DCCC pulls out of Philly TV Market

Link: http://www.mcall.com/news/loca…

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had planned to run political commercials for the final two weeks until the Nov. 2 election. It has now scaled back its ad buy to just the final week, which begins Oct. 26.

In the Philadelphia media market there are a number of very competitive or high-profile congressional races, including the seats currently held by U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat, in Bucks County and U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, a Republican, in the Lehigh Valley. The Philadelphia market also includes northern Delaware and southern New Jersey.

Now the good news is this is not a complete removal of ad time.  Ads will run in the final week but will this hurt Rep. Murphy? Will Rep. Dent be in office?  Was this is a move to avoid simply an expensive media market to supplant ads for weaker more senior dem congressman like Rep. Costa in California or Rep. Spratt in South Carolina?

DCCC keeps saying, in general, their candidate is strong and blah blah, but I can’t help but feel this is a missed opportunity to secure the burbs of Philly blue.  Murphy has been a leader on DADT repeal, Callahan is a popular mayor of Bethlehem, and Trivedi is a surgical military doctor. In a word, amazing dynamic people to represent the district.

Realistically, yeah, these seats are typically lost in a swing year and DCCC is believing privately as well hedge its bets and shore up senior incumbents, but I hope the voters in suburbs of Philly prove us wrong.  

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Arizona: Analysis of County PVIs 1948-2008

Since Arizona has only 15 counties (14 until 1984), I will first do an overall analysis of the state followed by analysis of each county.

County maps 1948-1976: http://www.thepoliticsgeek.com…

County maps 1980-2008: http://www.thepoliticsgeek.com…

Cross-posted at my blog and Daily Kos.

Arizona began trending Republican after World War II with the migration of snowbirds from the Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast, with the Republicanism peaking in the Goldwater and Reagan years. After the Reagan years, the trend has been slightly Democratic, mostly because of Bill Clinton’s declaring the Grand Staircase area as a National Monument in 1996.

These days, Arizona Republicanism is a quirky brand of Republicanism, with the overwhelming vote for a sales tax hike earlier this year, and incumbent Republican governor Jan Brewer considering more tax hikes yet doing no worse than a statistical tie against Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard. Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties are the only counties in the whole country so far that rejected a ban on same-sex marriage (November 2006) and supported a tax increase (May 2010). Most of Arizona’s Republicanism comes from law-and-order issues.

Looking ahead to 2012, if the Democrat campaigns hard on environmental and law-and-order issues, then Arizona could flip.

Now I will go through each county starting with Apache. After trending the same way as the state voting-wise, Apache broke away from that pattern in the 1970s as the local Native Americans, mostly Navajo, began voting Democratic in large numbers. Now Apache is the most Democratic county in the state.

Cochise and Graham Counties remained largely rural and had similar trends to Arizona until 2000, when they trended slightly more Republican because of law-and-order issues.

Coconino County, home to the Grand Canyon and Lake Powell, has been more Democratic of late due to a large college employee population in Flagstaff and many federal employees at the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Greenlee County was a Yellow Dog Democratic bastion, having voted much more Democratic than the state as a whole until the 1990s, when it trended Republican like many white-majority counties in the South. Gila County mimicked Greenlee to a lesser extent, except for a flirt with voting for Reagan in the 1980s, and including a sharp swing Republican after the 1990s.

La Paz County has been a consistently Republican-voting county since it was carved out of Yuma County in 1984.

Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, and many other cities, voted strongly Republican from the 1960s to the 1980s because of the migration of many Midwestern snowbirds who were very receptive to Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. The declaring of the Grand Staircase Monument in adjacent Coconino County brought out the environmentalism in many of these Midwesterners, resulting in Maricopa voting less Republican in the 1990s and early 2000s. A positive reception to native son McCain resulted in a slight Republican trend in 2008, but don’t be surprised to see a Democratic trend here in 2012 if the environment becomes a hot topic again.

Mohave County, home to Lake Havasu and part of Grand Canyon National Park, saw a slight moderation from its usual strongly Republican voting patterns thanks to the Grand Staircase National Monument resonating positively with local voters.

Navajo County has leaned Republican because conservative white voters turn out in greater numbers than the Native American voters.

Pima County, home to Tucson, has historically been a swing county, though of late has leaned more Democratic again mostly because of environmentalism from Midwesterners that settled in the area. The college vote from the University of Arizona is balanced out by the military vote from employees of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

Pinal County, between Maricopa and Pima, has been a swing county since WWII ended, though some suburbanization from Maricopa County has produced a slight Republican trend.

Santa Cruz County was a swing county for much of the post-war period until the 1990s, when Bill Clinton began helping make Democratic Party policies more palatable to Hispanics. Now Santa Cruz is the second-most Democratic county in the state.

Yavapai County, home to Prescott and most of Democratic-leaning Sedona, has remained a strongly Republican county due to a large evangelical population in Prescott.

Yuma County voted more Democratic than the country from 1948 to 1960, though Goldwater in 1964 had made the county turn sharply Republican and trend Republican since then, because of law-and-order issues.

Tabulated PVIs can be found here. I was able to collect all of Arizona’s county voting data from 1912 to 2008, though for now, like the other states, I am focusing on the elections since 1948.

AZ03: Crunching the PPP poll.

***cross-posted at DailyKos***

If you haven’t seen it yet, yesterday DailyKos presented a poll that was conducted for us by Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based Democratic polling firm. Despite it’s affiliation with the Democrats, PPP doesn’t have a big noticeable House effect though.

The poll’s results were an absolute shocker: (relatively conservative) Democrat Jon Hulburd leads the former Vice President’s son Ben Quayle 46-44 in the district that is still held by retiring Republican Representative John Shadegg, one of the most conservative Republicans in the House, in a district that has a Cook PVI of R+9- that means that in the last few election cycles it voted on average 9 points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

John McCain, who admittedly stems from Arizona, won 57% of the vote there, Bush got 54% in 2000 and 58% in 2004.  

