Month: January 2009

The hilarity continues:

A day after Sen. Jim Bunning insisted he would seek a third term, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said he still wasn’t sure whether the Kentucky Republican would actually run.

“I don’t think he’s made a decision on whether to run,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the NRSC. “We’re working with Sen. Bunning now to provide him all the information he needs in order to make that decision.”

Bunning’s response: “he’s either deaf or he didn’t listen very well.”

This gives me a serious case of the giggles, as I can only imagine that Big John’s “imformation” being shared with the sun-ravaged mummy husk that is Jim Bunning can only be gruesome polling memos and other not-so-subtle suggestions that he pack it in rather than go for another term.

More:

McConnell “had a lapse of memory when he was speaking to the press club last week when he said he didn’t know what my intentions were,” Bunning told Kentucky reporters Tuesday, according to the website Bluegrass Politics. “Whatever Mitch says is whatever he says. He’s the leader of the pack and he can say whatever he wants and get away with it.”

Awwwwwkward.

PPP (1/23-25, registered voters):

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 40

John Suthers (R): 34

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 43

Scott McInnis (R): 37

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 48

Tom Tancredo (R): 39

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 41

Bill Owens (R): 44

(MoE: ±3.2%)

The bad news is: few people in Colorado know much of anything about their new senator, Michael Bennet, appointed out of semi-obscurity (he was the Denver schools superintendent) to fill the seat left vacant by Ken Salazar. His favorable/unfavorable rating is 33/21, with a massive 45% not sure.

On the plus side, though, that leaves him plenty of room for growth, and his unknown-ness doesn’t seem to be hampering his prospects for re-election in 2010. Bennet wins three out of four prospective matchups, and the only one he doesn’t win is against popular former governor Bill Owens, who hasn’t given any indication of any intent to run against Bennet. Two of the other matchups are even more irrelevant, as Attorney General John Suthers and ex-Rep. Scott McInnis both took themselves out of the running in the days since the poll was taken. That leaves Bennet vs. Tom Tancredo, which doesn’t look to be much of a contest at this point.

H/t DTM,B!

(Cross-posted from Kansas Jackass

Two bits of news out of the Republican Primary for the United States Senate seat Sam Brownback is vacating in 2010.

First, Congressman Todd Tiahrt announced the formation of his campaign steering committee.  It includes such Republican notables as State Representatives Kasha Kelly, Lance Kinzer, and Peggy Mast, along with former Speaker of the Kansas House Doug Mays, and Sharon Meissner, who we surmise is the wife of twice-failed Kansas State Board of Education candidate Dr. Robert Meissner.

Lovely, right?  I do appreciate they sent the press release directly to the blog, though.

In the news that actually matters, the Washington Post is today reporting a poll commissioned for the campaign of Congressman Jerry Moran includes much better news for him than it does good ol’ Todder.

Rep. Jerry Moran starts as the frontrunner for the GOP Senate nod in Kansas, according to new polling done for his campaign. Moran, who has held the massive central-western 1st district since 1996, holds a 41 percent to 25 percent edge over fellow Rep. Todd Tiahrt in a poll conducted by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies.

“While it is still very early in the primary campaign, it is currently a lot better to be Jerry Moran than it is to be Todd Tiahrt,” Bolger wrote in the polling memo.

I’m sure people will read that and scream, “But it was a internal poll, so it’s just bullshit.”  While I’m sure campaign-released polls always only include selective information (like, for instance, we bet Moran isn’t telling anyone who he matches up against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius…), just because it’s an internal poll doesn’t immediately make it invalid.  A polling firm won’t get much work if their poll are routinely proven wrong in the press.

So, there you go- while Tiahrt’s busy naming his committee, Moran’s busy winning the election.  Long way ’til August 2010, but the pollster is right- I’d much rather be Jerry Moran today.

The Swing State Project is pleased to announce our first set of Senate race ratings for the 2009-10 election cycle:

Races to Watch:

     CA (Boxer)

     CT (Dodd)

     DE (Open)

     HI (Inouye)

     IA (Grassley)

     KS (Open)

     ND (Dorgan)

What follows are brief explanations of our initial ratings, including the “safe” races not listed above, in alphabetical order. DavidNYC, James L. and Crisitunity all contributed to this post – our individual contributions are noted for each entry. A permalink to our ratings is available in the right-hand sidebar and can also be found here.

Alabama – Richard Shelby (R): Safe R

Democrats in Alabama are focusing on the open gubernatorial seat – Shelby’s eye-bursting $13 million on hand is a major deterrent. Some folks have speculated about a retirement (he’s 74), but his press secretary told SSP he’s running again. (DavidNYC)

Alaska – Lisa Murkowski (R): Safe R

The excitement here, if any, will come from a potential R-on-R primary matchup featuring Sarah Palin vs. Lisa Murkowski. There really isn’t a Dem who could make this competitive, and in any case, there’s a long list of more appetizing targets ahead of Alaska. (D)

Arizona – John McCain (R): Safe R

When Obama tapped Janet Napolitano to run the Dept. of Homeland Security, we lost our best candidate to take on John McCain – though I’m not sure she would have jumped in anyhow. Given Obama’s unusual closeness with his former rival, I tend to doubt that any major names will get in. (D)

Arkansas – Blanche Lincoln (D): Safe D

Even though Arkansas broke sharply for McCain while most of the rest of the county got quite a bit bluer, there really is no Republican bench here. Only Mike Huckabee could make this race competitive, and he ain’t running. (D)

California – Barbara Boxer (D): RTW

Dick Mountjoy. Bill Jones. Tom Campbell. Matt Fong. Those are the last four California Republicans to run for Senate, and the best performance among them was Fong’s 43% against Boxer. But that was ten years ago, and things have only gotten worse for the Cali GOP as it has moved implacably rightward. The small chance that term-limited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger runs makes this a “Race to Watch,” but if he bails, it’s Safe D. (D)

Colorado – Michael Bennet (D): Lean D

With Gov. Bill Ritter tapping a complete statewide unknown to replace Ken Salazar in the Senate, most assume that the GOP will mount a serious effort to dislodge former Denver Superintendent of Public Schools Michael Bennet as he faces voters for the first time in 2010. However, the bigger names seem to be taking a pass for now; both state AG John Suthers and ex-Rep. Scott McInnis have declined to run for the seat. While Bennet still has a lot to prove, he’s off to a good start. (James L.)

