Month: January 2011

In my last diary the blue statewide trend in California voter registration was quite clear.

But what about the parts of counties with multiple congressional districts?

Below the fold to crack open the walnut…………..  

The senate seat of Massachusetts is one of the best opportunities of the democrats for win new seats in 2012. It is obvious. No doubt here.

D+12 state + presidential race would be not a bad prospect despite the republican incumbent is still so popular.

The last new for this race is what V Kennedy will not run. Well, it is not a good new, but it is not enough for be pessimistic still. Where is my hope now?

In 2009, before T Kennedy dies, a poll of Suffolk in march give the next ressult:

Q26. If Ted Kennedy were to vacate his U.S. Senate seat, who would you like to

see run for the U.S. Senate seat?

N= 400 100%

Charlie Baker (R) ………………………… 01 ( 1/123) 3 1%

Tim Cahill (D) …………………………… 02 3 1%

Mike Capuano (D) …………………………. 03 3 1%

Andy Card (R) ……………………………. 04 5 1%

Martha Coakley (D) ……………………….. 05 24 6%

Chris Gabrieli (D) ……………………….. 06 7 2%

Bill Galvin (D) ………………………….. 07 2 1%

Joe Kennedy (D) ………………………….. 08 32 8%

Vicky Kennedy (D) ………………………… 09 3 1%

Stephen Lynch (D) ………………………… 10 3 1%

Marty Meehan (D) …………………………. 11 1 0%

Tom Menino (D) …………………………… 12 3 1%

Christy Mihos (R) ………………………… 13 5 1%

Tim Murray (D) …………………………… 14 1 0%

Mitt Romney (R) ………………………….. 15 22 6%

John Kerry ………………………………. 16 5 1%

Barney Frank …………………………….. 17 4 1%

Name ……………………………………. 97 25 6%

Undecided (DO NOT READ) …………………… 98 246 62%

Refused (DO NOT READ) …………………….. 99 3 1%

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/…

Here Joe Kennedy was the most liked politician for run for the senate seat of T Kennedy, but here, as example, they are not important options like D Patrick, E Markey and some others.

Later, in September 2009 the first poll of Suffolk about the democratic primary, where Coakley was leading tell the next:

Poll: Coakley has Early Lead in U.S. Senate Race9/16/2009

Voters expect Attorney General Martha Coakley to be elected to the U.S. Senate in the January 2010 special election, but they express a marked preference for Joe Kennedy to succeed his uncle, according to a poll released today by Suffolk University/7NEWS.

Voters also said they support a move to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator, with 55 percent favoring a change in state law to make this possible, and 41 percent opposed.

Kennedy preference

Fifty-nine percent of Democratic voters polled said they would have voted for Joe Kennedy in the Senate primary race, and 62 percent of all voters have a favorable opinion of the former congressman, who has said that he will not run for the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“If Joe Kennedy runs, Joe Kennedy wins,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.  “Across every demographic, Kennedy was strong.  In fact, fifty-four percent of Martha Coakley Democratic Primary voters said they would vote for Joe Kennedy, if he ran.”

Coakley’s favorability rate is 53 percent. Her favorability was 56 percent in a March 2009 poll by the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

Name recognition a factor

Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano, who is expected to announce his candidacy this week, had a favorability rate of 16 percent, but 33 percent of those polled had never heard of him. Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca’s name was added to the poll for the last of the four days the poll was conducted — after his name was floated as a potential candidate. Again, name recognition was a problem: 72 percent had not heard of him, and 3 percent viewed him favorably.

On the Republican side, state Sen. Scott Brown, who has declared his candidacy, had 20 percent favorability; 39 percent did not recognize his name. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, said to be considering a run, had no trouble with name recognition; 12 percent did not know him. His favorability was 29 percent in the Suffolk/7News poll, outweighed by his unfavorable rate of 39 percent.

Voters were asked to choose from among potential Democratic Primary candidates, some of whom have since withdrawn from the fray. They chose Coakley (47 percent), Capuano (9 percent), U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (6 percent) and City Year founder Alan Khazei (3 percent). Thirty-three percent were undecided. Voters who chose Lynch were surveyed again after he dropped out of the race on Tuesday.

When asked whom they would choose in a head-to-head race between Coakley and Brown in the final election, 54 percent chose Coakley, and 24 percent chose Brown, with 20 percent undecided.

Voters said the most important issues facing the next U.S. senator from Massachusetts are health care (45 percent) and the economy/jobs (27 percent).

Methodology

The statewide survey of 500 Massachusetts registered voters was conducted Sept. 12-15, 2009. Of those polled, 39 percent were registered Democrats, 15 percent Republicans, and 44 percent independent. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence.  Marginals and 140 pages of cross-tabulation data will be posted on the Suffolk University Political Research Center Web site at 10 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16.  For more information, contact David Paleologos at 781-290-9310.

Back to News »

http://www.suffolk.edu/37947.html

Suffolk tell what J Kennedy would defeat all the democratic candidates for 2010 senate election if he would run then.

Martha Coakley was second in the first poll and was leading the second, but finally she lost.

In 2010, the last PPP poll tell:

Vicki Kennedy (D): 22

Barney Frank (D): 17

Mike Capuano (D): 15

Deval Patrick (D): 13

Ed Markey (D): 7

Stephen Lynch (D): 7

Tom Menino (D): 3

Tim Murray (D): 1

Undecided: 15

MoE: ±6.2%

Vicki Kennedy (D): 41

Scott Brown (R-inc): 48

Undecided: 11

Deval Patrick (D): 42

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 9

Ed Markey (D): 39

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 13

Mike Capuano (D): 36

Scott Brown (R-inc): 52

Undecided: 12

Stephen Lynch (D): 30

Scott Brown (R-inc): 49

Undecided: 20

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Here V Kennedy lead, and D Patrick have the same result. But unfortunatelly we have not again a complete information because important people like J Kennedy are not here, and give not the result for B Frank in a face to face. Now V Kennedy and D Patrick run not. It is not the end.

My first conclussion looking to these polls is what some or many people want a Kennedy as candidate. And if both are in the list, like in the Suffolt poll of March 2009, they prefer J Kennedy.

From the three polls (and leaving M Coakley out) I think we must take into account the results of:

of J Kennedy in first place

of V Kennedy (out) in second place

and of D Patrick (out), B Frank, E Markey and M Capuano in third place.

I would not be surprised if J Kennedy would be under – 5% against S Brown. Or in tie.

I think we must find new polls. I think it is very important to give to the people what they want. It is very important what the people feel what the candidate what they want is in and is ready for serve in the senate. If not the people will feel less hope for this race.

• MA-Sen: Vicki Kennedy has pretty much ruled out a Senate run, if her comments to the Boston Globe are any indication. She says “the Senate is not my future;” poignantly, she recounts having received Ted’s encouragement to run before his death but responding “You’re Senator Kennedy, and that’s it.” Another Kennedy made some news yesterday, though, in fact generating his own little boomlet of Senatorial speculation: Joe III (son of the ex-Rep. and grandson of RFK) gave a mightily well-received speech in front of state legislators decrying the noxious turn in the nation’s political discourse. The 30-year-old is currently a prosecutor in Barnstable County and has turned down previous attempts to get him to run for office. Finally, some of the more cogent members of the local tea party seem to have made peace with the fact, despite their discomfort with his voting record, that Scott Brown isn’t going to be successfully challenged in the GOP primary in 2012, and are dissuading others from that line of thought. The article mentions recent House race losers Jeff Perry and Jim Ogonowski as possible names, but in the context of even them not likely to be able to gain any traction against Brown in a primary.

• PA-Sen: PPP released Republican primary numbers as part of their Pennsylvania package today, and as with many of their recent primary polls, it’s quite the collection of people who aren’t going to run. They try doing it both with-Santorum and without-Santorum. (Yes, yes, I know that sounds gross.) The Santorum-covered version, thanks to his high name rec (81% of GOPers have an opinion about him, while Schweiker comes in second at 33%), finds him way in the lead, at 45, with Rep. Jim Gerlach at 9, ex-Gov. Mark Schweiker and Rep. Charlie Dent both at 8, Rep. Tim Murphy at 7, state Sen. Jake Corman at 3, and state Sen. Kim Ward and actual announced candidate Marc Scaringi both at 1. The Santorum-free version gives the edge to Schweiker at 18, Gerlach at 14, Murphy at 13, Dent at 10, Corman at 9, Ward at 2, and Scaringi at 1.