Another note: The huge paragraph breaks are intentional. They don’t look very aesthetically pleasing, but I think that without them the numerical density of the diary would pretty much kill every reader.

In such a bad cycle as 2010, where the general consensus is that Democrats are going to lose about 50 House seats, you’d expect a Democrat to be down at least by 15-20 points here- if not more.

So understandably lots of people questioned the validity of the poll. I’m going to dig a bit into the raw data, that’s provided for all joint DailyKos/PPP polls. A big hurrah to transparency!

Still, unless you like to see a lot of numbers, you can just skip to the conclusion, in the main part of the diary (and it will be long, I guess) I describe how I got there.

Basically, the analysis will have three steps:

1) We will look at several crosstabs that PPP/DailyKos didn’t provide in their tables in the release.

2) We will look at where Hulburd and Quayle fall short of the potential ceiling for Democrats and Republicans respectively in the district.

3) We will take a sophisticated look at undecided voters and how they might break down.

Raw Polling Data  and the Question Key.

Okay, the first thing we can use this for is to provide a couple of crosstabs that PPP/DailyKos didn’t release.

They’re not very surprising: Across the board, Hulburd does a better job holding on to voters for other Democratic candidates/people who approve of Democratic politicians than Quayle does with Republicans.

Hulburd wins 91-7 among the people who vote for Terry Goddard, Quayle wins 79-10 among Gov. Brewer’s supporters. Gubernatorial undecideds break 32-10 for Hulburd.

Hulburd wins Rodney Glassman’s supporters by an almost identical 90-7 margin, Quayle wins Sen. McCain’s supporters, but only by a 72-19 margin. The support that Senator McCain still has left among moderates who don’t rubberstamp all Republicans is not transferring to Quayle.

Senatorial Undecided voters break for Quayle 36-29- fueled by some people who don’t back McCain but most other Republicans- I guess some JD Hayworth supporters are still out there.

Not very surprisingly, Hulburd wins people who see him favorably, 88-8, and loses people who don’t like him 85-11. People who are still undecided about him go for Quayle by a 55-30 margin- maybe Hulburd has some room to grow here as people make up their minds about him and Quayle.

Quayle wins people who like him by a whooping 97-2 margin. That is mostly because almost no one likes him, and if you do, you’re such a hardcore supporter that you certainly will vote for him too. He loses people who view him unfavorably 8-85, and is saved by the fact that people who don’t have an opinion on him go for him 54-11.

I’m somewhat hoping that these are low-information voters who haven’t read much about the race and just went by the Party name provided: The Republicans are strong here, so their brand isn’t as much in the gutter here as elsewhere. As media coverage will ramp up in the last two weeks, hopefully some of these will learn about Quayle’s scandals.

I’m skipping how the people who view Brewer/McCain/Goddard/Glassman/Kyl favorably/unfavorably/not at all break down, because it is totally unremarkable: People who like Democrats vote for Hulburd, people who like Republicans vote for Quayle, people who don’t have a clue vote for Quayle by a lesser margin. If you’re interested though, ask in the comments, I have the data lying around.

Now, as for Obama… Obama’s image in this district is terrible, with his approval at 38% and his disapproval at 55%.

It’s no big surprise that Hulburd managed to shore up all supporters of President Obama, he wins them 95-2: That’s a better predictor than even how people view him or Quayle!

Hulburd also manages to win over 13% of people who disapprove of Obama, a (in today’s times) relatively huge amount of cross-over. Quayle gets 75% here. Among the few people who are still undecided on how they view Obama, Hulburd wins 57-19. I guess that if in such a red district you don’t hate Obama you’re pretty much a Democrat-leaning guy.

Not very surprisingly, Hulburd wins people who disapprove of the broadly popular SB-1070 90-7, because this mostly comes down to Liberals and Hispanics. He manages to win over almost a quarter of people who LIKE the law though, losing them only 22-67. This is what keeps him alive here, as 59% of voters like the law, just 34% don’t.

It’s no big surprise that Hulburd came out in favor of the law- we might not like it, but if he came out against it, he’d probably be down by 6-7 points despite of Quayle’s weaknesses.

On a related note, this is also why Raul Grijalva seems to be in a bit of trouble. If you call for a boycott of your own constituents because of a law that is supported by a majority of voters, that will not play very well with anyone, really.

Summary: Hulburd is competitive because he does much better with otherwise Republican-leaning people than Quayle does with Democrat-leaning people, and because he supports SB-1070, which enables him to win over a good chunk of the 59% of people who support it too.

Okay, great. But this was not really in-depth analysis so far.

The next step is looking at the potential that Democrats and Republicans have in the district, and where Hulburd and Quayle fall short of it.

I did this already for my first analysis of a PPP/Kos poll, and I was pretty satisfied with the interpretative value it provided.

The potential for Democrats and Republicans is defined as follows:

People who support at least one of Hulburd, Glassman, Goddard, or Obama in 2008, or who identify themselves as Democrats are among the reachable voters for Democratic candidates. A perfect Democratic candidate without weaknesses running against a flawed Republican could win them all. Roughly 58% of voters in the district belong to the this category, which could be termed the Democratic Persuadable Voter Universe (DPVU.. okay, I love appreviations).

People who support at least one of Quayle, McCain, Brewer, McCain in 2008 or who identify themselves as Republicans are in the RPVU universe (Republican Persuadable.. okay, you know the drill). That works out to a bit less than 70% of voters in this district.

Or, put another way, 30% of voters usually vote a straight Democratic ticket, 42% of voters usually vote a straight Republican ticket, and 28% of voters are swing voters who can be persuaded by both parties.

