Month: February 2011

I always love these sorts of “do-over” polls, and PPP has a particularly good one:

We’ll have our full poll on the Wisconsin conflict out tomorrow but here’s the most interesting finding: if voters in the state could do it over today they’d support defeated Democratic nominee Tom Barrett over Scott Walker by a 52-45 margin.

Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee, of course lost to Walker, by a very similar spread, 52-47. Tom Jensen identifies two important shifts: First, respondents in union households (about a third of the sample) now prefer Barrett by a 64-33 margin, but when asked how they voted in 2010, only went to Barrett 54-40. You gotta wonder about that one-third of union household voters who still support Walker… but nonetheless, this is a big shift, and Walker is doing wonders when it comes to energizing our side.

The other change Tom calls out is that even Republicans are starting to sour on Walker. They say they went for him by a 93-3 spread in 2010, but now only back him 87-10 – that is to say, 10% of Republicans wish they could have voted for the Dem instead.

I’d also like to point out one other detail. Independents tested here claim they voted for Walker by a 45-44 margin last year. In reality, though, exit polls showed indies backed Walker by a far bigger 56-42 spread. So somewhere between last year’s election and now, around 11% of independents could no longer find it in their hearts to say they backed Walker. Now, some of these in PPP’s poll simply didn’t vote last time, and some I’m sure genuinely don’t remember. But some proportion of independents just don’t want to tell a pollster that they pulled the lever for Walker four months ago.

As far as the “re-do” question goes, indies favor Barrett by a 49-44 spread. So it looks like (for the moment) Walker’s “base” among independents is around 44-45%, but about half of the indies who can’t say what they were up to in 2010 are now professing to prefer Barrett. This means Gov. Walker is pulling off a pretty impressive trifecta: He’s alienating members of his own party, he’s struggling with independents, and he’s firing up people who comprise a key part of our base. While David Koch surely approves, if Scott Walker ever wants to get re-elected, he’s definitely doing it wrong.

• AZ-Sen: Maybe, just maybe, this will be the last time we’ll hear ridiculous speculation about, Joe Arpaio, the thug sheriff of Maricopa County, running for higher office. The 78-year-old Arpaio said he won’t seek Arizona’s open senate seat, following his announcement a few weeks ago that he won’t seek re-election as sheriff, either. I’m wondering if the two developments are not unrelated – Arpaio can silence the senate gossip because he no longer needs to use it to raise money for his next local race. Anyhow, I’ll be glad to be done with this guy. UPDATE: My mistake. I misread a line in the link and thought Arpaio was finally retiring, too – but only Kyl is, unfortunately. Still, Arpaio did say that he will not seek Kyl’s seat.

In other AZ news, what if you threw a teabagger convention and the Republican senate candidate didn’t come? Jeff Flake was a no-show at the Tea Party Patriots’ confab in Phoenix this past weekend, and the ‘baggers seem happy he stayed away. Unlike, say, Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Flake doesn’t appear to be interested in making nice with the nutters. I’m convinced that a more suitable (to the movement conservatives) candidate will emerge.

• FL-Sen, FL-13: Not quite sure what to make of this – John Boehner was just down in Sarasota, FL, headlining a high-dollar fundraiser for a guy who hardly needs the money, super-rich car dealer Vern Buchanan. Is this Boehner trying to convince Buchanan to seek re-election to the House and avoid a throw-down with fellow Rep. Connie Mack? Or just the Speaker earning chits while playing a few rounds of golf during a Congressional recess?

• HI-Sen: This piece on the Hawaii senate race is worth reading in full. The nominal hook here is Sen. Dan Inouye’s comments that, as Chair of the Appropriations Cmte. (and President Pro Tem of the senate), he won’t have as much time to raise money for his old buddy Dan Akaka, who is facing re-election next year. But there are a whole host of other questions implicated here: Is this just Inouye trying to kick Akaka’s ass into gear? (Akaka only has $66K on hand and faced a serious primary challenge from Rep. Ed Case in 2006.) Will Akaka (88 yo in 2012) actually even run again? Is former Gov. Linda Lingle going to run? If Akaka steps aside, who might take his place on the Dem side? Again, click the link to see the state of play.

