Month: September 2009

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Is Ohio a liberal place? Or is it a conservative place?

I suspect far more people would say the latter rather than the former.

In many respects, Ohio is politically similar to Florida. Both are well-known swing states that hold a bountiful electoral prize. Both lean Republican. Both have large cites that function as pools of Democratic votes. Both also have considerable rural, Republican regions.

But in other ways they could not be more different. Sunny Florida is diverse, growing, and service-oriented. While Florida often votes Republican, it is not exactly conservative. Cold, northern Ohio is a rust-belt giant. It is not very diverse. It is definitely not growing. Florida is new. Ohio is old and conservative.

For the moment Ohio is a bit more conservative than the country at large. For the past eight out of nine presidential elections, it has been a bit redder than the nation. Not much redder, but enough to be noticeable.

I do not think that the future looks bright for the Democratic Party in Ohio. The two are moving in opposite directions. Demographically, Ohio is staying static while the country at large changes. And there are not many truly liberal spots in Ohio – places like Boulder, CO or Seattle. There never were.

Ohio has a lot of unionized, working-class folk who are still voting against Herbert Hoover; they are a core part of its Democratic base. I am not sure how long they will continue to support a party that is becoming, quite frankly, fairly upper-class in ethos. People in West Virginia certainly don’t anymore.

Not that Ohio is doomed to become a Republican stronghold. Places like Columbus are rapidly turning blue, perhaps fast enough to offset losses in working-class counties. And it isn’t inevitable that those counties will start voting Republican. If West Virginia is a prime example of working-class voters who deserted the Democratic Party, Michigan is a prime example of working-class voters that still support it. Barack Obama won a landslide in that state.

Nevertheless, my gut still tells me that Ohio and the Democratic Party are shifting farther and farther away from each other. These things can reveal themselves very quickly in politics. In 1988, California was a red state that had voted Republican for six elections in a row. Then one day it was won by Bill Clinton – and it has never gone back since then. In 1996 West Virginia had gone blue for five out of the past six elections. Then George Bush won the state – and now we consider it a rock-hard Republican state.

That may be the fate of Ohio.

Jon Cooper said it was an eye-opening moment for him. He was watching the press conference announcing Governor David Paterson’s selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to serve as New York’s junior U.S. senator. His spouse Rob inquired out loud if that was former Senator Alfonse D’Amato standing on the platform with her.

Last week, I spoke with Cooper about his possible candidacy, his career and why he is interested in running for a seat that was once held by Hillary Clinton, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert F. Kennedy.

At first, Cooper dismissed the notion that a former Republican U.S. senator from New York – the same man Senator Chuck Schumer beat in 1998 – would be at a ceremony for Republicans. But, much to his dismay, there D’Amato stood mere feet away from Gillibrand as she was introduced as New York’s newest senator.

Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn’t just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can’t help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.

“Her past position (on gun control) was of concern,” he said. “There are some people are distrustful of her evolution on this and other issues and are concerned about what they see as flip-flopping and see this as insincere or they question her character. I’m not saying I do. But there are those who do.”

For Cooper, however, it is different. He is not yet a declared candidate but he is touting his own record and why, if he were to run, he should be considered a serious contender to Gillibrand.

“I have, many times over the years, took stances that might not have been politically popular with my constituents but I believed it was the right thing to do,” he said.

As an openly gay and happily married man, Cooper is the father of five children he and his spouse Rob have adopted. He has served 10 years on the Suffolk County Legislature and currently is the majority leader for the legislature’s Democrats. He lists two key pieces of legislation as highlights of his career. He wrote the first law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in the country. Since then, a number of states (including New York) have adopted such laws. In addition to that, Cooper also authored legislation that banned the sale of ephedra. That effort led to the federal government imposing a ban on the dietary supplement.

Jobs and the economy is an area that Cooper knows all too well. Cooper is running the family business, Spectronics Corporation, in Westbury. He said that while he is on the corporate side of things, he also is very much pro-labor and supports workers.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, Cooper backed an underdog named Barack Obama. Cooper was the first elected official from New York to endorse Obama and went on to be the Long Island chair of the Obama campaign. He said that, at the time, people asked him if he realized the political risk he was taking. Cooper said he had supported Hillary Clinton in the past but once he met Obama, he was sold. It was through the Obama campaign that Cooper met many grassroots organizers, some of whom are now aiding him in his exploratory efforts and organizing meet and greets throughout the state for people to meet him. Cooper was in upstate New York this weekend meeting voters in Buffalo and Rochester and will be back in upstate New York again, especially if he decides to run.

