RI-Gov: Cicilline and Laffey Are Out, But Will Chafee Get In?

There’s been a surprising amount of activity in the Rhode Island governor’s race in the last couple weeks, as two likely candidates pulled out of contention. On the Dem side, Providence mayor David Cicilline (who, if he won, would be the nation’s first governor to be openly GLBT when elected) announced he would run for another mayoral term instead. State treasurer Frank Caprio seems to have the inside track toward the nomination, at least in terms of fundraising, although Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts and AG Patrick Lynch are also looking at the race.

On the GOP side, former Cranston mayor (and near winner of the last GOP senate primary) Steve Laffey also declined. He may have sensed that his staunch conservative profile (remember that he was the Club for Growth’s pony in the 2006 election) wouldn’t play well in the general election. St. Rep. Joe Trillo may be the GOP’s last best shot, inasmuch as he’s the only Republican left who seems interested.

One other wild card, though, is that ex-senator Lincoln Chafee is “very, very seriously” considering a gubernatorial bid as an independent. This is a difficult scenario to wargame, since Chafee has the Republican pedigree but would assumedly be running a left-of-center campaign (for all I know, possibly to the left of the Democrat). However, if Chafee is matched against an mediocre Dem and a little-known GOPer, Chafee may very well have a shot at pulling it off, in something like a 35-40-25 split. A Chafee win wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world (he’d probably be to the left of a number of Democratic governors in other states), but right now it looks like the only scenario where the Dems wouldn’t pick up this seat.

SSP Daily Digest: 3/20

Committees: Fundraising numbers for the committees for the month of February came out yesterday and today:

The NRSC raised $2.87 million, ending with $1.05 million CoH and $2.7 million in debt (down from $4 million in debt last month).

The DSCC also raised $2.87 million, ending with $3.07 million CoH and $10.9 million in debt.

The NRCC raised $2.03 million, ending with $1.85 million CoH and $6.4 million in debt.

The DCCC won the month, raising $3.5 million, ending with $2.9 million CoH and $15 million in debt.

MN-Sen: Is there finally a light at the tunnel at the end of the interminable legal battle? Norm Coleman’s attorney said in a radio interview that he’s “done,” and that when the three-judge panel is done reviewing the count, Franken is still likely to be ahead, although he still plans on a “quick appeal.”

CA-10: More clarity in the field in the upcoming special election: assemblyman Tom Torlakson, who was considered one of the two likely contenders for the seat, won’t run. He was already in the process of running for state superintendent of public instruction, and will continue with that instead. This leaves a clearer path for state senator Mark DeSaulnier, although assemblywoman Joan Buchanan is also interested.

MI-Gov: Venture capitalist (i.e. rich guy) Rick Snyder is looking to join the crowded GOP field for the 2010 governor’s race. At least six names have been floated for this race or are already running. (D)

SC-Gov: Inez Tenenbaum, the highest-profile Dem considering the South Carolina governor’s race (she was superintendent of public instruction for two terms and was competitive against Jim DeMint in the 2004 Senate race), has declined to run for governor. State senator Vincent Sheheen is the only Dem in the race so far, although others interested include state house minority leader Harry Ott, state senators Brad Hutto and Robert Ford, and Charleston attorney Mullins McLeod.

SC-03: Republican state senator Shane Massey is the first to jump into fray to succeed Gresham Barrett, who’s running for the open SC governor’s seat. No Dems have stepped up yet in this dark-red district.

PA-15: Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan met with Allyson Schwartz in Washington this week to discuss a possible bid against GOP Rep. Charlie Dent. Unfortunately for Democrats, Callahan says he’s “not interested” in the race at this point. And so the search for a viable candidate in this competitive district continues… (J)

NY-20: Murphy, Tedisco Raise Big Bucks

Tonight is the deadline for candidates in the NY-20 special election to file their fundraising reports with the FEC for the period covering January 1st through March 11th. Now that both Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco have filed, let’s take a look at their hauls:






















Candidate Raised Loans Spent CoH
Murphy $899 $250 $705 $444
Tedisco $835 $200 $568 $468

All numbers are in thousands, and “CoH” represents remaining cash on hand at the end of the reporting period.

