Month: March 2011

• CA-Sen: We can probably rule out another Senate run by Chuck DeVore: he’s setting his sights lower… much, much lower. Chuck D is, in fact, forming an exploratory committee for Orange County’s Third District Board of Supervisors. An exploratory committee!

Somewhat related, yet another chart from Greg Giroux: The most recent Gov, Sen, and Pres numbers by CD in California, as well as key demographics highlights from the new census data.

• MA-Sen: And yet another Greg Giroux special. (If you’re not following this guy on Twitter, you are using Twitter wrong.) Alan Khazei (D) has formed a 527 exploratory committee “for a potential run for public office.” I’m not exactly clear, though, on why it’s a 527 rather than a normal FEC exploratory committee.

• MD-Sen: Remember when Dick Cheney ran the Republican operation to choose a vice presidential candidate in 2000… and picked himself? GOPer Eric Wargotz has managed to come up with an even more pathetic form of self-love: He’s created his own “Draft Eric Wargotz” page on Facebook. In case the name doesn’t ring a bell, he was 26-point roadkill for Barbara Mikulski last cycle, but now he wants the public to rapturously embrace a run against Maryland’s other Democratic senator, Ben Cardin. (By the way, this is my favorite comment so far.)

• ME-Sen: I meant to mention this in yesterday’s post on PPP’s poll, but in any event, state House Minority Leader Emily Cain (D), all of thirty years old and already on the verge of being term-limited out, isn’t ruling out a run against Olympia Snowe, but says it probably won’t happen. Even though she’s just barely eligible to run under the constitution, she’d has a bitchin’ campaign theme song just waiting to get rocked out.

• MO-Sen: I had a feeling things might wind up moving in this direction. Jan. 27:

However, the offices of Republican Reps. Blaine Luetkemeyer and Todd Akin told Roll Call that the Congressmen are not interested in running for the Senate.

Feb. 26:

“Some people want to draft me for Senate but you know engineers. It’s just one thing at a time,” said Akin, an engineer.

Mar. 9:

“I haven’t discounted it,” [Akin] told The Ballot Box on Tuesday night. “Some things you sort of put on your problem shelf and you know you’re going to deal with it at some time. It’s just one of those things that I’ve got to work through.

Todd Akin can’t resist the siren song of the Senate race – not with the field of damaged Republican B-listers gathering on the misty plains of Missouri. Just one question: Is “problem shelf” common engineer-speak, or is Akin just a special brand of dweeb?

As for this, it seems like classic Politico ginned-up b.s. So Claire McCaskill spends less taxpayer money on air travel than Kit Bond or Jim Talent, but because Politico makes a big deal out of her using a plane she co-owns with a group of investors, it becomes campaign fodder. Hopefully, with McCaskill saying she’ll reimburse Treasury for the costs, this’ll be a one-day story, unless Politico decides this move makes her look “guilty” (of what, I don’t know).

• NV-Sen: Rep. Shelley Berkley says she’s doing some polling right now and is still on track to make a decision in late spring/early summer. (I guess that’s somewhere between May 1 and August 1.) Berkley also reports that she’s been in contact with all the members of the B Team – Secretary of State Ross Miller, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and State Treasurer Kate Marshall – and: “They all said the exact same thing, ‘We’re waiting on you, we love you and then we’ll make our decision.'”

• OH-Sen: Usually I ignore politicians when they comment on races – most of what they say is clueless or canned. But I love Ted Strickland, and you’ll love his incredulous reaction when he was asked what he thought of the possibility of GOP state Treasurer Josh Mandel challenging Sen. Sherrod Brown. Said Teddy Ballgame: “Give me a break, that is laughable. I don’t think that would be a contest at all.” And he went on from there – click through for the rest. (Incidentally, I came across this amusing tidbit thanks to the Google: Back in 2006, when running for state Rep., Mandel refused to say whether he was supporting Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell – or, yeah, Ted Strickland.)

• WI-Sen: This is just so mega-weird I won’t bother trying to summarize:

When questioned about his reelection plans by National Journal Tuesday, 76-year-old Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) asked, “Am I running?” He then shrugged, wordlessly. Kohl then asked “are you are a reporter?” Told “yes,” he walked away without a word.

In response to further media inquiries, an undoubtedly groaning staffer said that Kohl “will announce his decision later this year” as to whether he’ll run again. What worries me the most, honestly, is DSCC chair Patty Murray’s response to questions about Wisconsin’s very senior senator: “Herb’s just great.” Really, this is the kind of thing a committee leader needs to be on top of. There are ways to evade questions (“I know Herb is still making up his mind”), and then there are ways to just look evasive – and this is the latter.

