Author: DGM

Looks like PPP just released a poll out of Illinois for both the Gubernatorial and Senatorial Democratic primaries and it looks pretty bad for Burris and Quinn (if Madigan decides to run):

(without Schakowsky)

Burris 20
Giannoulis 49

(with Schakowsky)

Burris 16
Giannoulis 38
Schakowsky 26 

PPP shows that even if Jan Schakowsky runs for the Senate, Giannoulis still holds a fairly commanding lead (and in that scenario actually holding a plurality of African American voters). One of the major concerns has been that a really divisive primary between Schakowsky and Giannoulis could set up a way for Burris to squeak by on the backs of a united African American vote, but with Schakowsky actually taking African American support from Burris in the poll, it seems that Sen. Burris's mausoleum will only show him as Senator for 2 years (what a shame!).In the Governor's race it's

Madigan 45
Quinn 29

Personally, I have no horse in the Governor's race but I'd probably prefer Schakowsky in the Senate over Giannoulis (though I'm not picky about it either). Either way though, it looks like Burris isn't in good shape for the primary.

UPDATE: One other thing I noticed which makes me wonder why Madigan doesn't seriously consider running for Senate is that even in a crowded primary against Giannoulis, Schakowsky, and Burris, she still dominates the field:

Madigan 44
Giannoulis 19
Burris 13
Schakowsky 11

Right now Madigan's numbers are better than all three candidates combined (not including the undecideds) and even if Schakowsky didn't run and all of her support went to Giannoulis or Burris and all the undecideds broke entirely for Giannoulis or Burris (more likely the former) she would still hold a one point lead over Giannoulis. I know that Madigan wants the governor's mansion, but she should seriously consider making a move for the Senate.

Cross-posted at Election Inspection 

One of the things which I think tends to cause a little bit of confusion with regards to House races is the idea of Charlie Cook's Partisan Voter Index, so to solve a bit of the confusion, I'd like to take the time to discuss what the PVI is, how it's used, and its strengths and weaknesses. Just so we're clear, I have absolutely no connection to Charlie Cook or Polidata, nor should this necessarily be taken as their words. This is, essentially, a way to understand, at least to my mind, the logic behind the PVI.

So follow me, fellow SSPers and discover the wonder that is the PVI!

1. “What is the PVI?”

Wikipedia's entry defines it as:

The index for each congressional district is derived by averaging its results from the prior two presidential elections and comparing them to national results. The index indicates which party's candidate was more successful in that district, as well as the number of percentage points by which its results exceeded the national average. The index is formatted as a letter + number; in a district whose CPVI score is R+2, recent Republican presidential candidates received 2 percentage points more votes than the national average. Likewise, a CPVI score of D+3 shows the Democrats received 3 percentage points more votes than the national average.

Essentially, what the PVI attempts to do is to determine just how Democratic or Republican a district is compared to the rest of the country, which helps to give a better idea where the most and least competitive districts are.

2. “So does that mean that PVIs can change over time?”

Yes, every presidential election, the PVI is recalculated in order to determine what the voting patterns in each district were like. While PVIs are typically used with congressional districts, since we don't have the new data for the 2008 elections at the CD level yet, we'll use two different states as an example (Illinois, Indiana). First of all, let's figure out what the PVI of both states were before the 2008 presidential election: (Illinois 2000 and 2004 data; Indiana 2000 and 2004 data) First of all, we know that in 2000 and 2004 George Bush won 48% and 51% of the vote respectively (averaged out, the Republican nominee's vote percentage is 49.5) while the Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry both got 48% of the vote. Using Illinois first, since we know that both Kerry and Gore got 55% of the vote in the state, we can determine that Illinois's previous PVI is 55-48, which gives us a PVI of D+7 (meaning that Illinois voted 7 points more Democratic than the rest of the country over the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections). For Indiana, we know that George Bush won 57% and 60% of the vote respectively (for an average of 58.5%), subtracting George Bush's national average from this state average (58.5-49.5) we find that Indiana has a PVI of R+9 (meaning that Indiana voted 9 points more Republican than the rest of the country). Now, to recalculate this for 2008, we take out the 2000 numbers of Al Gore and George Bush's first run and we add in Barack Obama and John McCain's numbers (for the national numbers, the average changes to 50.5% Democratic to 48.5% Republican) we would also take the new averages for Illinois (adding Obama's 62% to Kerry's 55% and dividing by 2 gives us 58.5%) and Indiana (adding McCain's 49% to Bush 2004's 60% and dividing by 2 gives us an average of 54.5%). Using the equations from above, we find that Illinois's PVI is now D+8.5 (which means that it moved more Democratic relative to the country) while Indiana's PVI changed to R+4 (meaning that it is now voting quite a bit less Republican than the rest of the country).