Connecticut – Chris Dodd (D): RTW

Chris Dodd’s favorability ratings in his home state have suffered ever since his very unsuccessful presidential run, an undertaking he was never quite able to explain to his constituents – or Iowa caucus-goers, for that matter. Allegations that he got favorable “VIP” loan terms from lender Countrywide haven’t helped. What makes this a Race to Watch is the fact that three reasonably strong Republicans could all potentially give it a gander: Gov. Jodi Rell and former Congressmen Rob Simmons and Chris Shays. But Dodd is a powerful fundraiser in a blue state, and no one has stepped up to the plate yet. (D)

Delaware – Ted Kaufman (OPEN) (D): RTW

This race will only become exciting if Rep. Mike Castle gets in (something that could conceivably happen, especially since life in the Senate minority is a lot better than life in the House minority). If not, DE-Sen should be solidly in our corner. (D)

Florida – Mel Martinez (OPEN) (R): Tossup

An open seat race in one of the nation’s most populous and most closely-split states? With Mel Martinez retiring, look for this one to be the marquee race of 2010. With popular Democratic state CFO Alex Sink taking a pass on the race, there’s no clear frontrunner in the race or even a frontrunner for either party’s nomination. On the Dem side, Rep. Kendrick Meek has already declared his interest, but he won’t be the only one. (Crisitunity)

Georgia – Johnny Isakson (R): Safe R

If Democrats field a strong candidate here, this race could conceivably be of some degree of interest, but it seems unlikely that guys like Jim Marshall or Thurbert Baker would be willing to give up their perches for a run against an untarnished Republican incumbent in a state that has routinely snakebitten Democrats since 2002. If a high profile primary challenger emerges to take on Isakson (as has been rumored), then perhaps this one can get interesting, but until then, all we have is a dollar and a pocketful of “ifs”. (J)

Hawaii – Daniel Inouye (D): RTW

Octogenarian Inouye has said he’s running again, and he should have a clear shot. The only wrinkle is if term-limited Gov. Linda Lingle makes a play. But she’s almost certainly better off biding her time, waiting for a senatorial retirement. (D)

Idaho – Mike Crapo (R): Safe R

Idaho Dems will be doing everything they can to protect Walt Minnick in his first re-election campaign. This race is not on anyone’s radar. (D)

Illinois – Roland Burris (D): Likely D

We are the junior senator from Illinois – for now. By all rights this seat should be Safe D, but if by some insane mix-up we wind up with, say, Roland Burris vs. Ron James Tiberius Kirk, IL-Sen could be in serious jeopardy. Our “Likely D” rating is more of a commentary on the wildly unsettled state of play than an indicator of our real expectations. This is a good example of a race that is especially difficult to assess so early on; the label on this sucker is definitely going to change, probably more than once. (D)

Indiana – Evan Bayh (D): Safe D

Sadly, Evan Bayh has never even come close to living up to the legacy of his father, populist hero Birch Bayh. But the Bayh name is still incredibly powerful in Indiana, and Evan has done a good job entrenching himself in office. Prominent Hoosier Republicans, scratching their heads as to how their state swung twenty points bluer in 2008, are almost certain to take a pass. (D)

Iowa – Chuck Grassley (R): RTW

Grassley’s been the subject of a lot of retirement rumors, if only because of his age. But his tight relationship with Max Baucus, and his career-long posture as more of a process guy than a legislation guy, probably mean that his life in the minority is a lot better than average. If he bails, though, this race will probably attract the likes of Rep. Bruce Braley and shoot straight to Tossup. (D)

Kansas – Sam Brownback (OPEN) (R): RTW

Several big-name Republicans have already declared for or openly contemplated getting into this race, so at least there ought to be a fun GOP primary. But unless term-limited Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is our nominee, Dems will be boxed out in this state (which hasn’t sent a Dem to the Senate since before your mother was born). (D)

Kentucky – Jim Bunning (R): Tossup

With Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn both trying to shove Jim Bunning out the door, and Democratic Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo announcing his intention to seek a rematch, Bunning is feeling the squeeze from all sides. While a Bunning retirement would almost certainly be met with cheer from Senate Republicans, for now we have to assume that the doddery Senator is sincere in his desire to seek another term (and he certainly seems annoyed at any suggestion to the contrary). If he does indeed face the voters again, Democrats are eager to pound the notoriously poor campaigner with full force in 2010 after failing to to adequately fund the upstart Mongiardo in ’04. A Bunning retirement or a nasty Democratic primary could cause us to readjust the scales here, but for now, the Republicans begin this race with no clear advantage whatsoever. (J)

Louisiana – David Vitter (R): Likely R

While some observers have singled out “Diaper” Dave Vitter as an incumbent facing serious jeopardy in 2010, we’re not really as sanguine about Democratic fortunes in a state that actually took an even sharper turn toward the GOP in 2008 than it did four years previous. If Republicans outraged over Vitter’s love of prostitutes manage to coalesce around a serious primary challenger, then we might see more of an opening for a Democratic challenge. (J)

