Author: DavidNYC

KTBS:

Fleming received 48 percent of the vote to 47.7 percent for Carmouche, according to complete but unofficial returns. Fleming led by 356 votes out of more than 92,000 cast. Two independent candidates got the rest of the votes.

Fleming declared victory but Carmouche did not concede defeat.

Carmouche said he wants to see what happens when voting machines are rechecked on Tuesday. He said he also wanted to make sure that all provisional ballots — paper ballots cast when there is a problem at a polling place — have been counted.

Good for Carmouche. Right now we don’t know how many provisionals were even cast, and it’s conceivable there might be enough to make a difference here. Also note that the AP hasn’t called the race – they haven’t put that little red check-mark next to Fleming’s name.

Small though it may sound, 0.38% is a fairly tough margin to overcome. But I’m glad to see the Dems making sure every vote gets counted.

Public Policy Polling (11/29-30, likely voters, 11/22-23 in parens)

Jim Martin (D): 46 (46)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 53 (52)

Undecided: 1 (2)

(MoE: ±2.7%)

Tom Jensen says:

Chambliss is up 71-28 on Jim Martin with whites. For Martin to win the runoff with that performance, the electorate would have to be 34% African American. Given that it was only 30% for the general election with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot and that early voting was less than 23% black, that does not seem particularly likely.

Not looking good. The other survey, from Insider Advantage, isn’t looking much better (11/30, likely voters, 11/23 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 46 (47)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50 (50)

Undecided: 4 (3)

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Matt Towery of IA offers some succor:

The race could be a 10-point blowout for Chambliss, or under the right circumstances, a very tight contest. This is like trying to forecast snow in Georgia – almost impossible.

I’m not sanguine. Nine polls by five different pollsters have all given Chambliss the lead. Could they all be wrong, Alaska-style? Sure, but I wouldn’t count on it.

We forgot to put one of these up. So have at it, belatedly.

I’m putting this post in the diaries because it’s about presidential elections rather than the downballot. Just trying to keep it real! But this is an issue I was curious about so I thought I’d share my findings.

John McCain pieced together just 173 electoral votes this year. That’s the 8th-worst showing by a Republican since 1916. Interestingly, all seven weaker GOP showings came at the hands of just three men: FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton. To win in 2012, the GOP needs to get to 270, of course, so they’ve got to scrape together another 97 EVs. How likely is this?

(Sidebar: Why 1916? In 1912, the electoral college expanded to 531 votes, which is close enough to today’s 538 to make pure EV comparisons meaningful. In 1908, there were just 483 EVs. Also around and shortly after 1916, you had the realignment of the two major parties, the extension of the franchise to women, and the direct election of senators. In short, it’s a decent benchmark for the “modern” political era. Also, the election of 1912 was a serious oddball, with the GOP coming in third.)

The GOP has posted EV gains in excess of 97 six times since 1916:

The next-best showing was a net of 90 EVs in 1948. Most of these big gains took place at moments of serious change.

1920: Harding’s “return to normalcy.” Had 3,000 votes in California gone the other way in 1916, Woodrow Wilson would have lost to Charles Hughes. A war-weary public and a damaging recession let Harding run against the unpopular Wilson (much like Obama “ran against Bush”) and rack up the biggest popular-vote margin since 1820.

1952: Twenty years of Dem control of the White House ended. The incumbent president, Truman, was unpopular due to a seemingly intractable war in Korea and chose not to seek re-election as a result. The GOP candidate was the venerated Allied commander in WWII, Gen. Eisenhower.

1968: Another incumbent Dem mired in an even less popular war in Asia (LBJ) decided against running for another term. A badly fractured Democratic Party put forth a wounded, underfunded candidate (Humphrey) against the conniving Nixon, who knew how to exploit the fears and resentments brewing during a time of social upheaval. And hard not to improve on Goldwater’s performance.

1972: A continuation of 1968 in many ways – the Democrats even more badly fractured, their candidate woefully unready and unappealing to many. Nixon, evil though he was, deserved credit for appearing on this list twice.