3. “Wait a minute, even though Obama won Indiana, its PVI is still so slanted towards the Republicans?”

Yes indeed. To make this a little easier, remember that the United States itself has a constant PVI of 0 (because it is being compared to itself). Because of this, it is possible for Obama to actually win a district that Kerry lost and yet the state gets a more Republican PVI. Looking at Florida (2000 and 2004) we can see that George Bush got 48% and 52% in 2000 and 2004 (with an average score of 50%), which makes Florida's old PVI R+0.5. In 2008, John McCain got 49% of the vote in Florida, so adding Bush 2004 and McCain's performance and averaging them gives the state an average Republican vote of 50.5%, which, in the context of the 2004-2008 national Republican average of 48.5, we can determine that Florida has a PVI of R+2. So even though Obama won a state that Kerry did not, its PVI actually become more Republican!

4. “Wait a minute, what good is this measure if it decides that a state that went Democratic is actually Republican?”

Think of the country as being the “center”, the “center” might be more Democratic and it might be more Republican at times, but regardless of which one it is, the country will always be at the “center”. The PVI is attempting to tell us how far away from the center a given area is.

5. “Ok, so the PVI is a way of determining where a district is compared to the country, I understand that, but why is it that some districts with Republican PVIs of 10 or greater can sometimes have Democrats representing them (and vice-versa)?”

Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill once said that “All politics are local” and this is what he's talking about. Skilled politicians like Democrats Chet Edwards (TX-17) and Jim Matheson (UT-02) are able to survive in districts that are extremely Republican. Or there are states like North Dakota that, while tending to vote for Democrats for congress but vote for Republicans for president.

6. “Does this make the PVI system worthless then?”

No, since these districts are becoming fewer and fewer as the country becomes more polarized, the PVI is extremely useful in the vast majority of districts. Of course, the PVI does not tell us vital information, like whether or not there are viable candidates in the district, whether or not it traditionally is a split-ticket area, or on how scandals would work.

7. “Ok ok, I get what the PVI is and why it's useful, but why two presidential elections, why not just use one?”

Because using only one set of election data means that the new PVI would suggest that something massive has changed, even if it was only a one time thing. Two presidential elections lets us hedge our bets a bit. For example, we know that Indiana voted 3 points more Republican than the rest of the country, yet we also know that the last two elections had Indiana voting 9 points more Republican than the rest of the country, the idea is that we should not ignore the past.

8. “So then why not be even more cautious and use 3 or 4 different elections?”

My answer would be that, while I could definitely see incorporating three presidential elections into data for a given presidential year, doing this can hedge too much (for example, Gore did 6 points worse in Colorado than he did nationally, Kerry only did 1 point worse than he did nationally, and Obama did a point better nationally, if we did that, then Colorado would have a R+2 lean instead of being considered a D+0). It's up to each individual to decide whether or not more data should be added, but this is mostly the balance between having too much data and having too little.

9. “The PVI is meant for congressional districts, and shouldn't apply to states, yet you keep using states as your examples, why?”

As was mentioned earlier, the PVI is usually only calculated for congressional districts, but that doesn't mean that they are the only thing which has a PVI. So long as we have the data, we can figure out, not only what the PVI for each state is, we can also figure out the PVI of each county and even the precinct level. The reason why I'm not using congressional districts in my example is because the data isn't available yet.

And there is my explanation of the Partisan Voting Index, as a project, I'll probably start calculating the PVIs of each individual state (look for it on Election Inspection).

Cross-posted at Election Inspection 

(Note: due to formating issues, I didn't post the charts here, to see how Obama did compared to Kerry, visit the Election Inspection link) 

I've actually been quite interested in doing a comparison of how Obama did compared to the last Democratic nominee (Kerry). Here's the difference between Obama and Kerry's margins in each state (for reference, I subtracted Kerry's margin from Obama's margin to get the final number, for example, if Obama's margin in California was 24 and Kerry's margin was 9, the equation would be 24-9=15).

Obviously, since Obama won the popular vote by 7, while Kerry lost it by 3, Obama is going to outperform Kerry almost everywhere, and speaking of, the only states where Obama did not outperform Kerry were in Alaska (-1), Arkansas (-11), Louisiana (-4), Tennessee, (-1), Oklahoma (0), and West Virginia. This, however, only tells us what we already know, Obama outperformed Kerry almost everywhere. A more important question to ask would be, where did Obama do better than Kerry relative to how the entire country did (to put it another way, we know that Kerry won California by 9 points, but he lost the national popular vote by 3 points, so Kerry actually ran 12 points higher in California than in the country, and Obama, who won California by 24 points but won the popular vote nationwide by 7 points, performed 17 points better than the country at large. Subtracting Kerry's performance in California compared to the country at large from Obama's same performance means California voted 5 points more Democratic relative to to the rest of the country than it did 4 years ago).