Maryland – Barbara Mikulski (D): Safe D

Even if Mikulski, one of the few Dems who might be contemplating retirement, were to call it quits, we have a deep bench here and the GOP has… well, they have 83-year-old Rep. Roscoe Bartlett – so old he was originally elected on the Whig line. Hell, Tommy Carcetti would beat his ass. Next. (D)

Missouri – Kit Bond (OPEN) (R): Tossup

Kit Bond handed Democrats a major gift here by announcing his retirement earlier this month, but if this race follows the pattern of most other recent statewide elections in Missouri, it’ll be a major battle all the way through election day. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan seems set to run for the Democrats, and she’ll be a strong nominee against a Republican field that is still very much in flux. (J)

Nevada – Harry Reid (D): Likely D

Reid seems to have been scarred for life by his 400-vote win over John Ensign in 1998 and has run scared ever since. His perpetual defensive crouch has hurt Dems on the Hill, though it may save him against a potential strong run by either Rep. Dean Heller or former Rep. Jon Porter – or it might make him look like a weakling Dem from the bad old 2002 era. No matter what, Reid’s prominent position means that protecting him will be a top priority for Bob Menendez. Knowing that, top-shelf Republicans might decline, which could return Reid to Safe status. (D)

New Hampshire – Judd Gregg (R): Lean R

Paul Hodes seems very likely to run here, and if he does, he’s going to give Gregg a very serious race, and probably move the needle to Tossup within a year or so (if not before then). It’s also possible that Gregg will retire, in which case Dems will be in the driver’s seat. (D)

New York-A – Chuck Schumer (D): Safe D

You cannot even hope to contain Chuck Schumer. (D)

New York-B – Kirsten Gillibrand (D): Safe D

It’s clear that Gov. David Paterson picked Gillibrand because she checks off a number of boxes – woman, upstate, prodigious fundraiser – and because she has considerable political skills. Peter King has been whining about the choice, but only because he’s bummed he won’t have the chance to take on Caroline Kennedy. Even if a Dem primary does materialize (something I’m skeptical of), there just really isn’t a single GOPer in the state who can make this interesting. (And no, Rudy ain’t gonna run.) (D)

North Carolina – Richard Burr (R): Lean R

Richard Burr faces several disadvantages in his quest for his first re-election: the fact that North Carolina is a lot bluer than it was in 2004, and his status as one of the Senate’s most anonymous back-benchers. With a number of top-tier Democrats eyeing the race (AG Roy Cooper, former Treasurer Richard Moore, Rep. Heath Shuler) and polling very close to Burr, he looks to face a much harder fight than he did four years ago. (And for the superstitious among us, remember that this is the “cursed seat,” which no one has successfully retained for decades.) (C)

North Dakota – Byron Dorgan (D): RTW

Byron Dorgan has ensconced himself quite nicely in North Dakota, increasing his already-sizable victory margins with every race (59% to 63% to 68%). The only dark cloud on the prairie is a possible run by popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven, hence the Race to Watch tag. (D)

Ohio – George Voinovich (OPEN) (R): Tossup

George Voinovich’s retirement creates another open seat opportunity for the Democrats. Ex-Rep. and ex-OMB Director Rob Portman seems to have the GOP nomination locked down, while the Democratic field remains unsettled (although currently Rep. Tim Ryan seems very  much inclined to do it, while Lt. Gov Lee Fisher seems leaning against). Polling gives Portman a small edge right now, but once the attacks on his free-trading, loyal-Bushie ways begin, look for this to turn into a barnburner. (C)

Oklahoma – Tom Coburn (R): Safe R

Tom Coburn is a crazy bastard. Tom Coburn is a disgrace to the Senate. Tom Coburn has single-handedly held up tons of popular legislation to suit his personal whims. And yet Tom Coburn is very, very likely to remain a United State Senator come 2011. (D)

Oregon – Ron Wyden (D): Safe D

Ron Wyden has drawn third-tier opposition in his last two runs for the Senate. With the state’s GOP bench in shambles and anyone left capable of playing statewide (Greg Walden, the newly-unemployed Gordon Smith) eyeing the open governor’s race, this is likely to continue. (C)

Pennsylvania – Arlen Specter (R): Lean R

Democrats’ chances at dislodging Arlen Specter may have gotten a little tougher, with Club for Growth honcho Pat Toomey training his circular firing squad on PA-Gov instead of a repeat primary challenge to Specter. Instead, the aging Specter gets to save his strength for the general election, where Rep. Allyson Schwartz seems to be on track to take the Dem nomination. With Pennsylvania, and especially Specter’s power center in the Philly suburbs, gradually becoming bluer, though, this still looks to be a very competitive race. (C)

South Carolina – Jim DeMint (R): Safe R

DeMint, unlike his Palmetto State colleague Lindsay Graham, has established his conservative bona fides quite firmly – which is to say, he’s a raging winger. In South Carolina, that probably helps, rather than hurts, most statewide Republicans as it ensures sufficient enthusiasm from the base. Dems don’t really have much of a bench here. (D)

South Dakota – John Thune (R): Safe R

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is the only Dem who could give Thune a race, but if she leaves the House, it’ll be to run for Governor, not Senator. (D)

Texas – Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Likely R

KBH is running for governor against incumbent Rick Perry. The only issue is when she’ll resign, triggering a special election that’s certain to be a free-for-all. Dems don’t have a great shot unless they can rally around a single candidate, something complicated by both former state Comptroller Jim Sharp and Houston Mayor Bill White both saying they’ll run. Plus, Texas Dems will be focused like a laser on winning the state House back, so as to have an all-important seat at the redistricting table. Still, this oughta be fun, and anything can happen in a special like this. (D)

Utah – Robert Bennett (R): Safe R

Does anyone know if Jeopardy mega-champion Ken Jennings is a Democrat? UPDATE: So he is! I should really read the articles I link to. Well, now all we have to do is convince Jennings to run. He’s probably way too smart for that, though. (D)