• TX-Sen: This story may be better filed under “Dallas mayor” since it points to a somewhat unexpected vacancy that’s going to need to be filled in November. The mayoral candidacy of city council member Ron Natinsky, a key ally of Republican mayor Tom Leppert, makes it pretty clear that Leppert isn’t going to run for a second term as mayor. Leppert has often been cited a potential wild card in the GOP Senate primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison, and this may mean he’s moving toward that race.

• MS-Gov: Hattiesburg mayor Johnny DuPree made it official today, filing his papers for a gubernatorial run. He’ll face off against businessman Bill Luckett in the Democratic primary, and if he wins there, most likely against Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant in the general.

• IL-14: A new profile of ex-Rep. Bill Foster has him sounding pretty uncandidate-ish in the future. He says he’d like to explore business opportunities in green energy and would consider an executive branch position if asked, but there’s nary a suggestion of a rematch.

• PA-Auditor: Allegheny Co. Exec (and 2010 gubernatorial loser) Dan Onorato says he won’t run for a third term as county executive; this is widely assumed to mean that he’ll be pursuing a bid for state Auditor in 2012. (I’m wondering if Jack Wagner, whom you also remember from the gubernatorial race, can run for a 3rd term as Auditor, and, if so, if he’s ruled it out? Anybody know about that?) At any rate, Onorato seems to be looking at lower statewide office as a better stepping-stone for his ambitions; he’s young enough that he’s probably thinking down the road to a 2016 challenge to Pat Toomey or even the 2018 open seat gubernatorial race (which, if history is any guide, will go to a Democrat).

• Special elections: As expected, last night’s special elections in Virginia went to the Republicans with totals over 60% (letting them hold both of the red districts up for grabs). Gregory Habeeb is taking over for Robert Hurt in SD-19, while William Stanley takes over for Morgan Griffith in HD-8. Also, in Mississippi, Nancy Adams Collins won in SD-11 to succeed Alan Nunnelee; I can’t find any confirmation that she, in fact, was the Republican in the race, but I have dim memories (correct me if I’m wrong) from the myriad MS-01 special elections that special elections in Mississippi don’t include party labels on the ballot.

• 2010: You’re probably all familiar with the gender gap, but Michael McDonald shows in pretty dramatic fashion just how significant the “age gap” has become, with a 16-point gap in 2010 between the parties between the 18-29 set and the 65+ set, the largest that’s ever been. The unfortunate flipside, which does a lot to explain the 2010 results, is that young voter falloff in midterm elections (25% in 2006, 51% in 2008) is much greater than among older voters (63% in 2006, 71% in 2008), boosting Republican odds thanks to their increased strength among seniors.

• Demographics: I suppose we don’t need any hints about where people are moving since we just got reapportionment data, but here’s some more in-depth data from the Census Bureau, based on what states people are moving into and out of. Long-distance moves hit a record low in 2009, thanks in large part to the sluggish economy disproportionately hitting young adults. Housing bubble/service-sector cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Orlando had drops in migration, while more knowledge-sector places like Austin, Raleigh, and Portland were gainers among young adults.

• Redistricting: I’m hesitant to heap praise on one particular Dave’s Redistricting App map diary here, because, really, they’re all fantastic and an important part of the site and the community; I learn something new from most of them and they’re all time-consuming works of art, so thanks to everyone who posts them. But silver spring’s Illinois diary is worthy of some extra attention, in the hopes that the powers-that-be (in this state that’s probably the Dems’ single best shot to run up the redistricting score) might see this diary and take its basic ideas into account. It’s a map that takes the almost-unthinkable and makes it plausible: a map that’s 15-3 in favor of Democrats based on 2008 presidential data, and even creates a second Hispanic VRA district for good measure.

The goal of this map is to reduce the number of Republican representatives in Illinois from the current 11 to 3.  I must admit that my ideal would be for every single state to have a non-partisan commission to do redistricting.  Doing partisan maps such as this is indeed playing “ugly.”  However, as long as Republicans continue to push the envelope on this issue (including unprecedented mid-decade remaps like the one in Texas) there is no reason the Democratic Party should not likewise draw partisan maps in the states where it controls the process.

This is my first try at Illinois using Dave’s Application.  It’s really a type of “first-draft” for me because the Application currently does not provide partisan data.  I focused here more on demographics — making sure the three African-American majority seats and single Hispanic majority seat are preserved, as well as creating a second Hispanic-majority seat.  In several past diaries on Illinois, I read comments that a second seat might not be viable.  However, I think a viable second seat can be created without too much trouble on the south side of Chicago — one that’s at least 63% Hispanic (under this proposed plan) while preserving the north side seat (which is 59% Hispanic under this map).  I intentionally made the “south-side” seat relatively more Hispanic as that area is composed mostly of Mexican-Americans, while the “north-side” seat encompasses people of mostly Puerto Rican descent who are all citizens and therefore does not need to be as Hispanic.  

The partisan goal here was to basically create a 15-3 map (as I feel that is very doable in Illinois), but since the partisan data isn’t in the Application yet, it was a very tedious process trying to get to the right balance.  To a large extent, I first drew the general outlines of districts and only then applied partisan precinct-level data from various county sources (see links at bottom of diary).  Once drawn, it was very time-consuming to adjust the precincts and data.  Therefore, some of my districts are not really as Democratic as I would like them to be.  Getting them more Democratic would be much easier with the partisan data in the Application, as you could easily try and try again to get just the right balance.  The Application is truly invaluable in doing this right, and I feel that once the partisan data is in the system, a much better map can be constructed.  Nevertheless, here’s the first draft.  Since I will likely do this again once the partisan data is input into the system, I really welcome comments on how to make Illinois truly a lock-proof 15-3 plan.  This is the Democrats biggest chance to really make a Democratic map this cycle — one that may have an effect on whether we win back the House next year.

I tried to draw many of the districts in a manner whereby the Democratic incumbents get to keep as many of their constituents as possible, while the GOP incumbents’ districts are basically torn apart by the map — if that means a Democrat will subsequently have a better chance at taking over a district.  While individual GOP districts are torn apart, counties and communities are not. The resulting map is overall actually less gerrymandered than the current map, with the new map trying to keep counties and communities within the same district. Under the existing map, there are 149 “county-fragments” in Illinois, while under the proposed map here the number of “county-fragments” goes down to 134 (granted, the number of districts goes down from 19 to 18).  The  Obama – McCain (2008) numbers are drawn from actual precinct data — though imperfect because it didn’t match in a small portion of cases (kind of like the partisan data in the Application for Maryland, where there’s still a number of precincts that don’t match and/or missing data), and in a very small number of cases in rural Illinois, I had to estimate the numbers because county data (Bureau, Carroll, Jersey, Perry and Vermilion) was not available online.  The bottom line, therefore, for my Obama – McCain numbers is that I feel that they are accurate to maybe +/- 1 percentage point (but not perfect as would be with the Application).  I tried to also provide Kerry – Bush (2004) numbers for the districts, but here the effort is pure estimation using larger geographical subsets like wards and townships (it was just too tedious to do this by precinct) … so those numbers should be looked at in that light, though I feel they are still probably not off by more than a couple points from reality.  (My population deviation is no more than +/- 938 persons per district).

To start, I’d like to discuss what happens to the GOP incumbents under this plan … The first 8 districts here are ones where the goal is to bump out the Republican incumbent and replace them with a Democrat (first 7), or in the case of IL-19, the district just disappears with reapportionment and makes a Republican disappear with it.

IL-6: Roskam’s district is divided among the new IL-6 (about 1/3) and IL-14 (about 1/3), with the remaining 1/3 divided among IL-4, IL-5, IL-7 and IL-9.  His Wheaton home remains in the new IL-6, but a larger portion of the revamped district comes out of Lipinski’s current IL-3.  So the most likely result is a Roskam – Lipinski matchup, which is likely to go to Lipinski (for reasons discussed under “District 6” below) … or a Roskam – Foster matchup, with Foster having an advantage as he would represent more than half of the new IL-14, which now becomes significantly more Democratic.

IL-8: Over half of Walsh’s current IL-8 remains within the boundaries of the new district (although not Walsh’s home).  (The rest is split among IL-5, IL-9, IL-10, IL-14 and IL-16.)  The revamped IL-8 becomes significantly more Democratic than the current version.

