Month: February 2010

In my last diary, I predicted that the Democrats would lose 30-35 seats in 2010.  65% of fellow SSP devotees agreed with my assessment, so I think I’m on the right track!  Thanks to all of those who voted on my poll.

Overview

The 2010 election is 9 months away, and in politics that is an eternity.  Many things can happen that will either shift the electorate to the Democrats or to the Republicans.  As such, I tried my best to group the vulnerable Democrats accordingly.

The 10 most vulnerable Democratic seats

There are 10 seats that I currently see that will be hard to defend even if 2010 turns out to be a strong Democratic year (keeping in mind that the incumbents in several of these seats are not running for reelection).  These seats are as follows:  LA-03, TN-06, AR-01, TN-08, AR-02, ID-01, KS-03, AL-02, MD-01, and VA-05.

These seats would be hard for us to defend no matter what the political environment entails. Important to note that 7 of these seats are in the South, 2 other seats are in Red States (ID-01 and KS-03), and 1 district where there is a significant Republican advantage (MD-01, although this district has a slight Democratic registration advantage).

The next 9 “Hard to Hold” seats

The next list of seats are districts where we will have trouble holding if the 2010-mid terms are somewhat neutral (i.e. Democrats nor Republicans have a clear advantage).  These districts include MS-01, WA-03, NM-02, CO-04, OH-1, OH-15, PA-07, NH-02, and VA-02.

The make up of this group includes 3 districts where the incumbent is not running for reelection (PA-07, WA-03, NH-02), 4 districts that are R+5 or greater (MS-01, NM-02, CO-04, and VA-02), and 2 districts with freshmen reps (OH-01, OH-15).

An additional 11 “must-defend” seats

The following seats will be tough if the mid-term election is a mildly Republican friendly year.  These seats include IN-09, TX-17, NV-03, NY-20, NY-29, NY-23, FL-08, PA-03, OH-18, AZ-05, and NJ-03.  These seats range from a blood red district (TX-17) to a mild Democratic district (NV-03).  Most of these seats have been gained by the Democrats in the last 2 election cycles.

Another 12 “we better make sure we don’t lose” seats if there is a Republican landslide

These seats will come into play if the Republicans have a clear nationwide advantage over the Democrats.  These seats are NH-01, MI-07, FL-24, NY-24, PA-11, IL-14, MI-09, NC-08, FL-22, OH-16, VA-11, and GA-8.  Of these seats, only 2 seats weren’t held by a Republican before the 2006 election!  PA-11 is in this bucket due to Kanjorski, and GA-8 due to it being a red district that was almost won by the GOP in 2006.

18 seats that may flip if a Democratic nightmare occurs

If we have a mid-term election that is totally brutal (i.e. 1938, 1946, 1966), we might have to defend 18 or more seats in addition to the districts that I’ve previously mentioned.  We should really make sure that we have strong candidates that are not strapped for funds in the following districts:  CT-04, WI-08, AZ-08, CA-11, PA-04, NY-01, SC-05, NY-13, NM-01, NY-25, PA-10, PA-08, OR-05, AZ-01, CT-05, PA-12, NY-19, and VA-09.

GOP seats that could come into play

Due to simple arithmetic, the Republicans will have less seats to defend than the Democrats.  In the current day environment, I only see a handful of Republican seats that will come into play.  They include PA-06, LA-02, IL-10, DE-01, WA-08, SC-02 (Mr. “You Lie”‘s district), MI-11, CA-50, CA-3, CA-44, MN-03, FL-12, and OH-12.  Some other longshots might be added, like AL-05 and AK-01.  

Initial Conclusions

If the current environment still exists in November (and it’s pretty close to a Republican nationwide advantage),  I think we could see us losing all 42 of our seats while gaining only 4-5 of the current Republican held seats.  So a “net” loss of 37 seats cannot be considered out of the question.  However, I don’t believe we will lose all of my 42 seats.  There’s a good chance we will retain 1/2 of these seats, lose a couple other seats not on my radar, and might have better (or worse) luck with winning Republican-held seats.  

Anything can happen, but the Democrats control their destiny.  The DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC are strong and well-funded.  The Democrats have a money advantage over the Republicans.  In the last week I sense that the Democrats are regaining some momentum, so we might fair much better than I previously expected.  

(cross-posted at WMR, ML, BFM, and SSP-pb)

Following my earlier analysis of the 2009 Compliance Statements from the Michigan State House, the State Senate is also worth examining. It is important to remember how wide open the Senate is for turnover in 2010,  as there are 30 of 38 State Senate seats open. In the past decade, only one state senate incumbent has lost to a challenger (Laura Toy to Glenn Anderson in 2006), underscoring how much easier open seats are to capture.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Figure 1: State Senate Partisan Status

Figure 1 is a chart displaying the expected competitiveness for Michigan State Senate races. Using the underlying baseline vote from the Michigan Board of Education races over the past four elections (2002-2008), I have also noted the number of times each party has challenged a seat. For example, in Senate District 34, the Democrats have invested party resources in the seat one time, while the GOP has invested in it twice. It quickly becomes apparent that rarely spends money defending or challenging seats in their Safe or Strong category or that of the opposing party.