Cooper knows that he has a long way to go. He realizes that Gillibrand has millions in her bankroll. He realizes that she has received nearly every county chair’s endorsement to date. But one thing he references to is that Obama was counted out too. No one thought Hillary Clinton could be beaten. But with the greatest grassroots campaign ever, Obama pulled it out in the primary and won the general election.

A vast majority of Obama organizers and activists that Cooper worked with in 2008 are urging him to run and are supporting him. Democratic clubs have urged him to run. Progressives are supporting him. And while he says he isn’t comparing himself to Obama, the comparisons are glaring.

“The party establishment, for the most part, quite understandably is falling in line behind our Democratic incumbent senator regardless of how she got to that office,” he said. “But she’s the incumbent Democrat now and I expect most of the political establishment to back her. But a lot of the grassroots leaders that had been early supporters of Obama seem to be lining up behind me or at the very least, urging me to run so that we will have a choice, which is what this is all about: Offering Democrats in New York State a choice.”

While Cooper doesn’t have a full slate of issues on his platform yet (understandable at this stage), his platform stresses the importance of economic development, pushes for progressive values and support of the environment and the fight for health care, consumer protection, gun safety and middle class tax cuts.

So when will we know whether or not Cooper is running? He says by the end of the year he will have a decision. He is testing the waters right now to see just how much support he has and what the response is statewide. I spoke with him over the weekend and he seemed to be very pleased and excited by the response in Buffalo and Rochester. So we’ll see just how far he is willing to go and if he is going to make an upset bid for the U.S. Senate.

Politico, who last week broke the story of the (at the time seemingly improbable) possibility of Tim Griffin running against Vic Snyder in Arkansas’s 2nd District, now reports today that Griffin is running:

“The people of Central Arkansas deserve a congressman who shares their values and represents their views,” Griffin said in an e-mail to POLITICO.

“I am grateful and excited about the encouragement and support that I have received and look forward to discussing the many critical issues facing Arkansans, including health care, cap and trade and out of control spending.”

First, this has to be viewed as a big recruiting score for the NRCC. Griffin is well-known in Beltway circles (probably better known than he is back in Arkansas), as he was briefly the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas’s Eastern District (he took over for Bud Cummins, one of the disappeared USAs from the U.S. Attorney dismissal scandal) and before that he was right-hand-man to Karl Rove. Vic Snyder ran without GOP opposition in 2008, so even getting someone to show up here, let alone someone with nimble political skills and fundraising connections, is a victory for the GOP.

Still, a few things still aren’t computing for me, here. Griffin had considered running for the Senate seat that Blanche Lincoln holds, but decided against it. Despite the fact that he’s never run for an elective office before, conventional wisdom dictated at the time that he’d be a better bet than any of the gaggle of nobodies running for the GOP Senate nod, and yet he demurred. And there were certainly warning signs at that time that Lincoln might be vulnerable (since confirmed in recent polling). Also, Snyder isn’t a pushover by any means; he’s been in the House since 1996 and has rarely faced opposition, let alone meaningful opposition. Snyder’s bankroll is notoriously small ($12K CoH in June), but that’s because he just as notoriously doesn’t fundraise in off year elections… largely because he’s never had to. Add on top of that, this is Arkansas’s most favorable district to Dems (at R+5), an urban district (Little Rock) where the bottom fell out for Dems much less in the 2008 election than the more rural 1st and 4th.

So why would Griffin turn down a Senate race that he was originally highly touted for, in order to take on what should be a much more difficult and simultaneously less prestigious race? Maybe there’s a working assumption here that Snyder (unlike Lincoln) either can’t or won’t fundraise when facing a well-funded challenger, or otherwise will falter when facing someone who knows what he’s doing. Either that, or Griffin decided this summer, what with the changing political tides, to run after all — but the NRSC, seemingly satisfied with the candidacy of state Sen. Gilbert Baker, boxed him out, leaving him looking a little further down the totem pole. Or there’s one final possibility: Griffin, who cut his teeth doing opposition research for the RNC, knows something else about Snyder that apparently no one else knows.

(UPDATE: Here’s a nice 2008 piece from Glenn Greenwald with some details on Griffin’s backstory, especially his behind-the-scenes involvement in the 2000 and 2004 vote counts… and his relationship with Politico itself, which may explain his choice of venue for his announcement.)