So how did Obama do in these other states compared to the national vote relative to Kerry?

(Follow link at the top for a look at the relative performance of Obama to Kerry in each state)

This gives us a much better picture of which states, in any given year, are moving more Democratic, and which ones are stalling out. Of course, it would be smart to keep in mind that some of these numbers have to be taken in context of home state effects of presidential and vice presidential candidates (Arizona, Alaska, Illinois, Hawaii, and Delaware are the home-states of McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden respectively; while Texas, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and North Carolina are the home-states of Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards, if some people over/underperform in certain states and regions, it has to be taken in this context). The glaring exception to the home-state advantage here is North Carolina, where Obama performed three points better relatively to his popular vote standing than Kerry did (and could easily be attributed to the growth of the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area). The states where Obama had the highest outperformance of Kerry's standing were in Hawaii (+26), Indiana (+12), North Dakota (+9), and a three-way tie between Utah, Montana, and Nebraska (+7 each). Obama's top under-performances, by comparison, were in Arkansas (-21), Louisiana (-14), Alaska (-11), Tennessee (-11), with a tie between West Virginia and Oklahoma (-10 each). There are, of course, a bunch of others, but generally speaking, we can say that by comparison, Obama generally underperformed Kerry in the south and the northeast (the exceptions being Vermont, Virginia, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, and North Carolina), while he generally outperformed Kerry in the midwest and the west, particularly where there was a large Hispanic population (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and California). Obama seemed to stick pretty close to Kerry's relative performance in Washington State, Oregon, and Iowa (in fact, it seems that compared to the country, Iowa seems to have a consistant Democratic lean, as it changed exactly zero relative to the country)

This has extremely important ramifications for both presidential and down-ticket races in the future, for example, three states which Obama won which Kerry did not (Ohio, Florida, and Iowa) might seem to be massive improvements for the Democrats compared to how Kerry did, but in actuality, Obama underperformed Kerry relative to the rest of the country in Florida and Ohio, while Iowa stayed the same relative to the rest of the country (that is to say, in both 2004 and 2008, Iowa was roughly three points more Democratic than the country at large) (of course, for Ohio, Kerry actually did relatively better than most Democrats normally do in Ohio, but it usually tends to vote slightly more Republican than the rest of the country, whereas Ohio voted slightly LESS Republican than the national vote in 2008). Now, relatively speaking, Obama tended to GREATLY outperform Kerry in the midwest (Obama's relative performance in Wisconsin was 2 points better, in South Dakota was 3 points better, in Nebraska it was 7 points better, and a full 9 points better(!)). Of course, Obama did, relatively speaking, underperform Kerry in Minnesota, but that might be more a function of McCain spending a dispropotionate amount of time and resources in Minnesota (one of the only places where McCain was significantly outspending Obama on both field organization and advertising). The places where Obama really outperformed Kerry though were in the southwest and the mountain west (Obama outperformed Kerry by 3 points in Colorado, 4 points in Idaho, 5 points in Nevada, 5 points in California, , 6 points in New Mexico, 7 points in Montana, and 7 points in Utah. Like I said above, Obama did tend to underperform in the south, but the three places where Obama outperformed Kerry are states which have strong implications for state-wide Democrats are in Georgia (+2), North Carolina (+3), and Virginia (+4). The other two big deals are California (which has become almost as Democratic as New York) and Indiana (which went from being 18 points more Republican than the country to being only 6 points more Republican).

Democrats are probably going to have a harder time getting elected in Southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, but strong Democrats are going to have a much easier time running in states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Furthermore, with California's gubenatorial race in 2010, if the Democrats don't rip each other apart like they did in 2006, they should have an extremely good chance at winning the governor's mansion, and controlling redistricting for the census.

Cross-posted at Election Inspection

 Before looking at whether or not the Democrats can expect to get the magic sixty, lets review the seats which have the potential to flip, starting from the ones most likely to flip to the ones least likely to flip (anything not listed here means that we consider the seats to be completely safe). (Note, these are all Election Inspection's ratings) 

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

• Virginia (Warner)
• New Mexico (Domenici)

• Sununu (New Hampshire)
• Landrieu (Lousiana)
• Colorado (Allard)
• Stevens (Alaska)

Leans Republican

• Smith (Oregon)
• Coleman (Minnesota)
• Collins (Maine)
• Wicker (Mississippi-B)
• McConnell (Kentucky)

Likely Republican (Open Seat retention)

• Idaho (Craig)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent)

• Dole (North Carolina)
• Cornyn (Texas)
• Inhofe (Oklahoma)
• Roberts (Kansas)

