Month: January 2010

I’m as freaked out over Massachusetts as anyone – and I might be plenty angry/despondent/confused/hungover tomorrow morning.

But in the meantime, I’ve been working on a crude projection model using, in part, the “baseline” idea that Crisitunity and DavidNYC have made a part of SSP Election Night Tradition.

The model, as inputs, takes partial results from towns that have reported, and outputs a whole slew of numbers comparing the current situation to the “baseline” numbers.

Explanations below the flip.

So here’s the front end of the model:

http://spreadsheets.google.com…

You’ll see a few things:

• How Coakley and Brown are currently doing.
  

• How Obama was doing in 2008 with the same towns and parts of towns reporting.
  

• How a 2008 “baseline” Democrat on target to win by 1 vote would be doing.
  

• How Kerry was doing in 1996 against Bill Weld with the same towns and parts of towns reporting.
  

• How a 1996 “baseline” Democrat would be doing.
  

You’ll also see comparisons between Coakley’s performance and those of Obama, Kerry, and the two “baseline” Democrats.

Perhaps most significantly, you’ll see the “2010 Projection using 2008” line.

The model compares relative turnout between 2010 and 2008, and the relative performances of Coakley and Obama to project results from towns that have not yet reported.

The “2010 Projection using 1996” line does the same, except with 1996 data.

I’m not claiming this model is perfect. In fact, it’s pretty damn bad. I can think of a few glaring weaknesses:

• The fundamental problem of the ‘baseline’ idea: it assumes that every town will swing uniformly.
  

• Disparate turnout: this model compares turnout in aggregate, instead of at the town level. This may lead to an overestimation of turnout in areas with relatively low turnout (compared to 2008 and 1996) and the reverse in areas with relatively high turnout. This may potentially bias the projections in Coakley’s favor.
  

• Assumption of town uniformity: the model assumes that each town votes uniformly the same way, but…Jamaica Plain and Southie are not going to vote the same way, very simply. If a relatively Brown-friendly area of a town reports first, this will bias the projection in his favor. The reverse is true if a Coakley-friendly area reports first.
  

Incidentally, here are the blood and guts of the model: http://spreadsheets.google.com…

Update: In columns AS, AT, BB, and BC, you can see baselines for every town for both 2008 and 1996.

I threw in some junk results to test it, and so far I didn’t detect any coding errors. I don’t pretend that I’m better than the Associated Press – but I just want to have an idea of where we are at each point of the results phase.

Hopefully I’ll get a chance to keep this updated as results stream in tonight.

Lastly, if you live in Massachusetts, are reading this, and you haven’t voted (assuming you’re a citizen, not a convicted felon, etc..), what the hell’s wrong with you?!

Here’s hoping Coakley pulls this off.

The county baselines post has become a game day staple at Swing State Project for advanced elections-returns-watchers, and today’s no different. The basic idea here: find the bare minimum percentage in each major county that’s necessary to get the Democratic candidate over the hump at 50%. (That, of course, is predicated on all the counties moving the same direction as the presidential election the benchmarks are based on, which doesn’t actually happen in real life, but it’s a rough estimate.) As election returns come in, compare the benchmarks to the actual returns to see if we’re on track to win.

There’s one small problem here, which most of you are probably already familiar with: Massachusetts, and the other New England states, don’t report election results by county, but rather by town. With hundreds and hundreds of little towns, that’s a lot of ground to cover, so we’ll just look at the biggest, plus some towns in what seem to be the key areas to watch in this race.

In fact, let’s take a look at the state’s town-by-town map, created by our own DavidNYC (you can click on the map to see a full-size version):

This map is based on the relatively close 1996 Senate election between John Kerry and William Weld (a better choice here, because a map of the 2008 Presidential race would be almost entirely blue, and the 2002 gubernatorial race would be almost entirely red, with Romney winning the vast majority of towns). But it gives the general lay of the land in the state: the Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in Boston and its immediately surrounding cities. (There’s also a lot of low-density blue out in the college towns and arty enclaves of the Berkshires and Pioneer Valley in the west.) The red on the map is mostly rural and low-density too, so the real areas that we’re focused on today are the purplish and pinkish suburban turf to the north, west, and south of Boston.

Rather than just one model, I’m using two different models: one based on the high-turnout, high-Democratic-intensity 2008 presidential election (won by Barack Obama, 62-36), and the low-turnout, low-intensity 2002 gubernatorial election (won by Republican Mitt Romney, 50-45) — more generally, a best-case scenario for Dems and a worst-case scenario for Dems. With turnout projections high but not as high as yesterday (SoS William Galvin is predicting 40%), and weather mediocre, we’re probably looking at something somewhere in between, so consider these the bookends. Nevertheless, after making the necessary adjustments, both models, in most towns, point to very similar benchmarks.

