September 2010 – Page 19 – Swing State Project

Triage – Who do you make the call to?

So, most of us saw the NY Times story. If not, here’s the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09…

So, you’re Chris Van Hollen, and you’re having a crappy Labor Day weekend, because you have to make the calls to Democratic incumbents saying: it’s probably not happening this year. Who do you call? Here’s my five choices. List yours below (or argue with mine) If you think it’s too early to make these calls, who do you think is going to get the call sooner rather than later?

Mike Acuri – NY-24. Acuri’s health care vote hurts him, but why he’d be on my list is Richard Hanna barely lost to him in 2008, in a good Democratic year, and has as much COH last time I checked as Acuri. I think this one is lost.

Steve Driehaus – OH-1 Steve Chabot barely lost this seat to Driehaus in 2008, and this is going to be a bad year for Democrats in Ohio. Chabot has a COH advantage as well.

Betsy Markey – CO-4 I know StephenCLE, for one, would disagree with this, but I don’t think Markey’s going to get as much benefit off the governor’s race in Colorado as he does. Cory Gardner is a good candidate, this is a tough district for Dems anyway, and a recent Republican poll had Markey down by 11. Markey does have more COH then Gardner, but he has enough to compete. Markey’s mention in the NYT story probably isn’t a coincidence.

Travis Childers – MS-01 This one is tough. I can see why it’d be a difficult choice between Childers and Frank Kratovil in Maryland on who gets a call, since both represent similar Repubican districts, but I think Childers has a tougher opponent and a tougher district.

Tom Perriello – VA-5 I saved the worst for last. Perriello is one of my favorite congressmen, but I just don’t see how he survives this year. Rob Hurt is a good opponent, and the polls are grim, even if you think those Survey USA polls exaggerate. He gets the call.

Michigan State House and Senate: September 2010

(Cross-posted on ML, BFM, and WMR-pb)

(photo by Tom Gill of beautiful Lake Michigan)

As we celebrate a beautiful Labor Day weekend, we can also rejoice in the unofficial start date of the 2010 campaign season. While many voters were bombarded with attention from campaigns over the past few months during primary season, the general election season will be upon us now with full vigor. Labor Day weekend also nicely coincides with the post-primary filing date for Michigan’s legislative campaigns. Candidates must report the amount of money they have raised and spent between July 18 and August 23, and must also declare their cash on hand at the end of the reporting period.

Thus we can see the financial condition of candidates entering to the last 61 days before Election Day in the contours of Michigan’s political landscape. As in previous analysis of the State House and Senate candidates, I have collected the reported financial data that can be obtained through a subscription. Please feel free to contact me at peterbratt@gmail.com.

State House

While signs of a Republican edge in the 2010 election have emerged over the past few months, the reality of Michigan’s political geography will reduce the number of competitive seats in the state to no more than fifteen. Using electoral data from the past four cycles, I’ve created a House District matrix that is shown in the linked Google document. Both parties have a number of safe seats that are not going to attract the attention of the opposing party; the Democrats have 31, the Republicans have 25. The filing date backs the electoral data. 22 Republicans have filed financial filing waivers, meaning they will raise no more than $1,000 for the 2010 election cycle, meaning they will most assuredly lose in November. Thirteen other Republican candidates have raised less than $1,000, and are already being heavily outspent by their Democratic opponents. Thus, for all intent and purpose, the Democrats will have at least 35 Representatives in January 2011.

27 Republicans will also most assuredly return to Lansing with these 35 Democrats. 17 Democrats have filed financial waivers, while six Republicans are unchallenged this fall (Peter Lund-36th, Kenneth Kurtz- 58th, Bob Genetski-88th, Joe Haveman-90th, Jim Stamas-98th, Wayne Schmidt, 104th). Say what you will about the Michigan Republican Party, but they ran candidates in every State House District, something that the Democrats didn’t do this cycle. The remaining four Republicans face rather nominal opposition, although Democrat Garry Post has self-financed his campaign against incumbent Republican Cindy Denby in the 47th District (northern Livingston County).

