he’s still below the magic 50% mark. Obama coattails in this heavily pro-Clinton district may not be strong, but maybe local-boy-made-good Joe Biden is generating some coattails of his own.