Let’s start with the largest cities in Massachusetts (the ones that provide more than 1% of the state’s votes each). These aren’t really the places to watch, as they’re heavily Democratic (with the sort-of exception of Quincy) and the real question with them is whether turnout is keeping pace proportionately with the rest of the state.

Democratic performance in most of the state, as you can see above, stayed fairly consistent with the rise in the tide from 2002 to 2008. Statewide, Democratic performance went from 45% to 62% (a 17% gain), and, for example, Boston followed that closely, going from 61% to 79% (an 18% gain). Many other towns tracked that, too; for instance, the most conservative parts of the state (like Falmouth and Sandwich on Cape Cod, or the suburbs around Lowell) also moved about 16 to 18% in the Dems’ direction.

The interesting areas are the ones where the movement was much greater — these tend to be the wealthier areas in the state, fancy Middlesex Co. suburbs like Wellesley or North Shore towns in Essex Co., consistent with Obama’s overperformance nationwide among high-income voters — and where the movement was much less — mostly in blue-collar towns of the South Shore, as well as other blue-collar outposts in the state’s west. To me, these seem to be the swingy areas, and the ones most worth watching, especially since the trends may (or may not) continue to accelerate today — upper-middle-class voters may be attracted to Coakley’s technocratic image (especially those in Middlesex Co., where she was DA) or they may revert to liking the fiscal conservatism that they saw in Romney, while blue-collar voters seem likely to respond to Brown’s regular-guy shtick but may also be motivated by their ancestral Democratic loyalties and union or local machine GOTVing.

Let’s start with some well-to-do suburbs west of Boston:

And here are North Shore suburbs. (Lawrence is a little out of place here, as it’s working-class with a large Hispanic population, but it had the same large 02 to 08 shift that its wealthier neighbors did.)

Now turning to the more blue-collar locales where the trend seemed less favorable to Democrats, starting with the South Shore towns. (Looking up to the biggest towns list above, you can see that same trend happened not only in Quincy, but especially in Fall River and New Bedford, which are strongly Democratic but barely moved at all from O’Brien to Obama. In their cases, I’m not sure if that’s indifference to Obama, or particularly strong local machines good at keep turnout consistent.)

And finally, a mix of western mill towns and blue-collar suburbs around Springfield:

Now for the bad news… Suffolk polled several bellwether towns over the weekend, and found that Coakley is polling well below the level she needs to meet the benchmarks, in fact slightly below even Shannon O’Brien levels from 2002. They found a 41/55 race in Fitchburg (see the western mill towns chart), and a 40/57 race in Peabody (see the North Shore chart). I have no idea about the sample size or any of the other innards, but this suggests that for Coakley to pull this out — as has been more broadly evident for several days — the only way is for the pollsters to have been missing large swaths of heretofore unactivated voters who just got transformed into Democratic likely voters in the last few days.

Blue Mass Group has an interesting post that lists some other bellwether towns that you might want to keep an eye on. UPDATE: (And Cook’s Dave Wasserman has made available a Google spreadsheet doing more or less the same thing for every single freakin’ town in the state, albeit only for the 2008 model. Check it out.)

Mason-Dixon for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin/KITV (1/8-12, registered voters):

Neil Abercrombie (D): 43

Duke Aiona (R): 34

Undecided: 23

Mufi Hannemann (D): 41

Duke Aiona (R): 35

Undecided: 24

(MoE: ±3.5%)

I expected Abercrombie to be a bit more formidable than this, although these are by no means bad numbers. Aiona, however, has stockpiled a lot money for this race, and he’s pretty well-liked: his favorable rating is 41-19, quite a bit higher than Abercrombie’s 36-29 and a shade better than Hannemann’s 38-22.

The Democratic primary, too, looks like it will be a very competitive affair:

Neil Abercrombie (D): 37

Mufi Hannemann (D): 34

Undecided: 29

(MoE: ±4.5%)

I wonder if Abercrombie expected to face such a stiff fight — but in any case, I’m sure he’s relieved to be done with all the plane rides to and from DC. SSP currently rates this race as Lean Democratic.

Now, for some good news (and bad news) from the 1st District race to fill Abercrombie’s seat:

Ed Case (D): 37

Colleen Hanabusa (D): 25

Charles Djou (R): 17

Undecided: 21

(MoE: ±5%)

The good news, of course, is that the highly-touted Charles Djou is lagging in third place in a race against not one, but two Democrats (Hawaii has a pretty strange special election situation, where everyone runs against everyone with no runoffs). The bad news, of course, is that the extremely unacceptable Ed Case has the early lead. It’s too bad we can’t see crosstabs, here, because I would love to see how many Republicans and independents Case is taking away from Djou. I’m suspecting that Case is sucking up a lot of oxygen on the right-leaning side of the political equation here.