• ME-Sen, ME-Gov: Eliot Cutler, the independent candidate for governor last year who came in just a couple of points behind the winner (Republican Paul LePage), says he is “unlikely” to challenge Sen. Olympia Snowe, proclaiming he has “no desire to live in Washington.” He also says he isn’t ruling out another gubernatorial bid in 2014. Also, one possible Dem candidate, former AG Janet Mills, just joined a law firm, suggesting she probably isn’t interested in a senate race. (Mills became the first woman AG of Maine in 2009, but because the position is selected by the legislature, she was replaced by a Republican after the GOP swept into power last fall. NB: This is how you avoid Kelly Ayottes.)

• MI-Sen, MI-15: Rob Steele, last seen losing to Rep. John Dingell by 17 points in 2010, says he’s considering a challenge to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (who lacks any real high-profile opposition at the moment). Steele also says he doesn’t think he’ll run again Dingell again, whose district might get re-drawn to still include heavily blue Ann Arbor.

• MO-Sen, MO-02: I thought Rep. Todd Akin had definitively said “no” to a senate bid, but in response to some renewed chatter about a possible run, he would only say: “Some people want to draft me for Senate but you know engineers. It’s just one thing at a time.” You know engineers! Anyhow, if there’s a chance Akin might get in, this could help explain former state GOP chair Ann Wagner’s recent remarks that she might run for MO-02. (Wagner, of course, is also in the mix for the senate race.)

• RI-Sen: State GOP chair Gio Cicione says he won’t take on Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, citing (like Cranston Mayor Matt Fung before him) the high cost of a race. These guys think a Rhode Island senate race would be expensive? They ought to check things out a state or two to the west. Anyhow, Dave Catanese caught up with former Providence mayor (and well-known felon) Buddy Cianci, whose name surfaced in PPP’s most recent poll of the race. Cianci hasn’t completely ruled out a run, but says it’s not “realistic.” Also of note, PPP has a report card out on Rhode Island politicians’ job approval ratings.

• TX-Sen: Former Dallas mayor Tom Leppert, who resigned just a few days ago, made it official: He’s running for senate.

• VA-Sen: The already-painful Tim Kaine watch – is it a pimple or a boil? – will soon be over: the DNC chair promises he’ll make a decision in a week, according to the AP’s Charles Babbington. (I predict “gummy bear.”) On the other side of the equation, ultra-far-right insano-Republican, state Delegate Bob Marshall, says he’s considering another run. Marshall almost stole the GOP nomination for VA-Sen in 2008 from the super-sad Jim Gilmore, but that near-upset took place at a Republican convention – this time, the party’s nominee will be selected in a primary.

• MO-Gov: Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder says he’ll make an announcement “this spring,” and if it’s anything other than, “I’m running for governor,” I think people will be shocked. Anyhow, mark your calendars – this means Kinder might open his trap again any time between March 20th and June 21st!

• NC-Gov: Since North Carolina is their home state, it looks like PPP will be testing NC-Gov just about every month. Incumbent Dem Bev Perdue trails almost-certain opponent Pat McCrory 49-37. (Last month it was 47-40.)

• CA-36: 2010 and 2006 primary candidate Marcy Winograd announced she’s entering the special election for departing Rep. Jane Harman’s seat. The CW says Winograd is likeliest to hurt SoS Debra Bowen, but I’m not really sure she’s capable of making any material difference in this race.

• CT-05: Former one-term state House Rep. Elizabeth Esty announced she’s running for Chris Murphy’s now-open house seat. Esty (not to be confused with the DIY craft-selling website) narrowly lost a rematch in 2010 after narrowly winning a traditionally Republican district in 2008.

• NJ-06: Teabagger Anna Little, who won an upset primary victory in 2008 but lost to Rep. Frank Pallone by 11 points in the general election, says she’s back for a rematch. The woman Little beat for the GOP nomination last year, richie rich Diane Gooch, is also weighing another bid.

• NM-01: Dem state Sen. Eric Griego says he’d “seriously consider” running for Rep. Martin Heinrich’s seat if Heinrich makes the jump to the open-seat senate race.

• NY-26: Well, that explains that. In other news, Conservative Party chair Mike Long seems to be tipping his hand that his party will in fact support GOP nominee Jane Corwin.

• MO-SoS: MO SoS Robin Carnahan says she’s running for re-election to her current post. Republican state Sen. Bill Stouffer, who lost a primary last year to Vicki Hartzler (who went on to beat Ike Skelton in the general), also says he’ll run for the post.