First of all, I think we can safely assume that Democrats will win in New Mexico and Virginia, so we can start off with a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. So, to start off with in the second session, the Democrats are basically guaranteed to start from a vantage point of 50 seats. With the way the Leans Democratic races have been playing out (including the newly added AK-Sen), I'm pretty confident that the Democrats will win at least three and probably all four (Pollster shows Democrats leading by at least 5 points in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Alaska) and while it seems like it's close in Louisiana, with the exception of Zogby, Landrieu has shown to have a consistent lead of no less than 3 points (with the most recent Rasmussen poll giving Landrieu a 5 point edge). So, we'll give the Democrats three more seats and put them up to 53 seats (by the way, this doesn't include Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman who caucus with the Democrats). Alright, so the score now should be at Democrats 53 guaranteed seats and Republicans with 34 guaranteed seats. Now then, let's assume that Republicans win all of the seats which I consider to be either Likely or a potential Dark-horse (which, realistically, is more likely to happen than not), Republicans will have 38 seats (from now on, I'm going to consider Sanders to be a Democrat, for the purposes of voting, which gives the Democrats 54 seats and I'm going to consider Lieberman a wild-card as far as voting in concerned since, even though Lieberman has taken a more Conservative position on several issues, he is still considered to be more likely to support Democratic domestic agendas than Republican ones). So we have a score of 54-39-1, which means that for Democrats to win a filibuster-proof Senate which doesn't rely on Lieberman, they'll have to win 6 additional seats on top of the 5 which I'm projecting for them to win already, now how realistic a shot to Democrats have at this? 

I believe that more likely than not, Democrats will win in Louisiana, so we'll give the Democrats that extra seat which puts the score at 55-39-1 (5 undecided). I also think that Republicans should win in Kentucky. so the score now stands at 55-40-1 (4 undecided), which also basically eliminates any reasonable possibility of Democrats getting to the magic 60 number without Lieberman (which, might not be as bad as people think). So, that means that whether or not the Democrats can get to a filibuster proof senate rests on Minnesota, Maine, Oregon, and Mississippi-B. Mississippi-B and Oregon look to be within striking distance but Maine and Minnesota, seem to be moving away from us, so right now, I'd say that, at most, Democrats will probably end up with 57 seats (including Sanders) Republicans with 42 seats, and Joe Lieberman as a wild-card in the Senate.

Doesn't look like we're going to get our filibuster-proof majority this time around, but we'll do well enough that it's possible we can set 2010 up to get there.

Cross-posted at Election Inspection and Daily Kos 

THIS POLL IS NOW CLOSED, CONGRATULATIONS TO BILL O'NEILL FOR WNNING THE COMBINED VOTE

On behalf of our residential veteran, Skywrnchsr509, Election Inspection is proud to present our Memorial Day Donor Bomb for Democratic Veterans running for congress against Republican crumb-bums. Even though Election Inspection will ultimately have a list of every single Democratic candidate running for the House on Act Blue, we would also like to give a big shout out to veterans running for congress who are currently not getting support from the DCCC or groups like VoteVets. So we’re going to put out a list of candidates for people to vote on to receive a Memorial Day Voter Bomb so that we might attract groups like VoteVets to these candidates and allow them to. So without further delay, let’s take a look at the candidates to choose from:

Bill O'Neill
Wiki Page
Campaign Website
Running in: OH-14 (PVI: R+2)
Republican Incumbent: Steve LaTourette

Fred Johnson
Campaign Website
Running in: MI-02 (PVI: R+9)
Republican Incumbent: Peter Hoekstra

Hal Bidlack
Wiki Page
Campaign Website
Running in: CO-05 (PVI: R+16)
Republican Incumbent: Doug Lamborn

Robert Miller
Campaign Website
Running in: SC-02 (PVI: R+9)
Republican Incumbent: Joe Wilson

Daniel Johnson
Wiki Page
Campaign Website
Running in: NC-10 (PVI: R+10)
Republican Incumbent: Patrick McHenry

This poll will be conducted on Daily Kos and Swing State Project, on Sunday we'll add up the votes and create an Act Blue page for . For too long George Bush and the Republicans have called Democrats weak on defense and military issues while they ruin our country's good name and stretch the military to the breaking point. These veterans all know what it is to sacrifice for their country and they know that George Bush, John McCain, and the rest of the Republican party is bad for our fighting men and women. Let's send a message that we're not going to take it anymore, vote in our polls off-site so we can take a step against the Republicans (this is going to be the first in a series of donor bombs for Veterans running for Congress who are not getting assistance from VoteVets or the DCCC).

 Loading ...

Cross-posted at Election Inspection and Daily Kos

Overall chart and Virginia here

A couple of things I’d like to make mention of before I go into my analysis of these three senate seats. First of all, for fundraising information, I’ve mostly been getting data from RCP’s Politics Nation and from Senate2008Guru’s website (go to the very bottom of the list).