What are the characteristics of the people who are open to Democrats, but don’t support Hulburd, and what are the characteristics of the people who are open to Republicans, but don’t support Quayle?

Let’s clarify first that the latter group is much bigger than the former. Quayle reaches only about 62% of the many voters who might have supported a good Republican candidate, Hulburd gets almost 80% of his potential supporters.

Now let’s look at the potential Dems who don’t support Hulburd.

They support Brewer over Goddard, 55-35, McCain over Glassman, 57-36, dislike Hulburd 17-26, like Quayle 58-20, Brewer 61-27, McCain 57-34, Kyl 51-23, dislike Goddard 32-53, Glassman 12-27, and Obama by a whooping 16-74 margin.  They like SB-1070 69-19 BUT they only supported McCain over Obama by a 48-40 margin.

10% of them are liberal, 41% moderate, 49% Conservative, 61% female, 31% of them still identify as Democrats, 47% as Republicans, and 22% as Independents. 79% are White, 16% are Hispanic and 5% something else. Age breakdown is pretty irrelevant because largely similar to everyone else.

Okay, I think we can put these people into a three groups.

About 55% of them are Republicans or Republican-leaning Independents who happened to like one of Glassman, Goddard or Obama in 2008.

About 25% of them are Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents who are now in the Obama disapproval camp, but still support some statewide Democrats like Glassman or Goddard. They don’t like Hulburd, or are still undecided on the race (Remember, we’re talking about ‘NOT SUPPORTING HULBURD’-Dems, not about ‘SUPPORTING QUAYLE’-Dems. The Undecided Dems are in here, too).

The last 20% are liberal or moderatish liberal Democrats who still like Obama, and statewide Democrats, dislike SB 1070 and are generally party-line Democrats, but still don’t support Hulburd.

These are the people he can’t afford to lose- he doesn’t have to get to his ceiling of 58%, but these last 20% of people Hulburd HAS to convince.

He should also try to firm up at least a bit of support among the Dems who have soured on Obama. If he does that, he’ll get closer to the 50% mark.

Okay, let’s do the same thing for the Republican-leaning group that doesn’t support Quayle: A much larger group.

They back Goddard over Brewer, but just barely, 48-43, and McCain over Glassman, by a huge margin, 61-30.

Here we already see a key difference: The Democrats who don’t support Hulburd soured on the WHOLE ticket, voting for Brewer and McCain.

The Republicans who don’t like Quayle draw a line there, but still are relatively open to people like McCain and to a lesser extent Brewer, suggesting that they don’t want to vote for very conservative wingnuts, but are open to supporting moderate and potentially sane conservative (Kyl) Republicans.

They like Hulburd, who’s a quite conservative Democrat, by a 45-8 margin. And they fucking HATE Quayle, with 7% viewing him favorably, and 76% unfavorably. Contrast that 7-76 rating with Hulburd’s 17-26 rating among his own defectors. Quayle’s defectors hate him, Hulburd’s defectors are merely ‘Meh’ about him.

They’re split on Brewer, giving her a 42-47 rating, and Kyl, who gets a 42-44 rating from them, but like McCain, 58-31. They also like Goddard, 53-32, and are not sure about Glassman, giving him a 20-19 rating.

Even though they don’t support Quayle and like many more moderate Democrats like Goddard and Hulburd, they’re not too fond of Obama though, who gets a 40-48 rating from them. Also, they back the SD-1070 bill, though to a lesser extent than the electorate as a whole, 53-34.

They voted for McCain in 2008, giving him 57% of their votes to Obama’s 31%.

10% are liberal, 57% moderate, and 34% Conservative, 56% female, 24% Democrats, 57% Republicans (!) and 19% Independent. 80% are White, 14% Hispanic, 6% Other, age breakdown is unremarkable once again.

So… essentially we have similar groups here, but the breakdown is a bit different. And we have one new group.

30% are essentially Democrats who happen to like a Republican (mostly McCain) but generally vote party-line on most cases.

About 40% are Republicans who generally support the party line, like Kyl and Brewer and SD-1070, but are disgusted by Quayle and therefore don’t support him. These are the people who like Brewer and Kyl and McCain, but not Quayle.

About 15% are moderates who generally support the middle-of-the-road candidate everywhere. They supported McCain in 2008, still love him, but they also like Goddard and back him over Brewer. They’re not really down on Glassman, but would never back him over McCain. They don’t like Obama, but they do like Hulburd, who’s running as a moderate Democrat supporting SB 1070, which they also like, and against an inept wingnut like Quayle.

And about 15% are Democrats who have soured on Obama, and vote much like the moderates.

All of these people have one thing in common: They hate Dan Quayle, which is why he’ll have a very hard time winning them over. He’ll get some of them because a lot of these people still don’t want a Democratic Congress and will- disgusted- still back him, but not that many.

Here’s an interesting statistic:

Looking at all moderate AND liberal Republicans, who make up about 18% of the sample, Quayle wins just by a measly 48-42 margin. That means that almost half of the moderate Republicans have abandoned him, that is huge.

As a comparison, looking at all moderate and conservative Democrats, a subsample that’s about the same size as the moderate and liberal Republicans, Hulburd wins 84-10. If the candidates were equally appealing, these numbers should be roughly the same. There you can see the huge difference between the candidate’s qualities.

Summary: While Hulburd still has some work to do with winning over some Democrat-leaning voters who still hold out on him, especially those who still like the other Democrats on the ticket, the main point here is just how unpopular Quayle is. Lots of conservative Independents and moderate Republicans and even conservative Republicans who usually are very open to Republican candidates have left his campaign. Some of them are already on board with the Hulburd campaign, some are still out there and thinking about their choice.

Okay, the last thing we’ll do is look at the Undecided voters. For that we need an advanced tool, a so-called Logistic Regression.