• WV-Sen: Yep, like I said, long two years.

• CT-Gov, CT-Sen: Quinnipiac has approvals for Gov. Dan Malloy (35-40), Sen. Joe Lieberman (38-45), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (49-25), Barack Obama (49-47). That last number in particular seems rather low to me. I wonder what Quinnipiac’s sample composition is… but they ain’t sharin’.

• ME-Gov: A Republican state senator proposed a state constitutional amendment which would institute gubernatorial run-offs if no candidate got a majority of the vote on election day (something that has happened in four of the the last five gov races). The bill would have a high hurdle to become law, though – two-thirds of the legislature would have to vote for it, and it would also have to go before voters.

• NJ-01: Rep. Rob Andrews, as though dipped in the cranberry bogs of the Pine Barrens, has renewed his soul and emerged as that unlikeliest of legislators: a Nancy Pelosi ally. Andrews was best known for dodgy behavior and fratricidal tendencies, but a period in the wilderness after his humiliation at the hands of Frank Lautenberg has apparently turned him into a better man. Read the article for the complete picture.

• NM-01: Former state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones, who gave up her House seat in a failed bid for the GOP gubernatorial nomination last year, says she’s forming an exploratory committee to look at a challenge to Rep. Martin Heinrich. Heinrich is considering a run for Senate (something Arnold-Jones was also looking at), so she may have an opportunity for an open-seat run if that happens. Arnold-Jones staged an abortive bid for this seat the last time it was open, in 2008.

• NY-26: Good news! We finally have a date for the special election to replace ex-Rep. Chris Lee: May 24th. Even better news! Democrats are finally getting their act together and will be interviewing short-listed candidates this week and next. Those names: Erie County Clerk Kathy Hochul; Amherst town council member Mark Manna; former Amherst Town supervisor Satish Mohan; and Some Dudes Robert Stall, Martin Minemier, Jane Bauch, and Diana Voit. Meanwhile, teabagger David Bellavia says he’s still considering petitioning his way on to the ballot as an independent, but the clock is fast running down.

• Wisconsin Recall: So the Republicans running the rump of the Wisconsin state Senate managed to pass (or think they’ve passed) their union-busting measures without the need for a quorum. (Read the link for the full procedural run-down.) The lone no vote was Dale Schultz, who isn’t elligible for recall this year but does sit in one of the two-bluest districts held by a Republican, according to SSP’s now-seminal analysis.

• NY-St. Sen: The frogs get marched out one by one, hurrah, hurrah! The frogs get marched out one by one, hurrah – hurrah! Scumdog state Sen. Carl Kruger (D, sadly) just turned himself in to the FBI on corruption charges. Among Kruger’s many sins, he threatened to caucus with the Republicans in after the Democrats won back the chamber for the first time in generations back in 2008. He also voted against the gay marriage bill that came up late in 2009. Unfortunately, Kruger holds the second-reddest seat in the entire state (amazingly enough, though, it’s 45% Obama, thanks to the GOP’s awesome gerrymander). If he steps down, it’ll be an exceptionally difficult hold, though, since Dems control very few seats where Obama did worse than 60%.

• Maps: The Atlantic has a cool interactive map featuring the “12 States of America” – the US, broken up at the county level into varying socio-economic groupings (with cutesy names, of course).

• Special Elections: Johnny Longtorso is now contributing special election results wrap-ups:

In Arkansas HD-24, Republican Bruce Cozart emerged victorious by a 60-40 margin. Tennessee’s SD-18 was no surprise, with a 2-1 margin for Republican Kerry Roberts. In California’s AD-04, the lone Democrat, Dennis Campanale, made it into first place, albeit with only around 32%, and will face Republican Beth Gaines, who squeaked past fellow Republican John Allard by a 1% margin (22.5 to 21.5), in the May runoff. [The first CA race to feature a run-off under the new top-two system. – David]

Also, a quick shout-out to the newest member of the Tennessee House (HD-98), Democrat Antonio “2 Shay” Parkinson, and the newest member of the Virginia House of Delegates (HD-91), Republican Gordon Helsel, both of whom were unopposed on Tuesday.

• State Leges: Louis Jacobson of Governing magazine has an interesting look at various proposals in several states to shrink the sizes of their respective legislatures. However, if history is any guide, most of these won’t go anywhere.

Redistricting Roundup:

• New Jersey: Patrick Murray, the director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, has put together a couple of proposed legislative maps, one that he calls a “constitutional” map, the other, a “competitive” map.