Vermont – Patrick Leahy (D): Safe D

Gov. Jim Douglas is the only Republican of any stature in the state, but the one poll of the race so far has Leahy cruising 58-36. It’s remarkable that a state which went Dem just once in the 20th century before 1992 could have turned so sharply blue (Vermont didn’t even vote for FDR in 1936!), but there you have it. (D)

Washington – Patty Murray (D): Safe D

Patty Murray may be one of the most misunderestimated members of the Senate, as several highly-touted U.S. Representatives (Linda Smith, George Nethercutt) found out to their dismay. With Dino Rossi heading back to the private sector bathed in two-time loser stank, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers focusing on the House leadership track, it’s looking like she’ll draw only minor opposition in 2010. (C)

Wisconsin – Russ Feingold (D): Likely D

Feingold always seems to draw a respectable challenge, perhaps in no small part due to his iconoclasm and fundraising purity, but it remains to be seen whether this cycle will be the one that finally breaks the pattern. Rep. Paul Ryan is said to be keeping an eye on the seat, but otherwise, the Wisconsin GOP has precious few weapons in their arsenal. (J)

Cross-posted at Calitics.

Here is my analysis of the 2008 election in my home state of California. As I mentioned in my 50-state analysis, California was a mixed bag on November 4, 2008. The presidential results were anything but disappointing, while we came up short further down the ballot, from the House races to the state legislature and the 12 ballot measures.

I was amazed as I saw polls leading up to Election Day showing Obama up by more than 20 over McCain, and was astonished at the 61-37 Obama blowout that ended up occurring on Election Night (and the calling of the whole Left Coast for Obama, putting him over 270 electoral votes and making him the winner!). I couldn’t wait to check out the county results and see which ones flipped for Obama and which ones were close.

As the final absentee ballots rolled in, I was able to check out the numbers, and see that Obama way outperformed Kerry, winning by 3 million votes and pumping up his national popular vote numbers very nicely. In fact, Obama outperformed every single Democratic presidential candidate except one, scoring the second-best Democratic presidential performance in California’s history after Franklin Roosevelt in 1936. As you can see, Obama gained 1.5 million votes over Kerry, while McCain, who claimed he could compete in California, lost half a million votes from Bush.

2008: Obama 8,274,473; McCain 5,011,781

2004: Kerry 6,745,485; Bush 5,509,826

Looking through the voting histories of the California counties that went to Obama, I found that Obama broke some longtime Republican streaks in quite a few counties. Obama won a majority of the vote in two counties that last voted Democratic presidentially with more than 50% of the vote in 1976, Merced and Trinity.

Most significant are the six counties that in 2008 voted Democratic presidentially with more than 50% for the first time since 1964: Nevada, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Ventura

And finally, San Diego County, which last voted for a Democratic presidential candidate with a majority of the vote in 1944, also delivered a majority of the vote to Obama!

Obama also came close to winning majorities, instead winning close pluralities, in Butte, Fresno, and Stanislaus Counties. The last Democrat to win a majority in Butte and Fresno was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and the last Democrat to win a majority in Stanislaus was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Now I will do a tour of the state, north to south. I will give a bit of an overall summary of California’s counties: Obama improved upon Kerry’s performance in all 58 of them. The amount of improvement varies from region to region, and the numbers are over the flip.

North Coast

Counties = Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma

Combined population = 800,932

2004 = Kerry 63%, Bush 34% (D+29)

2008 = Obama 69%, McCain 28% (D+41)

Obama improved considerably over Kerry’s margins in this part of the state, growing Democratic margins in Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma, while cutting McCain’s margin in Del Norte County to half of Bush’s. These growing Democratic numbers in this formerly swingy region (CA-01 changed parties 4 times in the 1990s alone) suggests this region will continue to trend Democratic for the foreseeable future.

Northern Mountain

Counties = Butte, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity

Combined population = 1,205,952

2004 = Bush 61%, Kerry 38% (R+23)

2008 = McCain 54%, Obama 44% (R+10)

Our next stop is this sprawling, low-density region. I figured McCain would crush Obama in this small town-heavy region, even overperforming Bush’s numbers. When I examined the counties in this region, all of which went for Bush in 2004, I was shocked. Not only did McCain underperform Bush here, he actually got FEWER votes than Bush did. Obama even won 3 counties outright: Butte, Nevada, and Trinity. This region will likely continue to be considerably Republican, but Democrats can become more competitive here if they grow their margins in Butte County (home of UC Chico) and the Tahoe region. Some of this area, most notably Placer, is becoming more like suburban Sacramento and may also continue to trend Democratic. These numbers show that we can win here, and if we can find more Charlie Browns, we might be able to pull off wins in this region, namely Congressional District 4 (which will very likely be open in 2010 when McClintock runs for governor) and Senate District 4 (which will be open in 2010 due to term limits). A couple of Assembly seats here will be open in 2010 as well. Let’s jump-start that 58-county strategy!

San Francisco Bay Area

Counties = Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano

Combined population = 6,791,908

2004 = Kerry 69%, Bush 29% (D+40)

2008 = Obama 74%, McCain 24% (D+50)

A very blue region in a very blue state just keeps on getting bluer with each election. Republicans will be extremely lucky if they can get even a third of the vote here again! In addition to overwhelming Democratic numbers, every single Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly district is in Democratic hands, almost parallel to the shutout Republicans suffered on the House level in New England. Only if the Republicans return to being the party of Earl Warren and Hiram Johnson will they have a prayer of winning here again. The funny thing is that this region used to be a very Republican region in a very Republican state back in the early 20th century, and San Mateo County was the origin of powerful Republican governor Hiram Johnson and the Progressive movement in California, which Republicans of that time embraced. The region shifted strongly to the Democrats in the 1950s, with 1956 being the last time San Francisco and Alameda Counties voted Republican presidentially, and has not looked back since.