RaceTracker: AR-02

• MA-Sen: Here’s another academic name popping up in connect with Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat. The Center for American Progress Action Fund thinks that Deval Patrick should appoint Harvard prof and Boston-based surgeon Atul Gawande to the post. Gawande is best-known these days for his seminal article this summer in the New Yorker about health-care costs, but he also was a healthcare advisor to Bill Clinton in the early 90s. (D)

Also in the Bay State, Rep. Mike Capuano got a potentially helpful endorsement, from fellow Rep. Barney Frank. Frank’s imprimatur may help Capuano prove his liberal bona fides and win over some voters in the Boston suburbs who may not be familiar with him.

• NH-Sen: Despite Kelly Ayotte’s reputed field-clearing abilities, yet another Republican is adding his name to the list of possible candidates in the New Hampshire Senate race. Real estate investor William Binnie is quite literally from the country club wing of the GOP — he’s owner and president of the Wentworth-by-the-Sea Country Club and owner/driver of an auto racing team. Another suggestion he may be running to the left of Ayotte (although her intentionally amorphous political persona gives no clue about her ideology); Binnie is tight with moderate GOP ex-Rep. Andrew Zeliff, and has given money to Democratic candidates in the past.

• TX-Sen: Rumors out of Texas have Kay Bailey Hutchison resigning her seat at year’s end (on Dec. 31 or Jan. 1) in order to pursue her gubernatorial bid against Rick Perry. Under Texas law, this would lead to a short-term appointment, and then a special election on May 8.

• IA-Gov: Incumbent Dem Chet Culver continues to sport rather good favorables, clocking in at 50/37, but his re-elect numbers may give him some pause (28% say “definitely vote for,” 27% say “consider an alternative,” and 21% say “definitely vote for alternative”). Republican ex-Gov. Terry Branstad, who’s been receptive to the idea of a bid for a return to office, is still remembered fondly by Iowans, with favorables of 59/22. Sen. Chuck Grassley is the state’s best-liked figure, though, with 64% favorables and a 45% “definitely vote for.” (H/t Steve Benen.)

• NJ-Gov (pdf): Neighborhood Research is a Republican internal pollster (they worked with primary loser Steve Lonegan), but they were the first pollster to find Jon Corzine moving back within the margin of error. They’re back with a new poll, showing Corzine still within striking distance, trailing Chris Christie 37-33 (although that’s down from their August finding of 37-35) with Chris Daggett at 6. Meanwhile, Chris Daggett has joined a voter suit challenging ballot ordering in New Jersey, which favors the two major-party candidates.

• PA-Gov: Montgomery County Commissioner and ex-Rep. Joe Hoeffel says he’s moving ahead with plans to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. No formal announcement date is set, but the progressive from the Philly suburbs is starting to staff up, and is bolstered by an internal poll he commissioned through Lake Research, showing him leading the nebulous field at 15%, with Allegheny County Exec Dan Onorato and state Auditor Jack Wagner both at 12, Scranton mayor Chris Doherty at 6, and Philly businessman Tom Knox at 5.

• NY-23: With the 23rd now officially vacant, Dem candidate Bill Owens is the first to put up a TV spot. He stresses his military roots and efforts to generated jobs via the redevelopment of the old Plattsburgh AFB.

• TN-01: Get ready for Roe vs. Davis III in the 1st. Ex-Rep. David Davis, who defeated current Rep. Phil Roe in the 2006 GOP primary and then lost the 2008 GOP primary to him (in this R+21 district), has been publicly blasting Roe’s record.

• NY-Lt. Gov: On Friday, Sept. 11th, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, heard oral arguments regarding David Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as Lt. Governor. According to reports, Paterson’s camp seemed to have gotten its most favorable treatment to date. Lawyers on both sides, says the NYT, expect a decision within two weeks, which would mean the end of this week or the beginning of next. One possibility is that the court could rule that Republican leader Dean Skelos simply didn’t have standing to sue, which would leave the Ravitch appointment intact. (D)

• NYC-Mayor: Marist finds that Democratic city Comptroller William Thompson, despite a convincing primary win, still trails Independent/Republican incumbent Mike Bloomberg in the general, 50-39 among RVs and 52-43 among LVs. It’s still some improvement for Thompson, who trailed 48-35 among RVs in July.

• Ads: Conservative PAC the Family Research Council has published its own target list for the 2010 cycle: Michael Bennet and Chris Dodd, plus the Missouri and Ohio open seats, in the Senate, and John Boccieri, Steve Driehaus, Parker Griffith, Mary Jo Kilroy, Ann Kirkpatrick, Betsy Markey, Walt Minnick, John Murtha, Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello, and Dina Titus in the House.