• Virginia: This seems like a pretty good deal, if you ask me:

Senate Majority Leader Richard “Dick” Saslaw said on a Northern Virginia radio show the other day that he had reached a “gentleman’s agreement” with Republican leaders in the House on how to go about redistricting the state….

“I’m not gonna interfere with the lines the House draws for the House,” he said. “And they’re not gonna interfere with the lines I draw for the Senate.”

Dems hold the Senate, and the GOP holds the House and the governor’s mansion, so I’ll take it.

• Wisconsin: Aaron Blake has another good entry in his redistricting series, though the bottom line is that even though Republicans control the process, they don’t have a great deal of ability to improve life for themselves. One thought that I had: If the recall effort in the WI Senate is successful, then Dems could suddenly give themselves a seat at the redistricting table where they had none before. Verrry interesting.

There has evidently been some discussion of drawing a minority-majority district in Arkansas to give the Democrats a buffer against an 0-4 Republican sweep.

My criteria for making this map was:

1. There must be a minority-majority district, no matter how hideous.

2. Rep. Ross must have a district he could potentially retain.

3. Rep. Griffin cannot be allowed to have a safe district to himself.

I’m not going to go district-by-district, mostly because I’m already up past my bedtime. But we have an open seat here, and it’s something new and blue. It’s also 49% white, 44% black, and although it goes up to majority-white when you VAP it, most Democratic primary voters will probably be black, and it’s diverse enough to be a solid Democratic district.

As for Ross and Griffin, they get to square off over my hideous reincarnation of AR-04, which includes a hefty portion of Pulaski County and has a PVI probably not too far off the current R+7 version. But I’m just eyeballing it, and I’ve never even been to Arkansas, so someone should correct me if I’m wrong.

Rep. Womack gets to sit pretty in AR-03, and Rep. Crawford should be quite comfortable in AR-02, a.k.a. the Jolly Green Giant.

In my research on South Carolina’s 2010 gubernatorial election, I came upon a fascinating chart. The chart describes the number of Democrats and Republican in South Carolina’s State House of Representatives from the Civil War to the present day. The data offers a fascinating story of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, and the Deep South in general.

Here is the story:

Most individuals familiar with politics know the history of the Deep South: it seceded from the Union after President Abraham Lincoln was elected. In the resulting Civil War, it fought the hardest and suffered the most against Union forces.

Victorious Union forces were identified with the hated Republican Party, founded with the explicit goal of destroying the southern way of life by ending slavery.

Under military Union rule, the Republican Party flourished in South Carolina:

The Republican Party was the dominant political force during the Reconstruction era, as the graph above shows. During its reign in power, it enjoyed large majorities in the State House of Representatives. Its political base was the black vote, and it attempted to systemically ensure racial equality for blacks and whites. A number of blacks were elected to state and federal office; it’s probable that many of the Republicans in the State House of Representatives were black.

This enraged whites in South Carolina. When President Rutherford Hayes ended Reconstruction and withdrew federal troops, they quickly gained control of South Carolina politics. The black vote was systemically crushed, and along with it the Republican Party.

This is reflected in the graph above. In 1874 there were 91 Republicans in the State House of Representatives. By 1878 there were only three left.

This led to the next stage of South Carolina politics, the Solid South:

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have data after 1880 and before 1902. After 1902, however, Democrats enjoyed literally absolute control of the State House of Representatives. For more than half-a-century, not a single Republican in South Carolina was elected to the State House of Representatives. Democrats regularly won over 95% of the popular vote in presidential elections.

That’s a record on par with that of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.

There are several reasons why this occurred. Democrats in South Carolina were strongest of all the Deep South states, because blacks were the majority of the population. Only Mississippi at the time also had a black-majority population.

This meant that in free and fair elections, blacks would actually have control of South Carolina politics. If a free and fair election took place in another Southern states, the Democratic Party would still probably have maintained power – since whites were a majority of the population. In fact, this is what happens in the South today, except that the roles of the two parties are switched.

This was not the case with South Carolina, and party elites were profoundly aware and afraid of this. Therefore the grip of the Democratic Party was tightest in South Carolina, of all the Solid South (South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union for the same reason). Other Solid South states had more than zero Republicans in the state legislature. Republican presidential candidates might gain 20-40% of the vote, rather than less than 5%.

In black-majority South Carolina, the Republican Party was a far greater potential threat – and so the Democratic Party was extraordinarily judicious in repressing it.

Racism was a useful tool for South Carolina Democrats, and they were very proud racists. Controversial South Carolina Governor and Senator Benjamin Tillman, for instance, once stated that:

I have three daughters, but, so help me God, I had rather find either one of them killed by a tiger or a bear and gather up her bones and bury them, conscious that she had died in the purity of her maidenhood by a black fiend. The wild beast would only obey the instinct of nature, and we would hunt him down and kill him just as soon as possible.