Despite the assumption that Murphy would be able to use his deep pockets to build up a financial edge over Tedisco, Tedisco has dipped into his own family piggy bank in the form of a $200K loan, keeping this race at near financial parity. Of course, the money is still flowing in at a fast clip to both candidates; you can view the 48 Hour FEC notices filed by both Tedisco here and Murphy here (just look for links labeled “Form F6”) for more updates. These sums are also just a portion of the total expenditures in this race — both Dem and GOP-allied organizations are throwing down some serious scrilla here. We’ll take a closer look at these independent expenditures soon.

Suburban and Exurban voting in the South UPDATED II

After looking over 2008 election results in various counties and congressional districts I’ve come across an interesting phenomenon that occurs in some high growth suburban areas versus others. Some areas seem to have changed very radically in the last 20 years and others have stayed largely the same. Forsyth County, GA (where I’m from) has seen ENORMOUS growth since the early 90s and was for a time the fastest growing county in the country but contrary to other high growth areas in the South such as the I-4 corridor in Florida, Northern Virginia, Charlotte and the Research Triangle in NC, Forsyth County really has not improved at all in terms of election numbers (Obama got under 20%). This along with Cherokee County which is also growing at a decent yet slower rate are where the GOP really runs up the score (80-20 in 100K plus counties isn’t too fun for Democrats statewide).  

The people in Forsyth County now are largely transplants from the Midwest and North East and come to Forsyth for the great schools, good quality of live as well the low property taxes available in these suburban/exurban counties as well as the lily white populace (forgive my cynicism), golf courses a plenty, and big fundamentalist churches.

I’ve always been perplexed as to why some high growth areas change politically and why others don’t. Do these transplants come here and assimilate with other like minded conservatives or do they come from areas that are already conservative? Do they seek out conservative Republican areas or is it just the nature of the beast in the suburbs/exurbs still (I feel that the exurbs are becoming worse and the suburbs better in the South)?

I’d appreciate anyone who has an experience living in one of these high growth suburban areas and what their analysis may be.

Another GA topic touched on in GA 2011 redistricting has been addressed below:

Democrats had control of the state legislature, governor’s mansion, and all but 2 statewide executive offices until 2002 and then from there saw a free fall starting with the GOV and state senate in 2002, then the state legislature in 2004 and finally the SOS and Lt. Governor in 2006* leaving us with only an 80 year old Ag Commissioner and two African Americans in as Attorney General and  Labor Commissioner (although both hold promise for future elections as GA becomes more and more black, especially Michael Thurmond the Labor Commissioner).

However things shifted dramatically back in Democrat’s favor in 2008 as Obama focused early on making GA a swing state (something he pulled back on later) cutting into 2004 margin by nearly 6 points. Yet the state party was somewhat ill prepared in picking up state legislative seats with only a net gain of 2 in 2008.

Demographic changes and a revised message more appealing to moderate suburban dwellers is the key to Democrats future. I might take until 2016 or 2018 until Democrats see a major statewide victory but it looks pretty inevitable gains will be made.

*Both ran for Governor, creating a highly divisive nasty primary that culminated into a nasty November result (worst performance ever for a Democrat for governor).

Further is a more detailed analysis of Georgia’s electoral future:

Atlanta’s population has been growing at a pretty healthy clip last I checked and it is now big as it was 20 something years ago which is incredible considering the opposing trend that was 50 plus years old (it is also becoming whiter and more liberal). That growing move-in trend will continue to have a significant electoral impact as strategies for winning the state are devised. While the black-majority rural areas and mid-size cities will continue to play an important role, the white conservative rural areas will largely be avoided (sans-Jim Marshall) in the coming years.

Fulton and Dekalb will grow to play an enormous influence in GOTV efforts and Gwinnett and Cobb counties will become important swing regions as they grow and diversify as Rockdale and Douglas already have. Again as mention above the forgotten yet increasingly important strategy will be to stop the bleeding in the 100K population suburban area counties such as Forsyth and Cherokee (smaller yet growing counties like Columbia, Jackson, Paulding, Barrow and Walton are pretty brutal as well). The key to victory lies in mitigating our losses in these new red bastions as we make greater inroads in the older, more built up suburbs while executing brilliant GOTV stragies in Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton, Richmond, Muscogee, Chatham and Clarke (Again I don’t think the Atlanta only campaign, while gaining credibility as a statewide strategy, could work without these mid-size cities involved example: Martin in 2008).  