Marriage equality is here to stay in Iowa, if the latest statewide poll for the Des Moines Register is any guide:

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. […]

The overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. […]

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April’s unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don’t care much or are not sure.

Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.

Selzer and Co. surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

I recommend clicking through to view the chart showing the breakdown by party affiliation on this issue. Among independents, only 44 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision that cleared the way for marriage equality, while 32 percent “don’t care much” and 22 percent either favor or strongly favor it.

Many Iowa Republicans are convinced that they can gain traction in next year’s legislative elections by bashing statehouse Democrats who oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, the Republican candidate fell just short in the recent special election in Iowa House district 90, even though the National Organization for Marriage poured nearly $90,000 into ads supporting the Republican because of the marriage issue. (The NOM plans to be involved in next year’s Iowa elections as well.)

A poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog in July indicated that two-thirds of Iowans wanted a public vote on same-sex marriage, but that poll framed the question as follows: “The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, do you think Iowa voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution or is the issue best decided by the Supreme Court?” Todd Dorman was right to point out that it would have been more enlightening to ask respondents how they would vote on a marriage amendment.

The Register’s poll could strengthen the hand of moderate Iowa Republicans like Doug Gross, who have been saying all year that the GOP should downplay divisive social issues and focus on the economy in next year’s elections. On the other hand, 51 percent of Republicans surveyed by Selzer and Co strongly oppose the Supreme Court decision, while 11 percent just oppose the decision, 27 percent don’t care much and only 10 percent either favor or strongly favor it. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats promises to issue an executive order on day one halting same-sex marriages if elected, and he will find plenty of support among the Republican rank and file.

I’ve been telling my friends, “Don’t worry, be happy,” since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision in April. I figured that with each passing year, more Iowans would understand that no one is harmed and thousands are helped by granting gays and lesbians civil marriage rights. I also felt that Republicans would not be able to win many races on this issue in 2010, let alone in subsequent years. Still, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a poll this year showing majority support for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Learning that a constitutional amendment on marriage lacks majority support even now makes me that much more optimistic. The constitutional amendment process is lengthy in Iowa.

Now it’s imperative to defeat Proposition 1 in Maine this November. Please help if you can.

SSP is changing its ratings on eight Senate and gubernatorial races:

• AR-Sen: Safe D to Likely D
• CA-Sen: Safe D to RTW
• CO-Gov: Lean D to Tossup
• IA-Gov: RTW to Likely D
• MA-Gov: Lean D to Tossup
• NV-Sen: Likely D to Tossup
• NY-Sen-B: Safe D to RTW
• WI-Gov: Lean D to Tossup

We’ll be posting full write-ups for these changes soon. Our full race ratings charts: Gov | Sen.

This is pretty remarkable:

President Obama and his political team is worried that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, and have signaled to him he should not run, two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation said Saturday.

The move represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.Top Democrats have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

But Paterson isn’t backing down in the face of what has to be unimaginable pressure:

“I have said time and time again that I am running for governor next year,” he said at the 40th annual African-American Day Parade.

This is now the second statewide race in New York this cycle where Obama’s tried to urge someone to drop out – remember, he personally phoned up Steve Israel and told him to back off a primary challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand. Yet even though I’m completely done with Paterson, this latest move makes me uncomfortable. For a sitting president to try to push an incumbent governor out of running for re-election seems like a bridge too far. So far as I know, even Dick Cheney didn’t try this (or at least, didn’t try this publicly) with loser GOP govs like Frank Murkowski (AK) and Ernie Feltcher (KY).

And where does it end? A lot of Democratic governors have crappy approval ratings these days, such as Deval Patrick, Jon Corzine and Bill Ritter. Obviously each race is different, but is everyone supposed to be on notice now? Is this what the 3 am phone call is going to turn out to be?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m firmly in the “Paterson should not run again” camp. I’m also not the kind of person to shed a tear about candidates who decide to drop out because they can’t hack it and then blame “the establishment.” But when the president gets involved, that just seems over-the-top to me, and in these particular circumstances, it seems completely unnecessary, too. If Andy Cuomo were to run, he’d obliterate Paterson, and, if need be, Rudy Giuliani as well. And our congressional candidates would have a very popular attorney general running for governor at the top of the ticket. So really, what’s going on here?