The short story is, without going into the math details, we’re looking at the voters who already have decided, and try to discern WHY they voted that way. We do that by looking at the other responses they gave in the poll. If they disapprove of Obama, voted for McCain, and are Conservative Republicans, who support Brewer over Goddard, we can be pretty sure that they will support Quayle: And we can quantify that and give them a certain probability that they will support Candidate A or B.

The result of this is some output that probably few of you would understand, so I’m not going to copy it here. If you want to see it, leave a message in the comments and I’m going to post it there.

The model has an adj. r² of .81 though, for the stats guys, which means that it explains 81% of the variance in the dependent variable (If the voter supports the Democrat).

Okay, the results here are not as good. The model projects that Hulburd will draw only 42% of the remaining undecided voters, with 58% going to Quayle. The main reason for that is that there are many people like #648 among the Undecided voters: She’s a white, conservative Republican aged 65+, voted for McCain and still likes him. She dislikes Obama, likes SB1070, and she doesn’t like Goddard- she doesn’t like Gov. Brewer either though. That’s why she’s undecided on the Gubernatorial race while she’s voting for McCain. She doesn’t like Quayle, and has no opinion yet on Hulburd.

The model assigns her a 76% chance that she finally will come home and vote for Quayle though, voting party line over her personal feelings.

For others the choice goes the other way. #644 has a similar profile: She, too, is a female senior white Conservative who dislikes Quayle and likes SB1070. But, she likes Hulburd too, while #648 was just undecided on him. And, she’s different on the gubernatorial race. While #648 disliked both Goddard and Brewer, she likes them both- still, she’s voting for Brewer. OTOH, she’s not as warm towards McCain anymore, having no opinion about him and still being undecided on the Senate race.

For her, the model thinks, her high opinion of Hulburd and her dislike of Quayle could make a difference, so the model gives her a 75% chance of voting for Hulburd and 25% for Quayle.

Still, among all undecided voters, on average 58% will break for Quayle and 42% for Hulburd. That almost erases Hulburd’s lead. Allocating the undecided voters results in a result of 50.1% for Hulburd to 49.9% for Quayle.



Summary: The demographics and responses of the remaining undecided voters suggest that Ben Quayle will gain the majority of their votes, 58-42. Allocating the undecideds that way results in a essentially tied race, 50.1-49.9% in favor of Hulburd.

Conclusion: The results of the PPP poll look pretty reasonable. Voters of all colors dislike Quayle and many of them follow this up by voting for Hulburd. Almost half of moderate Republicans vote for Hulburd, as do many voters who favor the SB-1070 bill. Hulburd’s conservative profile makes him a viable alternative for Republicans and conservative Independents who dislike Quayle, while he still holds the liberal part of his base together. Hulburd wins over many Conservatives and Republicans, while Quayle gets almost no cross-over support. That makes Hulburd competitive in this race where the fundamentals favor Quayle: 42% of voters here usually vote straight-ballot GOP– compared to 30% who do the same for the Democrats. But Hulburd wins over most swing voters.

The upside for Quayle in this poll is that the Undecided voters in this poll largely favor him, I project 58% of undecided voters to break for Quayle and 42% for Hulburd. This makes the AZ-03 election an absolutely tied race, with outprojecting the undecideds 50.1% voting for Hulburd and 49.9% for Quayle.

This race should come down to a couple of thousand votes, unless Quayle succeeds in making an argument that GOP voters and Conservatives should somehow forget their feelings for him in the ballot box.

USA-435: Battle for the House (Tossups, dark-horses, and likely switches)

As you all probably know, the Republicans need to gain 40 seats to get to the majority. Here is a break down of the key races.

Democratic offense (8 seats):

In contrast to the GOP in the last couple elections, Democrats look to have an opportunity to play some offense, though their opportunities are very limited and are mostly because of GOP flaws or special circumstances.

AZ-3

CA-3

DE-AL

FL-25

HA-1

IL-10

LA-2

WA-8

I expect Dems to win 5-6 of these seats. LA-2 and DE-AL have long been almost “gimmes” because of their partisan leanings. Republicans nominated flawed candidates in AZ-3 and FL-25 which has given democratic challengers a shot. IL-10 is slightly leaning left, while WA-8 leans slightly right. CA-3 is an outside pickup chance.

Republicans:-5

Likely R takeover (16 seats):

These seats have seen consistent polling leads for the Republican challengers and/or other signs (like the DCCC pulling out), and look like lost causes:

AR-2

CO-4

FL-2

IL-11

IN-8

KS-3

LA-3

NH-1

NY-29

OH-1

PA-3

TN-6

TN-8

TX-17

VA-2

VA-5

It is tough to hold conservative seats in a year like this, particularly open ones. Most of these were long expected to be tough holds. I am surprised that Adam Kinziger was able to pull ahead in IL-11, that was a major score for Republicans. I also didn’t expect Boyd in FL-2 to have so much trouble.

In most cycles, someone holds on unexpectedly. So I will say R’s win 15 of these 16.

Republicans: +10

Lean R (13 seats):

These look like they will flip, but are not ready to be written off completely yet.

AZ-1

AR-1

FL-8

FL-24

IL-14

MI-1

ND-AL

OH-16

PA-8

PA-11

WA-3

WI-7

WI-8

Longtime Incumbents in ND-AL and PA-11 may be able to pull it out. You never know what may happen with Alan Grayson. Several of these are still close, but look to be breaking to the Republicans. Dems may pull out 2 wins from these.

Republicans: +21

Slight R lean (6 seats):

With the large amount of tossup seats, these six seats look to be very important. If republicans sweep them, it’s over. If the democrats can win at least two, they have a shot.

AZ-5

CA-11

GA-8

MI-7

MS-1

OH-15

PA-7

GOP wins 4-5, probably 5. Democrats have a chance in all of them though.