IL-10: Dold’s current district is split up among several new districts: the new IL-10 gets about 1/3 (including Dold’s home in Kenilworth), the new IL-9 gets about 1/3 while the remaining 1/3 is split among IL-5 and IL-8.  The new IL-10 becomes significantly more Democratic than the current version.

IL-11: Only about 1/4 of Kinzinger’s current district remains inside the revamped IL-11.  About 2/5 goes to the new IL-13, which becomes a much more Democratic district (67% Obama).  The rest is shared between the new IL-2 (including Kinzinger’s home area in Kanakee Co.), the new IL-1 and the new IL-16.

IL-13: Biggert’s district is basically annihilated.  About 1/4 remains in the new IL-13.  About 1/4 (including Biggert’s home area around Hinsdale) goes to IL-7, while the remaining 1/2 is almost equally divided in three and attached to the new IL-1, IL-6 and IL-14.

IL-14: About 1/2 of Hultgren’s current district remains under the new lines.  About 1/4 goes to IL-5 and 1/4 to IL-11 (with a small part to IL-16 and IL-17).  Hultgren’s home remains in the district, which is made significantly more Democratic.

IL-17: A little over 1/3 of the current IL-17 remains under the new lines (Schilling’s home in Colona is excluded).  Another 1/3 becomes part of the new IL-18, while the remainder is split between IL-12, IL-15 and IL-16.  The Democratic percentage goes up by several points.

IL-19 (Shimkus) disappears from Illinois with reapportionment; however, Shimkus could choose to run in the new IL-18, as his home is in Madison Co.

The last 3 districts created are ones which are designed to stay in GOP hands.  They are made to be basically “sink” areas, which contain as many Republicans as possible … These include IL-15 (Johnson), IL-16 (Manzullo) and IL-18 (Schock or Shimkus).    

Now, to a detailed discussion of individual districts …

District 1:

Proposed District Demographics: 52% black; 40% white; 5% hispanic

Current District: Obama 87; McCain 13

Proposed District: Obama 76; McCain 23

Current District: Kerry 83; Bush 17

Proposed District: Kerry 71; Bush 29 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Rush

Rush gets to keep 61% of his current constituents.  About 15% of the new district (population-wise) comes out of territory currently a part of IL-13, while 14% comes out of IL-11.  The remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-2, IL-3 and IL-7.

District 2:

Proposed District Demographics: 51% black; 38% white; 10% hispanic

Current District: Obama 90; McCain 10

Proposed District: Obama 78; McCain 21

Current District: Kerry 84; Bush 16

Proposed District: Kerry 72; Bush 28 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Jackson; Kinzinger

Jackson gets to keep 56% of his current constituents.  About 20% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-11 (including Kinzinger’s home area), 12% comes out of IL-1, while 11% is taken out of IL-15.

District 3:

Proposed District Demographics: 63% hispanic; 28% white; 5% black

Current District: Obama 64; McCain 35

Proposed District: Obama 78; McCain 20

Current District: Kerry 59; Bush 41

Proposed District: Kerry 73; Bush 27 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): None

The current IL-4 is split exactly in half by this plan: 49% of the new IL-3 comes out of territory currently in IL-4 (while the new IL-4 also gets to keep 49% of the existing IL-4).  40% of the proposed IL-3 comes out of the current IL-3, while the remainder is formed out of parts of IL-1, IL-2 and IL-7.  In the meantime, about 44% of the existing IL-3 goes into the new IL-6 and becomes the largest chunk of that revamped district; therefore, Lipinski basically gets to keep his district while a second Hispanic district can still be created here (encompassing people largely of Mexican descent).  The 63% hispanic – 28% white ratio here should ensure that a Hispanic rep is elected.

District 4:

Proposed District Demographics: 59% hispanic; 29% white; 6% black; 5% asian

Current District: Obama 85; McCain 13

Proposed District: Obama 77; McCain 22



Current District: Kerry 79; Bush 21

Proposed District: Kerry 70; Bush 30 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Gutierrez

As discussed above, Gutierrez gets to keep 49% of his current constituents.  About 30% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-5, while 11% comes out of IL-9.  The remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-6 and IL-7.  This new district isn’t “as Hispanic” as the new IL-3, as people of Puerto Rican descent are already citizens and so the Hispanic: white ratio does not need to be as large in order for a Hispanic rep to be elected here.

District 5:

Proposed District Demographics: 74% white; 16% hispanic; 7% asian

Current District: Obama 73; McCain 26

Proposed District: Obama 62; McCain 37



Current District: Kerry 67; Bush 33

Proposed District: Kerry 54; Bush 45 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Quigley

Quigley gets to keep 48% of his current constituents.  About 27% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-14, while 11% comes out of IL-6.  The remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-4, IL-7, IL-8, IL-9 and IL-10.

The Democratic percentage does down significantly as the lines are changed.  However, it should be noted that Quigley won with 71% this past November under the current lines, with the GOP candidate at 25% and the Green party candidate at 4%.  Even if the Democratic percentage is reduced by a dozen points or so, a competent Democrat like Quigley should still win rather comfortably here.  (Having said that, once the partisan data is put into the Application, I would like to make this district a tad more Democratic).

District 6:

Proposed District Demographics: 81% white; 9% hispanic; 5% asian

Current District: Obama 56; McCain 43

Proposed District: Obama 56; McCain 43

Current District: Kerry 47; Bush 53

Proposed District: Kerry 49; Bush 51 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Lipinski, Roskam

About 44% of the new district’s population is comprised of current constituents of Lipinski’s IL-3, while about 31% are currently a part of Roskam’s IL-6 (18% come out of the current IL-13, while the rest are transferred from IL-1, IL-4 and IL-7.)  Overall, 57% of the new IL-6 would be in Cook Co. and 43% in DuPage Co.  I believe that the advantage in such a situation goes to Lipinski.  Even during the recent GOP wave, Lipinski won his district with 70% of the vote, with the GOP candidate at 24% and the Green party candidate at 6%.  He was one of only two Illinois Democrats who had a higher winning percentage in 2010 than Obama had in 2008 in their district (the other was Costello, and Lipinski did better among the two).  In the meantime, Roskam won his district by “only” a 64-36 ratio in November of last year.  I think that the numerical breakdowns discussed above in combination with Lipinski’s conservadem qualities would make him the prefect candidate for the revamped IL-6.

District 7:

Proposed District Demographics: 51% black; 36% white; 6% hispanic; 6% asian

Current District: Obama 88; McCain 12

Proposed District: Obama 78; McCain 21

Current District: Kerry 83; Bush 17

Proposed District: Kerry 72; Bush 28 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Davis, Biggert

Davis gets to keep 61% of his current constituents.  About 27% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-13 (including Biggert’s home area), while the remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-1, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5 and IL-6.

District 8:

Proposed District Demographics: 65% white; 21% hispanic; 7% black; 6% asian

Current District: Obama 56; McCain 43

Proposed District: Obama 59; McCain 40

Current District: Kerry 44; Bush 56

Proposed District: Kerry 49; Bush 51 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): None

Unlike other GOPers, Walsh gets to keep more of his territory — 55% in this case (although not his Winnetka home).  The reason is simple — it’s also Melissa Bean’s territory, and she may decide to run again.  She lost by only a point in November (one of the few races where the Green party candidate screwed the Democrat this past election).  The district is made several points more Democratic (as territory is added from adjoining districts: 25% from IL-10 — basically the very Democratic Waukegan and North Chicago, and 21% from IL-16 – more Democratic parts of McHenry Co. like Crystal Lake).  The increase in Democratic numbers in combination with Obama being on top of the ticket in 2012 should make this revamped district a great comeback opportunity for Bean.

District 9:

Proposed District Demographics: 71% white; 14% asian; 10% hispanic

Current District: Obama 72; McCain 26

Proposed District: Obama 63; McCain 36



Current District: Kerry 68; Bush 32

Proposed District: Kerry 57; Bush 43 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Schakowsky

Schakowsky gets to keep 52% of her current constituents.  About 37% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-10 (basically the Cook Co. portion of that district), while the remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-6 and IL-8.

Schakowsky won with 66% last November, with the GOP candidate at 31% and the Green party candidate at 3%.  I really don’t see her losing under these new lines.