Sacramento Valley

Counties = Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba

Combined population = 2,606,646

2004 = Bush 51%, Kerry 48% (R+3)

2008 = Obama 56%, McCain 42% (D+14)

This is a swing area, with Democratic strongholds in the city of Sacramento and Yolo County, home of UC Davis, and Republican strongholds in the Sacramento suburbs (though their majorities here are getting smaller and smaller by the year), and Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yuba Counties. San Joaquin County, the second-biggest county in the region, has been a Republican-leaning county in recent history until the influx of people from the Bay Area and the overall Democratic trend of suburbs near the Bay Area, culminating in a double-digit win for Obama in the county and the region. This region is also trending Democratic on the congressional and state legislature level, giving victories to Democratic Congressman Jerry McNerney, and Democratic Assemblywomen Alyson Huber and Joan Buchanan.

Eastern Mountain/Yosemite

Counties = Alpine, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Tuolumne

Combined population = 108,338

2004 = Bush 58%, Kerry 40% (R+18)

2008 = McCain 53%, Obama 44% (R+9)

Like the northern mountain region, McCain got fewer votes here than Bush did and Democrats saw a modest improvement from 2004 here. The 2 Democratic counties, Alpine and Mono, used to be two of the strongest Republican counties, even voting for Bush in 2000, but an influx of young people from the San Francisco area to work on the ski resorts shifted these counties to Kerry and even more for Obama. If we can get a similar trend in the other counties, then this region too may become Democratic before long.

Central Coast

Counties = Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura

Combined population = 2,275,917

2004 = Kerry 54%, Bush 45% (D+9)

2008 = Obama 60%, McCain 37% (D+23)

This region was normally divided in half, with the northern half of the region (Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz) leaning strongly Democratic and the southern half (San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura) leaning Republican aside from the Democratic stronghold of Santa Barbara. Now that barrier has been shattered, with all 6 counties (yes, including San Luis Obispo!) going for Obama. This provides us with great opportunities to expand our majority in the upcoming State Assembly elections in 2010 and the State Senate elections in 2012. You will also notice that this region is generally the bellwether region for determining how California will go in statewide/presidential elections. Not surprisingly, the bellwether county of San Benito is also in this region.

San Joaquin Valley

Counties = Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Tulare

Combined population = 3,270,343

2004 = Bush 62%, Kerry 37% (R+25)

2008 = McCain 52%, Obama 46% (R+6)

Here is another Republican stronghold, though unlike the mountain regions, this one is more populous, with population centers in Fresno and Bakersfield. Every county here was Republican in 2004, and then Obama punched holes in the Republican firewall, winning Merced and Stanislaus Counties, as well as the big prize of Fresno County. We still have work to do here on the state level though, since we lost the 30th Assembly district last year. Though maybe with that Yacht Dog Nicole Parra gone and the Democratic trend here, we may have a chance to regain that district in 2010.

Southland

Counties = Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego

Combined population = 20,951,621

2004 = Kerry 52%, Bush 46% (D+5)

2008 = Obama 59%, McCain 38% (D+21)

And finally, our tour ends in the Southland, the most populous region in the state, which alone holds more than half of the state’s population in a mere 6 counties and is home to the state’s 2 largest cities, L.A. and San Diego, and the state’s 3 most populous counties (L.A., Orange, and San Diego). As recently as 2004, L.A. and Imperial Counties were the only Democratic counties in the region. Obama changed that, blowing even more holes in Republican strongholds, turning 3 more counties blue with majorities in Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego, and falling just two points short in Orange County, nearly staging a complete sweep in this former Republican stronghold. That spells trouble for certain Republican Congressmen/women, as well as State Senators and Assemblymembers, some of which are term-limited in 2010 and/or scored weak wins in 2008. Probably the most exciting part of California to watch in the 2010 elections will be right here in the Southland. My hometown of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County went for Obama. I can only hope it and many more cities in the region continue to trend to the good guys! If the Democrats have a lockhold on the population centers in Northern and Southern California, then there will be ZERO chance of Republicans winning this big prize again!

Whew! Now that I’ve finished the marathon tour of my big, beautiful home state, I can give the region-by-region breakdown of Democratic improvements from 2004 to 2008, ranked from the smallest shift to the largest shift. Here they are:

Eastern Mountain/Yosemite: 9%

San Francisco Bay Area: 10%

North Coast: 12%

Northern Mountain: 13%

Central Coast: 14%

Southland: 16%

Sacramento Valley: 17%

San Joaquin Valley: 19%

Every region shifted considerably more Democratic, though the biggest shifts occurred in the regions that up through 2004 were swing or Republican-leaning areas. These are the areas we need to target heavily to make the biggest gains.

With some legislative seats open in 2010 due to term limits, we can take some of them and further inflate our Democratic majority in this state. If the California Democratic Party, with the new fresh faces of Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) actually invests in the legislative races, we can make major gains and have no more disappointments that we had in 2008’s U.S. House and legislative races, where Democrats, especially in swing districts in Southern California, underperformed Obama. Also, with enough investment, we will hopefully also have no more disappointments in the ballot measures such as Prop H8. And a suggestion I have for reforming our dysfunctional ballot measure system is to not have any repeat ballot measures such as Prop 73 (2005)/85 (2006)/4 (2008) and also require a supermajority (say 60%) on passing some measures. And of course we need major reforms in the legislative system, such as doing away with the ridiculous 2/3 rule for taxes and budgets.

David Yepsen published a weird column in the Des Moines Register about Culver’s vulnerability in the 2010 election.

After the jump I’ll assess Yepsen’s analysis and handicap the 2010 Iowa governor’s race.