Republicans: +26

Tossups (20):

The copious amounts of tossup seats has been well-chronicled. These are the seats that will decide the majority. I have narrowed my tossups down, and these are the ones that could easily go either way.

AZ-8

CA-47

CO-3

CO-7

CT-4

IA-3

MA-10

MD-1

NV-3

NH-2

NM-2

NY-19

NY-23

NC-8

OH-18

OR-5

PA-10

SC-5

SD-AL

TX-23

VA-11

WV-1

I would say R’s will probably win more of these, and tossups usually break for one party or the other. Here’s my in-front-of-a-gun picks:

GOP:AZ-8,CA-47,CO-3,CO-7,MD-1,NV-3,NM-2,NY-19,OH-18,OR-5,PA-10,SC-5,SD-AL,TX-23,VA-11

Dem:CT-4,IA-3,MA-10,NH-2,NY-23,NC-8,WV-1

That would leave Republicans at +39.

Slight D-Leaners (10):

These give a slight, insignificant advantage to Dems at this point, but remain very close.

CT-5

FL-22

GA-2

IL-17

IN-9

MI-9

NY-24

NC-11

TN-4

WA-2

At this point, I think Dems will hold on to 6-7 of these.

Repubs: +45

Dark Horse(10 seats):

AZ-7

CA-18

CA-20

IA-1

IA-2

MA-4

MN-8

NJ-12

OR-1

WA-9

These are seats that weren’t really supposed to be competitive but look like they are from surprise polls, fundraising, etc. I think Costa will lose in CA-20 after seeing how angry voters there are about the water situation. Wu in OR-1 is unpopular and opponent Rob Cornilles has run a good race. Most of these have had polling showing close races, and in any wave year, some seats like these will fall. These may be the “canaries in the coal mine” that will measure the velocity of the republican tide.

R + 48

In addition to these there are several leaning or likely D seats, as well as a lot of missed or false opportunities for the GOP, but I think this is enough to swallow for now.

I do believe that the media was too quick to give Republicans the House, but it does look like they will pull out about fifty. That number could swing about thirty seats in either directio though because of all the close races.

Here are some good resources:

http://www.cookpolitical.com/c…

http://elections.nytimes.com/2…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…

 

SSP Daily Digest: 10/19 (Afternoon Edition)

AK-Sen: I thought Joe Miller (last seen praising the COMMUNISTS!!1! in East Germany for their wall-building skills) wasn’t going to talk about his personal life anymore (i.e. personal stuff like his on-the-job politicking while working for the borough of Fairbanks)? Well, now he is, and he’s openly admitted on CNN that he was disciplined by the borough for an ethical violation. “John, I’ll admit I’m a man of many flaws,” he said. Apparently one of those flaws was using his various co-workers’ computers while they were away for lunch to rig an online poll intended to displace Randy Ruedrich as state GOP chair, then wiping out their caches to cover his tracks, then getting caught when the wiped caches were discovered. Miller said he was reprimanded and docked pay as a result. However he maintains the incident had nothing to do with his departure from the office a year and a half later (which others maintain was imminently before he was about to be fired). So… a guy is possibly about to go from not being able to hack it as a contract attorney for a city of about 25,000, to a Senator, in the space of about a year? Geez, only in America.

CT-Sen: Linda McMahon’s no slouch either on the self-funding front: she loaned herself $20 million last quarter, bringing her all-cycle total to $41.5 million. (No word, of course, on how much of that $20 million actually has been or will be spent.) Meg Whitman was heard sniffing disdainfully and saying McMahon should call once she reaches the eight digits.

DE-Sen: Sometimes, it’s best to keep your mouth shut and let everyone assume you’re a fool, rather than open your mouth and categorically prove it. The highlight of last night’s debate:

Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion….

“The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish religion,” Coons said.

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

KY-Sen: With Aqua Buddha suddenly back dominating coverage of this race, no one’s really stopped to ask Aqua Buddha lady what she thinks of all this. She thinks that Jack Conway’s ad’s tone is over-the-top, but agrees with the fundamentals, that it’s an accurate reflection of Rand Paul’s past views and that he should acknowledge that he’s just changed his religious views since then (instead of playing the victim).

MA-Sen: Wait, the 2010 election hasn’t happened yet? Still not too early to talk about 2012. Rep. Mike Capuano, runner-up in the Dem primary in the special election and considered the likeliest opponent against Scott Brown in two years, is openly “mulling” the race, although his official line is “Talk to me in December.”

NV-Sen: We finally have some confirmation on what we’d suspected, regarding Sharron Angle’s burn rate, thanks to Salon’s crack team. She may have raised $14 million, but she also spent $5.3 million on direct mail expenses last quarter in order to get that money. $920K of that went to BaseConnect and its affiliates, with $1.5 million to somebody called Patton-Kiehl, who seemed responsible for the actual printing and postage. Another $4 million went to TV ads, leaving her with the $4 million CoH she reported.

MD-Gov: This one looks closer and closer to being wrapped up in favor of Martin O’Malley. On top of today’s Gonzales poll, there’s also news that the RGA is scaling things back in Maryland, planning to spend less than $200K for Bob Ehrlich in the final two weeks. O’Malley may also benefit from an across-the-aisle endorsement (although it’s from a figure who’s committed his fair share of apostasies): ex-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest gave him his backing today.

MN-Gov: Here’s one more across-the-aisle endorsement (the only kind we’d bother reporting on, at this stage in the game). Tom Horner, the Independence Party candidate in Minnesota, got an endorsement from Mike Ciresi, a wealthy attorney who you might remember from losing the 2000 DFL Senate primary to Mark Dayton (wonder if there are any hard feelings there?) and ran again for Senate in 2008 but dropped out pre-convention. That may make things a smidge harder for Dayton, who needs Horner to draw votes mostly from the R column.