Another time he commented:

Great God, that this proud government, the richest, most powerful on the  globe, should have been brought to so low a pass that a London Jew  should have been appointed its receiver to have charge of the treasury.

This was the Democratic Party of South Carolina during the Solid South.

At the end of the graph, notice that there is a little dip, just after the year 1962. This was in 1964, when the first Republican in more than half-a-century was elected to the South Carolina State House of Representatives.

He was not the last:

The year 1964 marked the day that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, against enormous Southern Democratic opposition.

It also marked the beginning of the end of the South Carolina Democratic Party. The Democratic Party underwent a monumental shift, from a party of white elites to a party representing black interests. In the process South Carolina whites steadily began abandoning it.

At first the decline was gradual, as the graph shows. In 1980 there were 110 Democrats in the State House of Representatives and 14 Republicans. Throughout the 80s the Democratic majority steadily declined, but in 1992 there were still 84 Democrats to 40 Republicans.

Then came 1994 and the Gingrich Revolution. The seemingly large Democratic majority collapsed like the house-of-cards it was, as South Carolina whites finally started voting for Republican statewide candidates, decades after they started doing so for Republican presidential candidates. Republicans have retained control of the state chamber ever since.

Since then the Democratic Party has declined further in the State House of Representatives. As of 2010 the number of Democratic representatives is at a 134-year low. And the floor may not have been reached. There are still probably some conservative whites who vote Democratic statewide, when their political philosophy has far more in common with the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, the modern era in South Carolina politics is still shorter than the Solid South era. Here is the entire history of the State House of Representatives:

It’s a fascinating graph, and it tells a lot about South Carolina and Deep South politics.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Today is the flipside of yesterday’s California release: states with stagnant populations and a bunch of old white people. We’ll start with Connecticut, which is certainly characterized by stability: it easily retained five seats, not being particularly near either the cusp of gaining or losing, and even its five districts are pretty close to in balance with each other. Its target is 714,819, up from 681K in 2000.

Ohio is one of only a couple states to lose two seats, taking it from 18 down to 16. Its new target is 721,032, up from about 631K in 2000. The state as a whole didn’t lose population (gaining 183,364), but seven of its districts did (the 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 17th). The Columbus area was the only part of the state that seemed to experience robust growth; in fact, despite the state losing two seats, the 12th (a swing district held by GOPer Pat Tiberi) will actually need to shed population… much of the state’s growth is accounted for in the growth in the 12th.

The numbers today don’t really change the overall redistricting equation: one of the northeastern Ohio Democrats is clearly going to have to go, and while the Akron-area 13th (held by Betty Sutton) actually gained some population unlike its neighbors, it may be the one that gets dissected simply by virtue of being in the very middle (with the 9th pressuring it from the west, the 10th and 11th from the north, and the 17th from the east). As for which GOPer gets cut, I’d expected it to be one of Bill Johnson (in the 6th) or Bob Gibbs (in the 18th), but the 18th, despite its mostly rural, Appalachian flavor, seemed to hang in there better than expected, population-wise. Now I’m wondering if Bob Latta’s 5th in the rural northwest, which is going to be pressured by the 9th to its north and the 4th to its east, may be a more natural target. Or here’s another possibility (made likelier by the possibility that the local GOP might like rid themselves of a liability in the form of Jean Schmidt): the 2nd might be targeted, despite its decent numbers, as both the 1st to its west and the 6th to its east need to gain a ton of people (and extending the 1st east into red, suburban Clermont County would make GOPer Steve Chabot’s life easier).

Pennsylvania’s target is 705,688 based on the drop from 19 to 18 seats, up from about 646K in 2000. The 2nd, 3rd, 12th, and 14th all lost population. I’d really recommend looking at the Census Bureau’s interactive map of Pennsylvania, as it shows exactly what’s going on: the eastern half of the state gained a bit, while nearly every county in the state’s western half outright lost population. In fact, there were enough gains in the east that four districts wind up needing to shed population: the 6th and 15th in the Philadelphia suburbs/exurbs, and the more rural, Pennsylvania Dutch-flavored 16th and 19th. These are all Republican-held districts, but these are all districts that moved sharply in the Dem direction from 2004 to 2008, while on the other hand, the shrinking western districts are Democratic areas but ones where the overall trend has been away from the Dems. (Interestingly, two cities that over recent decades came to symbolize dead northeastern industrial centers, Allentown and Reading, are actually rebounding, gaining around 10,000 people each and helping to grow the 15th and 16th respectively. Much of the growth in those two cities, though, as well as the small growth experienced in Philadelphia, is Hispanic.)

