Month: July 2010

I’m going to do one of these on the first Monday of every month between now and election day. Time to do away with the tossup cop out and get off the fence!

Rankings are ‘Tilt’ (less than 5 point race), ‘Lean’ (5-10 point race) and ‘Favored ‘(10-15 point race). Anything beyond that is ‘Solid’ for either party.

SENATE

Dem Tilt

IL

NV

WI

CA

WA

Rep Tilt

PA

CO

KY

OH

MO

NH

Dem Lean

FL*

Rep Lean

NC

IN

Dem Favored

CT

WV

Rep Favored

LA

AR

DE

• CO-Sen: So since the last time we checked in, Ken Buck royally stepped in it not just once, but twice. First, he made the argument that voters should opt for him and not Jane Norton because “he doesn’t wear high heels.” (It was by way of arguing that, instead, he wears cowboy boots with actual bullshit on them, but the gender card was pretty clear. And Norton’s response was easy to write, and was on the air almost instantaneously. It probably played at least something of a role in today’s decision by Arizona governor Jan Brewer, amassing her own clutch of Mama Rattlesnakes, to extend an endorsement to Norton.) Then second, it came out over the weekend that on June 11, Buck was overheard referring to Tea Partiers (or at least the birthers among them) as “dumbasses.” (Compounding the unforced nature of the error was that he was joking around with his Democratic tracker while saying it!) Buck was out with the inevitable apology to the teabaggers within the day. (Y’know, for a bunch of self-styled tough guys, they sure do get their feelings hurt easily.)

• CT-Sen: Despite his blowing through a large chunk of his remaining cash on hand in a baffling ad urging people to vote in the Republican primary (although not specifically for him), Rob Simmons is still maintaining that he’s not currently a candidate for the Senate. He considers his $350K ad buy as something like “public service announcements.”

• FL-Sen: Must be nice to have Jeff Greene’s money! Concerned observers are a bit troubled by the close correlation between his hiring of DNC member Jon Ausman as a consultant, and his next-day endorsement of Greene’s campaign. Greene has spent $6 million of his own money on the race so far, which apparently is a drop in the bucket for him, as he’s been content to ignore a $1.87 million fine from the government of Belize that’s outstanding against him, after he crashed his 145-foot yacht into a sensitive coral reef there.

• IL-Sen: Continuing the boat-crashing theme, in case you’ve been living under a rock all weekend, the big news in Illinois is that Mark Kirk has gotten caught in yet another series of misrememberments, this time about his sailboat accident and subsequent Coast Guard rescue that supposedly got him devoted to public service. Turns out he at least got the being in a sailboat accident part right, but, unlike his own description of the events, he was rescued long before nightfall, he probably didn’t swim for a mile because he was within half a mile of shore, and his core temperature certainly wasn’t 82 because he would have lost consciousness long before getting to that point. Sensing a pattern here?

• KY-Sen: Rand Paul is re-affirming that he supports Mitch McConnell. Well, sort of. During his Fancy Farm appearance this weekend, he said he’s going to vote for McConnell for leader, but almost immediately afterwards, reduced that to not seeing a reason why he wouldn’t vote for him. Observers also noted that, in his earlier sorta-support for McConnell, he was implicitly dissing Sharron Angle as unlikely to win, by way of saying that Jack Conway’s first action would be to vote for Harry Reid for majority leader (something that, of course, wouldn’t happen if Reid weren’t to get re-elected).

• NV-Sen: Sharron Angle’s media policy can be summed up in one word: RUN! That’s what she did when faced with questions from a six-months-pregnant reporter last week, who, in typical lamestream media fashion, insisted on asking some further questions after a three-minute speech of boilerplate on the estate tax. How presumptuous! Harry Reid got further good news, too, with the endorsement of Las Vegas mayor and relentless self-promoter Oscar Goodman, who called Reid “the man we go to get things done in the city.” If there’s one Nevadan having an even worse time than Angle, though, it’s John Ensign; his one-time crony Tom Coburn just hung him out to dry, handing over e-mails from Ensign in the ongoing criminal investigation by the DOJ into l’affaire Hampton.