AL-02: This has to be one of the weirdest IEs of the cycle: Blue America is spending in AL-02 of all places, and they’re spending $48K against Bobby Bright. I guess they hate Blue Dogs just that much.

FL-22: You know, if you’re fighting allegations that you have links to the outlaw biker gang conveniently known as the Outlaws, probably the best way to do that is by not having bikers providing security at your rallies. Well, that’s what happened at an Allen West appearance, where bikers physically drove off a Ron Klein tracker. Video is available at the link. (At least “Sympathy for the Devil” wasn’t playing in the background.)

NC-07: Here’s some interesting scuttlebutt out of the 7th, where Mike McIntyre is joining the I-won’t-vote-for-Pelosi brigade but where he’s also saying that he’s heard that she won’t be running for Speaker again. (That would, of course, presume having a majority; no word on whether he’s heard if she plans on running for minority leader.) Relatedly, even Mike McMahon, who’s looking like a good bet to survive his red-leaning district this year, is now sounding noncommittal but at least Pelosi-skeptical.

OR-04: Wondering who the mysterious Concerned Taxpayers of America are, who’ve trained most of their advertising firepower on Peter DeFazio, turning this into at least a mildly competitive race? Well, it turns out there’s a grand total of two of them, each of whom has ponied up hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of them, Robert Mercer, appears to be the one with the beef against DeFazio, probably because he’s a hedge fund manager and takes issue with DeFazio’s leadership on taxing major hedge-fund transactions.

VA-05: I guess demanding the moon and the sun when you make your initial offer in a negotiating session is a good strategy, but independent teabagger Jeffrey Clark may have taken that ridiculously far in his attempts to negotiate a dropout from the race and an endorsement for GOP candidate Robert Hurt. Clark offered to drop out if he got the chance to debate Hurt one-on-one, and then if subsequent polling didn’t have him at 25% of the vote! Hurt has refused to appear any at any debates where Clark is included, and doesn’t seem any likelier to do so now.

WA-08: I know it’s fashionable to paint Dave Reichert as not being one of the sharpest tools in the shed, but it’s hard not to do so when he gives you so much material: at a forum with opponent Suzan DelBene, confessed in response to a question that he wasn’t familiar with the Glass-Steagall Act. (The resurrection of Glass-Steagall was one of the main things being debated as part of the financial reform package passed this year.)

DCCC: Here’s some activity from the D-Trip that doesn’t bode well: they’ve started going on the air in NC-11 for Heath Shuler, previously thought safe based on most of the polling we’ve seen so far but has been in the crosshairs of a lot of third-party advertising from folks like Americans for Job Security. (NWOTSOTB.) They’re also increasing their buys in the coming weeks in neighboring districts SC-05 (John Spratt) and NC-07 (Mike McIntyre). Also, file this under a sorta-kinda triage decision: the DCCC is cutting off ads in NM-02, on behalf of Harry Teague. Chris Van Hollen says they’re leaving Teague in “great position,” which (shades of Steve Kagen here) is probably code for “he’s personally wealthy” and it’s time for him to buy his own bandaids.

Polltopia: PPP is letting you choose an unprecedented six states to poll in, as part of their final round of polling. They must be renting some extra robots, because they’re planning to poll 18 different states the week before the election, although 12 states (basically, the most obvious ones) are already locked in. Go vote!

SSP TV:

CA-Sen: EMILY’s List is out with a TV spot featuring an opera guy singing a ditty about Carly Fiorina (and her time as Hewlett-Packard CEO)

NV-Sen: Both the DSCC and NRSC are out with ads; the DSCC says that while you’re angry, don’t take it out by voting for Sharron Angle, while the GOP says Harry Reid lives in a fancy hotel and parties with supermodels

WA-Sen: One of the Dems’ few big-money behind-the-scenes groups, Commonsense Ten, looks at Dino Rossi’s cozy connections

WV-Sen: Joe Manchin’s new ad just flat out says “John Raese uses people”

CA-Gov: Too bad this is only a Jerry Brown web ad, because it’s one of the most effective ones we’ve seen this cycle: it ties Meg Whitman to unpopular Arnold Schwarzenegger, matching them quote for quote (UPDATE: Good news, everybody! The ad is going to be running on television, despite its one-minute length! It’s that good.)

TX-Gov: Bill White’s new ad hits Rick Perry on his rental mansion

SC-02: Joe “Yewwwwww Laaaaaah!” Wilson talks about dodging mortar fire in his newest ad (mortar fire that apparently landed on the other end of the airport while on what Rob Miller has been calling a Congressional junket, but that’s OK)

TX-17: Here’s a sign that Chet Edwards has done something to show that he’s stemmed the bleeding (or at least that he called in some serious favors), as the DCCC’s back on the air here with an effective ad about bailout funds for Bill Flores’ oil company

Original recipe Rasmussen:

KY-Sen: Jack Conway (D) 42%, Rand Paul (R) 47%

MI-Gov: Virg Bernero (D) 34%, Rick Snyder (R) 54%

NV-Gov: Rory Reid (D) 37%, Brian Sandoval (R) 56%

Extra crispy Rasmussen (aka Fox/Pulse):

CA-Gov: Jerry Brown (D) 48%, Meg Whitman (R) 43%

CA-Sen: Barbara Boxer (D-inc) 48%, Carly Fiorina (R) 44%

CO-Gov: John Hickenlooper (D) 40 45%, Dan Maes (R) 10%, Tom Tancredo (C) 45 40%

CO-Sen: Michael Bennet (D-inc) 45%, Ken Buck (R) 46%

MO-Sen: Robin Carnahan (D) 43%, Roy Blunt (R) 49%

OH-Gov: Ted Strickland (D-inc) 43%, John Kasich (R) 49%

WV-Sen: Joe Manchin (D) 45%, John Raese (R) 48%

PA-Sen: PPP Sees Sestak Pull Into Small Lead

Public Policy Polling (10/17-18, likely voters, 8/14-16 in parens):

Joe Sestak (D): 46 (36)

Pat Toomey (R): 45 (45)

Undecided 9 (20)

(MoE: ±3.7%)

It was reasonable to expect Joe Sestak to make a late move in the polls in the general election against Pat Toomey as he did against Arlen Specter in the general election (recall that he didn’t pull into contention there until the last few weeks), given his strategy of lying low, waiting until people are actually paying attention, and then barraging the electorate with a well-chosen salvo of ads. Other than a couple of easily-dismissed Dem internals last week, though, there was no evidence this was having any effect this time around… until now.