Secondly, there are some states which I have ranked as being safe that I would like to briefly address. The two biggest disappointments to me this cycle have been Kentucky and Kansas, in both races we could’ve gotten top-tier (or at least second tier candidates who could’ve become top-tier), but unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. Greg Orman had actually gotten more individual contributions in the fourth quarter than Pat Roberts, but he dropped out, and so we are left without a viable contender this time. Kentucky is a state which could’ve been in play, but unfortunately Crit Luallen and Greg Stumbo, the two top prospects of the DSCC, both decided against running and the netroots favorite candidate, Andrew Horne, dropped out after Bruce Lunsford entered the race. A lot of people say that Fischer and Lunsford have plenty of money to spend, but, as Mitt Romney has learned, money only gets you so far, and that’s especially true when the Republican you’re running against is the party’s Senate Leader.

Now then, to the lean seats:

New Mexico

• Status: Open Seat
• Ranking: Leans Democratic

Democrat running: Rep. Tom Udall (CD3)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $1 million
• Cash on hand as of 2007: $1.7 million

Republican running: Rep. Heather Wilson (CD1)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $516,000
• Cash on hand as of 2007: $1.1 million

Republican running: Rep. Steve Pearce (CD2)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $425,000
• Cash on hand as of 2007: $820,000

Polling Data 

Survey USA (released 11/19) Udall 54% Pearce 40%; Udall 57% Wilson 41%

Survey USA Primary (released 11/19) Wilson 56% Pearce 37%

Analysis: Since Pete Domenici retired and Tom Udall has entered the Senate race, this long-shot race has become the second-most likely seat for Democrats to pick up from the Republicans, (and considering the pick-up opportunities we have, that’s saying something). Now, a few caveats, had Bill Richardson entered the senate race, I would be calling this race Likely Dem instead of only Leans (don’t misread this, Udall is the second-strongest Democrat in the state, and a formidable candidate) just because of Richardson’s popularity in the state. The real question is who the Republican nominee is going to be for the fall. Steve Pearce represents the southern part of the state (Hobbes, Las Cruces, etc.), and we have a nickname for it, Little Texas. Basically Pearce is your typical wing-nut (the other day he was on UNM’s campus, and let’s just say that in Pearce’s world, the spotted owl is the reason why the economy sucks) Pearce’s nomination would basically move me to put this race into Likely Dem territory. Heather Wilson is a psedo-moderate, who has been able to win in CD1 (basically New Mexico’s largest city, Albuquerque and a slight part of Santa Fe). Everyone here remembers that Heather Wilson barely won re-election in 2006 against Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid. There is a good reason that Heather Wilson has been able to hold onto this seat for a while, it’s because she’s an adept campaigner. Whatever you say about her “moderate” record, she knows how to win.  Now, before anyone gets too nervous, Udall is no Patricia Madrid, he’s a seasoned politician and a strong fundraiser, plus he has a solid base of support, not only in the Democratic stronghold of northern New Mexico (Taos, Santa Fe, etc.), but in Heather Wilson’s base of Albuqurque. Even with Wilson as the Republican nominee, this race is still leans Democratic, but will require us to be VERY cautious about getting too ahead of ourselves (btw: as someone who REALLY wants to hear the words “Senator Tom Udall” please do me a favor and donate a few bucks to Udall’s campaign)

New Hampshire

• Status: Incumbent seeking re-election
• Ranking: Leans Democratic

Democrat running: Jeanne Shaheen (former Governor)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $1.2 million
• Cash on hand as of 2007: $1.1 million

Republican running: Sen. John Sununu

• Money raised Quarter 4: $920,000
• Cash on Hand as of 2007: $3.4 million

Polling data

• Rasmussen (released 2/13) Shaheen 49% Sununu 41%
• Granite State (released 2/11) Shaheen 54% Sununu 37%

Analysis: This is the Democrat’s third best pick-up opportunity, and while I think that Jeanne Shaheen will ultimately win this seat from Sununu there are a couple of things which worry me. As many probably already know, Shaheen’s husband has foot-in-mouth disease (the “drug dealer” comment he gave about Obama). Now, I don’t think that this alone is enough to do any significant damage, but things like this really hurt (on a side note: when you have a spouse running for office, the last thing you want to do is to piss off potential voters who are supporting another candidate). Also, Shaheen’s performance against Sununu in 2002 makes me a bit nervous this time around, but again I think that the environment is different in many ways, so a replay of the same election will almost certainly turn out differently. Sununu shouldn’t be underestimated, though, just looking at cash on hand numbers, it’s clear that he’ll be working over-time to protect himself, but Shaheen outraised Sununu by 200K last quarter, and, thanks to a lot of former Massachusetts residents, this race is looking good for us.