District 10:

Proposed District Demographics: 76% white; 8% asian; 8% hispanic; 6% black

Current District: Obama 61; McCain 38

Proposed District: Obama 65; McCain 33

Current District: Kerry 53; Bush 47

Proposed District: Kerry 57; Bush 43 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Dold, Walsh

Dold gets to keep only 32% of his current constituents.  About 21% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-8, 20% comes out of IL-9, 13% out of IL-7 and 12% out of IL-5.  The district becomes several more points (about 4 points) more Democratic, as it expands southward into lake-side Chicago neighborhoods — and in combination with Obama being on top of the ticket, a good Democratic candidate would be likely to take this district back in 2012.

District 11:

Proposed District Demographics: 79% white; 8% black; 8% Hispanic

Current District: Obama 53; McCain 45

Proposed District: Obama 56; McCain 43

Current District: Kerry 46; Bush 53

Proposed District: Kerry 48; Bush 52 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Johnson

It should be noted that Kinzinger no longer lives in this district.  Johnson does and, in fact, areas in his current IL-15 form the largest percentage (42%) of the new district’s population.  27% comes out of the current IL-11, while 27% comes out of IL-14.  The remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-16 and IL-18.  Johnson could conceivably still run and win here, but the new IL-15 would seem to present a much better opportunity for Johnson (discussed below).  The proposed IL-11  encompasses no less than three major college towns: Champaign-Urbana (Univ. of Illinois); Bloomington (Illinois State Univ. and Illinois Wesleyan Univ.) and DeKalb (Northern Illinois Univ.)  Ideally, the enthusiasm shown by that demographic in 2008 will repeat itself next year, and would make this a Democratic pick-up.

District 12:

Proposed District Demographics: 78% white; 17% black

Current District: Obama 54; McCain 44

Proposed District: Obama 57; McCain 41

Current District: Kerry 52; Bush 48

Proposed District: Kerry 55; Bush 45 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Costello

Costello gets to keep 82% of his current constituents.  About 12% of the new district comes out of territory currently a part of IL-17, while the remainder is attached from areas currently a part of IL-18 and IL-19.  The district becomes more Democratic as it expands into the central part of Springfield, while a few more conservative counties in the south are wholly or partly detached.

District 13:

Proposed District Demographics: 58% white; 22% black; 15% hispanic

Current District: Obama 54; McCain 45

Proposed District: Obama 67; McCain 32

Current District: Kerry 45; Bush 55

Proposed District: Kerry 59; Bush 40 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): None

About 42% of the new district’s population comes out of territory currently a part of IL-11, 29% comes out of IL-13, and 28% comes out of IL-2 (with a sliver out of IL-1).  Neither Kinzinger nor Biggert live within the current lines, and even if they did it would be hard to win in a revamped 67% Obama district.  Only question becomes which local Democrat could run here (Halvorson comeback ?).

District 14:

Proposed District Demographics: 60% white; 26% hispanic; 7% asian; 6% black

Current District: Obama 55; McCain 44

Proposed District: Obama 60; McCain 39

Current District: Kerry 44; Bush 55

Proposed District: Kerry 49; Bush 50 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Hultgren

Hultgren gets to keep 51% of his current constituents.  The reasoning is the same as with IL-8 above — the new lines may present a great comeback opportunity for Foster.  (32% of the new district comes out of the current IL-6, 13% out of IL-13, and the rest from IL-8).  The roughly half of IL-14 that remains under the new lines encompasses the most Democratic parts of IL-14.  In fact, in November while losing in the district overall by 51-45 (with the Green candidate at 4%), Foster won the half that remains here by roughly 54-42-4.  (He had big margins in Aurora and Elgin, and lost smaller areas like Batavia and the western townships of DuPage Co. by much smaller margins.)  In addition, the areas attached to the new IL-14 from IL-6, IL-13 and IL-8 are relatively more Democratic parts of those districts.  For example, during the 2006 matchup between Roskam and Duckworth in IL-6, Duckworth won the Bloomingdale Township and Wayne Township parts of IL-6, as well as Hanover Township in northwestern Cook Co.

During the 2008 election, Biggert won the Naperville part of IL-13 against Harper, but it was the closest Harper came to Biggert in DuPage Co. in that election (he lost the township by less than 2,000 votes out of approx. 40,000 cast there.)  So, all in all, Democrats have performed quite well in recent House elections in almost every corner of the new IL-14.

District 15:

Proposed District Demographics: 94% white

Current District: Obama 48; McCain 50 (Current IL-19 is Obama 44; McCain 54)

Proposed District: Obama 42; McCain 56

Current District: Kerry 41; Bush 59 (Current IL-19 is Kerry 39; Bush 61)

Proposed District: Kerry 36; Bush 64 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): None (but designed for Johnson)

Johnson gets to keep 36% of his constituents if he decides to run here.  A larger percentage, 53%, comes out of the current IL-19 (which is set to disappear entirely as Illinois loses a House seat), but Shimkus’ home area around Collinsville is outside of the new district’s lines, and it would make more sense for Shimkus to run in the new IL-18, and for Johnson to run in this new hyper-Republican district.  (11% of the new district’s population comes out of the current IL-12, while a sliver comes out of IL-17).

District 16:

Proposed District Demographics: 90% white; 6% hispanic

Current District: Obama 53; McCain 45

Proposed District: Obama 47; McCain 52

Current District: Kerry 44; Bush 55

Proposed District: Kerry 39; Bush 61 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Manzullo, Schilling

Manzullo gets to keep 42% of his current constituents, but the new district also includes areas currently in IL-18 (34% of new district’s population), as well as smaller parts of IL-8, IL-11, IL-14, IL-15 and IL-17.  This could turn into a 2-way matchup between Manzullo and Schock (with Schilling living in the new district, but representing very little of it.)

District 17:

Proposed District Demographics: 77% white; 11% black; 8% hispanic

Current District: Obama 56; McCain 42

Proposed District: Obama 59; McCain 39

Current District: Kerry 51; Bush 48

Proposed District: Kerry 52; Bush 47 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Schock (but district not designed for him)

The new IL-17 runs from Rockford to Peoria.  It is formed out of parts of the current IL-17 (39% of new district); IL-16 (36%); IL-18 (23%); and IL-14 (2%).  The lines are intentionally scrambled to mess up the chances of any particular GOP congressman from running here: Schilling represents IL-17 today, but doesn’t live in the revamped version, while Schock lives here under the new lines but would represents only 23% of the new district’s population.  The overall Democratic numbers also go up several points.  All this is done to better Democratic chances in taking back IL-17 in 2012.

District 18:

Proposed District Demographics: 91% white; 5% black

Current District: Obama 48; McCain 50

Proposed District: Obama 48; McCain 51

Current District: Kerry 42; Bush 58

Proposed District: Kerry 42; Bush 58 (Estimate)

Incumbent(s): Shimkus

This new district is yet another one that really messes with the Illinois GOP.  It will ultimately elect a Republican, but it’s anyone’s guess as to which one will it be.  The district encompasses almost equal thirds of the current IL-17 (Schilling) – 33%; IL-18 (Schock) – 33%; and IL-19 (Shimkus) – 32% of the new district’s population (2% comes out of IL-15).   So, we could possibly see a GOP primary here with three incumbents.

PS. I’m working on diaries for Arkansas, West Virginia and one predicting what the commission may do in California; should post later this week.

Sources for data:

http://www.chicagoelections.co…

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com…

http://dupageelections.com/pag…

http://results.enr.clarityelec…

http://results.enr.clarityelec…

http://www.kanecountyelections…

http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/de…

http://www.voterockford.com/

http://elections.winnebagocoun…

http://www.ci.peoria.il.us/res…

http://www.co.peoria.il.us/dis…

http://www.becvote.org/pastres…

http://www.mcleancountyil.gov/…

http://www.champaigncountycler…

http://www.co.stephenson.il.us…

http://www.co.sangamon.il.us/e…

https://spreadsheets.google.co…

• ME-Sen: The attempt to primary out Olympia Snowe by the state’s various fractious Tea Party factions seems to be sputtering, partly for lack of a credible challenger to rally around (with Some Dude Scott D’Ambroise the only one officially in the race right now) but also as the various Judean People’s Front and People’s Front of Judea wings of the ‘baggers start to increasingly turn their fire on each other rather than on Democrats and alleged RINOs.