The Sunday Des Moines Register published results from its latest Iowa poll. Selzer and Associates surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16 (click here and scroll down to read the questionnaire).  

50 percent of respondents approve of Democratic Governor Chet Culver’s performance, while 39 percent disapprove. The last Iowa poll for the Register, published in April, found Culver’s approval rating at 55 percent. Culver’s re-elect number continues to drop, which is a bit worrying. In this poll, only 28 percent of respondents said they would definitely vote to re-elect Culver, while 27 percent would consider an alternative and 21 percent would definitely vote for an alternative.

On the other hand, Culver’s approval numbers are still net positive, which isn’t bad given the state of the economy. The right direction/wrong track numbers in this poll are 48/41.

Survey USA has had Culver in net negative territory for most of the year, but it looks to me like that pollster has some kind of negative house effect. The only public polls showing Culver below 50 percent approval this year have been by Survey USA. The Register poll’s approval numbers for Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin are also more than 10 points above Survey USA’s comparable numbers.

The Register’s new poll may encourage former four-term Governor Terry Branstad to take the plunge, as it shows 70 percent of respondents approve of the job he did as governor. Branstad’s favorability rating is 59 percent, a bit higher than Culver’s 55 percent. Political columnist Kathie Obradovich suggested that these numbers should “incinerate” any doubts Branstad might have about getting back into politics.

I see the results somewhat differently. Today’s numbers are probably Branstad’s high water mark, since no one has campaigned against him for 15 years. Once he becomes a candidate, his real record, as opposed to the Draft Branstad PAC’s version, will get more scrutiny. Yet even today’s poll indicates that just 48 percent of all respondents think it would be a good idea for Branstad to run for governor again (36 percent thought it would be a bad idea).

Among Republicans, 60 percent thought Branstad should run. However, 26 percent of Republicans thought that would be a bad idea. Again, that’s before anyone seriously campaigns against him. I assume Branstad would win a GOP primary by a healthy margin, but he will have to fight for it, and a significant proportion of Republicans won’t welcome his return. Will he be able to count on disappointed party members to vote for him, or activists to volunteer for him next November? He’ll need help to overcome Iowa Democrats’ voter registration advantage, which Branstad never faced in any of his previous elections.

If I were Branstad, the most worrying sign in the Register’s poll would be something else Obradovich mentioned in her column on Sunday:

The former governor’s biggest problem comes from seniors, who are usually dependable voters. Among the 65-and-older set, nearly half think it’s a bad idea for Branstad to run again. Only about three in 10 said it’s a good idea.

It’s telling that Iowans who were adults during the entirety of Branstad’s tenure as governor, and are old enough to remember his predecessor Bob Ray, are the least likely to want Branstad back in politics. In contrast, various polls have indicated that Culver’s support is higher among over-50 Iowans than in the population as a whole. (I didn’t see the age breakdown for Culver’s numbers in this poll.)

Doubts about Branstad are likely to grow when the inevitable negative commercials hit the airwaves, focusing on the Mastercard governor’s two sets of books or his failure to deliver on some key promises made to Republicans.

No wonder longtime political observers like Des Moines Register columnist Marc Hansen and Civic Skinny’s unnamed source think it would be a mistake for Branstad to run for governor again.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Three new polls have come out over the past few days of the Virginia gubernatorial race. Let’s run through all three, starting with the newest.

Taylor Nelson Sofres for the Washington Post (9/14-17, likely voters, 8/11-14 in parens):

Creigh Deeds (D): 47 (39)

Bob McDonnell (R): 51 (54)

Undecided: 2 (7)

(MoE: ±3.1%)

WaPo has more on where these new Deeds voters are coming from:

Following news coverage of the thesis, the poll offers fresh evidence the tactic might be working: The percentage of likely voters who see McDonnell as “too conservative” has jumped 10 points since the August poll and corresponds with a double-digit increase in the number seeing Deeds as “just about right” ideologically. The percentage of independent female voters seeing McDonnell as too conservative is now significantly higher than it had been.

In August, independent women favored McDonnell 59 to 31 percent; now they split 50 percent for Deeds to 47 percent for McDonnell. […]

In Northern Virginia, where statewide Democrats have been successful but Deeds was slow to win support, he now leads McDonnell, 57 to 40 percent, among likely voters. In the innermost Washington suburbs, Deeds leads 63 to 34 percent. A month ago, the two men were running about even in Northern Virginia.