• WV-Sen: With filing closed in West Virginia, there are eleven GOPers fighting in the primary for the right to oppose Joe Manchin in the Senate special election. Most prominent, of course, is businessman John Raese, who lost the 2006 Senate race to Robert Byrd and is also something of an archenemy to the Moore/Capito family. The only other noteworthy GOPer is Mac Warner, who already lost the WV-01 primary this year (and whose brother, Monty Warner, was the 2004 GOP gubernatorial nominee, losing badly to Manchin). Raese punctuated his entry with some ill-advised and outdated ethnic humor, comparing the Italian-American Manchin to Tony Soprano. The NRSC, probably not liking any of its options here (and having gotten burned by some of its earlier interventions), says it isn’t getting involved in the primary.

• CO-Gov: The rumor du jour last week was that the RGA was prepared to pull out of Colorado entirely — and that was before this morning’s confirmation that Tom Tancredo was going to jump into the race as an indie candidate in order to either leverage the GOP nomination or crash-land the whole operation. The RGA denied the rumors when they first came out, but the local GOPers working on the race are suddenly leaking e-mails that they’re broke. And with Tancredo‘s bid today, suddenly his allies and core backers among the Tea Partiers are suddenly denouncing him, accusing him of being a likely spoiler, whether intentional or not. Bafflingly, Tancredo pushed back in the way most likely to rub them the wrong way, calling the teabaggers new members of the “establishment.” Tancredo’s getting some pushback from state party chair Dick Wadhams, too; TPM has audio of the literal screaming match between the two of them.

• FL-Gov: You may remember state Sen. Paula Dockery, who was running a futile campaign against Bill McCollum in the GOP gubernatorial primary until dropping out after getting totally eclipsed by Rick Scott. Well, now she’s teaming up with Scott; she’s stopping somewhere short of endorsing him, but is joining him on his bus tour, saying she share similar stances on the issues. (She can’t be angling for a Lt. Gov. slot, as Florida elects its LG separately, so what her angle is, I don’t know. UPDATE: Actually, commenters have corrected me on Florida’s LG procedure, wherein the nominees pick running mates, so, yes, it does sound like she’s angling for LG.) Also, while it isn’t exactly about the horse race, here’s a fascinating (at least to me) piece of backstory about Democratic candidate Alex Sink. Her slightly Asian appearance is because she’s 1/8th Thai, and her great-grandfather was a well-known celebrity in the early 1800s: circus performer Chang Bunker, one-half of the original so-called “Siamese Twins.”

• GA-Gov: Dueling (banjo) endorsements in the Georgia GOP gubernatorial runoff, and they seem to fit the overall media narratives about the two candidates. The suburbanized Karen Handel got Mitt Romney’s endorsement, while the more hickory-smoked Nathan Deal got the backing of the NRA.

• OK-Gov (pdf): There’s one more poll of the primaries in Oklahoma (to be decided tomorrow night), from the Republican firm of Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates, apparently on their own and not on anyone else’s behalf. The results are pretty similar to this weekend’s Sooner Poll: they see AG Drew Edmondson beating Lt. Gov. Jari Askins 38-27 on the Dem side, and Rep. Mary Fallin well ahead of state Sen. Randy Brogdon 50-22 on the GOP side. Askins did get one late-breaking endorsement, though, that’s good as gold in this football-mad state: she got the backing of former OU and Dallas Cowboys head coach Barry Switzer. Switzer’s backing is credited with helping Brad Henry win a come-from-behind victory in the 2002 Dem gubernatorial primary.

• OH-St. House: Here’s something you don’t see every day: a local article about a competitive state legislative chamber where you don’t get just platitudes about the closeness, but actual detail about the most competitive races. Democrats currently control the state House 53-46 after picking it up in 2008, and it could revert back to the GOP this year. The Democratic seats on defense that they list are scattered among Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland suburbs, and Appalachian-flavored rural areas like Portsmouth and Zanesville.