• MI-Sen: Joining a major law firm after an electoral loss isn’t, in itself, dispositive of future political runs a few years down the line. But observers are taking the decision by former AG Mike Cox (who lost last year’s GOP gubernatorial primary) to join a Detroit law firm as an indicator that he isn’t considering the 2012 Senate race.

• MO-Sen: There are increasing signals that Jim Talent may not run for Senate in 2012, after all. Dave Catanese talks to various Show Me State insiders who say that Talent hasn’t been doing the behind-the-scenes reaching-out that one usually does at this point, and they point to him not only having got caught off guard by Sarah Steelman’s abrupt early entry into the primary but also his close relationship with Mitt Romney. Talent is currently traveling with Romney in an advisory role in Afghanistan, and there’s speculation his 2012 plans may involve hitching his wagon to Romney in the hopes that he’s the next President and that a Cabinet role (SecDef?) may be in the offing.

• OH-Sen: With Mike DeWine having passed on a rematch against Sherrod Brown, the speculation has turned to newly-elected Lt. Gov. and former Auditor Mary Taylor. It sounds like she’s game; local insiders are saying she’s at “90%” in terms of likelihood of running. She may not have the field to herself even if she does, though; another newly-elected statewide GOPer, 33-year-old state Treasurer Josh Mandel has been impressing the local GOP in his first week on the job and is starting to attract some buzz for a quick promotion.

• WY-Sen: Wyoming promises to be the least dramatic state in the 2012 election, so PPP’s decision to poll here this early seems a little odd. At any rate, they find Wyomingites love their politicians: outgoing Dem Gov. Dave Freudenthal gets a 71/18 approval, making him the nation’s most popular governor, while the state’s two GOP Senators, John Barrasso (69/25) and Mike Enzi (63/24) are the nation’s two most popular Senators. Despite his popularity (and, well, despite the fact that he’s never expressed any interest in running for federal office), Freudenthal loses a hypothetical 2012 matchup against Barrasso, 56-36, thanks to the GOP’s huge registration advantage here.

• RI-Gov: There’s already one Dem reportedly gearing up for the 2014 Governor’s race: state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who’s build a war chest and getting friendly with DC consultants. (Alternatively, she could also be running for Senate in 2014 instead, if Jack Reed isn’t running again.) No mention of whether she’d be challenging new indie Gov. Lincoln Chafee (last seen more or less declaring war on local talk radio) from the left or the right (as Frank Caprio tried to do, and failed).

• FL-14: With Rep. Connie Mack IV looking like one of the House’s likeliest retirements right now (in order to pursue a Senate bid against Bill Nelson), speculation has already begun about who’ll fill his seat. One thing is pretty predictable, given the Fort Myers-area district’s R+11 bent and lack of any Dem tradition or bench: it’ll be a Republican. GOP names to watch include ex-state Rep. Dudley Goodlette and Lee Co. Commissioner Ray Judah. The most prominent name, though, may be former Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp (though he might have trouble getting out of a GOP primary unless he can find a way to wash the stank of the Charlie Crist administration off his suit). State Sen. Garrett Richter (whose district closely overlaps the 14th) says no thanks to the race.

• HI-01: GOP ex-Rep. Charles Djou, seeming a bit testy after the abrupt end to his very short tenure in the House, seems to have thrown all that feel-good ohana crap out the window in his exit press conference, blaming Dem successor Colleen Hanabusa in advance for expected future failures. He may feel free to speak his mind as he also says he has “no plans to run for any political office ever again.”

• NM-01: Rep. Martin Heinrich has already drawn some seemingly-credible Republican opposition for 2012, although he has the kind of district that seems much safer for a Dem in a presidential year than last year’s narrow win. Republican Albuquerque city councilor Dan Lewis has formed an exploratory committee.

• State legislatures: Two state House speaker elections are in the news today. The big one may be in Texas, where an expected coup from the right against GOP speaker Joe Straus didn’t ever seem to materialize. He got the support of 70 of 100 GOP House members in a pre-vote caucus, and then was easily elected to another term by the whole House. Meanwhile, in Oregon, an unusual power-sharing arrangement was cobbled together with a surprising degree of civility and equanimity, as the parties figure out how to grapple with a never-before 30-30 tie. GOPer Bruce Hanna and Dem Arnie Roblan will be co-speakers, handing the gavel to each other on alternating days.

• Special elections: Two southern states have special elections scheduled today, although there should be very little drama in any of the elections, as these are Republican-leaning districts replacing promoted Republican legislators in lightly-contested races (and icy conditions should reduce turnout to microscopic levels). In Mississippi, the races are to replace Alan Nunnelee in SD-6 and Steven Palazzo in HD-116. (With a recent party switch by state Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, the GOP is poised to tie the state Senate with today’s election.) In Virginia, the races are to replace Robert Hurt in SD-19 and Morgan Griffith in HD-8.

• Primaries: In a nice bit of symmetry, two states are going in very different directions with their primary election rules. In Idaho, where the GOP seems fearful of meddling in its primaries by the state’s Democrat (I think his name is Jerry), the state GOP is pushing to change from open primaries to closed primaries. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, after a period of closed primaries for federal-level offices (which was extremely confusing, since they kept using open primaries for state offices), they’re expecting federal approval of a switch back to all open primaries this month. The state legislature has already approved it, but as a VRA state, they’re waiting for DOJ preclearance.

• Redistricting: Finally, here’s some redistricting news. Bob McDonnell has thrown a bone to fans of redistricting reform with the creation of a new redistricting commission with 11 members. It’s not a very interesting bone, though, since the commission’s role is purely advisory and the commission doesn’t even have a budget. Meanwhile, the Hill looks at what might happen to the House districts in New Jersey, a state where the hard work is actually done by commission (which has traditionally focused on incumbent protection, but has to eliminate one seat this year). For now, everyone is waiting for more complete Census figures to see if the population stagnation was more concentrated in the state’s north (which would probably hit the Dems) or the state’s middle (which would hit the GOP).

Public Policy Polling (1/3-5, “usual Nevada primary” voters, 10/7-9/10 in parentheses):

Dean Heller (R): 52 (37)

John Ensign (R-inc): 34 (45)

Undecided: 13 (18)

Dean Heller (R): 30

John Ensign (R-inc): 20

Sue Lowden (R): 12

Danny Tarkanian (R): 10

Sharron Angle (R): 9

Brian Krolicki (R): 6

John Chachas (R): 5

Someone else/Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±4.9%)

This is a pretty dramatic turnaround from the last time that PPP looked at the 2012 Republican Senate primary (which was released right after the November election, although I just noticed that the sample was taken before it). While the old poll had John Ensign looking surprisingly strong, this seems more in line with the conventional wisdom: that Ensign is toast, at least when matched up with GOP Rep. (and former SoS) Dean Heller. Ensign loses either as a two-way race or in a jungle-type configuration that throws in every possible GOPer. (Also noteworthy in the latter: Sharron Angle polls all of 9%, suggesting some serious buyer’s remorse over having nominated her last year.)

I’m really not sure what (other than a very different sample composition) might have caused the sudden drop in Ensign’s fortunes, since nothing has really happened to him in the last few months, but at any rate, he had a 64/23 approval (remember, among Republicans only) in October and now that’s down to 53/30. Contrast that with Heller, who was at 56/8 in October and now is up to 63/12, suggesting he’s getting better known without his negatives going up much, maybe consistent with people starting to pay more attention to the race and casting about for alternatives to the ethically-plagued Ensign. Given these numbers on top of Ensign’s dried-up fundraising, it may truly be a short matter of time (as insiders expect) before Ensign announces he isn’t running again.

As for a Democratic opponent, it’ll be a while till we have a clear sense of that. Rep. Shelley Berkley has just announced that she’s pushing back her timetable on making a decision about the race, to somewhere around “late spring or early summer.” I’ve gotta wonder if she’s waiting to see whether Ensign bails and Heller gets in without serious other GOP opposition, which might make the race much less appetizing to Berkley.

As we patiently await draft Californian congressional maps to be released later this year it is appropriate to check out the trends in voter registration. Given that the boundaries will inevitably change; comparisons by County rather than by CD are illuminating to say the least.

Below the fold for a comparison between October 2006 and October 2010 (midterm to midterm).  

CA Voter registration by County aka How California went Bluer.