For an upset occur in these races means that the challenger needs to be self-financing, as the party will pay for nothing.  Given the sheer number of competitive races in 2010, I have also included districts that have a GOP lean in the safe category, bringing the number of safe Republican seats up to 11. For the Democrats, I have included one of the three leaning Democratic districts (District 10) in the safe column, bringing the number of safe Democratic seats to 12 (more on this later). Thus, this analysis consists of two parts. The first looks at the 23 safe Republican and Democratic seats that feature an array of interesting primaries. The second part will focus on the 15 districts that are considered tossup, weak Democratic/Republican. Candidates are listed with the amount of money raised in the past year, the amount on money spent over 2009, the total cash on hand, and the amount of personal funds each candidate given to his or her campaign.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Figure 2: Safe DEM/GOP Seats

There are 12 safe Democratic seats that will return Democrats to Lansing next year. These are largely concentrated in Detroit (Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), Wayne County (District 8), southern Oakland and Macomb Counties (District 9, 10, and 14), Ann Arbor (District 18), Lansing (District 23), and Flint (District 27). Of these seats, Districts 5 (Tupac Hunter), 23 (Gretchen Whitmer), and 27 (John Gleason) have incumbents that are not are not expected to face a serious primary challenge. The other nine districts are open seats and are another story. District 2 has Olivia Boykins and Hans Barbe vying for the nomination, and neither have filed a CS yet. Representative George Cushingberry has filed for District 4 and presently does not have primary opposition. Former Representative Hoon Yung Hopgood ($62,182 cash on hand) is the only candidate in the 8th District (Dearborn and downriver municipalities in Wayne County). District 10 (Sterling Heights, Clinton Township, Utica, and Roseville) features a primary between former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga and Macomb County Commissioner Paul Gieleghem ($49,238 cash on hand), and the former is expect to have a significant financial edge. Vincent Gregory ($10,582 cash on hand) and David Coulter ($32,952 cash on hand) are the two Democrats seeking the party’s nomination in the 14th District, while their potential Republican opponent James Hardin has filed a financial wavier, ensuring his defeat in November. Finally, in the 18th District, Representatives Pam Byrnes (7,100 cash on hand, although she has $104,133 in her State House account) and Rebekah Warren ($59,089 cash on hand with an additional $2,120 in her State House account) will slug it out Washtenaw County. This race should be extremely interesting to watch, and could be an excellent proxy test on the fate of Andy Dillon’s candidacy with the Democratic electorate (Byrnes is one of Dillon’s strongest supporters in the House, and Warren is an extremely harsh critic).

There are 11 safe Republican seats that will have Republicans Senators next year. These are largely located in the “out-state” region outside of metropolitan Detroit (Districts 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, 30, 33, 35, and 37) and in northern Oakland County (Districts 12 and 15). Only one of these seats (District 28-Mark Jansen) has a Republican incumbent. District 12 has four Republicans running to replace Mike Bishop, and thus far Representative Jim Marleau is the leading money raiser, with $77,149 cash on hand (although $73,000 is from his own pocket). In District 15 there are three Republicans running for the nomination, and Robert Gatt is the only candidate who has raised funds ($4,587 cash on hand), while Democratic candidate Pamela Jackson has $829 cash on hand. Republican Representative John Proos is running unopposed in the 21st District ($91,439 cash on hand), and in District 22 Joe Hune leads the money race ($160,559 cash on hand) against Paul Rogers. Representative Rick Jones ($60,127 cash on hand) is the only candidate in the 24th District, and Arlan Meekhof ($0 cash on hand, although has $29,600 in his State House account) is the only candidate in the 30th. District 33 features a primary between Representative Brian Calley ($84,835) and businessman Hong Trebesh ($307,641 cash on hand, with $335,023 from his own pockets) that will be costly to say the least, while District 35 has three Republicans slugging it out to face Democratic candidate Roger Dunigan ($3,658).

There are two traditional Republican seats that could cause the GOP some trouble in 2010. The first is in District 16 where Democratic Representative Douglas Spade ($69,725 cash on hand) is running against Republican Representative Bruce Caswell ($175,223 cash on hand-$116,000 from his own pocket). Spade has done well in a Republican leaning district while serving in the House (District 57), and is the strongest candidate the Democrats could nominate in a seat that has seen few challenges. Likewise, in District 37 Democratic Representative Gary McDowell ($38,603 cash on hand and an additional $95,219 in his State House account) has more money than his opponent Republican Representative Howard Walker ($81,517). While the 37th District has a long-standing GOP lean, McDowell has had similar success that Spade has had in the 57th, winning a traditionally GOP district (District 107) with room to spare. Both of these seats are examples of a smart Democratic strategy to expand the playing field.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Figure 3: Weak & Swing Seats