Nearly half of likely voters, 46 percent, say they have heard a “great deal” or a “good amount” about the thesis, and among those who say it will affect their vote, the influence is broadly negative. Most, though, see the thesis as not having an impact, and very few — less than 1 percent — call the thesis the most important issue in the campaign.

However, GOP voters are still more pumped up about voting — 36% of McDonnell supporters are “very enthusiastic” about voting for their candidate, while only 22% of Deeds supporters feel the same way. That’s a higher score for both candidates than they received in last month’s poll, but McDonnell had the bigger gain.

Less optimistic is the latest Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (9/14-16, likely voters, 8/3-5 in parens):

Creigh Deeds (D): 43 (43)

Bob McDonnell (R): 50 (51)

Undecided: 7 (6)

(MoE: ±4%)

The needle barely budged here despite McDonnell’s thesis blow-up. (Indeed, women prefer Deeds by only a three-point margin, which is barely changed from Deeds’ one-point lead in August.) Others are reading the needle a little differently.

Rasmussen, which hasn’t been earning too many accolades in the comments section lately, came in on Thursday with numbers that err on the side of TNS (9/16, likely voters, 8/10 in parens):

Creigh Deeds (D): 46 (41)

Bob McDonnell (R): 48 (49)

Undecided: 5 (7)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the last part of an analysis on the swing state Florida.

Miami-Dade County

Here is how John Kerry did in south Florida:



Here is how Barack Obama performed:



Broward and Palm Beach are marginally smaller, when compared to Obama’s performance. The big difference, however, is with Miami-Dade. Kerry won it by 6%; Obama won it by 16%.

There is no other place in Florida (and, perhaps, the country) like Miami-Dade. Palm Beach and Broward counties are retiree destinations; Miami is home to immigrants and refugees from all Latin America. More than 60% of the population is Latino – and only 3% of them come from Mexico. The Miami accent is unique compared with the nation. Local government is distinct from other counties in Florida.

One would expect Miami to be one of the most Democratic places in the nation, much like New York City or Chicago.

It is not.

Continued below the flip.

Obama won the five boroughs of New York City by 59%: a 4 to 1 margin. He won Cook County (Chicago) by 53%, with more than three-fourths of the vote. In contrast, Obama took 58% of Miami-Dade county – less than the amount by which he won New York City. The 2008 Democratic performance in Miami is comparable to their performance in cities such as Dallas (57% of the vote) and Sacramento (58% of the vote).

Much of this is due to the Cuban vote, the city’s largest demographic group. Refugees from Castro’s Cuba, staunchly anti-Communist, and faithful Republicans ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Cubans vote as strongly Republican as Jews vote Democratic. In 2000, George W. Bush won about four out of five Cubans, helped by Cuban anger over Al Gore’s role in the Elian Gonzalez affair. In 2008 Obama won around 35% of their vote, based on exit polls. This was the best performance of a Democrat with Cubans in recent memory.

Their influence ensures that Miami remains a competitive, Democratic-leaning city. Democrats usually end up winning it, but their margins are severely cut. And occasionally it will turn up in the Republican column – as happened during the 2004 Senate race. There, Mel Martinez, a Bush ally, won Miami-Dade on his way to a one percent victory.



Democrats often hopefully comment that demographic shifts will slowly move Cubans leftward, as a new generation of Cubans, less concerned with Castro and communism, replaces their more militant elders. Perhaps. But that process will be the work of decades, not a single election cycle. For the moment the Cuban vote remains strongly Republican.

In 2008 the Democrats challenged two entrenched, Republican congressmen in south Florida: the Cuban Diaz-Balart brothers. The races were closely watched, so much that the New York Times Magazine aired an article dedicated to them. In the end, both Republicans won by margins larger than expected. Their continuing presence points to the steadfastness of the Cuban Republican vote.



Conclusion

Of the three most commonly cited swing states, Florida is the most conservative. The state can be divided into unique blocs, each of which has a distinct culture. The first, northern Florida, shares much/is part of the Deep South. Voting patterns reflect this. The populous I-4 corridor – Florida’s so-called swing-region – leans Republican, although Democrats perform well in Tampa Bay and Orlando. Finally, south Florida – diverse and populous – is the Democratic base, although the Cuban vote in Miami blunts their strength.

Whether Florida will remain this way is uncertain. Florida is an immense and diverse state. It is home to the Panhandle and Miami – two places opposite as night and day. Most every part of America can be found in the varied peoples that reside there. And certainly, it will continue to be an important swing state, sought after by both parties. Whoever ends up winning Florida is well on his or her way to becoming president.