COUNTY	CURRENT CD/S		DEM 2006 REG	REP 2006 REG	GAP		DEM 2010 REG	REP 2010 REG	GAP	TREND
Alameda	9,10,11,13		55.22%	17.52%	D+37.70%		56.81%	15.71%	D+41.10%	D+3.40%
Alpine	3		35.74%	34.97%	D+0.77%		38.2%	33.42%	D+4.78%	D+4.01%
Amador	3		34.91%	46.46%	R+11.55%		33.14%	45.66%	R+12.52%	R+0.97%
Butte	2,4		34.57%	41.13%	R+6.56%		34.71%	39.23%	R+4.52%	D+2.04%
Calaveras	3		33.94%	44.79%	R+10.85%		32.32%	42.88%	R+10.56%	D+0.29%
Colusa	2		35.58%	46.5%	R+10.92%		35.12%	46.15%	R+11.03%	R+0.11%
Contra Costa	7,10,11		48.12%	29.61%	D+18.51%		49.8%	26.27%	D+23.53%	D+5.02%
Del Norte	1		36.52%	39.18%	R+2.66%		36.65%	37.55%	R+0.90%	D+1.76%
El Dorado	4		30.71%	46.51%	R+15.80%		30.19%	44.92%	R+14.73%	D+1.07%
Fresno	18,19,20,21		39.46%	45.29%	R+5.84%		40.99%	40.96%	D+0.03%	D+5.87%
Glenn	2		32.54%	47.33%	R+14.79%		31.25%	45.81%	R+14.56%	D+0.23%
Humboldt	1		41.35%	28.91%	D+12.44%		42.59%	26.83%	D+15.76%	D+3.32%
Imperial	51		55.26%	26.34%	D+28.92%		51.68%	26.66%	D+25.02%	R+3.90%
Inyo	25		32.14%	45.14%	R+13%		32.28%	44.3%	R+12.02%	D+0.98%
Kern	20,22		35.7%	47.4%	R+11.7%		35.31%	44.09%	R+8.78%	D+2.92%
Kings	20		37.89%	46.83%	R+8.94%		36.15%	45.36%	R+9.26%	R+0.32%
Lake	1		43.29%	32.03%	D+10.26%		42.96%	29.34%	D+13.62%	D+3.36%
Lassen	4		28.93%	46.62%	R+17.69%		26.85%	47.82%	R+20.97%	R+3.28%
Los Angeles	22,25 – 39,42,46		49.74%	27.02%	D+22.72%		51.4%	23.58%	D+27.82%	D+5.10%
Madera	18,19		33.7%	49.21%	R+15.51%		35.28%	45.08%	R+9.8%	D+5.71%
Marin	6		51.73%	22.44%	D+29.29%		54.61%	19.32%	D+35.29%	D+6.00%
Mariposa	19		32.3%	46.81%	R+14.51%		31.07%	44.92%	R+13.85%	D+0.66%
Mendocino	1		46.27%	24.86%	D+21.41%		47.2%	22.48%	D+24.72%	D+3.31%
Merced	18		45.01%	41.03%	D+3.98%		46.27%	34.74%	D+11.53%	D+7.55%
Modoc	4		30.22%	49.34%	R+19.12%		26.76%	49.24%	R+22.28%	R+3.16%
Mono	25		31.1%	38.64%	R+7.54%		32.37%	36.91%	R+4.54%	D+3.00%
Monterey	17		48.23%	30.8%	D+17.43%		53.45%	25.52%	D+27.93%	D+10.50%
Napa	1		46.08%	31.36%	D+14.72%		47.2%	27.21%	D+19.99%	D+5.27%
Nevada	4		32.2%	42.96%	R+10.76%		33.66%	40.04%	R+6.38%	D+4.38%
Orange	40,42,44,46,47,48		30.07%	47.9%	R+17.83%		31.92%	43.18%	R+11.26%	D+6.57%
Placer	4		28.67%	51.43%	R+22.76%		28.89%	48.23%	R+19.34%	D+3.42%
Plumas	4		33.36%	43.8%	R+10.44%		32.37%	43.16%	R+10.79%	R+0.35%
Riverside	41,44,45,49		34.42%	45.7%	R+11.28%		36.29%	41.87%	R+5.58%	D+5.70%
Sacramento	3,4,5,10		42.61%	34.54%	D+8.07%		43.93%	33.76%	D+10.17%	D+2.10%
San Benito	17		45.05%	33.86%	D+11.19%		48.18%	30.34%	D+17.84%	D+6.65%
San Bernardino	25,26,41,42,43		37.59%	42.41%	R+4.82%		39.01%	38.46%	D+0.55%	D+5.37%
San Diego	49,50,51,52,53		34.16%	39.52%	R+5.36%		35.92%	36.27%	R+0.35%	D+5.01%
San Francisco	8,12		54.43%	10.92%	D+43.51%		56.26%	9.53%	D+46.73%	D+3.22%
San Joaquin	11,18		42.43%	40.6%	D+1.83%		42.66%	38.96%	D+3.70%	D+1.87%
San Luis Obispo	22,23		35.08%	41.84%	R+6.76%		34.96%	39.89%	R+4.93%	D+2.83%
San Mateo	12,14		49.42%	24.46%	D+24.96%		51.77%	20.76%	D+31.01%	D+6.05%
Santa Barbara	23,24		40.39%	35.53%	D+4.86%		42.37%	32.14%	D+10.23%	D+5.37%
Santa Clara	11,14, 15,16		44.9%	26.84%	D+18.06%		45.88%	23.89%	D+21.99%	D+3.93%
Santa Cruz	14,17		53.04%	20.26%	D+32.78%		54.83%	17.72%	D+37.11%	D+4.33%
Shasta	2		30.11%	49.18%	R+19.07%		28.44%	47.25%	R+18.81%	D+0.26%
Sierra	4		31.1%	42.81%	R+11.71%		29.11%	42.6%	R+13.49%	R+1.78%
Siskiyou	2		35.5%	42.3%	R+6.80%		33.86%	40.96%	R+7.10%	R+0.30%
Solano	3,7,10		48.61%	29.12%	D+19.49%		49.53%	26.16%	D+23.37%	D+3.88%
Sonoma	1,6		50.17%	25.71%	D+24.46%		52.13%	22.74%	D+29.39%	D+4.93%
Stanislaus	18,19		40.23%	42.24%	R+2.01%		43.38%	36.78%	D+6.60%	D+8.61%
Sutter	2		32.26%	49.51%	R+17.25%		33.38%	46.28%	R+12.90%	D+4.35%
Tehama	2		33.3%	45.3%	R+12.00%		31.43%	44.33%	R+12.90%	D+0.90%
Trinity	2		35.94%	39.07%	R+3.13%		35.46%	35.54%	R+0.08%	D+3.05%
Tulare	21		34.25%	48.03%	R+13.78%		34.54%	45.49%	R+10.95%	D+2.83%
Tuolumne	19		36.27%	43.73%	R+7.46%		33.42%	42.63%	R+9.21%	R+1.75%
Ventura	23,24		38.07%	39.83%	R+1.76%		39.76%	36.97%	D+2.79%	D+4.55%
Yolo	1,2		46.17%	27.53%	D+18.64%		47.85%	24.64%	D+23.21%	D+4.57%
Yuba	2		33.96%	42.52%	R+8.56%		33.43%	40.04%	R+6.61%	D+1.95%

Some observations:

In 2006 the Dems had a majority of registered voters in 6 counties, the Repubs in 1. In 2010 the numbers are 9 and 0 respectively.

In 2006 there were more Dems than Repubs in 23/58 Counties, in 2010 this has increased to 27/58.

Only 10 counties trended Repub between 2006-2010, 48 trended Dem. Of the 10 counties that trended Repub 7 of them are in the 2nd,3rd or 4th CD’s.

The biggest improvement between 2006 & 2010 came for the Repubs in Imperial at 3.90% and for the Dems it was in Monterey at 10.5%. No less than 24 counties improved for the Dems by more than Imperial did for the Repubs.

Repubs have a more than 10 point registration lead in 17 counties, Dems have the same in 21.

In four counties the voter reg gap is less than 200 voters!

Trinty – 6! (R)

Alpine – 35 (D)

Del Norte – 112 (R)

Fresno – 161 (D)

All of these Counties trended Dem between 2006 & 2010.