Of the remaining 15 seats, 4 are weak Democratic seats, meaning that with the right candidate, the party will likely not need to step in with resources. Two of these are currently held by Democrats, with Districts 6 (Wayne County) represented by incumbent Glenn Anderson, who knocked off Republican Senator Laura Toy in a hard-fought matchup in 2006. Anderson spent 2009 accumulating funds, and currently has $229,221 cash on hand with no Republican challenger in sight. With such a well-funded incumbent and no viable GOP prospect, it is unlikely that the GOP will make a serious effort to challenge Anderson in 2010. A different situation prevails in District 38 (Upper Peninsula), which is being vacated by term-limited Democratic Senator Mike Prusi. The 38th has a long Democratic heritage and a deep farm-system with talent ready to move up, and expect the state party to make holding this seat a priority. The Republicans have perhaps their strongest Upper Peninsula challenger in years with former Representative Tom Casperson running for this seat. Yet Casperson is relatively weak at fundraising, with debt left over from his failed challenge to Bart Stupak in 2008 for the 1st Congressional District, and only has $9,911 cash on hand. To make this seat a possible pickup, the GOP will have to make a significant financial contribution, something unlikely given all the other seats the party needs to hold.

In a sign of Democratic failure in the 2006 election, two other weak Democratic seats are currently held by the GOP. District 34 (Muskegon County & Lakeshore) is an open seat, with the Republican Jerry VanWoerkom term-limited after two closely fought elections in 2002 and 2006 that were each one by fewer than 1,500 votes. While VanWoerkom had electoral success in this district, over the past decade this seat had strongly trended Democratic. The Democrats also have a candidate in Representative Mary Valentine ($20,955 cash on hand, with another $24,982 in her State House account) who has a reputation for running excellent campaigns in 2006 and 2008 in the swing 91st District. Valentine will face either former Representative David Farhat (whom was beaten by Valentine in 2006 and has $75 cash on hand) or Representative Geoff Hansen ($97,384 cash on hand including a personal loan of almost $80,000). Regardless of candidate, both parties will likely spend an ample amount of money for this seat, and in an even financial contest, I would pick Valentine any day.

The other weak Democratic seat held by the GOP is a tougher nut to crack. Incumbent Republican Roger Kahn won District 32 (Saginaw County) in 2006 by a narrow margin. Kahn currently has $253,203 cash on hand, and is a strong fundraiser who will likely be able to raise even more funds in 2009. The only declared Democratic candidate is Debasish Mridha, who is a doctor and a first-time candidate. Mridha has $124,213 cash on hand, all which was self-contributed. Given that District 32 is represented by a Republican incumbent, the state party might be reluctant to provide funding unless Mridha appears to be in the running after the August primary. Given this, I would say that District 34 is a much more likely Democratic pickup than the 32nd.  

Three of the remaining eleven seats are weak Republican, meaning that with the right sort of candidate and a neutral political environment, the GOP candidate will win election. These include District 11 (northern Macomb County), District 13 (Oakland County-incumbent), and District 36 (northern Lower Peninsula). District 11 has attracted a number of GOP candidates, including State Representative Kim Meltzer ($5,000 cash on hand with another $4,625 in her State House account), former Representative Jack Brandenburg ($607), and Leon Drolet (who has not officially filed yet). Given the Republican lean of this district, and that no strong Democratic candidate has emerged, this seat is looking to be a Republican hold unless the divisive Drolet wins the primary. District 13, which was the site of a hard fought battle between Democrat Andy Levin and eventual winner John Pappageorge that was narrowly decided in the GOP’s favor. Pappageorge raised an enormous amount in 2009, and has $248,884 cash on hand (as well as a $125,000 loan he gave to himself in the 2006 campaign). Aaron Bailey is the only official Democratic candidate, and filed in late January 2010. Given his substantial financial edge in a Republican leaning district, Pappageorge should be considered an early favorite to win reelection.

District 36 is perhaps the most vulnerable to a Democratic challenge. An open seat being vacated by term-limited Republican Tony Stamas, the 36th has attracted three candidates. Two are Democrats, Representatives Andy Neumann and Joel Sheltrown. Sheltrown has a substantial financial edge against Neumann, although the latter previously ran and narrowly lost against Stamas in 2002. Republican Representative John Moolenaar has a substantial $232,731 cash on hand, but hails from the southernmost portion of the district, thus requiring a significant amount of campaigning and funds to familiarize himself with the 36th. If the Democratic candidate emerges from the primary in decent condition, one could easily see the state party spending funds to win this seat.

The remaining eight seats are swing districts, although two are likely to remain in the GOP column. District 17 (Monroe and portions of Washtenaw Counties) is currently held by Republican Randy Richardville ($105,923 cash on hand). Unless Democratic Representative Katie Elbi leaves her safe house seat to challenge Richardville, there are few other potential Democratic challengers. The MDP and Elbi might consider a redrawn 17th District might be easier to take in 2014 when Richardville is unable to run again. Another likely Republican hold is District 19, which was won by Mike Nofs in a 2009 special election against Democratic Representative Marty Griffin. Given Nofs’ thumping of Griffin, few potential Democratic challengers will be interested in facing Nofs ($37,300 cash on hand just months after his November election).