1980: Stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a Democratic president swept narrowly into office in the wake of Watergate (Carter) versus Nixon’s heir. Carter’s outsider status, a virtue on the campaign trail, also turned into a major liability once in DC, as few people owed him anything.

2000: The outlier on this list. Pundits and Ralph Nader succeeded in turning this into the “Seinfeld election” (ie, the “election about nothing”). Gore struggled to cast himself as the natural inheritor and steward of the Clinton legacy and Rove (again abetted by the media) cast Gore as a serial liar. Without those unearned Florida electoral votes, the gain would have only been 87 EVs – not enough for this list.

Now, the 97-plus Democratic gains:

These elections are a bit more of a mix between the epochal and the prosaic. Also, in the prior elections, Dems took 111 or fewer EVs five times – that only happened once for the GOP.

1932: The Great Depression. ‘Nuff said.

1960: Perhaps the trickiest race on this list. At the very least, Adlai Stevenson’s abysmal 1956 haul meant the odds favored a better performance by Kennedy.

1964: A wildly conservative, non-mainstream Republican candidate versus a pre-backlash LBJ, running in the wake of JFK’s assassination. Despite the size of the victory, this election famously did not offer the Dems lasting gains but actually presaged a long period of decline.

1976: Watergate, the accidental presidency of Gerry Ford, and McGovern’s unthinkably pitiful showing gave Carter lots of room for improvement.

1988: How sad is it that Michael Dukakis is on this list? It’s only possible because Walter Mondale was ten times sadder. Dukakis is the only person on both lists to post a big gain but still lose – a classic dead-cat bounce.

1992: A bit tough to classify. Dukakis not only did poorly in 1988, he underperformed expectations badly. The dark recession of 1990-91 played a major role here, though.

2008: The most unpopular president in US history and the second-worst financial crisis in US history, not to mention an unpopular war and an alienating conservative GOP ticket.

So a few pretty clear trends emerge. Most of these elections took place during or in the wake of unpopular wars or economic downturns, or both: 1920, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008. Two back-to-back races saw a political collapse on the part of each party: 1972, for complex reasons, and 1976, for much simpler ones.

Some just involved improvements over craptacular prior performances, like 1960 or 1988 (but also including 1932, 1968 & 1976). One time, 1964, saw one party put forth a completely unacceptable candidate, at least for that particular moment in time. And as for the election of 2000… well, as Al Gore himself would say, sometimes, there’s that little-known third category.

As impressive as Nixon’s consecutive gains were, in a way, George W. Bush’s surge from Bob Dole’s sucky performance might be the most remarkable of all. After eight years of peace and prosperity, he had to invent an amazing mythology in order to give voters a reason to change horses. It didn’t really work, of course – Gore still won more votes. But thanks to an assist from the Supreme Court, he pulled it off.

Anyhow, drilling down to the 2012 election, I don’t think this past history offers the GOP a whole lot of hope. The war in Iraq darn well better be over by then, and we probably won’t engage in another large-scale conflict. The Dems aren’t about to implode or nominate someone unelectable. And McCain’s haul wasn’t so awful, ala McGovern or Mondale, that you simply have to expect a bounce.

They already tried the 2000/2004 smear strategy this year, and that failed. I think it’ll be a lot harder to try that on an incumbent. So that leaves the possibility of a major economic downturn. It’s sadly possible that we won’t be out of this mess in three years, but that seems hard to imagine. What I think is more likely (but hopefully not very likely) is that we recover and then relapse (think 1938).

The pure odds would seem to favor McCain – after all, 97-plus gains have happened 13 times in just 24 elections. But the background facts are very unfavorable, and that’s without even looking at demographic nitty-gritty of the blue states which might be winnable in 2012 for Republicans. That can wait for another day, though.

I’m thankful for many, many things, but I’m especially thankful that this country is about to get back on the right track, to begin regaining its stature, and to start helping those who need help, as we ought to.