RaceTracker Wiki: HI-Gov | HI-01

CQ:

In a move that will certainly give hope to Democrats worried about holding on to the seat of retiring Arkansas Rep. Vic Snyder (D), Lt. Gov. Bill Halter acknowledged Monday that he is now seriously considering running in the Little Rock-based 2nd district this fall.

“I have received many telephone calls from Arkansans offering me encouragement and support since Congressman Vic Snyder announced he would not seek re-election,” Halter said in a statement released through a Virginia-based Democratic consultant who has worked on his previous campaigns. “I am grateful, I am listening and I am now seriously considering all options. These considerations center on where to best fight for better jobs and greater opportunities for Arkansans.”

Halter would be a strong recruit, no doubt, but some Democrats would rather see him commit to a primary challenge against Blanche Lincoln. In any case, there are other Democratic names interested in the primary. State Sen. Joyce Elliott is “98 percent” sure she’ll run for the seat. Other names who have signaled interest in the race include state Sen. Shane Broadway (though he says that he’d probably run for Lt. Governor if Halter decides to run for Congress), term-limited state Sen. Tracy Steele, state House Speaker Robbie Wills. Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays, state Senate President Bob Johnson, and state Public Service Commissioner Paul Suskie have also been mentioned as possible candidates. In short, the bench is pretty deep here, and someone of substance is bound to step up (although some choices, like the right-leaning Johnson, would be a little hard to swallow).

Perhaps most interesting is this piece of scuttlebutt:

There is chatter in Democratic circles about possible interest from Wesley Clark as a candidate for retiring Democrat Vic Snyder’s congressional seat. […]

A credible source says that an internal discussion is taking place, and that Clark is giving it serious consideration.

That’d be a pretty remarkable development — there’s no doubt that Clark would have a pretty decent fundraising base in place for a run, and it goes without saying that his bio has some special appeal in a district like this. It’d be a pretty surprising climb-down for a man who ran for President just six years ago, but he hasn’t had any real opportunities to serve in elected or appointed office in the years since, and this is a legitimate opening for him. Clark, for now, can’t be reached for comment.

Update: In the diaries, ARDem runs through a list of potential candidates.

RaceTracker Wiki: AR-02

The AR-02 Democratic primary is shaping up rapidly.  Already, one candidate is on the verge of declaring, a few are openly considering, two appear to be out, and several new names are exploring.  Here’s the run down.

The declared candidate is State Senator Joyce Elliott, a remarkably skilled state legislator, very progressive, and the state’s most prominent and popular African American politician.

The hottest name in Arkansas politics right now, Lt. Gov Bill Halter says he’s weighing his options so he says.

State Senator Shane Broadway, the most respected senator in the state legislature, is out-reportedly planning on running for Lt. Gov if Halter declines to run for reelection.  Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola is also out.

House Speaker Robbie Wills and former AG candidate Paul Suskie are apparently considering, but keeping mum.

No word yet if State Senator Bob Johnson, the most conservative and corrupt Democrat you can imagine, is going to jump in or not.

Several new names are in the mix who I know nothing about, including Carolyn Staley, a minister, Snyder’s Chief of Staff David Boiling, and former state rep. Will Bond.

One big name rumored of late is one that took me and everyone else watching completely by surprise, former general and presidential candidate Wesley Clark is reportedly seriously considering the race.

You can keep up with all the developments at http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

We’ve got no babka to give out this time, folks, so you’re just playing for bragging rights. Let’s hear it: Dig deep and give us your best and most honest prediction of what what the end result will be in the Senate special election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.

InsiderAdvantage for the Politico (1/17, likely voters):

Martha Coakley (D): 43

Scott Brown (R): 52

Joe Kennedy (I) 2

(MoE: ±4%)

You know, we’ve picked these polls apart enough already, so how about we all take a page from trowaman and ask: If Scott Brown takes this race tomorrow, who should Democrats run against him in 2012? Not that we’re predicting that he’ll win, but it’s never too early to think through the hypotheticals. Tell us who you think should run in the comments.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (1/11-13, likely voters):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 54

Rob Simmons (R): 35

Undecided: 11

Richard Blumenthal (D): 56

Linda McMahon (R): 34

Undecided: 10

Richard Blumenthal (D): 56

Peter Schiff (R): 33

Undecided: 11

(MoE: ±4%)

While Blumenthal isn’t producing margins similar to the utter insanity of the latest Quinnipiac poll, I think we can all be happy with where we’re at here.