The six other seats are open districts, with two currently held by Democrats, and the remaining four by Republicans. Of the two seats currently held by Democrats, District 31 (Bay County and the Thumb Region) appears to be a more likely hold, with Democratic Representative Jeff Mayes ($122,944 cash on hand) having no Republican challengers as of yet. The situation in District 26 (Genesee and Oakland Counties) is more fluid. There are currently two candidates, Representative Jim Slezak and Paula Zelenko, facing off in the Democratic primary, while former representatives Fran Amos and David Robertson in the GOP primary. Of the four candidates only Robertson has a significant amount of cash on hand ($110,616), while Amos has filed a financial waiver, and both Slezak and Zelenko entered the race in early 2010 (although Slezak has $11,304 cash on hand in his State House account). Robertson has a history of winning tough races while in the state house, and will be a challenge for the Democrats to hold off. Expect the MDP to spend funds to hold this district.

Of the four Republican held seats, District 25 (St. Clair and Lapeer Counties) appears to be the safest hold for the GOP. Representatives Phillip Pavlov ($50,007 cash on hand) and Lauren Harger ($36,715 cash on hand) are vying for the GOP nomination, while Jason Davis and Jason Blauet are relatively unknowns battling for the Democratic nod. The 25th has always been a tempter of Democratic dollars, but funds spent in 2002 did very little.  

The remaining three seats are truly tossup. District 7 (western Wayne County) is be vacated by Republican Bruce Patterson, and has drawn the attention of both parties. Democrats scored a coup when Representative Marc Corriveau entered the race in early January. Corriveau, much like Valentine, is a master campaigner and has one in districts long held by the GOP, and his strong fundraising abilities will surely be needed in both the general and primary elections. Corriveau ($76,314 cash on hand) is facing former Representative Kathleen Law in the Democratic primary. Facing Corriveau or Law in the general election will be either Republican Colleen McDonald or Abe Munfakh ($100,000 cash on hand and a personal contribution). If the GOP wants to hold this Democratic trending district, they’ll need to send plenty of additional funds to assist the winner of the GOP primary.

District 20 (Kalamazoo County and portions of Van Buren County) has contested primaries on both sides. The Republican primary features three candidates; Representatives Tonya Schuitmaker ($126,388 cash on hand) and Larry DeShazor ($2,341 in his state house account) represent the conservative and moderate factions of the GOP base, while former Representative Lorence Wenke ($19,337) is a liberal Republican who has deep personal pockets and is willing to spend freely in the primary. The clash between these three Republicans representing the spectrum of the Republican ideology will be fascinating to watch. That is to say, the Democratic field will be interesting to watch as well. Representative Robert Jones ($10,067 cash on hand with another $14,656 in his State House account) currently represents Kalamazoo City, and has a deep background in local and state politics. He’ll face Kalamazoo County Commissioner John Taylor ($106,330 cash on hand, although $100,000 is from his own funds) and Professor Mark Totten ($120,036 cash on hand, $30,719 of which is a personal loan) in the Democratic primary. While Jones was considered a front-runner earlier this year, Totten’s substantial haul (with a large number of donations coming from small donors across the state in addition to out of state support) has put many on notice. With 2010 shaping up to be an anti-incumbent year, it may be a candidate like Totten that will do better with the electorate than Jones. Regardless, both parties will be watching the 20th District in the next nine months.

District 29 (Grand Rapids and eastern suburbs) will be another closely watched seat. I’ve blogged about this race and the potential candidates previously, and I’m still convinced that the race to watch is the GOP primary. While Representative Dave Hildenbrand has $138,000 cash on hand, he is relatively unknown to voters in the Grand Rapids and Kentwood, as he represents Lowell and other rural portions of Kent County. Kent County GOP leaders appear to be aware of this liability as well, and a number of leading Republicans (including Senator Mark Jansen and Congressman Vern Ehlers) are considered to be behind the candidacy of Lori Wiersma. Wiersma is a political neophyte, but has deep ties to the Christian Reformed community that has long been the bedrock of the GOP base in west Michigan. If both candidates stay in the primary, it will be interesting to see if Hildenbrand’s financial edge can win victory against a city-based Republican candidate. On the Democratic side, businessman and City Commissioner David LaGrand (estimated $76,000 cash on hand) begun rolling in endorsements and funds only a few weeks after his entrance into the race. While Representative Robert Dean is also considering running, his weak fundraising totals ($9,033 cash on hand) is leading many to question whether he will instead file run for reelection to his state house seat.

With nine months away from Election Day, control of the Michigan State Senate as of January 2011 remains an open question. The Democrats need to pick up four seats to gain control of the chamber for the first time in 26 years, and there is a clear road to achieving this. At the same time, the GOP has a political climate that is much more favorable than the 2006 cycle. Whether this remains the case in November 2010 is still to be seen.

