Month: November 2008

A lot has been made about the increase in electoral votes earned by Barack Obama from John Kerry’s totals.  Obama’s number while a significant increase is slightly lower than what Bill Clinton won in both 1992 (370 EV) and 1996 (379 EV).  Clinton started from a far lower base (Michael Dukakis’ losing total in 1988).  The real improvement for the Democratic Party came in the House and Senate results.  In 1992, Clinton may have won big but Democrats won 9 fewer House seats than in 1990 and 2 fewer than in 1988; Senate seats increased by 1 over the few year time slot.

By contrast, the final number of Democratic House seats is likely to be 258 or 259 (per Chris Bowers).  The Senate total ios likely to be 58 or 59.  That’s a gain of 56 or 57 House seats and 14 or 15 Senate seats from 2004 totals.

Regional and statewide totals tell the story best.

The Northeast is the most Democratic part of the country.  Both John Kerry and Barack Obama won all 117 electoral votes from this region.  In the interim, however, the Republicans moved from an important minority at the federal level to an insignificant one.  In 2004, House seats ran 56 D,35R, and 1 Democratic leaning indy (Bernie Sanders).  Republicans lost nearly a third of their seats in 2006 falling to 24 and repeated the feat by falling to 17 in 2008.  Over the two cycles, they lost more than half of their House seats in the region (18 seats).  Or if you prefer percentages, the GOP dropped from 38% to 18.5% of Northeast House seats. That included a loss of 6 seats in NY, 5 in PA, all 3 GOP in CT and all 2 GOP in NH.  At leasat half of the remaining GOP seat are still vulnerable.  Senate seats fell from 7 of 22 to 4 of 22 (also 18%).  Two of the four are up in 2010 and one will be represented by an 80 year old probably facing a stiff primary challenge.  The other (Judd Gregg, NH) is also on the chopping block.

The Great Lakes states are six industrial (and to a lesser extent farm) states that all touch on the Great Lakes.  Four of the six went to both Kerry and Gore.  Obama added IN and OH to win all 89 electoral votes.  Over the four years, the region became substantially more Democratic at the House level going from a 32-45 Republican edge to a 45-32 Democratic edge (if MaryJo Kilroy wins OH-15).  Democrats picked up one Senate seat in MO on 2006 and may pick up another in MN in 2008.

Gerrrymanders in Il, OH, and MI were overcome to and Democrats now lead IL 12-7, OH 10-8 (or 9-9) and MI 8-7.  Both WI and MN went from 4-4 splits to a 5-3 D lead and IN zoomed from 2-7 to 5-4.

The Mountain region went from a Republican 20-8 lead in 2004 to a solid 17-11 D edge.  Democrats picked up 2 seats in CO, 3 in AZ, 2 in NMand single seats in Nevada and Idaho.  They also gained Senate seats in MT (2006) and CO aand NM (2008).

The south didn’t turn blue but it did become considerably less red.  Here three seats are still listed as unsettled but VA-5 seems clearly ours and LA-2 (New Orleans, Dollar Bill Jefferson) is also pretty clear.  LA-4 (Carmouche) is an open seat where two conflicting polls would seem to indicate that (overall we have a single digit lead.  If it’s ours, the 52-88 chasm of 2004 is down to 65-75 with the bulk of the problem being Texas (20-12 in favor of the GOP).  VA and NC not only voted for Obama but elected majority D House delegations (6-5 in VA; 8-5 in NC).  FL went from an awful 18-7 GOP edge to a respectable 15-10.  Remember when we used to wish for a delegation that reflected the state (13-12 or 14-11 at worst).  Well, barring Mahoney’s stupidity we would have had 14-11.  Democrats also picked up 3 Senate seats here with two in VA and one in NC.  At the least, three GOPers look endangered as the Senate cycle ends in 2010: Jim Bunning in KY, Richard Burr in NC, and Mel Martinez in FL.

Obama won 3 southern states compared to 6 for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 and none for Gore and Kerry.

That leaves two regions that went pretty much unchanged.  Democrats picked up only one seat in 2006 and probably none in 2008 in the Pacific (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI)Pretty bad  They did add 2 Senate seats this year (OR, AK).  CA Republicans scored under 60% in 11 of 19 wins in 2008 (I’m giving them CA-4).