Yepsen notes that Culver’s approval rating has been “stuck at 60 percent” (with only 32 percent disapproval), as if that’s a bad thing. Any campaign operative will tell you that an incumbent is considered vulnerable only if his or her approval rating drops below 50 percent.

Yepsen is convinced that Culver has been badly damaged by Iowa’s current budget shortfall and a “fiasco” over the proposed sale of the Iowa Lottery. Contrary to Yepsen’s column, Culver did not “float” the idea of selling the lottery to private investors. He listened to other people floating that idea and waited too long to issue a statement ruling out the proposal. (Yepsen glosses over his own incorrect prediction last week that claimed the fix was in on selling the lottery.)

Yepsen notes that Culver’s “relations with the labor movement soured over his veto of their pet collective-bargaining bill last year.” But I expect that the bad blood between Culver and organized labor will dissipate if the governor signs one or more good bills on labor issues this year. Democrats expanded their majorities in the Iowa House and Senate and should be able to pass another collective bargaining bill, or perhaps a a “fair share” bill. I sincerely doubt labor will sit out the 2010 election if an anti-union Republican challenges Culver.

While I don’t agree with most of Yepsen’s analysis, I do agree that the governor may be vulnerable to a strong challenge in 2010.

Culver has several big advantages going into a re-election campaign:

1. He’s an incumbent. It’s been many decades since Iowans voted an incumbent governor out of office.

2. Since Culver won the 2006 election by a 100,000 vote margin out of 1.05 million votes cast, Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge. There are now approximately 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

3. He already has about $1.5 million in the bank, and even some Republican businessmen have cut him large checks.

Here are the danger signs for Culver:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010. There’s plenty of time for Culver’s approval rating to drop into the danger zone. Poppy Bush had 70 percent approval ratings in early 1991.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. Democrats control the legislative and executive branches in Iowa as well as Washington, and voters may punish Culver if they don’t like what they see. The governor is presiding over budget cuts that may be unpopular.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election (about 1.5 million Iowans cast ballots for president). Traditionally, lower turnout helps Republicans, although that didn’t prevent Iowa Democrats from winning gubernatorial elections in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

4. Culver’s campaign committee burned through a lot of money in 2008, spending more than half of what was raised. If the burn rate stays high in 2009, that war chest may not be big enough to scare off a serious Republican challenger.

Who might that challenger be? Yepsen thinks Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey might have a shot. He’d certainly be a stronger candidate than three-timer Bob Vander Plaats. (Vander Plaats thinks Republicans lost recent elections because they moved too far to the middle and can win again if they “effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism.”)

I still think it would be tough for the low-profile Northey to beat Culver. He doesn’t have a base in any of Iowa’s population centers. If the state budget outlook continues to worsen, I’d be more worried about State Auditor David Vaudt, who warned that last year’s spending increases would be unsustainable.

What do you think?

Now that I have some spare time, I can compare my predictions against the actual results from the presidential, governor, Senate, and competitive House races in 2008, and show the differences between the numbers. The difference is how much more Democratic/Republican my predictions are from the actual numbers. Some of my predictions were fairly accurate, while some were way off, due to lack of polling in the noncompetitive races (and I am not including the Arkansas Senate race due to no polling at all because Pryor was unopposed), and due to the difficulty of predicting some of the races, namely most House races, the Alaska races, and some other races due to huge third-party noise. Numbers are below the flip.

President (51) http://californianintexas.blog…

Race	My Prediction	Actual Result	Difference
AL-Pres	R+21.14	R+21.58	D+0.44
AK-Pres	R+16.67	R+21.54	D+4.87
AZ-Pres	R+3.79	R+8.48	D+4.69
AR-Pres	R+7.64	R+19.85	D+12.21
CA-Pres	D+22.63	D+24.03	R+1.40
CO-Pres	D+5.82	D+8.95	R+3.13
CT-Pres	D+19.85	D+22.37	R+2.52
DE-Pres	D+22.40	D+25.00	R+2.60
DC-Pres	D+78.02	D+85.92	R+7.90
FL-Pres	D+2.15	D+2.81	R+0.66
GA-Pres	R+4.43	R+5.20	D+0.77
HI-Pres	D+29.32	D+45.26	R+15.94
ID-Pres	R+29.96	R+25.34	R+4.62
IL-Pres	D+21.18	D+25.13	R+3.95
IN-Pres	R+2.58	D+1.03	R+3.61
IA-Pres	D+12.51	D+9.53	D+2.98
KS-Pres	R+19.59	R+14.93	R+4.66
KY-Pres	R+13.93	R+16.22	D+2.29
LA-Pres	R+11.65	R+18.63	D+6.98
ME-Pres	D+14.73	D+17.32	R+2.59
MD-Pres	D+19.40	D+25.44	R+6.04
MA-Pres	D+22.79	D+25.81	R+3.02
MI-Pres	D+12.66	D+16.46	R+3.80
MN-Pres	D+11.84	D+10.24	D+1.60
MS-Pres	R+11.16	R+13.17	D+2.01
MO-Pres	R+0.50	R+0.13	R+0.37
MT-Pres	R+4.55	R+2.26	R+2.29
NE-Pres	R+22.51	R+14.93	D+7.58
NV-Pres	D+5.71	D+12.49	R+6.78
NH-Pres	D+10.20	D+9.61	D+0.59
NJ-Pres	D+16.74	D+15.54	D+1.20
NM-Pres	D+10.00	D+15.13	R+5.13
NY-Pres	D+27.10	D+26.69	D+0.41
NC-Pres	D+0.34	D+0.33	D+0.01
ND-Pres	R+10.58	R+8.60	R+1.98
OH-Pres	D+4.02	D+4.53	R+0.51
OK-Pres	R+26.31	R+31.29	D+4.98
OR-Pres	D+15.07	D+16.35	R+1.28
PA-Pres	D+7.21	D+10.32	R+3.11
RI-Pres	D+24.32	D+27.92	R+3.60
SC-Pres	R+9.62	R+8.98	R+0.64
SD-Pres	R+10.76	R+8.41	R+2.35
TN-Pres	R+11.89	R+15.07	R+3.18
TX-Pres	R+15.55	R+11.76	R+3.79
UT-Pres	R+28.78	R+28.07	R+0.71
VT-Pres	D+24.17	D+37.01	R+12.84
VA-Pres	D+4.12	D+6.30	R+2.18
WA-Pres	D+14.23	D+17.11	R+2.88
WV-Pres	R+7.67	R+13.11	D+5.44
WI-Pres	D+10.70	D+13.90	R+3.20
WY-Pres	R+26.20	R+32.24	D+6.04