MI-Gov: Cherry’s Numbers Are the Pits

Marketing Resource Group for Inside Michigan Politics (3/4-3/10, registered voters):

John Cherry (D): 34

Mike Cox (R): 41

John Cherry (D): 34

Terri Lynn Land (R): 39

John Cherry (D): 34

L. Brooks Patterson (R): 38

L. Brooks Patterson (R): 22

Peter Hoekstra (R): 17

Mike Cox (R): 15

Terri Lynn Land (R): 12

(MoE: ±4.1%)

People in the know about Michigan politics have been warning us that, despite its blue-state status, we’re going to face an uphill fight to retain the open gubernatorial seat in Michigan. Much of the public ire with Michigan’s dire economic straits seems to be aimed toward Jennifer Granholm’s administration, and with her #2, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, as the Dems’ likeliest nominee, that’s a problem for us. With this poll commissioned by local politics newsletter Inside Michigan Politics, we have some confirmation, as all three head-to-heads show Cherry trailing Republican rivals.

While Cherry fares the worst against Attorney General Mike Cox (cue Beavis & Butthead-style laughter here…), Cherry also loses by narrower margins to SoS Terri Lynn Land and Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson. Cox, however, isn’t in a good position in the primary; Patterson, with high name rec in the Detroit suburbs, beats him, as does retiring Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who has a strong base in the Grand Rapids area. (No Cherry/Hoekstra matchup was released.)

The writeup in the Detroit Free Press also alludes to Democratic primary results, although it doesn’t give specific numbers. Cherry easily dispatches Daniel Mulhern (Granholm’s husband, who’s said he isn’t running), ex-Michigan St. football coach George Perles, and state House Speaker Andy Dillon. Dillon is term-limited out of the House in 2010 and is apparently interested enough in the governor’s race to forego a challenge in MI-11 to the vulnerable Thad McCotter; I’d be very interested to see how Dillon polls in head-to-heads against the leading GOPers, to see if the problems are specific to Cherry or if there’s a bigger problem with the Democratic brand in Michigan right now.

Things to pay attention to when considering a candidate’s electability

Note: some of these things only apply to incumbents, while some only apply to challengers.

* political positions on issues, as advertised and/or as perceived by people

** how easily said perception can be changed (versus how cemented it already is)

* actual political positions as based on voting records, and whether this is different from the above

* fit to the district based on perceived ideology

* fit to the district based on actual ideology

* constituent services (can seriously make up for bad fits)

* backbencher versus leader

* teflon-coated-ness versus controversy generation (also known as gaffe/misbehavior probability)

* campaigning style–what is it suitable for (liberals, moderates, conservatives, liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, rural voters, suburban voters, urban voters, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, etc.)

* campaigning effort and effectiveness (some people are just lazy campaigners or haven’t adapted well to a new district’s style or such)

* charisma

* length of incumbency

* vote percentages in previous elections

* previous positions held, victories, and losses

* scandals (current and past)

* anything that dirty tactics can target (shouldn’t be a deciding factor, but should be paid attention to be ready to defend against)

* fundraising capability and fund availability

* fund usage capability (campaign on a dime?)

Anything else?

And is there a way we can distill this?  Though I’m sure some professional strategists already have some sort of abbreviated list that they use in their line of work.

SSP Daily Digest: 3/19

NC-Sen: If Richard Burr wants to be re-elected, there’s one big problem he’s going to have to overcome: his constituents don’t seem to have any idea who he is. PPP finds that his approval ratings are only 35%. That sounds dire, but he’s actually on the plus-side of the ledger, with 32% disapproval. That leaves 33% who don’t know, which is huge considering that he’s been in office for more than four years now. They also run a head-to-head for Burr against Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who seems to have no intention to run); Burr wins 43-35.