R2K also polled the gubernatorial race, including match-ups with Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, who may or may not run:

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 52

Michael Fidele (R): 33

Undecided: 15

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 51

Tom Foley (R): 35

Undecided: 14

Susan Bysiewicz (D): 52

Mark Boughton (R): 32

Undecided: 16

Ned Lamont (D): 46

Michael Fidele (R): 36

Undecided: 18

Ned Lamont (D): 46

Tom Foley (R): 37

Undecided: 17

Ned Lamont (D): 46

Mark Boughton (R): 32

Undecided: 20

Dan Malloy (D): 44

Michael Fidele (R): 35

Undecided: 21

Dan Malloy (D): 43

Tom Foley (R): 37

Undecided: 20

Dan Malloy (D): 44

Mark Boughton (R): 34

Undecided: 22

Unfortunately, Susan Bysiewicz, the Secretary of State, has decided to pull out of her gubernatorial campaign in favor of a run for Attorney General. However, as we noted in today’s digest, the legality of her candidacy is an open question. If the legal hurdles prove too challenging to clear for Bysiewicz, reversing course and running for Governor again would probably look foolish (though maybe not fatal), but if she’s just looking for another place to bide her time before she makes a run against Joe Lieberman in 2012 (as some have speculated), perhaps she’ll just end up running for re-election.

And finally, the 2012 Senate picture:

Chris Murphy (D): 25

Jodi Rell (R): 47

Joe Lieberman (I-inc): 23

Chris Murphy (D): 45

Joe Lieberman (I-inc): 26

I kinda doubt that Rell would pull the trigger on a run like this, but you never know.

Research 2000 for the Daily Kos (1/11-13, likely voters):

John Hickenlooper (D): 43

Scott McInnis (R): 43

Undecided: 14

Ken Salazar (D): 42

Scott McInnis (R): 44

Undecided: 14

Andrew Romanoff (D): 40

Scott McInnis (R): 45

Undecided: 15

Ed Perlmutter (D): 38

Scott McInnis (R): 46

Undecided: 16

(MoE: ±4%)

Most of those match-ups are moot at this point, as the path for the Democratic nomination seems secure for Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Sure, Andrew Romanoff may or may not bail on his Senate primary to take a crack at the gube race, but he’d have an even harder time in that race than he would against the newbie Bennet. Effectively, this resolves any potential doubt that Hickenlooper begins the race in the best starting position than any other Democrat out there — even Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who was briefly (and bizarrely, in my opinion) touted as the heir apparent for retiring Gov. Bill Ritter.

If anything, though, this poll also reaffirms that, while Hickenlooper probably would have won an ’06 race with ease, he won’t be able to rest on his laurels this year. This should be one hell of a race.

And for the Senate side of the equation:

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 40

Jane Norton (R): 39

Undecided: 21

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 42

Tom Wiens (R): 38

Undecided: 20

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 41

Ken Buck (R): 38

Undecided: 21

Andrew Romanoff (D): 39

Jane Norton (R): 41

Undecided: 20

Andrew Romanoff (D): 41

Tom Wiens (R): 39

Undecided: 20

Andrew Romanoff (D): 40

Ken Buck (R): 39

Undecided: 21

(MoE: ±4%)

This poll is actually the most optimistic portrait of the Senate race that we’ve seen lately. Over the weekend, Rasmussen gave us their take, which consisted of huge leads for Jane Norton and smaller leads for the other Republican pretenders. The Bennet campaign responded with their own poll, which showed Norton ahead by “only” three points. Whether or not R2K’s likely voter sample is reasonable is up in the air. The poll purports to have a sample of 38% Republicans, 30% Democrats, and 32% independents. That’s doesn’t seem wild-eyed for a state with a slight Democratic voter registration advantage, but if you take a closer look at the “N” for each sub-sample, the math doesn’t add up — numerically, there are more Democratic voters listed as poll participants than Republicans. (In fact, if you recalculate, this might be a 40D-38R-22I poll.) Bennet’s internal poll had a Republican advantage of about five points, so this is a pretty crucial issue to be resolved.

A transcription error is probably to blame here, but we’ll let you know if we find out anything more definitive.

UPDATE: Research 2000 guru Del Ali writes to us to tell us that the actual sample of the poll is 40% Democratic, 37% Republican, and 23% independent. Somehow, I suspect that that may be an optimistic view of the 2010 electorate.

RaceTracker Wiki: CO-Gov | CO-Sen