The remaining 48 districts are more competitive. Of these seats, I have classified 18 as Democratic leaning districts and fourteen as leaning Republican. Of the 18 Democratic seats, only 16 are potentially competitive since two Republicans have filed financial waivers. Eleven of these 18 Democrats are incumbents and are generally in a stronger financial position than their Republican opponents. Democratic incumbents Marty Griffin (64th-Jackson County) and Judy Nerat (108th-Menominee County) are the only two incumbents in less than robust financial positions against their opponents. Democrats will be most concerned about the seven open Democratic-leaning districts, six which the Democrats are defending. In the 15th (Dearborn), Republican Suzanne Sareini has double the money that her opponent Democrat George Darany has, which could make this seat one the GOP could put in play. In the 26th (Royal Oak), Democrat James Townsend is fresh off an expensive primary, while his Republican opponent Kenneth Rosen has a significant financial edge due to his self financing. In the 55th (Monroe and Washtenaw Counties) and the 75th (eastern Grand Rapids) the Democratic candidates Michael Smith and Brandon Dillon have significant financial advantages over their opponents, making the likelihood of the GOP House Caucus spending funds in these races much less likely. In the 110th (western Upper Peninsula) Democrat Scott Dianda has a financial edge over Republican Matt Huuki, although both candidates have not raised much money. The 31st District is a Republican-held seat in Macomb County that could be a potential Democratic pickup opportunity, and Marilyn Lane is facing Republican Dan Tolis, who has poured more than $100,000 into his campaign coffers.

Of the fourteen Republican leaning seats, six are held by GOP incumbents, five are open Republican seats, and three were vacated by term-limited Democratic incumbents. Three Democrats have filed financial waivers, meaning that only eleven seats are active elections. All GOP incumbents have a strong financial edge, while in the five open Republican seats, two Democratic candidates has filed a financial waiver (District 79 and 81), and in two races the Republican candidate has a large financial edge (Districts 33 and 61). Only in the 80th District (Van Buren County) does Democrat Tom Erdmann have a narrow financial advantage against Republican Aric Nesbitt, who spent a lot of money in a six-way Republican primary. Of the three Democratic-held district, two (District 83-Sanliac County, District 107-eastern Upper Peninsula) appear to be Republican pickups, as the Democratic candidates in each district have raised very little money in a tough political environment. In the 20th District vacated by Representative Marc Corriveau, Democrat Joan Wadsworth has a significant financial advantage over Republican Kurt Heise, who has largely self-financed his campaign. If Wadsworth can hold the 20th, which covers Plymouth Township and Northville in Wayne County, it will be a testament to her political skill.

The remaining sixteen seats are swing districts, with five held by the GOP. The five Democratic incumbents (District 1, Tim Bledsoe; District 21, Dian Slavens; District 24, Sarah Roberts; District 39, Lisa Brown; District 70, Mike Huckleberry) all have large financial advantages over their Republican opponents, an advantage which the Democratic State House caucus will certainly supplement over the next two months. The six open-Democratic held seats are much more open to a Republican takeover. The Republicans look especially competitive in Districts 52 (western Washtenaw County), 65 (Jackson County) and 91 (Muskegon County), thanks to three self-financing candidates in Mark Ouimet, Mike Shirkey and Holly Hughes. While I suspect that Christine Green will be able to benefit from strong institutional support in Washtenaw County, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Shirkey and Hughes win their districts. The 106th also looks like a possible flip, with Republican Peter Pettalia out raising Democrat Casey Viegelahn. The two remaining open Democratic seats seem to be much safer for their party, with Van Sheltrown in the 103rd District (Missaukee, Roscommon, Ogemaw, and Iosco Counties), and Harvey Schmidt in the 57th District (Monroe County) each have an active local party, a financial edge and strong support from the departing Democratic incumbents. MDP will likely steer resources towards these two districts.

Of the five Republican held swing seats, all are open seats. Of these, Districts 30 (Sterling Heights), 97 (Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac Counties), and 99 (Isabella and Midland Counties) all look like potential Democratic pickups opportunities in November. Each Democratic candidate has a significant financial edge over their Republican opponent. Districts 71 (Eaton County) and 85 (Shiawassee County) are also potential opportunities, although the Republican candidates might be aided by a better political climate this fall.

With two months to go, I expect the Democrats to lose between four and seven seats in the Michigan State House. While the political environment is not favorable for the Democratic Party this cycle, the Michigan Democratic House caucus has a two to one financial advantage over the Republican House caucus (As of July 20, 2010 the Democratic House Caucus had $850,469 versus the Republican’s $394,231) that will be used to effect over the next few weeks. While a Republican gain might be larger, I suspect the state party will choose instead to focus money on regaining control over the Michigan Supreme Court and retaining the State Senate. For folks interested where these house districts are located, please see the maps below

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

State Senate

The financial situation in the Michigan State Senate is a 180 degree reversal of the State House. The Republican Senate caucus has a three to one money advantage, with $1,584,502 cash on hand versus the Democratic Senate caucus total of $505,007 (as of July 20). This deep financial advantage, along with the unfavorable political environment will make it difficult, but not impossible, for the Democrats to take control of the State Senate.