Governor (11) http://californianintexas.blog…

Race	My Prediction	Actual Result	Difference
DE-Gov	D+35.00	D+35.48	R+0.48
IN-Gov	R+16.33	R+17.81	D+1.48
MO-Gov	D+15.75	D+18.91	R+3.16
MT-Gov	D+22.00	D+32.95	R+10.95
NH-Gov	D+42.33	D+42.54	R+0.21
NC-Gov	D+1.00	D+3.40	R+2.40
ND-Gov	R+40.00	R+50.91	D+10.91
UT-Gov	R+58.50	R+57.95	R+0.55
VT-Gov	R+23.00	R+31.56	D+8.56
WA-Gov	D+4.00	D+6.48	R+2.48
WV-Gov	D+46.00	D+44.04	D+1.96

Senate (36) http://californianintexas.blog…

Race	My Prediction	Actual Result	Difference
AL-Sen	R+33.00	R+26.84	R+6.16
AK-Sen	D+10.33	D+1.24	D+9.09
CO-Sen	D+10.86	D+10.30	D+0.56
DE-Sen	D+34.00	D+29.37	D+5.63
GA-Sen	R+4.86	R+2.92	R+1.94
ID-Sen	R+23.00	R+23.55	D+0.55
IL-Sen	D+28.00	D+39.31	R+11.31
IA-Sen	D+22.00	D+25.39	R+3.39
KS-Sen	R+27.00	R+23.60	R+3.40
KY-Sen	R+5.00	R+5.93	D+0.93
LA-Sen	D+10.00	D+6.39	D+3.61
ME-Sen	R+13.00	R+22.75	D+9.75
MA-Sen	D+30.50	D+34.93	R+4.43
MI-Sen	D+20.50	D+28.81	R+8.31
MN-Sen	R+1.00	D+0.01	R+1.01
MS-Sen A	R+27.00	R+22.87	R+4.13
MS-Sen B	R+9.00	R+10.00	D+1.00
MT-Sen	D+45.00	D+45.83	R+0.83
NE-Sen	R+14.00	R+17.46	D+3.46
NH-Sen	D+8.00	D+6.34	D+1.66
NJ-Sen	D+15.43	D+14.08	D+1.35
NM-Sen	D+15.50	D+22.66	R+7.16
NC-Sen	D+4.86	D+8.47	R+3.61
OK-Sen	R+18.00	R+17.50	R+0.50
OR-Sen	D+6.00	D+3.35	D+2.65
RI-Sen	D+52.00	D+46.81	D+5.19
SC-Sen	R+19.00	R+15.28	R+3.72
SD-Sen	D+25.00	D+24.98	D+0.02
TN-Sen	R+29.00	R+33.50	D+4.50
TX-Sen	R+8.00	R+11.98	D+3.98
VA-Sen	D+27.86	D+31.30	R+3.56
WV-Sen	D+21.00	D+27.43	R+6.43
WY-Sen A	R+27.00	R+51.38	D+24.38
WY-Sen B	R+25.00	R+46.99	D+21.99