For reference, I have included some maps of the State Senate Districts discussed in this analysis.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Wayne County

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Oakland & Macomb Counties

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

The Thumb

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

South Central

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

North Central

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Southwest Michigan

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

West Michigan

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Northern Lower Peninsula

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

Upper Peninsula

A big break for Pat Quinn:

Scott Lee Cohen, the Democratic nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor, removed himself from the campaign Sunday, freeing Gov. Pat Quinn from the baggage Cohen brought to the ticket, but also leaving him without a running mate.

“I’m someone who made mistakes in my life. And look where I am. If I let you down I’m sorry,” Cohen said Sunday evening in a tearful announcement at the Hop Haus Tavern.

For days, the pawn broker-turned Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor was dogged over allegations he abused anabolic steroids, went into fits of rage, sexually abused his then-wife, got behind in child support payments and held a knife to the throat of a former girlfriend who is a convicted prostitute.

The task now turns to Illinois Democratic Party leaders to pick a replacement for Cohen. As head-spinning and bad of an episode as this has been, at least it resolved itself fairly quickly. The Republican gubernatorial primary, however, looks like it won’t be resolving itself any time soon.

UPDATE (David): On the replacement process:

Selection of a replacement to fill the ballot vacancy is the work of the 38-member Democratic State Central Committee, made up of a male and female representative from each of the state’s 19 congressional districts. The state central committee is scheduled to meet March 17, though a meeting could be held sooner.

Who are you rooting for? Take the poll.

UPDATE: Woohoo! Saints! Great game.

Can a pollster be said to be spammy?

CO-Sen (2/2, likely voters, 1/13 in parens):

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 37 (37)

Jane Norton (R): 51 (49)

Other: 5 (3)

Undecided: 7 (11)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 38 (35)

Jane Norton (R): 45 (47)

Other: 7 (5)

Undecided: 10 (14)

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 40 (38)

Tom Wiens (R): 45 (44)

Other: 5 (4)

Undecided: 9 (14)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 40 (39)

Tom Wiens (R): 42 (44)

Other: 6 (4)

Undecided: 12 (14)

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 41 (38)

Ken Buck (R): 45 (43)

Other: 5 (4)

Undecided: 8 (15)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 39 (39)

Ken Buck (R): 45 (40)

Other: 6 (5)

Undecided: 10 (16)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

IL-Sen (2/3, likely voters, 12/9 in parens):

Alexi Giannoulias (D): 40 (42)

Mark Kirk (R): 46 (39)

Other: 4 (3)

Undecided: 10 (14)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

KY-Sen (2/2, likely voters, 1/6 in parens):

Jack Conway (D): 40 (35)

Trey Grayson (R): 44 (45)

Other: 3 (7)

Undecided: 12 (12)

Jack Conway (D): 39 (38)

Rand Paul (R): 47 (46)

Other: 3 (4)

Undecided: 11 (12)

Daniel Mongiardo (D): 35 (37)

Trey Grayson (R): 49 (44)

Other: 5 (8)

Undecided: 11 (11)

Daniel Mongiardo (D): 37 (35)

Rand Paul (R): 48 (49)

Other: 3 (3)

Undecided: 12 (13)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

NV-Sen (2/2, likely voters, 1/11 in parens):

Harry Reid (D-inc): 41

Brian Krolicki (R): 44

Other: 7

Undecided: 8

Harry Reid (D-inc): 39 (36)

Sue Lowden (R): 45 (48)

Other: 8 (8)

Undecided: 8 (7)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 39 (36)

Danny Tarkanian (R): 47 (50)

Other: 8 (5)

Undecided: 6 (9)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 40 (40)

Sharon Angle (R): 44 (44)

Other: 7 (10)

Undecided: 8 (7)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Well, he sure made that look easy:

Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu appears to have routed five major challengers in today’s mayoral primary, riding a sense of regret among voters who rejected him four years ago and extraordinary biracial support to claim a rare first-round victory.

With 90 of the city’s 366 precincts counted, Landrieu had 64 percent of the vote, according to WWL-TV. His closest challenger, businessman Troy Henry, had 15 percent.

When he takes office May 6, Landrieu will become the city’s first white chief executive since his father, Moon Landrieu, left the job in 1978. Early analysis shows that Mitch Landrieu’s victory owed to widespread crossover voting by African-Americans, who make up two-thirds of the city’s residents.

This was Landrieu’s third try at the office – he lost in a runoff to outgoing mayor Ray Nagin in 2006. State Sen. Ed Murray’s unexpected departure from the race in January was a big part of Landrieu’s landslide, but the NYT identifies another interesting reason:

Just as the election was gaining heat, the Saints happened to win a trip to the Super Bowl and all talk of the mayor’s race was drowned out for its last two weeks. That made it much harder for lesser-known candidates to gain traction.

As a Jets fan, I am definitely rooting for the Saints over the Colts. Feel free to use this as a Super Bowl open thread!

UPDATE: As Izengabe points out in comments, Gov. Bobby Jindal will get to appoint a replacement for Landrieu (his pick has to be confirmed by a majority of both houses of the state lege). GOPVoter provides a list of possible names, but note that Jindal is also trying to get rid of the Lt. Gov. position entirely.