Of the 38 seats, 30 are open in the 2010 cycle. While the turnover in senators will be significant, the partisan makeup of the chamber will not be significantly altered. Eleven seats are safe in the hands of the Democratic Party, while the Republicans will assuredly return eight senators in January 2011. Of the eleven Democrats running for safe seats, nine have Republicans who have filed financial waivers, while Republicans Michael Ennis (District 9) and Kyle Haubrich (District 23) have raised insignificant amounts of funds, ensuring that Democrats Steve Bieda and Gretchen Whitmer will be reelected in November. Of the eight safe Republicans, two are incumbents (Mike Nofs in District 19 and Mark Jansen in District 28) and their opponents filed financial waivers. Democratic candidates also filed financial waivers in the 24th and 30th Districts, while none of the remaining four Democratic candidates have raised more than $5,000 against well-financed opponents.

10 seats are leaning Republican for a number of reasons. Republicans Jack Brandenburg (District 11-Macomb County) and Philip Pavlov (Lapeer and St. Clair Counties) face opponents who filed financial waivers, and Jim Marleau in the 12th District (Oakland County) and Mike Kowall in the 15th (northern Oakland) have significant financial advantages over Casandra Ulbrich and Pamela Jackson respectively. Incumbent Republican senators John Pappageorge (13th District-eastern Oakland County), Randy Richardville (17th District-Monroe and Washtenaw Counties), and Roger Kahn (32nd District-Saginaw County) have significant cash on hand advantages over their Democratic challengers. However, Aaron Bailey in the 13th and Debasish Mridha in the 32nd have raised significant funds that would allow them to make a play at these seats in a better political environment. A similar situation exists in the open 16th and 36th district seats, where popular Democrats Douglas Spade and Andy Neumann are running against Bruce Caswell and John Moolenaar. Neumann narrowly lost in 2002 in a bid for a senate seat, and it appears that Moolenaar has a significant financial advantage of more than $200,000 at the beginning of September. Democrats might consider making a play at the 16th District, where Douglas Spade will face Caswell, who provided a personal fortune for his attempt for higher office. Finally, in the 37th District, while Republican Howard Walker’s campaign account was depleted after a bitter primary battle, Democrat Bob Carr hasn’t caught on fire financially.

The four Democratic-leaning seats are a mixed bag for the defending party. Incumbent Glenn Anderson (6th District-Livonia and Westland) and Jeff Mayes (Bay County and the Thumb region) have significant cash on hand advantages, meaning they will avoid being targeted by the Republicans. However, in the 10th (Macomb County) and 38th (Upper Peninsula) Districts, two excellent candidates for each party (Paul Gieleghem versus Tory Rocca in the former and Michael Lahti and Tom Casperson in the latter) mean that there will be a contested race with significant funding from each party. While the Republican candidates are strong, the seats both have historic Democratic leanings, which will be crucial to retaining these seats in November.

The five remaining seats will decide control of the Senate. If the Republicans can hold two of their four seats, they will have a 20 to 18 edge in the chamber. The Democrats need to hold the 26th District (Genesee and Oakland Counties) and pick up three of the Republican seats. The problem for the Democrats is that their candidates in two of the five districts are in at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the 20th District Democrat Robert Jones has just over $10,000 on hand (and has loaned himself an equal amount), and is going up against Tonya Schuitmaker, who is personally wealthy and willing to spend significant sums to hold this Kalamazoo County seat, although she only has $6,000 on hand after an expensive primary. Democrat David LaGrand ($30,648 cash on hand) trails opponent David Hildenbrand ($134,352 cash on hand) by more than $100,000, and edge that the senate Democrats will have to try and overcome to contest this seat. Democratic candidates in the 7th (Kathleen Law with $21,577 cash on hand), 26th (Paula Zelenko with $23,041 cash on hand) and Mary Valentine ($49,231) are at rough financial parity with their Republican opponents Patrick Colbeck ($13,267), David Robertson ($10,648), and Geoff Hansen ($57,371).

Given the number of strong candidates in each party competing in some competitive districts, it seems that the parties will likely exchange some seats. However, given the Republican Senate caucus’ strong financial edge, I suspect the Democratic gain will be limited to a one to two seat gain, keeping the Republicans in control of the upper chamber.