What are you thankful for?

What an asshole:

Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith’s reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. …

The same day he wrote a check to Smith, Lieberman’s ROC PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican. In radio and TV appearances the final days of the campaign, Lieberman also frequently said that a Democratic majority of 60 votes, a filibuster-proof level, would be a bad thing.

I’m sure Lieberman gave as late as he did to try to hide the contributions – he did something similar with his shady petty cash accounts in 2006. Senate fundraising reports take forever to process – believe it or not, they are filed in hardcopy form and scanned in! It’s insane (and of course the GOP has blocked the ridiculously obvious reforms that would bring the Senate into the 20th century). It also means that final Senate reports are not publicly available until after the election, which totally defeats the point of campaign finance disclosure laws.

The Peter King donation would have been knowable, but few people were looking since King didn’t have competitive race. But for that reason – the closeness of the contest – the donation to El Gordo was the far bigger deal. It was disgusting enough that Joementia vocally supported Susan Collins and Norm Coleman (hell, if Franken loses, we can blame it on Lieberman). But cutting a check? That is truly a crime.

Like I said, what an asshole – not that we didn’t know that already.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (11/23-25, likely voters, 11/17-18 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 46 (45)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 52 (51)

Undecided: 2 (4)

(MoE: ±4%)

The problem for Jim Martin is that, for him to win, every single poll of the run-off needs to be wrong:

It is possible, of course, since everyone seems to be struggling in terms of projecting turnout (as you might expect with a one-off election like this). But I should point out that the first-round polls were pretty good (they had Saxby up four in aggregate, while his final margin was three).

Martin does have a 56-44 lead among early voters. Unfortunately, that’s rather similar to his 56-39 lead with early voters in the final R2K poll before Nov. 4th – clearly, it seems, all of the libertarian’s support migrated to Saxby. However, if election day turnout among Republicans is weak, there’s a chance this early vote might carry Martin, despite the much lower early African American turnout. Interestingly, it looks like a greater proportion of likely voters have voted early this time – 28% vs. 12% in that late October poll.

We’ll know soon enough.

The New York City mayoral race stands a good chance of being the marquee municipal matchup of 2009. (I’m nerd enough to say that with a straight face.) Quinnipiac takes an early look at two potential matchups (11/18-23, registered voters):

Anthony Weiner (D): 34

Michael Bloomberg (I-inc): 50

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±2.5%)

William Thompson (D): 34

Michael Bloomberg (I-inc): 49

Undecided: 14

Really, though, these questions essentially test Bloomberg against Generic D. Fifty-seven percent have no opinion of Weiner, who represents NY-09 in the House and came in second in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2005. For Thompson, the city’s two-term comptroller, that number is 70%. His Bloominess barely scrapes 50% against both guys.

Of course, there are so many potential wrinkles here. Either or both Thompson and Weiner could drop out. They could immolate each other in the primary (which is late, in September). Some Alan Gold-type Repuke could jump in and steal votes from Hizzoner.

More: Bloomstead could spend an insane sum – perhaps $200 million, though the sky’s the limit – which could drastically alter the landscape. Case in point: In the equivalent poll four years ago, Freddy Ferrer led Bloomington by 45-40 but got crushed on election day. Then again, Mayor Mike’s approvals were much lower then than now, thanks in part to his push for an unpopular football stadium on the West Side.

But that just shows you how much can change in a relatively short amount of time. Bloombo has staked his reptuation – and the raison d’etre for his obnoxious term-limits extension – on his ability to steer the city through the brewing financial crisis. If his leadership falters, his polling numbers are likely to follow. He might even pay a price straight-up for his nakedly self-interested gambit on term limits.

And finally, there still remains a chance that the term-limits move gets rejected in court, perhaps under the VRA. (Did you know that Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan are all subject to pre-clearance rules?) While I give this scenario low odds, it would completely up-end things and put the Dems in the driver’s seat.