The Plains remains a Republican stronghold but it;s tiny and not gtowing.  Democrats gained two House seats in Iowa and one in Kansas in 2006 but gave back the Kansas seat this year and fell by 8,000 votes in MO-9 and 12,000 in NE-2 (carried by Obama by 3,000 votes so there must be at least 15,000 Obama-Terry voters).  They gained only one Senate seat in MO in 2006.

The edge in the House is still a hefty 11-17 rather than the 9-19 margin of 2004.

Then who would Gov. David Paterson appoint in her stead? Paterson needs to think about, among other things, a) removing potential threats to his governorship and b) earning some serious favors and goodwill. Picking AG Andrew Cuomo ships a contender off to DC, and would also let Paterson earn a second chit with an appointment to the Attorney General post.

Alternately (as Trapper John suggested to me), he could pick someone like Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12), which might burnish his support among Hispanics and women. TJ also tossed out Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown as a dark-horse choice: young, African American, and from upstate. I in turn proposed ultra-dark-horse candidate DavidNYC, but I admit the odds of a second Jewish guy from New York City getting tapped to represent this state in the Senate are fairly slim.

There’s still no shortage of names out there, of course. As always, who do you think Paterson would pick, and who should he pick?

Update (James): From the NY Daily News:

Rep. Nydia Velazquez is the front-runner – for now, at least – to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the next secretary of state, a source close to Gov. Paterson said yesterday.

There are two other top contenders: Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo and Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island. Each would help Paterson with key constituencies when he makes his first run in 2010 for the post he inherited from disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer – upstaters in Higgins’ case and suburbanites in Israel’s.

Late Update (David): Looks like Clinton might actually accept, to my surprise. If true, let the games begin!

The state of the day is Georgia, where we’ll see Senate and Governor’s races in 2010. Sonny Perdue is term-limited out of the Governor’s mansion, so there will be a lot of candidates — both Democratic and Republican — scrambling for this seat. For a time, it seemed like GOP Senator Johnny Isakson was angling to run for the open office, but he announced earlier this year that he’ll seek a second term in 2010 instead.

While Isakson will be tough to beat, someone’s gotta run against him. Who would you like to see step up to the plate? And who should the Democrats field for the gubernatorial race?

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).

This is a quick reminder that the runoff election for U.S. Senate in Georgia will be on December 2, and there are many ways you can help Democrat Jim Martin beat Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss.

Depending on how the recount in Minnesota turns out, which won’t be resolved for a few weeks, Martin could be the key to getting Democrats to that magic filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

1. Go donate to Martin’s campaign. It will only take a minute of your time.

2. Help google-bomb Saxby Chambliss. This is easy, and Chris Bowers explains why it is helpful:

Have you started linking to Saxby Chambliss yet? The more people who do, the higher it will appear in search engine rankings. If we can push it into the first ten results for Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, then it will result in a lot of excellent voter contacts. Everyone who encounters the site will be a voter looking for more information on Saxby Chambliss, and we can show them this great website made by an enterprising activist.

Log on to the various blogs where you comment, and click on your user page. Then click “profile.” There should be an area where you can write text that will be your “signature,” attached to all comments you make.

You want to embed a link to the Saxby Chambliss website. Here is what I did:

See if Saxby Chambliss is helping you.

If you don’t know how to embed a link, write this all on one line with no spaces in between:

<

a href

=

“http://saxby-chambliss.com/”

>

Saxby Chambliss

<

/a

>

3. Kick in a few more bucks to Martin’s campaign.

4. If you live in Georgia or close enough to travel there, sign up to volunteer for Martin’s campaign during the next few weeks. You were planning to take some time off for Thanksgiving anyway, right? Set aside extra time to volunteer.

Remember that there are many ways to volunteer besides knocking on strangers’ doors and calling strangers on the phone. You can help sort literature for the canvassers. You can help stuff envelopes. You can bring a home-made meal to the campaign office for the staff and other volunteers. I heard of one woman in Iowa who used to do laundry for field organizers renting apartments without washing machines. Every hour that staffer doesn’t have to spend in a laundromat is an hour he or she can be getting out the vote for Jim Martin.