With the GOP in control of the redistricting process in Pennsylvania and the population losses heavily concentrated in the Pittsburgh area, it looks like the axe is going to fall heavily on fairly-new Dem Mark Critz in the odd-shaped 12th, which was designed to be a friendly district for John Murtha cobbling together Cambria County with the Dem-friendly parts of Pittsburgh’s collar counties but is barely holding onto its Dem roots these days. Mike Doyle’s 14th (in Pittsburgh proper), despite being the biggest population loser, is probably going to stay intact, as Republicans will need to concede at least one blue vote sink in the southwest (and probably get bluer, as it’ll need to expand into the dead steel towns of the Mon Valley to its south, currently the bluest part of the 12th).

If Critz wants to stick around, he’s likely to find himself either fighting Jason Altmire in a primary in the 4th or Tim Murphy in a general in the 18th (although Critz has enough of a Johnstown-area base that he might be able to pull out an upset in whatever district Johnstown winds up in, unless the GOP decides that the 9th, in the central part of the state, is red enough to safely absorb Johnstown).

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, “usual” Maine Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 43

Scott D’Amboise (R): 18

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 10

Undecided: 28

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 33

Republican Jesus (R): 58

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.7%)

I agree with Tom: These numbers are not good for Snowe, not at all. D’Amboise and Dodge are truly at Some Dude levels, with only 5% and 2% (two percent!) favorables respectively, and yet the incumbent manages to score only 43% of primary voters. Moreover, as Tom reminds us, “Lisa Murkowski’s approval with Republicans in January of 2010 was 77/13 and Mike Castle’s in March of 2009 at an identical point in the cycle was 69/24.” As I’ve been saying all along, if the Tea Party Express or the Club for Growth throws down here, Snowe is in a heap of trouble. (By the way, “Republican Jesus” is the technical term for what PPP calls “a more conservative challenger.”)

This is all very poignant for Snowe, because, look:

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Maine voters, no trendlines):

Emily Cain (D): 20

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 64

Undecided: 16

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 18

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 66

Undecided: 17

Emily Cain (D): 33

Scott D’Amboise (R): 33

Undecided: 34

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Scott D’Amboise (R): 36

Undecided: 35

Emily Cain (D): 32

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 30

Undecided: 37

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 33

Undecided: 38

(MoE: ±2.8%)

Those are some massive numbers for an incumbent in a swing state. And note the crossover appeal – Emily Cain, for instance, does 13 points better against the nobodies (fellow nobodies?) than she does against Snowe. Yet Snowe might not even get the chance to have this fight. But like Yoda said, there is another….

Emily Cain (D): 17

Scott D’Amboise (R): 21

Olympia Snowe (I): 54

Undecided: 7

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 15

Scott D’Amboise (R): 20

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 9

Emily Cain (D): 15

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 10

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 13

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 57

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±2.8%)

In this hypothetical scenario where Snowe runs as an independent, she also posts huge numbers, peeling from both sides. I’ll turn it over to Tom once more to provide the closing words:

If Snowe continues on as a Republican this is a race that an ambitious Democrat who doesn’t have a ton to lose should really look at. Obviously if Snowe emerges as the Republican nominee you’re going to lose and you’re going to lose by a lot. If Snowe ends up running as an independent you’re probably going to lose and you’re probably going to lose by a lot. But if Snowe stays the course and gets taken out you might become Chris Coons – a guy who was willing to throw his name in the hat when it looked impossible and ended up coasting to an easy general election victory.

For Snowe there’s a hard route to reelection and an easy one – it’ll be interesting to see if she sticks with the hard one.

• AZ-Sen: Fuck this guy.

• FL-Sen: Remember George LeMieux? I do, but only barely. Anyhow, some reporter he spoke with says now that an announcement for a Senate run “is imminent, and could come within a few weeks.” The article says basically the same thing about former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner, but we’ll see when we see.

• NJ-Sen: According to a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll, Bob Menendez’s approvals are 34-28 – better than I would have thought! Chris Christie’s numbers keep getting worse (yay!), while Obama is at +21.

• IN-Sen: Like their counterparts in the Wisconsin state Senate, Democrats in Indiana’s House are holed up in Illinois, boycotting their chamber over anti-union legislation. This has had the effect of delaying work on redistricting, which in turn seems to be delaying Rep. Joe Donnelly’s decision about whether to run for re-election or seek higher office; Donnelly obviously would prefer to look at the new map before choosing.