UPDATE (David): Check it out – every time you use bit.ly to create a short URL for a link here at the Swing State Project, you’ll now get a link to our new “ssp.bz” (think “buzz”) micro-domain, such as: http://ssp.bz/7se2hb. This is especially great for Twitter users – whenever you see an ssp.bz link, now you’ll always know the source, regardless of who tweets it. This hotness is courtesy bitly.Pro, a free service which launched tonight.

P.S. You should follow @SwingState on Twitter.

UPDATE 2 (David): So I didn’t have my explanation of bitly.Pro quite right. It turns out that for now, only the editors of SSP can create ssp.bz links. The ability to make that universal hasn’t been rolled out yet. But even so, any time you see an ssp.bz link on Twitter or elsewhere, you’ll know it’s from us.

Also, since sapelcovits brought up the “What congressional district do you live in?” question, I thought I’d bring back this Frappr map we created when we first asked this question a couple of years ago. You can joint to show fellow SSPers where you’re from (no personal information is revealed):

(This diary is more of a rant on my part — a response, if you will, to some of the fatalistic analysis I see on a lot of progressive sites these past several weeks …)

By now we all should know how the tiniest of election margins can sometimes have gigantic political consequences.  After all, a 537-vote margin in Florida in 2000 ushered in eight long and painful years for this country and for the world.  When looking at the 2010 mid-terms it has become the norm for Democrats as of late to look at the upcoming elections only in terms of defense.  A lot of our focus seems to be just on minimizing losses – by trying to figure out how not to lose this or that particular seat.  There seems to be a lot of emphasis on looking at depressing poll numbers (a new one showing a Democrat losing in this or that particular state seems to pop up almost every day from Rasmussen) and on the seemingly incessant reminder from all quarters that “the party in power always loses seats in mid-term elections.”  What’s missing, in my opinion, is an equal focus on offense for the Democratic Party and realizing that nothing is inevitable and nine months is still an eternity in politics.  I will use House races in this diary to demonstrate what I’m talking about …

Historically, in most mid-terms, the losing party, has nevertheless almost always managed to score some victories that run against the prevailing political currents.  I got the maps below from Wikipedia, but I had to make a number of corrections as some of the information was not accurate.  I only include the “first-term mid-terms” here, as “second-term mid-terms” have a little different dynamic due to the “six-year itch” that often works more strongly against the party in power … but you can easily look up all this information yourself if you want more details about particular elections in the past (a note re. the maps: Truman wasn’t elected in 1944, but, for all practical purposes, 1946 was like the middle of his first term).

To complement the maps above, here are unemployment figures for November of each year (for 1934 and 1946, only yearly averages are provided):

1934: 21.7

1946: 3.9

1954: 5.3

1962: 5.7

1966: 3.6

1970: 5.9

1978: 5.9

1982: 10.8

1990: 6.2

1994: 5.6

2002: 5.9

My point here is that if we do go on offense (as well as defense) and a truly anti-Democratic wave materializes, our losses will more likely be significantly smaller than if we’re just playing defense alone.  Oftentimes, surprising and counter-intuitive victories can be the factor that separates a “loss” from a “wipeout”.  In fact, when looking at House elections in the middle of a President’s first term over the last 75 years or so, you can see that in most cases, losses in certain geographic areas have more often than not been offset by wins in other areas.  

For example, in 1970 Nixon’s GOP lost seats in 16 different states, but the losses were somewhat minimized by GOP wins in states as varied as California, Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma, Virginia and New York.  In 1978, Carter’s Democrats lost seats scattered across 15 different states, but those losses were offset by Democratic gains in states as diverse as Michigan, Washington, South Dakota, Connecticut, Maryland and Florida.  Going back to 1934, FDR’s losses in parts of the midwest were actually more than offset by some big wins in the northeast, particularly in Pennsylvania where 11 (sic) Democrats took over previously GOP-held seats (without Pennsylvania, the Democrats would have had a net loss of seats that year !  Incidentally, Pennsylvania also added Democrats in 1932 and 1936 House elections, going from having 33 Republicans and 3 Democrats prior to the 1932 election to 7 Republicans and 27 Democrats after the 1936 election).

In fact, in all of U.S. History there has only been one election of any kind (mid-term or not) where the “losing” party did not gain a single Senate, House or Governor’s seat from the “winning” party: 2006.  (In 2006, the GOP did not take over a single seat from the Democrats in Senate, House or Governor’s races; the next closest was 1938, which was a big GOP year, and the Democrats did not pick up a single Republican Senate or House seat, but they still managed to take the Governorships of California, Maryland and North Dakota away from the GOP.  Even during the 1994 GOP landslide, Democrats took over four previously Republican-held House seats and also picked up the Governorship of Alaska.)

Anyhow, I hope you get the picture re. how some elections can have more than just one political current going.  (1982 has to be looked at in a slightly different prism, in my view.  The 11% unemployment in November of that year was certainly the main factor.  But also, a new set of districts due to reapportionment and redistricting was a factor as well.  Phil Burton’s gerrymander in California was probably by itself instrumental in an additional six Democratic seats.)  This aspect of elections (dealing with political counter-currents) is just one point I want to make.  Perhaps more importantly, is how we handle elections which indeed seem like they will turn out to be wave elections.