• OR-Init: Oregon stands out as the only west coast state that doesn’t have an independent redistricting commission for state legislative seats. It looks like that’s going to continue: a proposed initiative to create an independent commission of retired judges for redistricting didn’t qualify for the ballot, after too many signatures turned out to be invalid. 2002 GOP governor candidate and bringer-of-the-crazy Kevin Mannix was the leader of the move, although he actually had some big money interests behind him this time (like Nike’s Phil Knight).

• Rasmussen:

• AZ-Sen (R): John McCain (R-inc) 54%, J.D. Hayworth (R) 34%

• ND-Sen: Tracy Potter (D) 22%, John Hoeven (R) 69%

Seemingly unsatisfied with Republicans Scott “Plagiarist” McInnis and Dan “under the table” Maes’ refusal to exit the race, former CO-06 Rep. (and certifiable nutjob) Tom Tancredo will run for Governor under the banner of the American Constitution Party. From the Denver Post:

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo is in the race for Colorado governor, he said this morning.

“I will officially announce at noon that I will seek the nomination of the constitution party,” Tancredo told The Denver Post.

Barring both Maes and McInnis pulling a Dede Scozzafava and dropping out (allowing Tancredo to consolidate the conservative vote), the only Dem in this race, John Hickenlooper, must be feeling pretty lucky.

We’re back from a successful Netroots Nation, and in the midst of sweeping up from half a week of limited posting, we’re going to do a polls-only digest first and tackle the rest of the damage later today.

• AK-Sen (pdf): Local pollster Ivan Moore is out with the first (and probably only) public look at the Republican primary between incumbent establishment figure Lisa Murkowski and Tea Party fave (and proxy for foxy GOP doxy Sarah Palin) Joe Miller. Y’know what? Alaskans know that their local economy is largely propped up with federal dollars, and the teabagger message isn’t likely to have much resonance here, no matter how much pro-gun posturing it gets dressed up in. The poll finds Murkowski with 53/29 positives, and a 62-30 lead over Miller.

• FL-Sen, FL-Gov (pdf): The Attack of the Shady Billionaires seems to continue unabated, as they pour even more money into advertising. PPP looks at both of their primaries. It’s still a close race in the Democratic Senate primary, where Rep. Kendrick Meek leads the yacht-crashing Jeff Greene 28-25 (with Tom Jensen observing “Democratic voters seem uninterested in this election,” with many of them already having settled on Charlie Crist). In the GOP gubernatorial primary, Columbia/HCA-crashing Rick Scott is in firm control, though, leading AG Bill McCollum 43-29. McCollum’s favorables among Republicans are a horrible 26/40, while Scott’s are 35/32.

• KY-Sen: Another public poll places the Kentucky Senate race in near-dead heat territory. Braun Research, on behalf of local politics website cn|2, finds Rand Paul with a 41-38 lead over Jack Conway. Conway has substantial leads among moderates (52-18) and among women (43-36).

• LA-Sen: The Charlie Melancon camp and the NRSC exchanged fire over the last few days, issuing dueling internal polls with dramatically different takes on their races. Melancon struck first with an Anzalone Liszt internal showing a much closer race than anyone has seen before: David Vitter led Melancon only 44-43 (the previous A-L internals had 10-point spreads). The NRSC responded with a POS poll over the weekend, giving Vitter a more predictable 48-31 lead when including leaners. Maybe more importantly, this poll is the first look at the GOP primary, and it shows Vitter may not have too much trouble with it: he claims a 76-5 lead over Chet Traylor.

• NC-Sen: Here’s one more Democratic internal that really serves to shake up what’s been considered a Republican-leaning race. The Elaine Marshall camp released a poll from Lake Research last Thursday giving her a 37-35 lead over Richard Burr (with 5 to Libertarian Mike Beitler). Burr’s favorables are 34/43, and he has a re-elect of 25/31, numbers no incumbent would like to see.

• GA-Gov (pdf): I have trouble believing this one, but maybe Nathan Deal, who seems to be staking out more conservative turf than Karen Handel, is consolidating more of the votes of the various primary losers than is Handel. Deal is out with a new internal, from McLaughlin & Associates, giving him a 39-38 lead over Handel in the GOP gubernatorial (or goober-natorial, in Georgia) runoff. 56% of respondents say Deal is conservative, while 35% say Handel is and 30% call her a moderate.