On the other side of the aisle, Dick Lugar engaged in a brutally embarrassing flip-flop that suggests to me he might be reconsidering his approach to the teabaggers and adopting a more Orrin Hatch-style form of supplication. After first saying he’d vote against the House GOP’s budget bill (which contains huge spending cuts), he then changed his mind an hour later and said he’d vote for it… and blamed his earlier answer on supposedly not being able to hear the question he’d been asked. The fact that he flip-flopped right after a weekly Republican lunch meeting had nothing to do with his arm being put in a vice behind closed doors.

• MA-Sen: This is an odd set of tweets from the Boston Globe’s Glen Johnson. He asked Newton Mayor Setti Warren if Obama had asked him to run for Senate (Obama happens to be in the area for a fundraiser – see DCCC item below), and Warren was silent in response. Warren apparently later called Johnson and said that yes, the president had spoken with him about the race, but no, hadn’t asked him to run. Weird.

In other news, ex-Rep. Joe Kennedy said once again that he has no interest in running against Scott Brown next year, saying he feels “ill” at the thought. Bear in mind that Kennedy still has a pretty hunormous $2.1 million in his campaign account, left over from his representin’ days, so he’s gotta do something with it at some point.

• NM-Sen: Heather Wilson had a bunch of relatively big backers at her campaign launch: ex-Sen. Pete Domenici, Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry, former U.S. Reps. Bill Redmond and Manuel Lujan, and one-time GOP gubernatorial hopefuls Allen Weh, Pete Domenici, Jr., and Janice Arnold-Jones. I’d be shocked out of my socks if Wilson has the Republican primary field to herself, though; reporter Gwyneth Doland says now that Rep. Steve Pearce, who had sounded pretty reticent before, “isn’t ruling out a run” himself, but those are her words, not his.

• NV-Sen: This is the best news I’ve heard all day: A former Sharron Angle consultant “talked up the possibility” of another Senate run to Ben Smith, touting her UNPRECEDENTED TEA-FLAVORED POWER. Hmm, that’s probably the label on some Japanese soft drink, but that’s still pretty much the gist of what this guy said. Sadly, though, Jon Ralston is here to drink my weird made-up Japanese soft drink – drink it up – because he thinks both Angle and Lt. Gov. Krolicki (also considering a Senate bid) will instead run in NV-02, which would be open if Rep. Dean Heller decides to move up.

On the Dem side, Greg Giroux – who I think must be wired, Matrix-like, into all the key election databases – spots a filing from Byron Georgiou, an attorney who was one of Harry Reid’s picks to serve on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. It can be a little tricky to tell with attorneys, but it sounds like Georgiou may be pretty wealthy, given that Wikipedia describes his career as generally involving major plaintiff-side litigation. (By the way, Dem Ross Miller told Ralston he would wait to see what Rep. Shelley Berkley does before making plans of his own.)

Also, UMN has another one of their typically fascinating posts up, this time about the Nevada Senate race. It turns out that in the state’s 100-plus year history, there have only been five open seat races, and only once (in 1942!) was the seat held by the same party. The same piece also points out that only one Nevada senator, Richard Bryan (D), has ever left office on his own terms – those who didn’t lose in the general were driven from office by reasons of scandal (like Ensign), health, or failure to win renomination.

• PA-Sen: Remember Sam Rohrer? I definitely didn’t. But the former state Rep., who got killed in the gubernatorial primary against now-Gov. Tom Corbett last year, said he hasn’t ruled out a challenge to Sen. Bob Casey. His party may need him, since pretty much no serious Republican seems interested in running.

• VT-Sen, VT-Gov: Thom Lauzon, the Republican mayor of Barre (pop. 9,000), says he’s considering running for either governor or Senate, but neither sounds likely, especially the latter, since he says he’s tight with state Auditor Tom (not Tim) Salmon, who has said he’s leaning toward a run.

• WV-Sen: Gonna be a long two years if we have to put up with this on a regular basis.

• FL-22: I can’t really tell if this guy rises above Some Dude level, but Gulf War vet Patrick Daniel (D) says he’s challenging Allen West, and that he’s been “preparing to run for office for at least five years” (in the words of his interviewer, Kenneth Quinnell).

• MN-08: A wide net sure is right. A source tells Joe Bodell of the MN Progressive Project that one possible Democratic candidate to take on Rep. Chip Cravaaaaaack is state Rep. Ryan Winkler. The only problem is that Winkler represents a district in suburban Minneapolis, while the 8th CD covers Minnesota’s northeastern reaches. So what gives? Winkler is a native of Bemidji, some 200 miles north of the Twin Cities, and he told Bodell that he’s thought about moving home, “but nothing is in the works.” I’ll also point out that Bemidji is actually in the 7th district (right near the border with the 8th).