So what does this all mean?

As others have discussed at great length the future for the Republicans in California looks bleak. The areas of California that are trending Repub are almost entirely small inland counties with declining or very slowing growing populations. And whilst the Repubs still maintain sizable voter reg buffers in large counties like Orange and Riverside these counties are rapidly blueing.

For us Dems the news is looking great for obvious reasons. I expect by the 2012 General Election that the GOP will comprise less than 30% of registered voters in CA and that the Dems will be at least 45% – a huge 15%+ gap. Currently the respective numbers are 44/31.  

First of all, I’m rather new to Swing State Project, so my apologies ahead of time if this diary is treading ground that’s already been discussed.

In any case, I decided to do a Virginia redistricting map after reading that Governor McDonnell had created a bipartisan advisory committee.  Three points are worth noting about Virginia redistricting:

1) The legislature is under split control.

2) Virginia redistricting is always highly scrutinized for VRA purposes.

3) Virginia redistricting has tended to favor ‘least-change’ maps with whole county lines wherever possible.

In any case, I was just curious to do a ‘least-change’ map based on the new population estimates at Dave’s app to see whether it seemed any of the Virginia districts might be significantly affected from a partisan standpoint. The one that jumps out at me is VA-10. The only other district that changed significantly was VA-05, which picks up heavily Republican suburbs of Richmond.

Here’s my statewide map. More on VA-10 after the fold!

According to the estimates on Dave’s App, the NoVa seats need to shed population. That, of course, is to be expected considering NoVa accounts for the bulk of Virginia population growth. When applying the new population estimates at Dave’s app, VA-08 needs to gain 12,000 while VA-11 needs to shed 25,000 and VA-10 needs to shed 100,000. Even before I made my ‘least-change’ map it was readily apparent that VA-10 would have to contract into more of a Fairfax/Loudoun based district than it is now – and therefore would become more Democratic.

In any case, here’s a closer look at the district that I ended up with:

The VA-10 district was already an Obama district in 2008: Obama won the district 53% to 46%. The question then is how significantly the contraction might bump the Democratic performance.

On my map, VA-10 loses all of Warren County and all of Winchester City. It loses 60% of the Frederick County population and goes from half of the Fauquier County population to one third.  These areas combined voted 43% Obama to 56% McCain. Of these, only Winchester City voted for Obama, so it’s worth noting the GOP loss would be greater if, say, VA-10 retained Winchester and instead lost more of Fauquier. The district also loses 15,000 Fairfax Co. voters to VA-08 and VA-11 and gains 22,000 Prince William Co. voters from VA-01 – which is essentially a wash.

So, I looked at the 2008 countywide figures and came up with an estimate of VA-10 votes lost assuming that they were uniformly spread across these counties (this method should actually slightly favor the GOP, because NoVa gets steadily more Republican the further out you go). I then subtracted these figures from the actual 2008 VA-10 figures.

The outcome is a 55% Obama to 44% McCain district. So then, this would clearly give a boost to a Democratic challenger against Frank Wolf. More importantly, Wolf will be 73 years old in 2012, so an open seat such as this would be a prime Democratic target.

In any case, here’s a final map comparing my projected VA-10 district with the current district:

• CT-Sen: Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy is sounding very likely to challenge Joe Lieberman in 2012, at least if this WSJ piece primarily on Lieberman’s re-election chances is any indication. It quotes Murphy as “definitely considering” the race and says his decision may be only weeks away, given the nature of permanent campaigning these days. Meanwhile, Paulist economist Peter Schiff (whose rather quixotic bid wound up with him deep in third place in the GOP primary in 2010) is saying he’d like to run for office again, but 2012 won’t be the year, citing the likelihood of a Linda McMahon run and his inability to compete against her money. Finally, Lieberman himself has his mind on his money and his money on his mind, too… he’s hungry enough for money that he’s reaching out to his new friends from the No Labels movement and asking them to consider donating to politicians they don’t necessarily agree with. Interesting argument (especially considering that the No Labels people are probably the likeliest people out there to agree with Lieberman).

• MA-Sen: Long-time Boston mayor Tom Menino has occasionally gotten some coverage as a possible opponent to Scott Brown in the 2012 Senate race, but he’s taking his name out of consideration, saying he’ll never run for anything but even more terms as mayor. Menino also offered some warnings to potential Dem candidates about the race, saying “There’s nobody that can beat him.” (Recall that Menino caught some flak for not really deploying the Boston Dem machine full-force on Martha Coakley’s behalf during the special election, so it’s unclear whether he’s truly fearful of Brown or just engaging in a little concern trolling on Brown’s behalf.)

• MI-Sen: Here’s another indicator (after last month’s PPP poll that had her mired in the 40s) that Debbie Stabenow could have a tough race in 2012, given the right GOP opponent. A Glengariff Group poll for the Detroit News doesn’t include any head-to-heads, but gives her 37/39 approvals, and a 23% definite re-elect (vs. 43% someone new). Of course, the GOP will need to cough up someone more imposing than Tim Leuliette, the only publicly interested candidate so far.

• MN-Sen: I hadn’t heard Rep. John Kline (the GOP Rep. in MN-02, who labors in right-wing anonymity thanks to a lot of cover from noisy neighbor Michele Bachmann) get associated with the 2012 Senate race before, and after today, he probably won’t again. He told a talk radio interview over the weekend that his “plate was full.”

• MT-Sen: There’s been an uptick in speculation that Denny Rehberg may not run for Senate after all, given that he just landed a slot as not just one of the Appropriations cardinals (regarded by Beltway insiders as the uppermost tier in the House pantheon) but the subcommittee chair in charge of HHS, letting him carry the banner on any HCR repeal efforts. However, he’s still being coy about his 2012 plans (and in fact getting a little meta about the endless Beltway media parsing of political career planning), saying a decision is “down the road… which is similar to around the corner.”

• NE-Sen: This has been pretty clearly telegraphed for a while now, but Republican state treasurer Don Stenberg is saying he’s “quite likely” to get into the Senate race. That, of course, would set up a high-profile primary with another statewide GOPer already a formal candidate, AG Jon Bruning. Meanwhile, GOP state party chair Mark Fahnelson removed an image from his personal blog of Ben Nelson inside a red bullseye. In good Republican fashion, he reaffirmed that he himself, in fact, was the victim in all this.

• NV-Sen: Hoping for Sue Lowden to be the 2012 Senate nominee for the GOP? Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, because she’s saying she won’t consider running if Dean Heller is going to run (she would do it only if both John Ensign and Heller didn’t run). Rather candidly, she admitted that she had no shot of beating Heller in a GOP primary. Meanwhile, Sharron Angle has decided that, having had a shot at the big time, another run for the state Senate would just be chicken feed at this point. She says that she won’t seek the seat being vacated by resigning former GOP floor leader Bill Raggio (to whom she lost in a 2008 primary), although without saying anything more about another NV-Sen run or a NV-02 run if Heller runs for Senate.

• TX-Sen: Here’s another poll showing a Senator who may have a rough go of it in 2012, although in Kay Bailey Hutchison’s case, the real hurdle is likely to be the GOP primary. A Blum & Weprin poll for various Texas newspapers found Hutchison with a 46% approval among all registered voters, and only 56% among Republicans. Hutchison, of course, has not given any indication whether she’s running for another term or not.

• LA-Gov: That gubernatorial election is only 10 months away, and Louisiana Democrats still seem to standing around scratching their heads wondering who their nominee will be. With GOP incumbent Bobby “Kenneth the Page” Jindal sitting on a $7.2 million war chest and, while not super-humanly popular anymore, still in positive territory, willing victims do not seem forthcoming. Dems seem most interested in somebody who can self-finance, which would probably be oft-rumored Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, although other more remote possibilities include losing Lt. Gov. candidate Caroline Fayard, PSC Commissioner Foster Campbell (who finished 3rd in the 2007 primary), retired Gen. Russell Honore (who was briefly the subject of speculation for a GOP primary challenge to David Vitter last year), and even a return engagement from ex-Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

• AZ-08: Best wishes to Gabby Giffords for what will no doubt be a long, slow recovery after this weekend’s shooting. Physicians say that she is rapidly improving and may be removed from her breathing apparatus in several days if progress continues.