(Hat-tip: Political Wire)

Just a few days ago, Judge Algenon Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that he, and not the Ohio Supreme Court, had jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by supporters of Steve Stivers as to whether a particular batch of 1,000 provisional votes cast in OH-15 should be counted. (And he also said they should in fact be counted.) Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling, saying that the case should get sent back to the Ohio Supreme Court, where it was originally filed.

Note that the appeals court did not rule on whether those 1,000 votes can be counted – rather, they simply decided a jurisdictional dispute. The Ohio Supremes will rule on the merits of the issue; they are a 100% Republican-appointed bunch, so this unfortunately does not bode well.

Meanwhile, rural Madison County completed its vote count, putting Stivers’s lead at 594 votes. The only remaining votes now are therefore in Franklin, which has 27,306 provisional ballots outstanding, a number that I believe includes the 1,000 disputed ballots. The thing is, no one is quite sure how many of these 27K are in the 15th CD, though this district occupies about 40% of Franklin. Nonetheless, I’m going to try to estimate.

There are three CDs which occupy portions of Franklin County: OH-07, OH-12 and OH-15. Using unofficial returns (PDF), we can see that, counting over-votes and under-votes, about 50% of House race ballots were cast in the 15th, while 42% were in the 12th and 8% were in the 7th. So let’s say that half of the provisionals (13,500 or so) belong to the 15th. Now what?

Fortunately, we have a pretty good guide as to what we should do with those ballots. As we all know, this race was equally tight in 2006. That year, there were some 21,000 outstanding votes, and about 2,600 got rejected, or a little over 12%.

Pryce led by about 3,500 votes before the outstanding votes were counted. Her final margin was just 1,054. So if there were about 18,400 votes counted after rejections, that means Kilroy won those by about a 13% margin.

If similar numbers were to hold true this year, Kilroy would gain more than enough votes to beat Stivers – about 3,300 by the back of my envelope (or 1,400 if you double the rejection rate). But there are a few things to be aware of:

• Last cycle, the NYT said that the outstanding ballots were split about evenly between absentees and provisionals. The former tend to have a much lower rejection rate than the latter. This time, news accounts have been referring to the outstanding 27K ballots as comprising only provisionals, which means the rejection rate will likely be higher (which is why I suggested doubling it in the hypothetical above).

• News articles also are unclear about whether all of those 21K outstanding votes in 2006 were in OH-15  only or in Franklin County as a whole. If, as I’m speculating this year, only half were in the 15th, then Kilroy won them by something more like a 27% margin, rather than “just” 13%.

• Could there really be fewer outstanding ballots in a presidential year than in a mid-term?   It’s possible, if absentees have already been counted (as I believe they have), but were not at this stage in 2006.

• And one more note: Before the outstanding votes were tallied in 2006, Kilroy led in Franklin by three points (51-48), rather than the five she leads by now. So that’s good news.

In any event, take heart: If the 13,500 figure is correct, even if half of those ballots get thrown out, and even if Kilroy only takes the remainder by a 10% margin, she’d still win (albeit by fewer than 100 votes). I think those are pessimistic projections, so I think Kilroy has a good shot, assuming my math is right.

RandySF has more in the diaries.

From CBS 9 in Charlottesville:

Monday is a big day in Virginia’s 5th Congressional district, as the results of the race between incumbent, Republican Virgil Goode and democratic, challenger Tom Perriello will be certified by the Virginia Board of Elections.

According to the State Board of Elections, with over 316,679 ballots counted, Perriello holds a 745 vote advantage in the race. That amounts to about a quarter of one percent, meaning it is well within the threshold necessary for a recount.

Goode’s team has told CBS 9 that they will seek a recount.

I’d be really surprised if a recount changed the result, given that there haven’t been reports of the kind of widespread problems which might lead a reasonable soul to question the results. And while the margin is similar to Norm Coleman’s on election night, the total number of votes cast in this race is not even a ninth of the number in MN-Sen, so the odds of a sufficient shift are far lower.