• Census: Our friends across the pond in England and Wales will take their census this year. What makes this interesting is that for the first time, Britons will be able to submit their census forms online.

Special Elections: Johnny Longtorso has the goods on tomorrow night’s special elections:

After the excitement of last week, this week is a bit of a letdown. There are three seats up: Florida’s SD-33, formerly held by Frederica Wilson, is merely a formality, with the Democrat likely going to win 80-20 or so. There’s also a formerly Dem-held Senate seat in Mississippi, SD-12; despite no party ID being on the ballot, I’m pretty confident in guessing all three candidates running are Dems (it’s along the Mississippi River, so in heavily-Democratic territory). And in Maine, HD-11, an extremely Republican seat, is up. It would be helpful if Dems picked this one up, as the Republicans only have a slim majority in the House, but this was a seat that went 3-1 for the incumbent in 2010. There was apparently a split among Republicans, so there’s a Republican running a write-in campaign, but it would still be one hell of a long shot.

Here is my attempt at redistricting the California State Senate. With over 936,000 people per district, satisfying communities of interest becomes a bit more challenging. Here are the districts I ended up drawing.

Majority-White: 22

Majority-Hispanic: 8

Majority-Minority: 10

Safe Dem: 19

Likely Dem: 1

Lean Dem: 3

Toss-Up: 7

Lean GOP: 3

Likely GOP: 6

Safe GOP: 1

Outer NorCal

SD-01: Coastal NorCal (Previously SD-02) (Noreen Evans)

Description: Similar shape to the old district, plus added Del Norte County and the westernmost part of Solano to satisfy district size

Demographics: 68.4% White, 16.1% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 69.1%, McCain 28.5% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

SD-02: Central Valley and Yolo County (Previously SD-04) (Doug LaMalfa and Lois Wolk unless she moves to the new SD-05)

Description: Similar to previous configuration only I added Yolo County to satisfy population size. Lois Wolk (from Davis and currently in SD-05) would be put into this district and would lose to LaMalfa unless she moved to the new SD-05.

Demographics: 71.8% White, 16.1% Hispanic, 5.5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 49.9%, Obama 47.9% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

SD-03: All of Marin, eastern San Francisco, and SE Sonoma (Mark Leno)

Demographics: 56.4% White, 17.8% Asian, 15.6% Hispanic, 6.7% Black

2008 President: Obama 82.2%, McCain 15.8% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

SD-04: Mountain counties along most of the Nevada border plus some Sacramento suburbs (Previously SD-01) (Ted Gaines)

Demographics: 80.8% White, 10.0% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 54.1%, Obama 44.9% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

SD-05: Most of Solano and Sacramento, NW San Joaquin (Lois Wolk if she moves here from SD-02)

Description: Removed Yolo and included more of Sacramento

Demographics: 59.5% White, 18.2% Hispanic, 10.2% Asian, 7.2% Black

2008 President: Obama 53.4%, McCain 44.9% (TOSS-UP: EVEN)

SD-06: Sacramento and some inner suburbs (Darrell Steinberg)

Demographics: 50.3% White, 17.9% Hispanic, 14.2% Asian, 11.8% Black

2008 President: Obama 65.1%, McCain 33.0% (SAFE DEM: D+12)

San Francisco Bay Area

SD-07: Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Martinez (Previously SD-09) (Loni Hancock)

Demographics: 36.0% White, 24.2% Black, 18.5% Hispanic, 16.7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 86.7%, McCain 11.3% (SAFE DEM: D+33)

SD-08: Western half of San Francisco, most of San Mateo (Leland Yee)

Demographics: 46.4% White, 27.6% Asian, 18.3% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 75.4%, McCain 22.8% (SAFE DEM: D+22)

SD-09: Inland Alameda and Contra Costa (Previously SD-07) (Mark DeSaulnier)

Demographics: 67.9% White, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% Asian

2008 President: Obama 63.0%, McCain 35.3% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

SD-10: Western Alameda County and Milpitas in Santa Clara County (Ellen Corbett)

Demographics: 32.9% White, 31.4% Asian, 24.6% Hispanic, 6.1% Black

2008 President: Obama 72.7%, McCain 25.4% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

SD-11: Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz County (Joe Simitian)