Some first-term mid-terms are indeed wave elections.  1994 is perhaps the best example (I personally like 2006 better, but again, I’m trying to limit this diary to “first-term mid-terms”), and we often think of 1994 when comparing it to 2010.  But even in a worst-case scenario, like 1994, it is imperative that we study the history.  Because — even in that GOP landslide, a relatively small number of votes may have made the difference between a “loss” and a “wipeout”.   Now, this part is not shown on the map above — on which 1994 indeed looks like the wipeout that it was.  But if you look behind the picture, so to speak, you can see that even in the landslide, a little more effort on the part of Democrats may have made a huge difference:

First of all … the power of incumbency.  The following Democratic incumbents won contested elections in 1994 in districts that were quite conservative (ones which Bill Clinton lost by 1% or more in 1992); the incumbents’ winning margin is listed (please note that only districts that were contested by a Republican are shown):

AL-3: Glen Browder 63.6 – 36.4

AL-5: Robert Cramer 50.5 – 49.5

GA-9: Nathan Deal 57.9 – 42.1 (Deal changed parties after the election)

IN-3: Timothy Roemer 55.2 – 44.8

KY-6: Scotty Baesler 58.8 – 41.2

MI-10: David Bonior 62.2 – 37.7

MS-3: Sonny Montgomery 67.6 – 32.4

MS-4: Michael Parker 68.5 – 31.5 (Parker changed parties after the election)

MS-5: Gene Taylor 60.1 – 39.9

MO-4: Ike Skelton 67.8 – 32.3

NC-8: Bill Hefner 52.4 – 47.6

ND-AL: Earl Pomeroy 52.3 – 45.0

PA-6: Tim Holden 56.7 – 43.3

SC-5: John Spratt 52.1 – 47.8

SD-AL: Tim Johnson 59.8 – 36.6

TX-4: Ralph Hall 58.8 – 39.8

TX-11: Chet Edwards 59.2 – 40.8

TX-14: Greg Laughlin 55.6 – 44.4 (Laughlin changed parties after the election)

TX-17: Charles Stenholm 53.6 – 46.3

UT-3: Bill Orton 59.0 – 39.9

VA-2: Owen Pickett 59.0 – 40.9

VA-4: Norman Sisisky 61.6 – 38.4

VA-5: Lewis Payne 53.3 – 46.7

In most cases, the above incumbents won rather comfortably.  On the other hand, the following districts were open seats in 1994 and went GOP — despite being not as conservative as the first group above (all the districts below were won by Clinton in 1992, or Clinton came within 1% or less of winning in the case of KS-2 and NC-5):

IL-11: George Sangmeister, retired

KS-2: Jim Slattery, resigned to run for Governor

ME-1: Thomas Andrews, resigned to run for Senate

MI-8: Bob Carr, resigned to run for Senate

MN-1: Tim Penny, retired

NC-5: Stephen Neal, retired

NJ-2: William Hughes, retired

OH-18: Douglas Applegate, retired

OK-2: Mike Synar, defeated in primary

OR-5: Michael Kopetski, retired

TN-3: Marilyn Lloyd, retired

TN-4: Jim Cooper, resigned to run for Senate

WA-2: Al Swift, retired

It is quite likely that many of the seats above would have stayed Democratic if the incumbent had not retired.  If, theoretically, all 13 stayed in Democratic hands, then there would have been no “Republican Revolution” in 1994, as the Democrats would have maintained an effective majority (with a 217 D – 217 R split, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont).

Therefore, it is imperative that retirements be minimized.  This is perhaps already obvious.  

The second point … always be in fighting mode.  A lot of House districts were lost in 1994 by relatively small margins.  All the districts listed below were won by the GOP in 1994 by about 6 points or less (most, though not all, were Democratic incumbents who were defeated):