Well, next time I’ll be going into Louisiana’s senate seat (Mary Landrieu), and I’ll also give a bit more justification of why I think the safe seats are safe (specifically Kentucky)

Cross-posted at Election Inspection under elliotka and at Daily Kos under NMLib

Ok, for a bit of a break in the primary action, it’s time to start looking at some Senate races. Basically, what I’m going to do is do a ranking system much like Charlie Cook does, only I will also be giving a fairly detailed analysis of each race, also the races which would normally be classified as “likely” for incumbent parties, I’m going to label as Possible Darkhorse Races. Finally, I’m going to do this list in multiple posts, as to be more thorough with each race. I will not be giving an analysis of any incumbent races which I see as being completely uncompetitive, just because there’s no reason for it.

(Formating note: races with an incumbent running for re-election will have that incumbent followed by the state in parenthesis, and vice-versa for open seat contests)

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

• Virginia (Warner)

Solid Democratic (Retention)

• Kerry (Massachusetts)
• Durbin (Illinois)
• Baucus (Montana)
• Johnson (South Dakota)
• Levin (Michigan)
• Lautenberg (New Jersey)
• Harkin (Iowa)
• Biden (Delaware)
• Reed (Rhode Island)
• Pryor (Arkansas)
• Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Leans Democratic (Pick-up)

• New Mexico (Domenici)
• Sununu (New Hampshire)

Leans Democratic (Retention)

• Landrieu (Lousiana)

Toss-up

• Colorado (Allard)
• Coleman (Minnesota)

Leans Republican (Retention)

• Smith (Oregon)
• Collins (Maine)

Solid Republican (Retention)

• Graham (South Carolina)
• McConnell (Kentucky)
• Enzi (Wyoming-A)
• Barrasso (Wyoming-B)
• Sessions (Alabama)
• Roberts (Kansas)
• Cochran (Mississippi-A)
• Chambliss (Georgia)
• Alexander (Tennessee)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republicans)

• Idaho (Craig)
• Wicker (Mississippi-B)
• Dole (North Carolina)
• Stevens (Alaska)*
• Nebraska (Hagel)
• Cornyn (Texas)
• Inhofe (Oklahoma)

I’m going to try to break these posts into looking at each category separately. And so we’ll start with the single Solid Democratic pick-up seat:

Virginia

• Status: Open Seat
• Ranking: Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

Democrat running: Mark Warner (former governor)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $2.7 million
• Cash on Hand as of 2007: $2.9 million

Republican running: Jim Gilmore

• Money raised Quarter 4: $343,000
• Cash on Hand as of 2007: $183,000

Polling from Virginia

• Rasmussen (Released January 3) Warner 53% Gilmore 38%
• Survey USA (Released November 5) Warner 57% Gilmore 35%

Analysis: This is probably going to be the most lop-sided victory by the challenging party in the entire season. What’s really ironic is that this race could’ve been a lot more competitive had the Republicans rallied behind Northern Virginia Congressman Tom Davis, who not only had a base of support in Democratic-leaning Northern Virginia, but could actually fundraise effectively. Instead the Republicans rallied behind decidedly unpopular former governor Jim Gilmore (who was forced to drop out of the presidential race because of, you guessed it, lack of funds). The only possible way to describe Gilmore is with what Senate2008Guru has said “Jim Gilmore… hahahahahahahahaha”  The real irony of this particular race is that Mark Warner was also considering a presidential run this time around, but one of the more interesting rumors I’ve heard is that he decided against running because many of the donors who would’ve given to his campaign had already pledged themselves to Barack Obama (this hasn’t generated bad blood though, since Warner is, behind the scenes, rooting for Obama). So what we are left with is a race with a top-tier Democratic candidate who could’ve easily run a fifty-state strategy against an third-tier candidate who no one knows or likes. You can see why I rank this race Solid Democratic.

Next time: New Mexico and New Hampshire (and possibly Louisiana)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos under NMLib 

As many are aware, New Mexico politics has almost always been something of a mixed bag for Democrats.

On the one hand, we have elected and re-elected a very popular governor in Bill Richardson and, by wide margins, consistently re-elected popular United States Senator Jeff Bingaman, as well as electing a solidly progressive congressman in Tom Udall. This is all on top of consistently electing a Democratic state legislature. On the other hand, Republicans have had their share of victories in the state. Pete “Slash, Mine, and Burn” Domenici has been senator since the beginning of Time. They have also elected the wingnut Steve Pearce and the psedo-moderate Heather “the Feather” Wilson.

With Domenici's retirement the entire congressional election (save Bingaman) has turned this state from a single competitive congressional district and presidential swing-state, to being a key battleground in the House, Senate, and Presidential arena giving us a unique opportunity to turn everything on the state and national level in New Mexico blue.