Demographics: 58.4% White, 20.2% Asian, 15.9% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 73.7%, McCain 24.2% (SAFE DEM: D+21)

SD-12: San Jose and part of Stanislaus County (Previously SD-13) (Elaine Alquist)

Demographics: 42.4% White, 31.0% Hispanic, 19.6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 67.4%, McCain 30.9% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

SD-13: Stockton, Modesto, Merced (Previously SD-12) (Anthony Cannella)

Demographics: 50.0% White, 34.1% Hispanic, 6.8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 52.1%, McCain 46.2% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

Central

SD-14: Eastern Central Valley and northern half of Fresno (Tom Berryhill)

Demographics: 57.9% White, 28.7% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian

2008 President: McCain 53.6%, Obama 44.7% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

SD-15: Central Coast (Sam Blakeslee)

Description: Still a Central Coast-centric district, only I removed Santa Cruz, put Monterey completely within the district, and stretched a little further into Santa Barbara

Demographics: 55.1% White, 33.9% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 57.0%, McCain 41.0% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

SD-16: Western Central Valley (Michael Rubio)

Description: Did some tweaking to keep it sufficiently Hispanic to satisfy the VRA

Demographics: 60.1% Hispanic, 24.6% White, 5.9% Asian, 5.8% Black

2008 President: Obama 55.6%, McCain 42.8% (TOSS-UP: D+2.5)

SD-17: Inyo County, Tulare, Bakersfield (Previously SD-18) (Jean Fuller)

Demographics: 57.0% White, 32.1% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 60.8%, Obama 37.4% (SAFE GOP: R+15)

SD-18: Remainder of Santa Barbara and most of Ventura (Previously SD-19) (Tony Strickland)

Description: This time I was able to keep Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley in the same district and not go over in population

Demographics: 58.5% White, 31.0% Hispanic, 5.5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 59.3%, McCain 38.9% (LEAN DEM: D+6)

SD-19: Antelope Valley, keeping Lancaster and Palmdale together (Previously SD-17) (Sharon Runner)

Demographics: 54.1% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 8.2% Asian, 6.8% Black

2008 President: Obama 53.3%, McCain 44.6% (TOSS-UP: EVEN)

Los Angeles/Orange County

SD-20: Hispanic side of the San Fernando Valley (Alex Padilla)

Demographics: 54.2% Hispanic, 30.4% White, 6.9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73.2%, McCain 24.7% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

SD-21: Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena (Carol Liu)

Demographics: 37.2% White, 32.8% Hispanic, 20.0% Asian, 5.2% Black

2008 President: Obama 67.3%, McCain 30.6% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

SD-22: From Monterey Park to Diamond Bar (Kevin De Leon)

Demographics: 53.9% Hispanic, 26.0% Asian, 14.8% White

2008 President: Obama 64.9%, McCain 33.2% (SAFE DEM: D+12)

SD-23: West Side L.A. without the Ventura portion (Fran Pavley)

Demographics: 70.4% White, 13.0% Hispanic, 9.4% Asian

2008 President: Obama 72.9%, McCain 25.4% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

SD-24: South Central: Culver City, Inglewood, Compton (Previously parts of SD-25 and 26) (Rod Wright) (Curren Price)

Description: Due to demographic trends, it looks like the black populations of the current SD-25 and 26 will be merged into this district, which means Curren Price and Rod Wright will likely be in the same district.

Demographics: 41.8% Hispanic, 41.7% Black, 7.9% White, 5.8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 89.7%, McCain 9.1% (SAFE DEM: D+37)

SD-25: South Central (Previously parts of SD-25 and 26)

Description: Here I took the Hispanic parts of the current SD-25 and 26. Either of Wright or Price may run here, but an Hispanic candidate is far and away the favorite here

Demographics: 61.4% Hispanic, 14.0% Black, 11.4% Asian, 10.4% White

2008 President: Obama 84.2%, McCain 13.8% (SAFE DEM: D+31)

SD-26: Downtown L.A., Whittier, Pico Rivera (Previously SD-24) (Probably Ed Hernandez)

Description: Hernandez’s home is in the new SD-22, though he may move and run here.