• ND-AL: This has implications for North Dakota’s House seat, but also potentially for the Senate seat in 2012, if Kent Conrad (last seen ramping up to start advertising already) does a sudden turnaround and opts for retirement. Ex-Rep. Earl Pomeroy (who’s 58) is joining DC law firm Alston & Bird and says “I don’t see myself running for office again.”

• NM-02: Similarly, Harry Teague has announced that he won’t run again for his old seat or anything else, saying he has no plans to seek another office. The 61-year-old (and independently wealthy) Teague plans to return to his family oilfield business.

• Mayors: Another day, another poll showing Rahm Emanuel way in the lead (albeit not out of runoff territory yet). This one’s from Anzalone-Liszt on behalf of the Teamsters, and while it shows Carol Mosely Braun gaining ground (thanks to dropouts from Danny Davis and James Meeks), she’s still far behind. It’s Emanuel 42, Mosely Braun 26, Gerry Chico 10, and Miguel Del Valle 7. (November’s Teamster poll was Emanuel 36, Mosely Braun 13, Chico 10.) Meanwhile, Chico can now boast an endorsement from Rep. Luis Gutierrez, which seems like a bit of a thumbed-nose at Emanuel (who used to be Gutierrez’s neighbor in the House). And on the other side of the country, San Francisco has a newly-minted interim mayor: city administrator Ed Lee, who will fill in for the next 10 months as Gavin Newsom becomes Lt. Governor. The main thing that clinched it for Lee (who will be the city’s first Asian-American mayor) was his promise not to run for the job in the November election. One of Newsom’s last acts was to appoint a new DA in San Francisco, too (to replace the state’s new AG, Kamala Harris): he promoted police chief George Gascon to that job.

• WATN?: Where are they now? On the prison bus, that’s where. At least that’s the case with former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay, just sentenced this morning to three years on conspiracy charges associated with laundering corporate money into campaign donations.

The main questions I think are involved here are:

1) Will the fair districts law hold up in court?

2) Will Corrine Brown get a district that goes Jacksonville to Orlando, or will it go to Tallahassee?

3) How many “compact” Orlando seats are drawn, and how many go into rural areas?

I’m assuming (or at least hoping) that we will see some less gerrymandered lines.  It might be interesting to see what the best case GOP map is, though.  I don’t think 21-6 could work, 20-7 may have to be uglier than what we have now.

I’m not sure of the politics of some of these seats, but my take is that the Democrats gain one seat in the Orlando area, have better chances at two seats in the Tampa area (Bill Young and Vern Buchanan both lose some blatant gerrymanders), and probably pick up Allen West’s seat.  David Rivera is almost certainly gone in 2012 as well, though that might be a primary.

VRA – 3 plurality black seats, CD3 at 47B, CD17 at 47B, CD23 at 39B.  I’m not sure you can do much better with nice lines; there just aren’t enough blacks in Broward county to make Hastings’ seat more than plurality black.  Kathy Castor’s CD11 is at 46W, as is CD8 in Orlando.  The 3 Hispanic R Miami seats are all at least 65H.

Per-district analysis below the fold.

CD1 (blue, 76W 14B) – Still in the panhandle, contracts somewhat.  Very little that can be done to this district.  Scarborough Country is still safe for Jeff Miller (R).

CD2 (green, 79W 13B) – Loses parts of Tallahassee to CD3.  Stretches across the northern part of the state all the way to Jacksonville.  With the black portion of the district decreased by 9%, Steve Southerland (R) should be safe in this already conservative district.

CD3 (purple, 47B 44W) – The previous district was 49% black.  I hope this is good enough for the VRA.  This district seems more compact than the previous monstrosity, and taking Democrats from a city (Tallahassee) represented by Republicans right now is better for them.  As noted in the opening, Corrine Brown (D) is safe here.

CD4 (red, 77W 11B) – Still wraps around Jacksonville, but gets the rest of its population from the south side rather than going along the north border to Tallahassee.  Ander Crenshaw (R) should still be safe.

CD5 (yellow, 82W 9H) – Mostly the same on the Gulf coast, loses a part of Lake County.  Should be fine for Richard Nugent (R)

CD6 (teal, 72W 15B) – More significant changes here.  Loses the Jacksonville area completely, and gets the entirety of the Gainsville and Ocala areas, previously gerrymandered into other districts, as well as Putnam County.  I don’t know how this district would turn out, but I expect it’s less safe for Cliff Stearns (R) than before.

CD7 (gray, 75W 12B 10H) – Pulls out further from the Orlando area, but gaining the towns of Sanford and Deland that were pushed into CD3 before.  Still includes Daytona and a bunch of the Atlantic coast.  I assume it is safe for John L. Mica (R) still.

Orlando

CD26 (gray-ish square looking district, 63W 18B 14H) – Another new district in the Orlando area.  I really have no idea how this would turn out.  As noted below, Daniel Webster would probably run here.

CD8 (light purple, 46W 31H 17B) – My guess is Daniel Webster (R) will look for a different district to run in.  This become majority-minority and collapses to Orlando and suburbs.  It has been suggested that making this be more Hispanic, the other districts would be safer R.

CD24 (dark purple, 75W 14H) – Very similar, trades some Orlando suburbs around.  I expect this to remain a swing district for Sandy Adams (R).

Tampa:

CD9 (bright blue, 82W 10H) – As many of these other districts have done, loses some outlying areas, and picks up a few precincts gerrymandered out before.  Guessing it’s safe for Gus Bilirakis (R).

CD10 (pinkish-red, 76W 12B) – Generally shrinks but gains Democratic areas gerrymandered out before.  Basically everything from Clearwater to St. Petersburg now.  Bill Young (R) won’t be happy, but I see no way the plan can do anything else with the new rules.

CD11 (green, 46W 26H 22B) – No longer gets minority or liberal areas from St. Petersburg or Bradenton.  Still should be safe D for Kathy Castor.

CD12 (cornflower blue, 70W 16H 11B) – Generally moves in towards Tampa, losing much of Polk County and gaining areas shed by other districts.  I don’t know how safe this is for Dennis Ross (R), but it shouldn’t be too bad.

CD13 (peach, 81W 10H) – Loses rural Hardee and Desoto counties, gains the liberal parts of Bradenton back from a gerrymander.  I assume Vern Buchanan (R) would have lost this district in 2006, and it’s probably a swing district in 2012 for him.

CD27 (aquamarine, 73W 15H) – The other new district appears in central Florida.  It stretches from Kissimmee in the north to the entirety of Port Charlotte and part of Fort Myers.  Once again, I’m not sure how this would fall politically.

CD14 (olive, 76W 15H) – Fort Myers/Naples based still, loses a lot of area and gains none.  Connie Mack IV (R) is probably as safe as before.

CD15 (turquoise, 73W 15H) – Same story, shrinks slightly.  Bill Posey (R) is probably safe, though I’ve never heard of him.

Southeast Florida

CD16 (ugly green, 65W 18H 14B) – covers Fort Pierce to Jupiter on the coast, as well as Lake Okeechobee and a lot of the Everglades.  Tom Rooney (R) is in the district.

CD22 (dark maroon, 57W 22H 18B) – a compact Palm Beach district.  Allen West (R) almost certainly is in trouble with anything not gerrymandered.

CD19 (khaki, 70W 15H 11B) covers Boynton beach to Boca Raton, and then goes inland to pickup areas west of Fort Lauderdale.  Ted Deutch (D) presumably is still safe.

CD23 (sky blue, 39B 39W) – Deerfield Beach to Fort Lauderdale.  Plurality black; it can pretty easily be made 42B 36W with a tendril to Hollywood, but I don’t think it can do much better without a very thin line to Palm Beach.  Alcee Hastings (D) might not like it, but I don’t care.

CD20 (pink, 54W 28H 14B) – Coastal areas in Broward county, mostly.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) should be safe.

CD17 (dark blue, 47B 30H 20W) – North Miami.  Frederica Wilson (D) should be fine.

CD21 (dark red, 76H 16W 6B) – Hialeah, other Miami suburbs to the west.  Mario Diaz Balart (R) is probably as safe as before.

CD18 (yellow, 65H 27W) – Miami and the Keys.  Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) is probably fine here.

CD25 (pink, 68H 20W 9B) – more of the everglades, picking up population from Miami as well as Naples/Fort Myers.  David Rivera (R) is probably in trouble more because he’s a corrupt idiot than because of changes in the district.