• MI-Gov: A new poll of the Democratic primary from Inside Michigan Politics gives a different result from just about everybody else: they give a significant lead to Virg Bernero, who leads Andy Dillon 36-22. The article is strangely silent on other details about the poll, especially the issue of sample size, where Inside Michigan Politics has been pushing the limits of credibility.

• OK-Gov: SoonerPoll.com, on behalf of the Tulsa World, is out with what’s probably the last word on the gubernatorial race before this Tuesday’s primaries. Tuesday night looks to be pretty drama-free: on the Dem side, AG Drew Edmondson leads LG Jari Askins 49-33 (up from a 10-point gap in their previous poll, way back in January). For the GOPers, Rep. Mary Fallin leads state Sen. Randy Brogdon 56-18 (which is actually a drop for Fallin from the last poll). They also look ahead to November matchups, finding Fallin leading Edmondson 47-39 and Askins 46-40.

• TN-Gov: The Tennessee primary will also be fast upon us, and Mason-Dixon, on behalf of the Tennessee Newspaper Network, takes their first look at the GOP gubernatorial primary there. Like other recent polls, they give the edge to Knoxville mayor Bill Haslam, who’s at 36. Rep. (and now, apparently, aspiring secessionist) Zach Wamp is at 25, and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey is at 20. (All three candidates are from the eastern third of the state, and western Tennesseeans are disproportionately undecided (29%). That would tend to benefit the biggest advertiser, which is Haslam.) Mason-Dixon also tried out November matchups, finding Dem Mike McWherter looking DOA against the sorta-moderate Haslam, 49-31, but in closer races against the more strident Wamp (45-38) and Ramsey (43-38).

• PA-03: There’s one House internal to mention, and, as has been the trend lately, it’s from a Republican. It’s from a race that been on most people’s back-burners; we’ll have to see if this raises auto dealer Mike Kelly’s profile. Kelly’s own poll, via the Tarrance Group, give him a 48-37 lead over freshman Dem Kathy Dahlkemper.

• Rasmussen

• AR-Gov: Mike Beebe (D-inc) 50%, Jim Keet (R) 40%

• AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln (D-inc) 35%, John Boozman (R) 60%

• AZ-Gov: Terry Goddard (D) 37%, Jan Brewer (R-inc) 56%

• FL-Sen: Kendrick Meek (D) 20%, Marco Rubio (R) 35%, Charlie Crist (I) 33%

• FL-Sen: Jeff Greene (D) 19%, Marco Rubio (R) 34%, Charlie Crist (I) 36%

• GA-Gov: Roy Barnes (D) 43%, Nathan Deal (R) 49%

• GA-Gov: Roy Barnes (D) 44%, Karen Handel (R) 45%

• ID-Gov: Keith Allred (D) 36%, Butch Otter (R-inc) 53%

• ND-AL: Earl Pomeroy (D-inc) 46%, Rick Berg (R) 49%

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 58%, Rick Lazio (R) 27%

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 58%, Carl Paladino (R) 29%

• RI-Gov: Frank Caprio (D) 30%, John Robitaille (R) 23%, Lincoln Chafee (I) 37%

• RI-Gov: Frank Caprio (D) 33%, Victor Moffitt (R) 18%, Lincoln Chafee (I) 36%

• WV-Sen: Joe Manchin (D) 51%, John Raese (R) 35%

Mason-Dixon for St. Louis Post-Dispatch (pdf) (7/19-21, registered likely voters, no trendlines):

Robin Carnahan (D): 42

Roy Blunt (R): 48

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±4%)

Mason-Dixon takes its first look at the Missouri Senate race; they are not the bearers of good news, finding Robin Carnahan down 6 in the race against Roy Blunt to claim the retiring GOPer Kit Bond’s seat. The big problem here seems to be Barack Obama’s approvals in this reddish-tilting state, which are a terrible 34/57, and may be rubbing off on Carnahan. (It may be a rather Republican-heavy sample, though: check out this one detail from the crosstabs. People say they “generally support” the agenda of the Tea Party movement 44/39. I’ve never seen numbers like that out of a swing state before, and come to think of it, I don’t I’ve ever seen 80% of a population have an opinion of the Tea Party before.)