First things first, with Tom Udall the presumptive nominee for the Democrats and Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce competiting in what will likely be a bruising primary things look very good for our prospects in taking Domenici's senate seat. But what about the house seats? Without knowing who will ultimately be the nominees from each party, it become difficult to predict, so I want to speak to the likely impact the Senate race will have (and on who the nominees are). Udall's presence on the Senate race will easily provide a boost for Democrats in all the congressional districts (especially in NM-01 and NM-03), though it might motivate some Republicans in NM-02.

Keeping this in mind, if Pearce and Wilson go nuclear against each other in the primaries, Republicans might be so disgusted with whoever the winner is that they decide not to turn out. Again, depending on who the nominees are in each district, and depending on who the presidential nominees are (many of you already know my presidential preference, so I won't comment on how this works out, but any commenters who want to go into some details on that should feel free to post it). I think the best shot at winning everything in New Mexico is for a bruised and battered Heather Wilson to take on Tom Udall. One of Heather Wilson's strengths in elections has always been her ability to appear to be moderate on a few issues. If Pearce challenges her too much, she'll have to convince the Republican base that she is every bit as much a wing-nut as Pearce, damaging her reputation (which will have consequences in swing cities like Albuquerque. This might also lower Republican turnout in NM-02, which can give an opening to whoever the Democrat is there. Even if we don't win in NM-02, we can force the NRCC to waste what little money they have in a normally safe district for them.

Donate money to NM House Candidates and to Future Senator Tom Udall

Cross-posted at Daily Kos under nmlib

Most of you guys are probably aware that Mayor Martin Chavez has been attacking Congressman Tom Udall for a variety of things (most of which seem to come directly from Republican talking points). The only real thing which Chavez seems to be calling attention to which isn't a Republican talking point is his own Hispanic background (which he seems to imply that Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, as well as Udall himself, are racists). Outside of his overemphasis of his Hispanic heritage (which, by the way, is an explotation of the Hispanic community), the only possible context for his attacks is to sabotage Udall's campaign.

Many of you are probably thinking "this is crazy, why would he purposely do something which will destroy himself amongst the state Democratic party?" The answer is simple, he already has no future in the state.

Let me put Chavez's history in the state into some perspective, he has already lost a statewide election to then-Governor Gary Johnson in 1998. He has always only barely won re-election as Mayor of Albuquerque (Albuquerque does have run-offs, but for some strange reason they only kick in when no candidate reaches 40%).

Here's the story, Chavez feels that he is too good to run for the House in the first district, so that's off for him. Diane Denish is pretty much the favorite to win the primary and general for governor in 2010, so the governorship is gone for Chavez. The only other option would be to wait for 2012 when Jeff Bingaman could possibly retire (as many of you are aware, Schumer pretty much had to beg Bingaman to run for re-election), but my gut tells me that the real reason that Richardson isn't planning to run for this open seat is that he thinks that Bingaman will retire in 2012, so he can still run full-time for president while still having the opportunity to run for the senate later on.

This senate race was probably the last chance for him to advance past being the mayor, and Udall's entrance pretty much destroyed any chance of that. Thus, Mayor Marty has probably decided that if he can't have the seat, he's going to try to bruise Udall up in the primaries as much as possible and attempt to make him a loser in the general.

That's why it is critically important for us to pay attention to these slimy attacks and to make sure that New Mexicans understand that Martin Chavez is a washed-up, vindictive hack. I'd like to give major kudos to Kos, Plutonium Page, and New Mexico FBIHOP for calling attention to Chavez's right-wing (and racist) attacks, as well as a very big thanks to Alex Flores who has not only helped us in drafting Tom Udall for Senate, but continues to help raise money and awareness of Rep. Udall's stellar record as both Attorney General and Representative of New Mexico's third district.

BTW, don't forget to donate to Udall's senate campaign.

 Loading ...

There is much talk about the New Mexico Senate race, about how this is one of the top pick-up opportunities for us in 2008, but considering this, there has been a surprising lack of analysis of the primary fields (this is especially true of the Republican field). It is very important to take a good look at both fields and look at what is each one's strengths, weaknesses, and get a good insight into what the general election might look like depending on who is running.

The Democrats 

Most of us are already pretty much aware of how the Democrats stack up with each other, and pretty much understand where their primary will go, but for the hell of it, let's look at it again: 

Tom Udall – Udall is generally seen at the frontrunner for both the Democratic primary and the General election. In the primary Udall's strengths include strong support from both the national and state party, strong enthusiasm from the grassroots, electability, a solid base of support from the Democratic stronghold in the third district and state-wide recognition from being attorney general. His possible weaknesses include his lack of running for a competitive race leaves him feeling complaciant.