5. Ask some friends or relatives to make a campaign contribution. Explain to them that this race will affect the Republicans’ ability to obstruct the change we need.

Please feel free to suggest other ways activists can help Martin bring this race home.

UPDATE: MyDD commenter ATL Dem made a fantastic suggestion:

In the meantime, I’m also running this Google ad to assist in desmoinesdem’s project No. 2:

Hi from Saxby Chambliss

Read about my work in D.C.

Too bad it’s not for you!

saxby-chambliss.com

It’s getting monster response — over 15 percent of people searching for “Saxby Chambliss” are clicking it. The bad thing about that is that my $10 a day budget gets used up pretty fast, so if you’re of a mind to, go to Google and click on “Advertising Programs” and set up another ad.

Please feel free to steal this idea!

Looks like we can cross off Chet Edwards from the House Open Seat Watch. Burnt Orange Report has the full press release:

“While it is an honor to have been considered for the position of U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, I believe I can make the most difference for veterans, our district and country by continuing to serve in Congress. That is why I have informed President-elect Obama’s transition team that I intend to continue representing the 17th Congressional District of Texas.

With my seniority in Congress and as Chairman of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe I can do more for our military troops, our veterans and their families in my present position than I could as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. At the same time I can continue my work to improve roads, economic infrastructure and the quality of life in the 17th District, a district in which I have deep, personal roots.

While Chet would have made an excellent choice to head up Veterans Affairs, he’s also the only Democrat who could hold his impossibly tough Texas district (old PVI: R+18). In fact, not even his re-election is assured here — Edwards only pulled in 53% of the vote against a mostly invisible opponent earlier this month. Perhaps he’ll fare better in a non-Presidential year, but Republicans will surely put more effort into recruiting a stronger challenger for him in 2010.

Soon Rep. Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel will be leaving his congressional seat vacant in order to become Barack Obama’s chief of staff.  Emanuel represents Illinois 5th District, which includes northern portions of Chicago as well as some suburbs west of the city. John Kerry won this district 67-23 in 2004, and Barack Obama certainly did much better than that.  Of course, Emanuel’s resignation will set up a special election sometime in the near future.

The general election will be uncompetitive, so this is an excellent chance to get a very progressive Democrat elected to this district.  That Democrat could be Rep. Sara Feigenholtz.  Feigenholtz was elected to the Illinois State House in 1995, and since then she has built a reputation as one of the most liberal members in the entire body.  

Yesterday Feigenholtz announced she is forming a campaign committee to explore a run for the 5th District.  Part of the e-mail to her supporters reads:

As you know, Congressman Rahm Emanuel will be resigning from the U.S. House of Representatives to serve in the Obama administration.  I believe this creates an opportunity for another progressive thinker, such as myself, to lead the 5th District. . . To let our dreams of a better tomorrow end with the November 4th election would be an affront to those very principles Americans were hoping to reclaim this year. . . I am asking you to believe in my capacity to lead once again, and embark upon this journey with me.

Let’s face it, Emanuel is not as progressive as he could be, especially not from such a strongly Democratic District.  Feigenholtz, on the other hand, is 100% Pro-Choice, Supports Gay Marriage, and is a solid progressive on every other issue.  

To my knowledge, Feigenholtz is the only announced candidate, but Emanuel hasn’t even resigned yet, and there is likely to be more.  There is no date yet set for the Special Primary or Election.  But if we rally around Feigenholtz early, we can make sure that a solid progressive represents this district.

On the Issues:

http://votesmart.org/npat.php?…

House Site

http://www.staterepsara.com/

Act Blue Page

http://www.actblue.com/contrib…

PVI’s arent offically out but some numbers are available (CT, VA)

However it is easy to figure out by looking at vote by county and which county’s went for Obama or McCain.

For example. Shea Porter’s district  had a PVI of R+1 or +2

but Obama carried each district and so logically this will flip it to a D+2,3 4 etc.

NY 19th,

NV 2nd

Disctricts held by republicans or Democrats which were split down will see huge flips soon letting to rest all the talk about “red” districts