Here’s one other interesting aside: it looks like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has gotten a new pollster, as this is their first pairing with Mason-Dixon. Anybody remember who their previous pollster was? (Discussion is already underway in liberalpragmatist‘s diary.)

UPDATE: They also did an oversample of likely primary voters, finding that the GOP field here is a pretty big case of teabagger fail. State Sen. Chuck Purgason — one far-right anti-establishment challenger who didn’t seem to ever catch fire — is trailing Blunt 62-13 in the primary. Also, they took a look at Proposition C, which is a statewide ballot measure that will be decided on primary election day, not in November, and will attempt (unconstitutionally, I would imagine, seeing as how there’s this little thing called the Commerce Clause) to say that Missouri voters are exempt from federal penalties starting 2014 for not carrying health insurance. For some convoluted reason, they don’t release an aggregate result, but predict passage based on its support from 27% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.

These are the dog days of summer as far as politics go, when the polls are many but the insight they offer is fleeting, because it’s too damn early to know anything, and when campaigns are coming up with their grand strategies that will unleash victory once people start paying attention, which right now, they mostly aren’t.

Nonetheless, I thought it might be instructive to chronicle what I think political junkies should be paying attention to right now, seperating the wheat from the chaff. This is my opinion and by no means comprehensive, so give your own thoughts on this as well.

Right now, the year is battling between 1994 (an all out disaster for the governing Democratic party) and 1982 (where the losses were small and manageable for the ruling Republicans). I don’t see much of a sign it’s going to be 2002 (where the dominant Republicans actually picked up seats), but who knows. Anything can happen in the next three months.

So here’s what I’m paying attention to:

Unemployment: Not the weekly unemployment numbers, which can fluctuate, but the monthly unemployment reports. We have two of these coming out before Labor Day, and while both are important the September 3rd one will set the narrative for the remainder of the fall. I think we will see some growth in jobs and a either a small fall or rise in the unemployment rate, which will not be good news for the Dems, but not the worst news either. If job creation goes negative for either month, however, or their is a more than 3 percent rise in unemployment, it’s very bad news for the Dems. Conversely, a big rise in job creation or drop in unemployment could mitigate some losses for Dems in November. Keep in mind that while unemployment didn’t seem to matter in 1982 or 1994 in predicting election results, there are reasons to expect it might play a more outsize role in the coming election (in 1982, Reagan had began to tame inflation, which made people feel better about the rise in unemployment, and 1994 was more about Clinton’s failed health care plan, his stance on gun control and perceived mistakes then the economy).  

Obama’s approval rating: Obama is right now about where Clinton was at this time in 1994 and Reagan in 1982 (Reagan actually may have been slightly less popular). Clinton dropped further, of course, and the result was a disaster for Democrats. Conversely, Reagan also dropped throughout 1982, and the results were not a catastrophe for the Republicans. What was the difference? I think it was this: while Reagan was not popular in 1982, he was not as polarizing as Clinton was in 1994 (remember this was after the gays in the military mess, the haircut on Air Force One, the consistent advocacy of gun control and other culture war situations). In other words, where Democrats did not successfully make the election about Reagan in 1982, Republicans made it about Clinton in 1994 (just as Dems made it about Bush in 2006 and 2008). So, it’s not just Obama’s approval rating, but the intensity of opposition to him. Right now, it’s pretty intense, but with most of the big ticket items (HCR, the financial bill) out of the way, there is reason to hope it may drop down to Reagan 1982 levels. That could be a big factor.

Money, money, money Right now, we know the Dems will have a financial advantage headed into fall, but how much is the question. Pay attention to a couple of things: 1). What’s happening with the RNC, which could determine how far behind the Republicans will be this year 2). Whether Karl Rove’s new group or any of the other shadowy advocacy organizations will make a difference in the Republican’s cash deficit and 3). Any snippet of information you can get on some of the Republican candidates who were outraised by the their Democratic counterparts (like the ones in Pennsylvania), that indicate they might be catching up.