 Martin Chavez: Chavez is the underdog, decidedly in the primary and less obviously, in the general election. His main strengths in the primary include his ability to claim that he is an “outsider” candidate, that he has run in a competitive city and managed to win, thus giving him some experience in competitive elections. His weaknesses are that his support among the Democratic base is both shallow and narrow, local Democrats don't like him; he already lost a statewide election to a relatively unpopular governor, his fundraising base is limited (more so with Richardson's state organization likely to work against Chavez); and the only possible avenue to grant him victory is to smear Udall which will further harm his campaign. Chavez is the “Republican-lite” candidate.

 Tom Udall is the odds-on favorite to win the primary, because he has a much wider and deeper base of support among Democrats than Chavez and has a much better fundraising advantage, and polls and money tend to move each other.

 The Republicans

This is the race which is not quite as clear-cut as the Democrats. There have been many people who seem to think Steve Pearce is favored to win the nomination, but just how accurate is that? Let's look into it:

 Steve Pearce: Well, like I mentioned above, Pearce seems to be considered the favorite to win the Republican primary. Pearce's major strengths in the primary include a stronger support base than Wilson with state Republicans (representing what we refer to as “Little Texas”). His weaknesses are that he has not really fought a competitive election, and while his base is good, he doesn't show the ability to make gains nor does he seem to have a very strong fundraising base. In addition to this, he doesn't appear to be electable (state Democrats agree that they would have no problem beating Pearce in November), this can very easily be used against him.

Heather Wilson: Wilson is seen as being the underdog for the nomination, yet seen as a stronger candidate in the general election (at least compared to Pearce). Her strengths in the primary include a better campaign organization and experience in winning despite being the underdog (or simply put, she's a better candidate than Pearce). Her weaknesses include a much weaker level of base support among Republican grassroots (she doesn't inspire all that much enthusiasm among the Conservative base). Wilson is essentially “Democrat-lite”

I understand why people think that Pearce is the front-runner for the nomination, but honestly, Wilson's in a much better position to win it than people . She's got a lot of experience in fighting uphill battles, and Pearce, while having a stronger support base among Republicans, is going to have a hard time expanding on it. With Udall likely to seize the Democratic nomination, Republicans are probably more open to elect their “warrior”, so to speak. I don't think I can call anyone the true “favorite” here, but my gut tells me that Wilson is going to win the nomination.

 General Match-ups

 Tom Udall vs. Steve Pearce: This is basically the clash of the bases, and Udall is heavily favored to win this fight. Plainly put, they both faced the same type of challengers in 2004 and 2006, throwaways, yet Udall took 69% and 75% respectively while Pearce only took 60% in both elections. Udall's support base is stronger, he is going to be better financed, and he starts off with a solid lead. Pearce doesn't have the campaigning skills nor the financial organization to match Udall, period.

 Martin Chavez vs. Steve Pearce: This is Republican-lite vs. Republican, with Pearce slightly favored to win. Yeah, I know that it's a strongly Democratic year and there are more Democrats than Republicans, but the general consensus among the liberal base is that Chavez would be the “lesser-of-two-evils” guy, thus weakening his base of support. Chavez's financial number would likely improve if he won the Democratic nomination, but he still would likely have less money than Pearce (of course the DSCC would be more than able to make up the difference and then some). If you can't count on your base to vote for you, it makes it difficult to win. Chavez might be able to make up the difference with moderates and independents, but his loss in 1998 against then-Gov. Johnson, makes this argument seem less plausible.

 Tom Udall vs. Heather Wilson: This is the Democrat vs. Democrat-lite race, with Udall favored (though not nearly as heavily as the Udall vs. Pearce one). Basically Wilson suffers from base-skepticism (much like Chavez does). The difference between Wilson's predicament and Chavez's predicament is that she is a much better candidate than Chavez in that she can probably rally her base to vote against Tom Udall than Chavez would be able to to vote against Steve Pearce. Having said that, Udall, in addition to having a more solid support base than Wilson, will also enjoy a financial advantage, especially with the DSCC able to dump money into the race. The real danger that Udall will face is becoming too comfortable with the lead, Heather Wilson is dangerous in that she knows how to come back from behind and she knows how to run a solid campaign. Like I said before, Udall is favored to win this race, but Wilson is definitely a threat which Udall would have to take very seriously.

 Martin Chavez vs. Heather Wilson: The battle of the lites, with Wilson the favorite to win. Here's where neither base likes either candidate, but in this case, the Democratic base dislikes Chavez more than the Republican base dislikes Wilson. Wilson, whatever her flaws, at least had the brains to not declare support for Bingaman's re-election. Wilson will have a solid fundraising advantage over Chavez, a better campaign organization, and is an adept campaigner compared to Chavez. On top of that, the only way Chavez wins the nomination to fight Wilson will be to smear Tom Udall, which will leave a lot of bitterness towards Chavez among Democrats, thus making it even harder to secure the base. Simply put, Wilson will beat Chavez if it comes down to it.

 Loading ...