Today’s results are quite the turnaround since the last PPP poll. Part of that is that the enthusiasm gap seems to have gotten alleviated very quickly. It’s been two months since PPP last polled, so we can’t tell whether this was gradual, over the last few months — as yesterday’s AFL-CIO memo that discussed this race, and talked about how union members were finally coming around to Sestak, mentioned — or suddenly. But at any rate, we’ve gone from a 1-pt McCain electorate last time, to a 49-45 Obama electorate now. On top of that, Sestak has consolidated his base and improved his standing among independents: while Sestak was getting only 64% of Dems last time, now he’s getting 77%. And his 50-23 deficit among indies last time, he’s now down only 49-48.

This may still seem to have a whiff of outlier to it until we get some confirmation from other sources… that’s pretty stark when you look at how little impact it had on the overall trendlines in this often-polled race. However, PPP has tended to be the first to spot things this cycle, ranging from MA-Sen to both the Raese surge and plunge in WV-Sen lately, so while I’ll again caution about not getting overly confident in pulling this one out, I suspect this is the beginning of some real tightening.

3Q House Fundraising Reports Roundup

I almost wonder why we put this chart together, given that Citizens United means they can moneynuke our candidates all the live long day.

Highlights:

  • Incumbent Dems outraised by GOPer: Bobby Bright (AL-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Jim Himes (CT-04), Ron Klein (FL-22), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Phil Hare (IL-17), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Ben Chandler (KY-06), John Tierney (MA-06), Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Gary Peters (MI-09), Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Gene Taylor (MS-04), Bobby Etheridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Harry Teague (NM-02), Dina Titus (NV-03), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), Pete DeFazio (OR-04), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03), Chris Carney (PA-10), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Ciro D. Rodriguez (TX-23), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Perriello (VA-05), Gerry Connolly (VA-11), Steve Kagen (WI-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
  • Incumbent GOPer outraised by Dem: Dan Lungren (CA-03), Mary Bono Mack (CA-45), Charles Djou (HI-01), Jo Ann Emerson (MO-08), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)
  • Incumbent Dems with less CoH than GOPer: Jim Costa (CA-20), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Ron Klein (FL-22), Phil Hare (IL-17), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Harry Teague (NM-02), Dina Titus (NV-03), John Hall (NY-19), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Ciro D. Rodriguez (TX-23)
  • Incumbent GOPer with less CoH than Dem: NONE
  • GOPer outraising Dem for a Dem open seat: Tim Griffin (AR-02), Larry Bucshon (IN-08), Kevin Yoder (KS-03), Jeff Landry (LA-03), Tom Reed (NY-29), Pat Meehan (PA-07), Steve Fincher (TN-08), Jaime Herrera (WA-03)
  • Dem outraising GOPer for a GOP open seat: John Carney (DE-AL), Joe Garcia (FL-25)
  • GOPer with more CoH for a Dem open seat: Mo Brooks (AL-05), Rick Crawford (AR-01), Tim Griffin (AR-02), Larry Bucshon (IN-08), Kevin Yoder (KS-03), Daniel Benishek (MI-01), Charlie Bass (NH-02), Tom Reed (NY-29), Pat Meehan (PA-07), Jaime Herrera (WA-03), Sean Duffy (WI-07), David McKinley (WV-01)
  • Dem with more CoH for a GOP open seat: John Carney (DE-AL)

Update: Many of you have correctly pointed out that Parker Griffith is a Republican now, and that were Steve Raby to win, this would technically be a pickup of a GOP open seat. Dick Muri in WA-09 is also included instead of James Postma.

The full chart:

SSP Daily Digest: 10/19 (Morning Edition)

What better way to celebrate SSP’s seventh birthday than to give you another firehose blast of polls?

AL-02: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) for the DCCC (10/9-12, likely voters, 9/26-28 in parens):

Bobby Bright (D-inc): 51 (52)

Martha Roby (R): 39 (43)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

AR-01: Anzalone Liszt for the DCCC (10/11-13, likely voters, 9/13-16 in parens):

Chad Causey (D): 44 (46)

Rick Crawford (R): 42 (44)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

AR-01: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/17 in parens):

Chad Causey (D): 34 (32)

Rick Crawford (R): 42 (48)

Ken Adler (G): 4 (4)

Undecided: 20 (20)

(MoE: ±4.7%)

AR-02: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/17 in parens):

Joyce Elliott (D): 38 (35)

Tim Griffin (R): 50 (52)

Lance Levi (I): 3 (3)

Lewis Kennedy (G): 3 (1)

Undecided: 7 (9)

(MoE: ±4.6%)

AR-03: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/25 in parens):

David Whitaker (D): 21 (31)

Steve Womack (R): 59 (55)

Undecided: 20 (14)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

AR-04: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/25-26 in parens):

Mike Ross (D-inc): 52 (49)

Beth Anne Rankin (R): 34 (31)

Joshua Drake (G): 3 (4)