• NY-26: Jack Davis was always just about the worst imaginable fit for the Democratic Party since Lyndon LaRouche, so it’s no surprise that he’s trying to court teabaggers in pursuit of his doomed fourth run for Congress (this time as an independent). The best part is that the mainstream (lol) teabaggers are rejecting him, but a splinter group (yes, another Judean People’s Front/People’s Front of Judea split) supposedly is in Davis’s camp. Davis is also trying to claim that Republican Jane Corwin has a “nanny issue,” but whatevs. Those don’t seem to gain a lot of traction these days, even if true.

• OR-01: SurveyUSA released a poll asking folks their opinions of David Wu. They ask respondents how they voted last year (52-38 for Wu, close to the actual 54-42 margin), and they also have a do-over question pitting Wu against 2010 challenger Rob Cornilles. Cornilles fares little better in this question, getting just 41%, but Wu drops dramatically, down to 33%. Meanwhile, Kari Chisholm at Blue Oregon has a massive list of everyone and his dog and the dog’s stuffed chewtoy who could potentially try to primary Wu, who has been busy conducting an apology tour of sorts.

• Los Angeles Mayor: It’s never too early to think about the 2013 elections, and that is exactly what over a dozen ambitious residents of America’s 2nd largest city are doing. The Los Angeles Times handicaps the vast field of candidates contemplating bids to replace Antonio Villaraigosa as the next mayor of Los Angeles. The prospects range from the old (longtime LA pol and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky) to the young (state senator Alex Padilla, who was 2 years old when Yaroslavsky first landed a seat on the LA City Council). And just to show that there are still potential Bloombergs among us, the field contains two wealthy self-funders (developer Rick Caruso and investment banker-turned-deputy mayor Austin Beutner). (Steve Singiser)

• NYC Mayor: Gag me with a spoon – when asked by Fareed Zakaria on CNN, Eliot Spitzer refused to rule out a run for NYC mayor. And I say this as someone who worked to get Spitzer elected – twice!

• WI Recall: Greg Sargent has an update on Dems’ signature collection efforts in the recall drive, and Team Blue is saying things are going very well in the early going – beating expectations, in fact. But there also seems to be some movement in terms of a deal with Gov. Scott Walker, which could deflate the sails of the recall movement very abruptly.

• DCCC: Obama alert! The POTUS was in Boston yesterday for a fundraiser for the DCCC. (That’s why he had the chance to chat with Setti Warren – see MA-Sen item above.) The D-Trip says the event raised a million bucks.

Redistricting Roundup:

• Arkansas: Reid Wilson has a tantalizing tweet, but nothing more: ” Arkansas legislators contemplating new heavily black, safe Dem seat.”

• Colorado: Republicans in the state House (where they’re in the majority) are trying to push a new law which would have the effect of moving Democratic Pueblo out of the 3rd CD (which gives Dems a fighting chance there) and into the deep red vote sink that is the 5th district. This is probably being done with an eye to protect freshman Rep. Scott Tipton, but it’s also possible that “moderate” state Sen. Ellen Roberts, a co-sponsor of the bill, is trying to craft a district more to her liking for an eventual run someday. Either way, it doesn’t matter – Dems control the state Senate and the governor’s mansion, so this bill is going nowhere.

Mississippi: Well, that sure was fast. A state Senate panel (controlled by the GOP) rejected a new map for the state House, which the Dem-controlled House had passed last week. If the two sides remain deadlocked, it’s possible that the state would have to conduct legislative elections both this year (under the old map) and next year (under a new map), something that actually happened in 1991/92. This would of course give the GOP another chance to win the state House before a Dem map can be implemented (and you’ve gotta think their odds of doing so are pretty good).

Meanwhile, there’s also some Redistricting™-brand cat fud on display in the Senate. Republicans released a map for their own body (available, along with demographic info, here), but Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant (who also holds the position of President of the Senate) pushed a plan of his own through the Elections Committee instead. (If you have a link to that map, please let us know in comments.) That puts him in a battle with members of his own party in terms of which map should get adopted.

• Pennsylvania: As Nice & Smooth put it, sometimes I map slow, sometimes I map quick – and PA Republicans are definitely in the former category. After state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi said he hoped to have a new congressional map complete in the fall, a wise-ass aide noted that technically, fall doesn’t end until Dec. 21st, so we might not see a new plan until the Winter Solstice. The staffer also said that technically, he has kissed a girl, because he once played spin-the-bottle with his second cousin.