WI-1: Mark Neuman (R) 49.4 – Peter Barca (D) 48.8, margin 1120 votes

NC-4: Fred Heineman (R) 50.4 – David Price (D) 49.6, margin 1215

NV-1: John Ensign (R) 48.5 – James Bilbray (D) 47.5, margin 1436

CA-22: Andrea Seastrand (R) 49.3 – Walter Capps (D) 48.5, margin 1563

NE-2: Jon Christensen (R) 49.9 – Peter Hoagland (D) 49.0, margin 1766

NJ-8: William Martini (R) 49.9 – Herbert Klein (D) 48.6, margin 1833

KY-1: Ed Whitfield (R) 51.0 – Thomas Barlow (D) 49.0, margin 2462

OH-6: Frank Cremeans (R) 50.9 – Ted Strickland (D) 49.1, margin 3402

WA-5: George Nethercutt (R) 50.9 – Tom Foley (D) 49.1, margin 3983

PA-21: Phil English (R) 49.5 – Bill Leavens (D) 46.9, margin 4643

CA-49: Brian Bilbray (R) 48.5 – Lynn Schenk (D) 46.0, margin 4686

GA-7: Bob Barr (R) 51.9 – George “Buddy” Darden (D) 48.1, margin 5287

WA-9: Randy Tate (R) 51.8 – Mike Kreidler (D) 48.2, margin 5382

AR-4: Jay Dickey (R) 51.8 – Jay Bradford (D) 48.2, margin 6099

WA-1: Rick White (R) 51.7 – Maria Cantwell (D) 48.3, margin 6444

OK-2: Tom Coburn (R) 52.1 – Virgil Cooper (D) 47.9, margin 6536

OR-5: Jim Bunn (R) 49.8 – Catherine Webber (D) 46.8, margin 7354

NC-3: Walter Jones (R) 52.7 – Martin Lancaster (D) 47.3, margin 7451

MA-6: Peter Torkildsen (R) 50.5 – John Tierney (D) 47.4, margin 7471

PA-13: Jon Fox (R) 49.4 – Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D) 45.2, margin 8181

IN-8: John Hostettler (R) 52.4 – Frank McCloskey (D) 47.6, margin 8672

NH-2: Charlie Bass (R) 51.4 – Dick Swett (D) 46.0, margin 8878

TX-9: Steve Stockman (R) 51.9 – Jack Brooks (D) 45.7, margin 9710

ME-1: James Longley (R) 51.9 – Dennis Dutremble (D) 48.1, margin 9943

OH-19: Steve LaTourette (R) 48.5 – Eric Fingerhut (D) 43.5, margin 10296

NY-1: Michael Forbes (R) 52.5 – George Hochbrueckner (D) 46.5, margin 10345

KS-4: Todd Tiahrt (R) 52.9 – Dan Glickman (D) 47.1, margin 12287

IA-4: Greg Ganske (R) 52.5 – Neal Smith (D) 46.4, margin 13111

That’s 28 districts above, or more than 50% of the total GOP gain of 54 seats.  If those districts went Democratic instead of GOP (and I’m not using the word “switched”, because some of the above, like CA-22, PA-21, AR-4 and MA-6, were GOP-held prior to 1994), the Democrats would have remained in the majority with a 232 D- 202 R margin, instead of winding up with a losing margin of 230 R – 204 D.

If only the first 13 districts on the list hadn’t gone GOP, the Democrats would have maintained a majority (217 D – 217 R split, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont).  The first 13 districts on the list have an average Republican – Democratic margin of only 50.1% – 48.3%.  This is all a theoretical exercise, of course, because there were other factors like party-switchers, but the point remains that the results in even a dozen or so close-margin seats can have profound political consequences.  The combined GOP over Democratic margin in the first 13 districts above is only 38,778 voters.  So, in effect (and yes, theoretically) if about 19,400 voters (out of over 71 million votes cast in House elections in 1994) had voted differently, there would have been no “Republican Revolution” that year.

And yes, I realize that many Democrats won their races by the same slight margins that year, and so the GOP gains could have been even larger — but that is not the point.   My point is that if the political climate was overall just a little better for the Democrats that year (just a few points) the whole election could have gone differently (and the climate could have been a little better if Bill Clinton made some better choices) – and/or if the Democrats had made just a little more of an effort (better candidates, more funds, less retirements, better turnout, etc.), it may have gone differently … According to one analysis, http://archive.fairvote.org/re… , most eligible voters did not participate in the 1994 election.  “… only 17 of the 56 Republicans who won seats held by Democrats (in 1994) had higher vote totals than losing Republicans had won in those districts in 1992 suggest the impact of voter turnout.”

The bottom line — even if we’re looking at a bad year, we should not be afraid to go on the offense in states and districts across the country.  Chances are that minimizing retirements as well as having good Democratic candidates, campaigns and turnout will minimize any losses that our party may incur (and we may even be in store for a big, happy surprise like in 1934).  There’s nothing like a good campaign – just look at Scott Brown’s recent victory in Massachusetts, or something just as impressive to me – the near-defeat of Barry Goldwater in Arizona — by a Democrat ! — in 1980 of all years ! (Goldwater won a razor-sharp victory only after all the absentees had been counted).

If, on the other hand, we’re just playing defense and adopt a fatalistic outlook towards November 2010, our losses are likely to be greater.  The President also needs to make the right choices over the next nine months – in order to create as favorable a climate for the Democratic Party to succeed in November (and that includes not alienating his base and thus depressing turnout !) … so, good luck to the Democrats … but don’t forget go on offense and fight like hell over the next nine months and don’t be afraid of history; nothing is inevitable in elections.

Just left a CA delegation meeting with Cong. Diane Watson was quietly telling Members that she will not be running for re-election.

Word is that Former CA Assembly Speaker Karen Bass will immediately enter the race following Watson’s announcement.  Further proof of this plan — Bass is scheduled to be in DC next week for a series of meet and greet events with potential financial supporters.

Anyone that knows anything about Watson and Bass can attest that this would be a TREMENDOUS upgrade for the district, CA Delegation, and US House in general. Bass is a real leader — while Watson has been less than impressive during his tenure to say the least…