Races to watch

While we’re going to see lots of polls about the close Senate and Governor races (and even some House races), many of those polls aren’t going to break either way until the fall. Here are the races I’m watching the closest this summer:

Marshall vs. Burr Marshall just came out with an internal poll indicated she was two points ahead. Great, but here’s the thing: she needs some independent proof of this. The DSCC and DNC are not far enough ahead of their Republican counterparts they are going to be able to do for her what they did for Kay Hagen against Dole two years ago. She’s going to need some evidence she can actually win this thing, because she doesn’t have enough money right now to beat Burr without an influx of funds. This summer will tell all.

Vitter vs. Melancon Given it looks like Vitter will likely survive his primary, see Marshall above. Melancon needs more than an internal poll to show he can win this thing against Vitter. He won’t be as financially disadvantaged as Marshall, but Louisiana is not a Democrat-friendly state right now, and if by Labor Day Melancon is still down by seven points or more, prepare to write him off. (even five might be too much)

Grassley vs. Conlin This one isn’t really on anyones radar, but it could show whether the national mood is anti-Republican or anti-incumbent. Grassley is running a lackadasical campaign, and Conlin is a great fundraiser. But if Grassley is up by double digits as of Labor Day, it’s probably over.

I think these three races will be indicative of where were heading. If by the time Labor Day rolls around, we are writing all of them off, it’s not going to be a good year for the Dems. If even one of them is competitive, it may be better than anyone expects.

Things not to pay attention to

The stock market, the weekly first-time unemployment numbers (unless they drop below 400,000), or housing starts. All of these fluctuate way too much to have much impact on the way the election will go

Party preference numbers People pay too much attention to these. Not only do they bounce all around (this week see Gallup vs. Quinnipiac vs CNN) but it’s still too early for them to tell us anything about how the races will shape up in the fall. The national mood now won’t neccesarily be the national mood three months from now (when the party preference numbers WILL matter)

Commntators either on Red State or to Steve Singiser on Kos (not Singiser himself, who’s great) The former are constantly predicing 90 seat House gains and 11 seat Senate gains for the Republicans, the latter seem to think Dems will be at 64 or 65 seats because they will win all of the toss ups in the fall, and even some seats that are currently leaning Republican. For relief, go to Nate Silver and 538.com. He’s not always right, but he’s always realistic (and when he has that occasional slip-up, like with his commentary on WV-Senate, he corrects it pretty quickly).  

   

The editors of Daily Kos and Swing State Project are teaming up for a Q&A on the 2010 elections here in Las Vegas. This show is set to go off at 4:30 Pacific time, and you can watch the live feed below. More information on the panel (and the panelists) is available here.

UPDATE: A big thank you to everyone who came to our panel or watched us online. If you missed it, you can view a recording here or just watch the video embedded above.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Presidential election results are often pictured through electoral college maps, a useful and simple tool. Looking at the competition of the two parties throughout time provides a quite interesting exercise. Certain states turn blue, then red, then blue again. Others stay the same color. One election the map is filled with red; the next election blue makes a comeback. And on and on it goes.

This is in fact quite deceiving. What the electoral college does not show is the history of third-party challenges to the two-party system. In 1992, for instance, presidential candidate Ross Perot finished with 18.9% of the vote – yet not a single state in the 1992 electoral college showed his third-party run.

Since 1992, however, third-parties have had quite a rough run. This graph shows the third-party vote after that year:

More below.

Several factors influenced this. Mr. Perot ran again in 1996, winning a much reduced share of the vote. In 2000 Green candidate Ralph Nader polled as high as six percent, before his support collapsed as voters abandoned Mr. Nader for Vice President Al Gore. Then came the infamous Florida debacle, in which Nader votes literally cost the Democratic Party the presidency. Ever since then not a single third-party candidate has gained more than one percent of the vote.

Will either 2012 or 2016 be the year for a third-party run? On a micro-level, discontent with both parties does not appear to be extremely high. Democrats are fairly happy with President Barack Obama. The tea-party movement is really just a large group of amped-up Republican supporters – so the Republican Party isn’t exactly falling apart, either. Of course, these types of evaluations are naturally subjective. Different people may come to different conclusions.