House (76) http://californianintexas.blog…

Race	My Prediction	Actual Result	Difference
AL-02	D+0.7	D+0.5	D+0.2
AL-05	D+2.5	D+3.6	R+0.9
AK-AL	D+7.3	R+5.1	D+12.4
AZ-01	D+7.5	D+16.5	R+9.0
AZ-03	R+8.1	R+12.0	D+3.9
AZ-05	D+10.0	D+9.6	D+0.4
AZ-08	D+11.3	D+11.9	R+0.6
CA-03	R+12.5	R+5.5	R+7.0
CA-04	D+2.4	R+0.6	D+3.0
CA-11	D+2.4	D+10.6	R+8.2
CA-46	R+12.5	R+9.5	R+3.0
CA-50	R+10.0	R+5.1	R+4.9
CO-04	D+4.9	D+12.3	R+7.4
CT-04	D+1.7	D+4.3	R+2.6
FL-08	D+5.9	D+4.0	D+1.9
FL-13	R+12.3	R+18.0	D+5.7
FL-16	R+18.9	R+20.2	D+1.3
FL-18	R+13.3	R+15.8	D+2.5
FL-21	R+1.8	R+15.8	D+14.0
FL-24	D+13.1	D+16.1	R+3.0
FL-25	R+3.6	R+6.2	D+2.6
GA-08	D+4.2	D+14.4	R+10.2
ID-01	D+2.7	D+1.2	D+1.5
IL-10	D+2.7	R+9.0	D+11.7
IL-11	D+9.0	D+13.9	R+4.9
IL-14	D+9.1	D+14.8	R+5.7
IN-09	D+13.5	D+19.4	R+5.9
KS-02	D+4.4	R+4.4	D+8.8
KS-03	D+11.8	D+16.8	R+5.0
KY-02	R+2.8	R+5.2	D+2.4
KY-03	D+13.6	D+18.8	R+5.2
LA-04	D+2.5	R+0.4	D+2.9
LA-06	D+9.1	R+7.8	R+16.9
MD-01	R+2.0	D+0.8	R+2.8
MI-07	D+3.1	D+2.3	D+0.8
MI-09	D+2.4	D+9.5	R+7.1
MN-03	D+0.4	R+7.6	D+8.0
MN-06	D+1.9	R+3.0	D+4.9
MS-01	D+9.5	D+10.6	R+1.1
MO-06	R+13.4	R+22.5	D+9.1
MO-09	R+4.1	R+2.5	R+1.6
NE-02	R+2.9	R+3.8	D+0.9
NV-02	R+7.4	R+10.4	D+3.0
NV-03	D+1.6	D+5.1	R+3.5
NH-01	D+3.9	D+5.9	R+2.0
NJ-03	D+3.7	D+4.2	R+0.5
NJ-05	R+9.1	R+13.5	D+4.4
NJ-07	D+0.7	R+8.0	D+8.7
NM-01	D+3.9	D+11.4	R+7.5
NM-02	D+3.3	D+12.0	R+8.7
NY-13	D+10.0	D+27.6	R+17.6
NY-20	D+10.0	D+24.2	R+14.2
NY-25	D+8.8	D+12.9	R+4.1
NY-26	R+7.9	R+14.5	D+6.6
NY-29	D+4.0	D+2.0	D+2.0
NC-08	D+3.8	D+10.8	R+7.0
OH-01	D+1.0	D+3.0	R+2.0
OH-02	R+7.3	R+7.7	D+0.4
OH-15	D+5.0	D+0.7	D+4.3
OH-16	D+8.1	D+10.6	R+2.5
OR-05	D+18.3	D+15.5	D+2.8
PA-03	D+0.8	D+2.4	R+1.6
PA-04	D+11.3	D+11.8	R+0.5
PA-10	D+10.6	D+12.6	R+2.0
PA-11	R+2.4	D+3.2	R+5.6
PA-12	D+7.8	D+15.8	R+8.0
SC-01	R+7.4	R+4.0	R+3.4
TX-07	R+7.1	R+13.5	D+6.4
TX-10	R+5.8	R+10.8	D+5.0
TX-22	R+2.1	R+7.0	D+4.9
VA-02	R+7.8	D+4.9	R+12.7
VA-05	R+6.3	D+0.2	R+6.5
VA-11	D+10.0	D+11.7	R+1.7
WA-08	D+1.8	R+5.6	D+7.4
WV-02	R+10.1	R+14.2	D+4.1
WI-08	D+7.4	D+8.1	R+0.7
WY-AL	R+4.2	R+9.8	D+5.6

Last week, Charlie Cook gave us the following bit of gossip:

A fellow who oversees lobbying in all 50 states for a major corporation recently told me about a certain Republican U.S. senator up for re-election in 2010, someone generally regarded as fairly conservative who might face a serious challenge from a very conservative fellow Republican. The incumbent has not been tainted by scandal, has never embarrassed himself by making a major mistake, is highly regarded in Washington, and is considered a very effective senator.

Blake Aued of the Athens Banner-Herald’s blog speculates that Cook may have caught wind of a brewing battle between GOP Rep. Paul Broun and Sen. Johnny Isakson:

Team Broun denies that their man is looking to move up. But Broun recently hired a new chief of staff and communications director – giving him a three-person press team, unusually large for a back-bench congressman – and has ambitions to become a national figure. And one usually reliable source told me that Broun has already informed Isakson he’s coming after him in 2010.

This sounds like it could be pretty plausible — Broun never endeared himself to the Georgia GOP establishment, and had to endure a primary challenge in 2008, so he may be just the kind of guy who’d be inclined to move on up in a fratricidal primary. A notoriously controversial dude, Broun may just be nutty enough to actually do this.

The time is here. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! Mitch McConnell doesn’t care how.

For several days now, there has been a drip-drip of (probably well-orchestrated) leaks about how GOP powers, starting at the top with McConnell and NRSC chair John Cornyn, want Jim Bunning to get out of the way to let them run a more vigorous, coherent candidate in the 2010 Kentucky Senate race. This reached a head with Bunning’s unexplained absence last week and then Cornyn’s recent comments, when asked if Bunning or someone else would be the best candidate to run: “I don’t know. I think it’s really up to Senator Bunning.”

Today Bunning fought back against leadership’s “I don’t know” act, in a conference call with Kentucky media. Roll Call reports:

“I had an hourlong meeting with Sen. McConnell in the first week of December in 2008, and we thoroughly discussed my candidacy for the Senate in that hour meeting in my office in Northern Kentucky – and gave him every indication that I was going to run again,” Bunning told reporters on a conference call Tuesday, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. “So he either had a lapse of memory or something when speaking to the Press Club last week when he said that he didn’t know what my intentions were. He knew very well what my intentions were.”

With Bunning only sitting on $175,000 right now, and now seemingly entering into a war of words with the guys charged with saving his butt next year, this race is starting to look pretty promising (as long as Bunning stays in).

Roll Call is reporting that James Tedisco will be the GOP’s nominee in the special election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20.

While no official announcement has been made yet, the Republican chairmen of the 10 counties that fall within the 20th district agreed to nominate Tedisco during a meeting Tuesday at state GOP headquarters in Albany.

Tedisco, the current minority leader in New York’s State Assembly, is a long-time player in Albany-area politics, in fact known as “Mr. Schenectady.” Wait… what’s that? Schenectady isn’t in the 20th?

The Democratic nomination is still completely up in the air, and the same Roll Call article comes up with a completely different list of names than we saw a few days ago. With over twenty potential names to choose from (none of which seem particularly top-tier), they’re looking at:

… former TV broadcaster Tracy Egan, venture capitalist Scott Murphy, state AFL-CIO official Suzy Ballantyne, and former New York Rangers goalie Mike Richter.