Politics is about candidates and their message competing in a political landscape strongly shaped by partisan boundaries. With two months to go, both parties will be racing to the finish line. So, enjoy the last few weeks of peace and quiet before the robocalls start, and enjoy some beautiful state senate district photos below.

http://i303.photobucket.com/al…

AK-Gov, AK-AL: Parnell, Young Have Wide Leads

Public Policy Polling (8/27-28, likely voters, no trend lines):

Ethan Berkowitz (D): 37

Sean Parnell (R): 55

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±2.7%)

Of a trio of polls released in the past week, these are the best numbers for Sean Parnell (an NRSC-commissioned Basswood Research poll had Parnell up by 54-40, and Rasmussen, for whatever it’s worth, had the race at 53-43). The bloom has faded a bit from the Parnell flower, though, as PPP finds that his job approval rating is at 50-36, down from 58-19 earlier in the year.

One thing not considered by this PPP poll are the third-party options. For a few days, it looked like Republican Bill Walker, who pulled a third of the GOP primary vote against Parnell, might run on the Alaskan Independence Party line in place of the current AIP nominee, 80 year-old Don Wright. After saying that he would bow out of the race, Wright has reversed course and now insists that he’s staying on the ballot. Walker says he’s still considering running as a write-in or on the Libertarian line, but that would require the consent of the Alaskan Libertarian Party and their nominee William Toien. (For their part, the Libertarians say they would “consider it”.) If anything’s going to happen, it’ll have to happen pretty soon — state law says that a party can replace its nominee up to 48 days before election day.

If Walker did manage to land on the Libertarian line, it might make for a more interesting general election — recall that Democrat Tony Knowles was successful in 1994 thanks in part to vote-splitting between the GOP and the Alaskan Independence nominees.

Meanwhile, we also have some House numbers:

Harry Crawford (D): 36

Don Young (R-inc): 55

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±2.7%)

After surviving near-death in 2008, it’s looking like Don Young won’t have any troubles this fall. The real marquee match-up will be the Senate race between Scott McAdams and Joe Miller.

IL-Gov: Brady Up by 5

Market Shares Corp for the Chicago Tribune/WGN (8/28-9/1, likely voters, no trend lines):

Pat Quinn (D-inc): 32

Bill Brady (R): 37

Scott Lee Cohen (I): 4

Rich Whitney (G): 2

Lex Green (L): 2

Did You Know… that Pat Quinn has not held the lead in a single poll this year?

Granted, nearly all of these polls have come from just two sources (PPP and Rasmussen), but that’s really a non-comfort here given the sheer volume of them.

WA-02: Larsen Trails Koster

SurveyUSA (8/31-9/2, likely voters, no trend lines):

Rick Larsen (D-inc): 46

John Koster (R): 50

Undecided: 4

(MoE: ±4%)

This poll comes in the wake of the final top-two primary results giving Koster a 298 vote lead over Larsen. Digging deeper, though, two Democratic candidates took a full 10% of the primary vote, resulting in a final score of 52-48 for Team Blue. This is the second time that Koster has won the top-two primary vote against Larsen, the first time coming in 2000, where Larsen ultimately won the general election by 50-46.

Comparing these results to previous SUSA polls of this district in 2008 and 2006, the partisan composition of the sample isn’t what’s hurting Larsen; the damage is coming from Larsen’s struggles among independent voters. He loses those voters by 12 points, compared to monster-sized wins among indies in the past two cycles. The 18-34 year-old vote has shrunk substantially, too, down to 13% of the sample — leaving behind a demographic that flocks to Koster by 22 points.

You may take issue with the poll, but this one is shaping up to be a very close race.

VA-09: Boucher Up by 10

SurveyUSA (8/31-9/2, likely voters, 7/17-20 in parens):

Rick Boucher (D-inc): 50 (52)

Morgan Griffith (R): 40 (39)

Jeremiah Heaton (I): 5 (5)

Undecided: 4 (5)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

SurveyUSA again takes the pulse of the much-hyped race between veteran Dem Rep. Rick Boucher and Virginia House of Delegates Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, and finds that the needle hasn’t budged significantly over the past month and a half. SUSA’s likely voter universe has gotten slightly more Republican over that time, shifting from 33D-35R-29I to 32D-37R-29I, but Boucher is still strong enough in less-friendly demographics to maintain a decent lead. Boucher takes a quarter of the Republican vote and holds a one-point lead among indies — very strong numbers compared to the performance of other Democratic incumbents playing on red turf this year.

We haven’t seen a great deal of polling from this race, but all indicators are surprisingly positive for Boucher. In addition to this pair of SUSA polls, a mid-August Benenson Strategy Group internal poll for Rick Boucher gave him a 55-32 lead over Griffith. With plenty of time left on the clock, Boucher is by no means safe, but it appears he has slipped down the priority list for Republican gunners this fall.

The White Vote in Washington D.C.

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

When Republicans attack American liberalism, they prefer to use San Francisco as a punch bag. Indeed, San Francisco does constitute quite a liberal city; in the 2008 presidential election, 84.0% of the good folk of San Francisco preferred Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Senator John McCain.