Let’s take a look, then, at the macro-level trend. Here is a graph of third-party performance throughout the entire history of the United States, since popular voting first started.

The data here is also fairly inconclusive. Strong minor party candidacies seem to come and go in no particular order. There are long periods where they get less than 1% of the vote, and times where they regularly break the 10% barrier. To be frank, I was expecting to find a more discernible pattern – say, a strong minor party performance every four or five cycles.

Here is the data in a table format, for those interested:

To conclude, one can make a strong case either way. Since 1964, strong third-party performances seem to come every three elections or so. Under this argument, America might be overdue for a third-party candidacy in 2012 or 2016. On the other hand, one might also argue that the country is headed towards another long period of utter two-party dominance, such as existed from 1928 to 1964 (during the time of the so-called New Deal coalition).

What is fairly certain is that third-party candidates will continue having extreme difficulty actually winning the presidency. Out of 56 presidential elections, minor parties have a batting average of exactly zero. The strength and organizational depth of the two major parties, combined with the extreme hurdles presented by the first-past-the-post system, continue to make a third-party presidency almost impossible.

This might be a good thing. To date, the strongest minor party performance in the electoral college occurred in 1860, when they won a combined 111 out of 303 electoral votes. That year Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the presidency, despite not being on the ballot in ten states. Shortly afterwards the country plunged into Civil War.

Pennsylvania has been known as a swing state for 60 years.  In every Presidential election during that time, the Democratic Presidential candidate did better there than nationally.  John Kerry won it by a 2.5% margin and carried 13 of 67 counties (Allegheny, Beaver, Bucks, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, and Washington.)  Al Gore carried 18 counties (all of these and Cambria, Carbon, Greene, Lawrence, and Mercer.)

Barack Obama also carried 18 counties (the Kerry counties minus Beaver, Fayette, and Washington plus Berks, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Dauphin, Elk, and Monroe.)  He picked up eight Bush counties and McCain picked up three Kerry counties.  Obama only lost ground in six southwestern counties (the three that turned red and Armstrong, Lawrence, and Westmoreland.)  The four counties of Berks, Chester, Dauphin, and Monroe went blue for the first time since LBJ in 1964.  The closest counties were Monroe in 2004 (GWB by four votes) and Mercer in 2008 (McCain by 173 votes.)

There is an interesting paradox with the Commonwealth’s 19 Congressional districts.  In 2004, Kerry won 10 of them, with the 15th being the closest (he carried by 103 votes.)  Despite Obama winning statewide by over 10%, the 12th CD was the only one in the nation to flip to McCain and Obama came up only 17 votes short in the 3rd CD.  Therefore, Obama only carried nine districts, although he only lost the normally-Republican 16th and 17th districts by 3-4 point margins.  This should teach us to distrust a CD-based system of electors (like Maine and Nebraska) in more populous states.  It is subject to gerrymandering, as the GOP did in 2001 in Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth’s PVI is D+2.2.  Here are the counties ranked by PVI:

D+31: Philadelphia

D+8: Delaware, Lackawanna

D+7: Allegheny, Montgomery

D+6: Erie

D+3: Lehigh, Monroe

D+2: Bucks, Luzerne, Northampton

D+1: Centre, Fayette

EVEN: Chester

R+1: Beaver, Berks, Carbon, Dauphin

R+2: Cambria, Elk, Greene, Mercer, Washington

R+3: Lawrence

R+6: Clinton, Indiana, Schuylkill, Warren

R+7: Columbia, Pike

R+8: Crawford

R+9: Clearfield, Westmoreland, Wyoming

R+10: Forest, Northumberland, Susquehanna

R+11: Wayne

R+12: Cumberland, Lancaster, McKean, Montour, Venango, York

R+13: Armstrong, Sullivan

R+14: Bradford, Clarion

R+15: Adams, Cameron, Lebanon, Somerset

R+16: Blair, Butler, Lycoming

R+17: Huntingdon, Tioga

R+18: Jefferson

R+19: Snyder

R+20: Franklin, Mifflin

R+21: Juniata, Perry, Potter

R+24: Bedford

R+27: Fulton

This post is under construction.