Demographics: 79.0% Hispanic, 11.4% White, 5.6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73.1%, McCain 24.8% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

SD-27: Beach Cities, Carson, and Palos Verdes Peninsula (Previously SD-28) (Ted Lieu)

Demographics: 39.3% White, 31.7% Hispanic, 16.4% Asian, 8.9% Black

2008 President: Obama 62.0%, McCain 36.0% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

SD-28: South Gate, Norwalk, Artesia, part of Long Beach (Previously parts of SD-27 and SD-30) (possibly Alan Lowenthal and Ron Calderon)

Description: I shifted Long Beach to the coastal OC district and found that I had too many people in that one, so I shifted part of Long Beach into this district. Part of Lowenthal’s and Calderon’s districts are put here, so they may face a primary unless one decides to retire.

Demographics: 55.7% Hispanic, 18.2% White, 12.3% Asian, 10.9% Black

2008 President: Obama 70.9%, McCain 27.0% (SAFE DEM: D+18)

SD-29: Northern L.A. suburbs (Previously parts of SD-29 and SD-31) (Bob Dutton and Bob Huff?)

Description: In L.A. and San Bern Counties to satisfy population size, from Arcadia to my hometown Rancho Cucamonga. Huff’s home in Diamond Bar was shifted to the 22nd so he may move here.

Demographics: 43.8% White, 34.3% Hispanic, 9.3% Asian, 8.9% Black

2008 President: Obama 54.2%, McCain 43.8% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

SD-30: Fontana, Ontario, Chino, Montclair, Pomona (Previously SD-32) (Gloria Negrete-McLeod)

Demographics: 55.7% Hispanic, 25.0% White, 9.9% Black, 6.2% Asian

2008 President: Obama 63.7%, McCain 34.5% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

SD-31: Most of San Bernardino and in Riverside (Open)

Demographics: 64.2% White, 23.9% Hispanic, 5.2% Black

2008 President: McCain 55.2%, Obama 42.6% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

SD-32: Coastal Orange County and part of Long Beach (Previously SD-35 and part of SD-27) (Tom Harman and Alan Lowenthal?)

Demographics: 69.3% White, 13.5% Hispanic, 12.6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 49.5%, McCain 48.6% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

SD-33: Garden Grove, Anaheim, Santa Ana (Previously SD-34) (Lou Correa)

Demographics: 54.2% Hispanic, 23.5% White, 17.5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 54.6%, McCain 43.5% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

SD-34: Inland Orange County (Previously SD-33) (Mimi Walters)

Demographics: 53.7% White, 27.2% Hispanic, 13.9% Asian

2008 President: McCain 53.1%, Obama 45.0% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

SD-35: Riverside, Norco, Moreno Valley, Corona (Previously part of SD-37) (Open)

Description: Rapid growth in Riverside County led to this district being excised off the eastern end of the old SD-37

Demographics: 43.0% White, 38.3% Hispanic, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 55.4%, McCain 42.7% (TOSS-UP: D+2)

Outer SoCal and San Diego

SD-36: Most of the rest of Riverside County (Previously SD-37) (Bill Emmerson)

Demographics: 53.7% White, 36.9% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 49.6%, Obama 48.8% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

SD-37: Temecula, Southern OC, NW San Diego County to Carlsbad (Previously SD-36) (Joel Anderson?)

Demographics: 66.4% White, 21.4% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian

2008 President: McCain 53.5%, Obama 44.7% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

SD-38: Imperial County and as much of Eastern San Diego as could fit (Previously SD-37 and SD-40) (Mark Wyland)

Demographics: 57.8% White, 31.2% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 53.2%, Obama 45.1% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

SD-39: Northern San Diego (Christine Kehoe)

Description: Northern half of San Diego, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Del Mar, Lemon Grove

Demographics: 63.2% White, 14.9% Hispanic, 13.7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 56.9%, McCain 41.4% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

SD-40: Southern San Diego (Previously part of SD-39) (Juan Vargas)

Description: Southern half of San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach

Demographics: 42.4% Hispanic, 32.5% White, 12.0% Asian, 9.4% Black

2008 President: Obama 66.3%, McCain 32.0% (SAFE DEM: D+13)

Just a quick note to say I’m back from vacation and have uploaded all available states, except Oregon. [Update: and now, Nevada, too!]

That’s AL, AR, CO, HI, IL, IA, MO, NV, OK, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA.