Undecided: 11 (16)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

CA-47: Public Opinion Strategies (R) for Van Tran (10/13-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Loretta Sanchez (D-inc): 39

Van Tran (R): 39

Ceci Iglesias (I): 5

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±5.7%)

FL-Sen: Suffolk (10/14-17, likely voters, no trendlines):

Kendrick Meek (D): 22

Marco Rubio (R): 39

Charlie Crist (I): 31

Undecided: 6

(MoE: ±4.4%)

FL-Gov: Suffolk (10/14-17, likely voters, no trendlines):

Alex Sink (D): 45

Rick Scott (R): 38

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Misc.: In the AG race, Pam Bondi (R) leads Dan Gelber (D), 38-30. Also, a poll by Voter Survey Service (aka Susquehanna) for the right-wing Sunshine State News site has Adam Putnam (R) leading Scott Maddox (D) in the Ag Comm’r race, 40-35. Tea Party candidate Ira Chester takes 14%.

MA-Gov: Public Opinion Strategies (R) for Charlie Baker (10/11-13, likely voters, no trendlines):

Deval Patrick (D-inc): 35

Charlie Baker (R): 42

Tim Cahill (I): 10

(MoE: ±3.5%)

MA-10: MassINC Polling Group for WGBH (10/13-15, likely voters incl. leaners, no trendlines):

William Keating (D): 46

Jeffrey Perry (R): 43

Other: 5

Undecided: 4

(MoE: ±4.9%)

MI-Gov: Foster McCollum White and Baydoun Consulting (D) (PDF) (10/7, likely voters, no trendlines):

Virg Bernero (D): 37

Rick Snyder: 50

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±2.1%)

MO-Sen: Public Policy Polling (D) (PDF) for Robin Carnahan (10/17-18, likely voters, 8/14-15 in parens):

Robin Carnahan (D): 41 (38)

Roy Blunt (R): 46 (45)

Jerry Beck (C): 3 (5)

Jonathan Dine (L): 3 (3)

Undecided: 7 (9)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

NM-Gov: SurveyUSA for KOB-TV (10/12-14, likely voters, 5/23-25 in parens)

Diane Denish (D): 42 (43)

Susana Martinez (R): 54 (49)

Undecided: 4 (8)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Note: Among the 13% of respondents who say they have already voted, Martinez has a 60-36 lead.

NY-25: Siena (10/10-12, likely voters, no trendlines):

Dan Maffei (D-inc): 51

Ann Marie Buerkle (R): 39

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Note: Maggie Haberman tweets that Karl Rove’s American Crossroads plans to get involved here.

NY-Gov: New York Times (PDF) (10/10-15, likely voters, no trendlines):

Andrew Cuomo (D): 59

Carl Paladino (R): 24

Undecided: 12

(MoE: ±3%)

OR-04: Grove Insight (D) for Peter DeFazio (10/11-12, likely voters, no trendlines):

Peter DeFazio (D-inc): 53

Art Robinson (R): 39

(MoE: ±4.9%)

OR-05: Moore Information (R) for Scott Bruun (10/13-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Kurt Schrader (D-inc): 40

Scott Bruun: 44

(MoE: ±5.7%)

PA-15: Muhlenberg (PDF) (10/5-13, likely voters, 9/11-16 in parens):

John Callahan (D): 32 (38)

Charlie Dent (R-inc): 49 (49)

Jake Towne (I): 5 (3)

Undecided: 13 (10)

(MoE: ±5%)

UT-Gov: Dan Jones & Associates for the Deseret News/KSL-TV (10/11-14, “active voters,” 10/7-13 in parens):

Peter Corroon (D): 33 (31)

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 58 (52)

Undecided: 6 (13)

(MoE: ±4%)

Note: The Deseret News says that Dan Jones has also done polling for Herbert. Should we be regarding them as an (R) pollster?

UT-Gov: UtahPolicy.com/Western Wats (9/30-10/3, likely voters, no trendlines):

Peter Corroon (D): 27

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 58

Undecided: 12

(MoE: ±4%)

Note: Dan Jones also has UT-Sen numbers. UtahPolicy.com also has UT-Sen, UT-01, and UT-03 numbers.

VA-05: Roanoke College (10/5-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Tom Perriello (D-inc): 40

Rob Hurt (R): 46

Jeffrey Clark (I): 1

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4.1%)

WI-Gov: St. Norbert College (PDF) for Wisconsin Public Radio (10/12-15, likely voters, 3/23-31 in parens):

Tom Barrett (D): 41 (28)

Scott Walker (R): 50 (44)

Undecided: 6 (17)

(MoE: ±5%)

Margins & Errors: The Fix publishes an alleged WA-Sen poll without either field dates or sample size… Bill Kristol (yeah, that Bill Kristol) claims he has his hands on an OH-10 poll – he has the n, but won’t say the pollster’s name, who paid for the poll, or when it was taken… Pollster.com has a PDF from ccAdvertising with numbers for WV-Sen, WV-01, and WV-03 – but not only does ccA report to hundredths of a percent, they get taken to the woodshed by Mark Blumenthal for refusing to divulge the poll’s sponsor

Jimmy McMillan Rocks!

Wow!  Jimmy McMillan is now my favorite 2010 candidate.  Here is a man who has his belief and sticks to it.  Plus he has a theme song.  Every candidate should have a theme song!

So here’s some questions – can voters vote a straight Rent is 2 Damn High Party ticket in New York?  Exactly what does it take to get a ballot line in New York, anyway?  And how well does he need to do to keep his party on the ballot next time?

I think every New Yorker who doesn’t like Cuomo and can’t stand Palladino should vote for Jimmy McMillan!

Rent is 2 Damn High is my thing,

Jimmy McMillan is my name,

VOTE FOR THE RENT IS 2 DAMN HIGH PARTY!