CA-10: The field in California’s 10th district to replace Ellen Tauscher in a special election seems to be taking shape. As expected, the district’s two heavyweights, state senator Mark DeSaulnier and assemblyman Tom Torlakson (who recently swapped seats because of term limits), are jockeying for position. (Politico suggests several other possible Dems include assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, and Santa Monica city councilor and Kennedy clan member Bobby Shriver, who’s interested despite currently being about 400 miles outside the district.) While Obama won the district 65-33, the GOP isn’t going down without a fight; their possible candidates include San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson and former 49er Bret Jones.

CT-Sen: Chris Dodd, who already has enough egg on his face to make a big omelette, got even messier with his admission that he inserted the language that allowed payment of the AIG bonuses. Nevertheless, he told the Hartford Courant today that he’s not retiring and is still in the race for 2010.

OK-05: Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett, a potential contender for the open seat being vacated by gubernatorial candidate Mary Fallin, was making the rounds on Capitol Hill today. Cornett, who lost in the primary to Fallin in 2006, is still officially undecided on the race. The Club for Growth has already endorsed former state rep. Kevin Calvey. Other possible GOPers in the race include Corporation Commissioners Jeff Cloud and Bob Anthony, state senators Todd Lamb and Glenn Coffee, and state rep. Mike Thompson.

LA-02: The NRCC isn’t letting go of this one without at least some token efforts; NRCC leaders Pete Sessions and Mike Rogers, along with Charles Boustany, are hosting a lunchtime fundraiser for Joe Cao today.

How many states allow counting of absentee ballots before election day?

Sorry for the quick-hit diary, but I have a question for the Swing State Project community based on a story the Iowa Voters Blog brought to my attention.

On Tuesday the Iowa House approved a law that would allow absentee ballots to be counted before election day. (Click here to read the text of HF 670.)

Iowa Voters writes in a satirical style but raises a lot of valid concerns about this bill:

Don’t worry about this affecting the election by giving one side a warning that the results may be close. Don’t worry-it will be illegal to leak this information even though some highly political people at the courthouse will know the information on the absentee results. Don’t worry even if the county auditor himself is in a tight re-election race. Having his staff counting the ballots on Monday won’t allow him to be warned about his imminent defeat on Tuesday. Don’t think that the people who went to jail in Ohio for rigging the recount in 2004 have any cousins in Iowa election departments.

I can’t see any public interest served by this bill. Even though early voting has grown in Iowa, with about a third of the electorate casting early ballots last fall, we still got our election results promptly. It’s not as if it took days for those officials to count the absentee ballots.

Are there any other states that allow the practice of counting absentee ballots before election day? Am I crazy, or is this bill a solution in search of a problem?  

*Tenative* CDs That Changed the Most from 2004-2008

Ok, based off the suggestion by fitchfan28 and the classic diary by Cristitunity, I have put together a list of the district of the districts that moved the most from Kerry to Obama and of the ones that moved the most from Bush to McCain based off of the official 2004 results and SSP’s 2008 Crowdsurfing results.

I say tentative because I still need post-2005-redistricting #s for Georgia and post-2006 ruling on League of Latin American Voters v. Perry redistricting #s for Texas. Also, if anyone sees any problems with these numbers, please point them out.

So, without further ado:

Ranking District Representative Obama Vote Kerry Vote Difference
1 HI-01 Neal Abercrombie 70.43% 52.72% 17.71%
2 HI-02 Mazie Hirono 73.14% 55.98% 17.16%
3 IN-04 Steve Buyer 43.01% 30.11% 12.90%
4 IN-07 Andre Carson 70.89% 58.35% 12.54%
5 IN-05 Dan Burton 40.24% 28.15% 12.09%
6 NE-02 Lee Terry 49.97% 38.46% 11.51%
7 CA-47 Loretta Sanchez 60.14% 48.66% 11.48%
8 IL-08 Melissa Bean 55.74% 44.27% 11.47%
9 IN-03 Mark Souder 42.84% 31.45% 11.39%
10 IL-14 Bill Foster 54.83% 43.87% 10.96%
           