Beware: TX VTD shapes are over 18MB. In general it seems that the shape files are bigger for 2010. Perhaps they are more precise meaning more individual points.

Oregon: seems that the VTD shape files are not on the Census website where all the other states are. Don’t know why.

There is still no more election data from the group of professors, and VA and MD have not been updated.

Texas: I looked quickly at the state population numbers — 37.6% Hispanic; 11.5% African American. So, like, half the congresspersons from Texas should Hispanic or AA, right?

Have fun.

This is the first part of three posts analyzing the 2010 South Carolina gubernatorial election, in which Republican Nikki Haley won a closer-than-expected victory over Democrat Vincent Sheheen. The main focus of these posts will be to explore whether a racial effect accounted for Ms. Haley’s unexpected poor performance.

The next post can be found here.

(Note: This is also part of a series of posts analyzing the 2010 midterm elections.)

More below.

It was the October, 2010 in South Carolina. Nikki Haley, Republican candidate for South Carolina governor, was cruising. She was a conservative candidate – endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin herself – running in a conservative state, in the best Republican year in a generation.

Opinion polls showed the Republican politician leading by double-digits. Even the most pessimistic gave Ms. Haley a high single digit lead.

On election day, however, Ms. Haley won by only 4.5%:

(Note: Edited NYT Image)

What could have accounted for Ms. Haley’s poor performance?

Several factors come to mind. Ms. Haley was not an uncontroversial candidate; her positions were conservative even for South Carolina. The Democratic candidate, Vincent Sheheen, might have been an unnaturally talented campaigner. And there is always the factor of randomness to take into account. There were hundreds of races in November; the polls would inevitably be inaccurate on one or two, and this race just happened to be one of them.

Or perhaps there is another explanation – a particularly ugly one, but one that lurks at the back of everybody’s head. Ms. Haley was an woman of Indian heritage running to govern South Carolina, a state with not exactly the most innocent racial history. Throughout the campaign, Ms. Haley was subject to attacks that implicitly played up the racial angle: she had had affairs with white men (unfortunately for the accusers, this attack doesn’t work as well against women), she wasn’t Christian or was only pretending to be one, and so on.

It is not unimaginable that a sort of Bradley effect took place in South Carolina, that a number of normally steadfast Republicans balked at voting for the first non-white and female governor in history.

This is a serious accusation, and therefore needs serious evidence. The next post will therefore begin an extensive examination of whether Ms. Haley’s race undermined her performance.

–Inoljt

The Mississippi Senate is now in control by the Republicans.  I know this article is a few days old (it’s been a crazy week, y’all), but I wanted to share the news.  The filing deadline is March 1 so any party switchers have, now, five days remaining to make up his or her mind.  For those keeping score, in the Mississippi Senate, the breakdown is now 27R, 24D, 1 Vacancy of a Republican-vacated seat (now-Congressman Alan Nunnelee).  The Mississippi House is barely hanging onto its Democratic majority.

http://www.clarionledger.com/a…

With 4 new congressional seats, Texas of course grew. While we get to increase our congressional delegation, our legislature will stay the same. This means, that state senators will continue to have even larger constituencies and districts than members of congress.

Everyone has speculated where the new congressional districts will be, and looking at the state legislature, especially the house, you can also get a good visual of the growth.

The new population of 25,145,561 means that State Senate districts (31) should have an ideal population of 811,147 and State House districts (150) 167,637.

Which districts will need to grow and which will need to shrink?

Green colored districts (green because they grew over the past decade) are those that are currently over the ideal population and will need to lose people.  White/non-colored districts are those that will need to add population.

Right now 15 State Senate districts will need to shrink and 16 will need to grow. Half and half.

As the list shows, the two largest districts right now, population wise, are 7 & 12. 7 is represented by Republican Dan Patrick who is committed to solving the budget crisis with his abortion sonogram bill. 12 is represented by Republican Jane Nelson.

Patrick and Nelson each represent more people than the states of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, and Montana. (not combined, just each state individually)

Out of the districts that need to lose population 4 have Democratic state senators (10, 14, 15, 20), with the other 11 having Republican state senators.

Of the districts that need to add people, it’s exactly 8 Democratic districts (6, 13, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29) and 8 Republican districts (1, 4, 9, 16, 22, 24, 28, 31).

The district with the largest population is 70 represented by Republican Ken Paxton.