• Redistricting: The Brennan Center has a very helpful guide to understanding the intricacies of redistricting, which you should all bookmark.

The crown jewel of the 2010 Census is out: California. The nation’s largest state is, well, even larger than before, at 37,253,956, up from 33,871,648. Divide that out among 53 districts (it was the first time in ages that California didn’t gain a House seat, despite gaining more than 3 million residents… it gained at a rate close to the country as a whole), and you have a target of 702,905, which is up from about 639K in 2000.

It may not come as a surprise, but much of the state’s growth is Hispanic. Since 2000, the state’s Hispanic population grew 27.8%, while the state’s non-Hispanic population was almost stagnant, growing only 1.5%. (The Asian population grew 31.5%, but that’s a fairly small subset of the overall population.) In 2000, California was 46.7% non-Hispanic white and 32.4% Hispanic, but in 2010, it had drawn much closer: 40.1% non-Hispanic white and 37.6% Hispanic.

Looking at the table, you’ll notice that a large number of districts have moved from white pluralities to Hispanic pluralities over the last ten years: the Democratic-controlled 17th, 23rd, and 27th, and the Republican-controlled 21st, 44th, and 45th. (The latter two were also the state’s two fastest growing districts, both in Riverside County to the east of Los Angeles.) Two more GOP-held seats in the greater Los Angeles area are also dancing close to the edge of a Hispanic plurality: the 25th, and the Orange County-based 40th. Of course, that doesn’t presage an immediate change in voting patterns; given lower Hispanic voter participation rates and the fact that much of the Hispanic population is under 18, changes will be slow to happen. Case in point: the 20th, where incumbent Jim Costa had a close call in 2010 despite it being a 70% Hispanic district! (One other bit of trivia: Pete Stark’s 13th moved from a white plurality to an Asian plurality, the only Asian-plurality district outside of Hawaii.)

One other thing you’ll notice: despite the fact that California didn’t lose a seat, there is going to be substantial reconfiguration of districts, with boundaries moving from west to east. The Bay Area gained little population, and will need to give most of a seat to the Central Valley; likewise, Los Angeles County proper gained little, and will need to give most of a seat to the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties). Although the Central Valley and Inland Empire tend to be Republican areas in general, most of the growth in those places has been Hispanic, to the extent that “new” seats are probably going to wind up being Hispanic VRA seats carved out of the general overlay of red; on the other hand, the Bay Area and LA proper are already Dem strongholds and have nothing but Dems to lose, so the overall effect is likely to be a wash. Of course, given that this is the first year that California switches to an ostensibly impartial commission, which has no compunction to preserve the incumbent protection intent of the 2000 map and may actually place a premium on compactness, we could see all manner of scrambling that goes well beyond what I’m describing.

While we aren’t going into as much detail as we did with Texas, we’re adding a few details to California that most states haven’t received: each district’s representative (as it’s well nigh impossible to keep track of which district number is what when there are 53 of them), and the district’s racial composition in both 2010 and 2000. The four categories expressed as overall percentages, left to right, are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African-American, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45 (45)

Sarah Steelman (R): 42 (44)

Undecided: 14 (12)

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Todd Akin (R): 44

Undecided: 11

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 46

Ed Martin (R): 40

Undecided: 14

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Ann Wagner (R): 36

Undecided: 19

(MoE: ±4%)

Tom Jensen takes the words right out of my mouth:

Less noteworthy than the difference between McCaskill’s single point lead against Akin and her nine point advantage against Wagner is that McCaskill’s support shows no variation from 45-46% across the four match ups. The Republicans get varying levels of support pretty much directly in line with their name recognition: 44% know Akin, 44% know Steelman, 34% know Martin, and only 26% know Wagner. The GOP field is largely anonymous at this point.

McCaskill’s leads, even as small as they are, shouldn’t be particularly reassuring for her. There are at least twice as many undecided Republicans as Democrats in each match up, suggesting that once the GOP candidates become better known they will probably catch up to her pretty quickly.

One thing to note, though, is that the gathering field for the GOP represents something of a B-team, especially with Akin unlikely to get in. And while the group as a whole, as Tom notes, is mostly unknown, they all have negative favorables among those who do know them, except for Steelman, who doesn’t fare much better with a flat even 22-22. I think a Steelman-Martin primary could be extremely toxic, and something McCaskill has to be rooting for.

If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that PPP has a 38D, 37R, 25I sample. That’s a lot less Dem than the 40D-34R that the 2008 exit polls had it as, but a little better than the than the 39R-37D 2006 exit polls.