11 IN-06 Mike Pence 46.18% 35.29% 10.89%
12 IN-02 Joe Donnelly 54.10% 43.23% 10.87%
13 GA-13 David Scott 70.85% 60% 10.85%
14 TX-15 Ruben Hinojosa 59.82% 49% 10.82%
15 TX-28 Henry Cueller 55.93% 46% 9.93%
16 CA-18 Dennis Cardoza 59.24% 49.36% 9.88%
17 CA-43 Joe Baca 67.96% 58.19% 9.77%
18 CA-51 Bob Filner 63.11% 53.35% 9.76%
19 PA-16 Joe Pitts 47.74% 38.05% 9.69%
20 IN-08 Brad Ellsworth 47.42% 37.76% 9.66%
           
21 CA-44 Ken Calvert 49.51% 39.92% 9.59%
22 CA-25 Buck McKeon 49.45% 39.90% 9.55%
23 TX-24 Kenny Marchant 44.37% 34.90% 9.47%
24 IL-13 Judy Biggert 54.21% 44.76% 9.45%
25 IL-06 Peter Roskam 55.91% 46.60% 9.31%
25 TX-16 Silvestre Reyes 65.81% 56.50% 9.31%
27 DE-AL Mike Castle 62.63% 53.35% 9.28%
27 VA-03 Bobby Scott 75.52% 66.24% 9.28%
27 GA-07 John Linder 39.28% 30% 9.28%
30 ND-AL Earl Pomeroy 44.62% 35.50% 9.12%

Lots of big movement here. A few of the biggest trends seem to be

1. Indiana & Hawaii. ’nuff said.

2. A lot of Hispanic-heavy districts that Bush won or did fairly well in bounced back as McCain’s support collapsed among this once swing demographic.

3. Not as many Illinois districts are here as I would have expected, though the movement in suburban and exburban Chicago is impressive.

4. Biggest WTF: PA-18. Seriously, what’s happening here?

You’ll notice that like I said, the numbers for GA-07, GA-13, TX-15, & TX-28 are tentative. GA-07 and TX-15 appear to be on the list no matter what, but if one or both of the others end up falling off, #31 is WI-08 with a 8.99% shift and #32 is NM-01 with a 8.98% shift.

Moving on to districts where McCain built on Bush:

Ranking District Representative McCain Vote Bush ’04 Vote Difference
1 AR-01 Marion Berry 58.69% 51.66% 7.03%
2 AR-04 Mike Ross 58.14% 51.36% 6.78%
3 KY-05 Hal Rogers 67.01% 60.52% 6.49%
4 OK-02 Dan Boren 65.59% 59.38% 6.21%
5 TN-04 Lincoln Davis 64.06% 58.02% 6.04%
6 AL-04 Robert Aderholt 76.32% 71.25% 5.07%
7 LA-07 Charles Boustany 63.14% 59.72%
3.42%
8 LA-03 Charlie Melancon 60.99% 57.72% 3.27%
9 TN-08 John Tanner 56.01% 52.76% 3.25%
10 MA-09 Stephen Lynch 38.50% 35.75% 2.75%
           
11 AR-02 Vic Snyder 53.98% 51.44% 2.54%
12 WV-03 Nick Rahall 55.76% 53.21% 2.55%
13 LA-01 Steve Scalise 72.72% 70.52% 2.20%
14 TN-06 Bart Gordon 61.87% 59.71% 2.16%
15 AR-03 John Boozman 64.16% 62.27% 1.89%
16 TN-01 Phil Roe 69.77% 67.91% +1.86%
17 TX-08 Kevin Brady 73.76% 72.47% 1.29%
18 MA-04 Barney Frank 34.67% 33.48% 1.19%
19 AL-05 Parker Griffith 60.91% 59.74% 1.17%
20 OK-03 Frank Lucas 72.82% 71.71% 1.11%

…it’s all a little sad, isn’t it?

The trends here seem pretty obvious, that that infamous stretch of land from West Virginia down to Louisiana and Alabama and over into Oklahoma and rural west Texas where Obama collapsed made up almost all of McCain’s gains. A few minor corrections from the native son effect of John Kerry in MA round out the rest of McCain’s gains.

Just in case you were wondering, district #21? None other than the only Kerry-McCain district in the country, PA-12.