54 House districts need to lose population, while 96 House districts need to add people.

Of the districts that need to lose population, 13 are represented by Democrats (27, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 50, 75, 109, 124, 141, 149) and 41 are represented by Republicans.

Of the districts that need to add population, 36 are represented by Democrats (22, 23, 31, 37, 43, 48, 49, 51, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 90, 95, 100, 103, 104, 110, 111, 116, 118-120, 123, 125, 131, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145-148) and 60 are represented by Republicans.

Of the 24 seats that Republicans picked up last November (I’m also counting the 2 turn coats), 8 districts (40, 45, 47, 52, 78, 93, 96, 117) will need to lose population and 16 districts (1, 3, 12, 21, 33-35, 57, 69, 85, 101, 102, 106, 107, 133, 134) will need to add people.

(Also at Nevada Progressive)

[Note: This year, we will be voting in municipal elections in cities throughout Clark County. Las Vegas will be voting for Mayor (Oscar Goodman is termed out) and three city council seats. Henderson and North Las Vegas will also be voting for three city council seats each. And all cities will also be voting for local judges. Clark County Elections only occur in even numbered years.

Carolyn Goodman is the wife of outgoing Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, the founder of the prestigious private Meadows School, and a registered Nonpartisan. Victor Chaltiel is the Republican being backed by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Larry Brown and Chris Giunchigliani are both Democrats and incumbent Clark County Commissioners.]

What do you think when you see this?

And this? (

(Yay! Brown’s new ad is now on YouTube!)

And what do you think when you see this?

And this?

So what did you get out of those? That Larry Brown and Chris Giunchigliani are serious about getting Las Vegas out of the economic doldrums and into a brighter future? That Brown and/or Chris G care about regular Las Vegans? That they’re “just like us”?

Now take a look at this.

What do you see here? “V for Victory”? “V for Vendetta”? Apparently, Victor Chaltiel for Las Vegas. So I guess that’s what Sheldon Adelson’s billions buy you these days?

Now take a look at this.

What did you get out of this? That we love Oscar? That Oscar has to “say goodbye”? Who’s “good enough” to follow up his great act? It seems like Carolyn Goodman is taking a different approach in her ads, engaging with some playful nostalgia instead of the typical promises to do this or that.

Sadly, many voters’ first impressions of the candidates will likely come from these TV ads. Do they convey the messages these candidates want to send? Or might voters eventually hear a different tune from what everyone else is saying away from commercial time?

I can definitely see different strategies at play with these various ads. Larry Brown and Chris G want to be taken seriously as practical problem solvers, and that’s why they play up the general policy outlines and mix them up with “feel good” promises. Victor Chaltiel is trying to play the “businessman outsider” card a la Arnold Schwarzenegger v.2003, and it seems he’s just trying to take advantage of whatever “tea party” fervor Sharron Angle left over with a vague “elect him, not a ‘politician'” message.

And Carolyn Goodman? Well, what else can I say about that ad? It’s original! 😉

Municipoll for PoliticsPA (PDF) (2/21-23, likely voters, no trendlines):

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 50

Rick Santorum (R): 38

Undecided: 12

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 51

Charlie Dent (R): 32

Undecided: 17

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 48

Jim Gerlach (R): 34

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±3.8%)

Bob Casey Jr. is one of the Democrats’ lesser worries for 2012, according to one more poll, this one from IVR-based-pollster Municipoll on behalf of news site PoliticsPA. The numbers are quite similar to the Quinnipiac poll a few weeks ago, with Casey sporting a 46/30 favorable here, and leading potential opponents by margins ranging from 12 to 19. (Qpac had him at 44/24 and leading Generic Republican by 10, which is consistent with G.R. usually overperforming specific names by a few points.) Bear in mind that none of these three Republicans seem likely to run… in fact, after a flurry of speculation about potential GOPers in December, I haven’t heard anything in many weeks about who might step up.

If for some reason Rick Santorum gave up his long-shot presidential bid, he’d still find himself pretty unwelcome for a return to the Keystone State, with 39/44 favorables; Charlie Dent and Jim Gerlach’s problem, by contrast, is name rec (they’re at 12/16 and 13/14 respectively). Newly elected GOPers Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey are still enjoying their honeymoons, at 48/31 and 42/35 respectively.