San Francisco was far from the most Democratic-voting city in 2008, however. Mr. Obama’s percentage total was greater in several places; Washington D.C., for instance, pummeled San Francisco in the contest of who votes more loyally Democratic. In the capital of America, an astonishing 92.5% of voters supported the Illinois senator.

Most people who will hear this will probably start thinking something quite politically incorrect. The line of thought goes that “Washington is full of black people, all the blacks voted for Obama, so of course it voted that way.”

This is half true and half false.

More below.

It is true that the capital’s black population voted uniformly for the president – something that occurs with almost all Democratic candidates. The census, however, estimates that blacks compose only 54.4% of Washington’s overall population. This may surprise a lot of Americans who think the city is all-black. Even if every single black person in Washington voted Democratic, Mr. Obama still is quite a ways off from 92.5%.

Let’s look at another place with similar demographics to Washington D.C. – Montgomery County, Alabama where the Civil Rights movement started. Like Washington, Montgomery’s population is 52.9% black. Unlike Washington (where Mr. Obama won 92.5% of the vote), however, Montgomery only gave Mr. Obama 59.3% of the vote. Blacks are not responsible for this 33% difference; there is not much variation in how African-Americans voted in both cities.

The trick is with the white population. According to exit polls, Mr. Obama won 10% of whites in the state of Alabama. The results from Montgomery County reflect this low level of support.

In Washington, however, Mr. Obama won an astounding 86% of the white vote, according to exit polls. This is how the Illinois senator was able to get up to 92.5% of the vote in Washington, which is about one-third white. If white people alone had voted in Washington, Mr. Obama would still have done better than he did in San Francisco.

It would be quite interesting to explore why whites in the capital vote so loyally Democratic. Washington, of course, constitutes the center of the federal government; it would not be unusual for much of the white population to work for the government and thus vote more Democratic. But what type of work do they do – do they deliver the mail for the Post Office, or do they run the Post Office? Is Washington’s white population composed of mostly working-class, union-type Democrats? Or is it composed mostly of “wine-track” liberals, the type that populate cities like San Francisco and Seattle?

Whatever the answer, this statistic remains one of the most curious and interesting ones to come out of the 2008 presidential election. Indeed, until now this blogger was unaware that such one-sided Democratic voting patterns existed among whites anywhere in the nation. To get 86% of the vote anywhere is a burdensome feat. For a Democrat to get that support from whites is something that one does not see often in the United States.

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?

Cat fud lovers of the world, unite and take over…

A special thank you to everyone who’s already donated to Scott McAdams. We’re already well past the halfway mark of our goal – can we keep the McMentum going?

CO-Gov: Dan Maes Deathwatch Thread (Update: Maes Lives)

Let us pray for the survival of Dan Maes’ candidacy. There’s a chance that it may not outlive the day:

Top Colorado Republicans are attempting to convince gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes to drop his bid for governor by the end of Friday, a well-placed Republican in the state tells POLITICO.

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

Meanwhile, Ken Buck and GOP Rep. Mike Coffman both pulled their support from Maes today. If Maes is gonna get out, he’ll need to do so before today’s 5pm local deadline (7pm Eastern) to remove his name from the ballot.

Cat fud fans take note — even if Maes is replaced on the ballot with someone like Jane Norton or state Sen. Josh Penry, Tom Tancredo is telling the Denver Post that he won’t back down from his third-party bid. Also, state Sen. Dave Schultheis, a Maes supporter, told the Colorado Springs Gazette that Maes told him he won’t back out. The Politico reports that Maes’ spokesperson is a lot more circumspect in their language, saying only that Maes “has no plans to exit the race at this time”.

5:32PM UPDATE: Dan Maes is saying that he’s staying in, apparently. But we won’t know for sure for another 90 minutes.

6:37PM UPDATE: From the Facebook page of Dan Maes, we have it straight from the horse’s mouth: Dan Maes is going nowhere!!

AZ-Gov: Brewer Runs Away From Debates

Check out this naked shit:

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

I hope that $1.7 million was worth the embarrassment of her disastrous pre- and post-debate performance, in which she stumbled out of the gate during her opening statement and angrily stormed away from a media scrum after refusing to answer a chorus of questions on her bizarre, unsubstantiated claims about “beheadings in the desert”. And by the way, she’s still not explaining herself on that score:

“All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings,” the governor said. “That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on.”

You gotta give Brewer points for honesty; she fully admits that she’s ducking out of all future debates because she knows she’ll lose:

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

“Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?” she said.

At least we know where her head’s at!