Tag: elections

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

It is the June, 2012. The Republican candidate, recent winner of the party’s presidential nomination, rises up to deliver a triumphant victory speech. He launches a full-throated defense of conservatism, inserts a few sly attacks on the Democratic president, and thanks his opponents for endorsing him.

Just six months ago nobody had heard about him. Yet then he won the Iowa caucuses, shocking everybody in the political world. New Hampshire followed, then a string of victories that utterly defeated his remaining opposition. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee never stood a chance.

How likely is this to happen?

More below.

Well, it is certainly within the bounds of conceivability – although admittedly somewhat unlikely. There are several factors that ought to be considered.

Firstly, there is the state of the current Republican field itself. This is a surprisingly weak selection. There are a number of potentially strong candidates out there. The problem is that none of them are running.

Unlike most previous contests, there is no obvious front-runner such as Governors George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Former Governor Mitt Romney is the one who best fits the definition. But Mr. Romney’s political skills are uncommonly weak; there is something about him (and this is a personal characteristic, not his Mormonism) that just turns-off voters.

So, unlike previous nominations, there is still plenty of space for a surprise Republican candidate to enter.

What about historical precedent? Here the picture is still pretty good. History is full of surprise candidates taking the nomination by storm. The most recent instance is, of course, the president himself (although he was actually pretty well known amongst the Beltway before 2008).

Even more encouraging might be example of President Jimmy Carter. Nobody, not even those immersed in politics, had heard of the peanut farmer before he ran for president. As late as January 1976 – the equivalent of January 2012 today – only 4% of Democrats chose him as their candidate. But Mr. Carter won the Iowa primary through retail politics, and then a string of other small primaries to build momentum.

There are other examples: Senator John Kerry in 2004, Governor Bill Clinton in 1992, and arguably Governor Mike Dukakis in 1988. These should hearten an ambitious yet unknown Republican.

On the other hand, all these examples come on the Democratic side. For whatever reason, political unknowns haven’t been as successful in the Republican Party. The last time the Republican frontrunner lost was in 1964, when Senator Barry Goldwater won the nomination (probably not the most inspiring model). Perhaps there is something in the nature of conservatism that is less attracted to exciting, new candidates of change.

At the moment, however, the chances that an unknown Republican will win the nomination better than they have been since – well – 1964.

Senate:

• CT-Sen: Former SoS Susan Bysiewicz said that she raised over half a mil in Q1. She also continued a theme of attacking Chris Murphy as some kind of skeezy Washington insider, saying “I’m sure the corporate PACs and DC lobbyists are lining up to support other candidates.” Murphy is the only other announced candidate.

• FL-Sen: Adam Smith of the St. Petersburg Times tweeted last Wednesday he expects George LeMieux (R) to announce “next week”… which means this week.

• IN-Sen: Rep. Dan Burton, one of the most disliked Republicans in the state of Indiana, channels his inner Tobias Fünke (the man inside him?) and says, “I’m supporting Dick – there’s two Dicks in the race.” That’d be Richard “Dick” Lugar and Richard “Dick” Mourdock. Oh Burton, you blowhard!

• KY-Sen: I can’t really believe Rand Paul is serious about a presidential bid, but then again, I thought the same thing about Michele Bachmann and was clearly wrong about that. Still, I’m mostly amused by the fact that he met with Iowa Republicans (including Gov. Terry Branstad) in Des Moines this past weekend. Rand might be trying to set himself up for a run in 2016… or he could also be doing a good job of inviting a primary challenge if he seeks re-election.

• MA-Sen: Teabaggers being pissed at Scott Brown are nothing new – though I do find their naivety endearing. (What did they think they were going to get?) What’s sad is that one of their self-anointed leaders, some guy named Judson Phillips, can only muster up this in response to Brown’s latest outrage (calling to reduce budget cuts): “Perhaps the Massachusetts Tea Party will step up with someone to challenge him in 2012.” A resounding call to arms this ain’t.

• ME-Sen: Freshman Sen. Pat Toomey says he won’t endorse Olympia Snowe in her bid for re-election. Toomey, don’t forget, has some residual teabagger cred, given that he was president of the Club for Growth.

• MO-Sen: Citizens United (yes, that Citizens United) just gave GOP Rep. Todd Akin $10K in the hopes of luring him into the Senate race. I was wrong about Trent Franks, but I really do feel like Akin will get in here.

• MT-Sen: Republicans think they get lots of mileage out of attacking “welfare,” but Denny Rehberg took this trope several steps further, declaring that Pell Grants are “turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century.”

• NV-Sen: Rep. Shelley Berkley says she’s heartened by the internal poll numbers she put out last week (42-38 over Republican Dean Heller), she still hasn’t made up her mind, though now says she’ll decide “fairly soon,” whatever that means.

• NY-Sen: Kirsten Gillibrand set a personal record with her 1Q fundraising, taking in over $3 million.

Gubernatorial:

• KY-Gov: Despite opposing the expansion of gambling in the state – a very big and very contentious issue – State Senate President (and GOP gubernatorial nominee) David Williams lost over $36,000 in casinos from 1999 to 2002, according to court documents related to his divorce.

• MO-Gov: Did GOP Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder just neutralize the whole “Air Claire” business? It turns out that Kinder, widely expected to run for governor, has spent an average of two months a year staying at St. Louis luxury hotels, all at taxpayer expense, including trips for society balls and baseball games.. You really need to read the whole piece to get the full flavor of Kinder’s abuse of his office. Kinder also told a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch “I’m not talking to you,” then hung up the phone. This story’s going to get worse, not better.

• UT-Gov, UT-Sen: As we’ve noted previously, the teabaggers are gunning for Gov. Gary Herbert, thanks to his support for immigration bills that are insufficiently punitive, in their view. Now the name of another potential primary challenger has surfaced: state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom. The linked article also says that David Kirkham, a key teabagger who helped oust Bob Bennett last year, is suggesting that Herbert, rather than Orrin Hatch, may be his compatriots’ number one target this cycle. Hatch previously refused to take a position on his home state’s legislation, but let’s see if he turns on Herbert in the hopes of re-directing the teabaggers.

• WV-Gov: Julie Sobel at the Hotline has a complete wrapup of fundraising numbers for all the major candidates, both Dem and Republican, in the WV gubernatorial race.

Other Races:

• Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: On Twitter, when Sarah Palin announced she was backing David Prosser, I called it the kiss of death. J. Pilmanis said no, she kissed a corpse. We’ll find out for sure tomorrow! Anyhow, the ad wars have, of course, gone full-tilt in the final days of the campaign. Here’s a roundup of some that we’ve seen:

• WMC attacks JoAnne Kloppenburg for not being “tough on crime” in one spot, and praises Prosser for his supposed law-and-order credentials in another
• GWC has another ad hitting the Prosser=Walker theme once more; they also whack him hard for his “total bitch” outburst in a 15-second spot
• Citizens for a Strong America has Troy Merryfield talking to the camera on behalf of Prosser; he excoriates the GWC’s ad which attacked Prosser for failing to prosecute the priest who abused Merryfield
• TPX hits the usual mouth-breather themes; amusingly, they tout “Democrat” Gov. Patrick Lucey’s endorsement of Prosser, which he withdrew just the other day

The Democrats begin this process with a clear disadvantage from previous redistricting. Following the Cook Partisan Voting Index there are:

194 D+ seats

9 EVEN seats

232 R+ seats

We can not forget it.

This diary seeks to give a preview about what the Republicans can do in the redistricting process and about the best ways for the Democrats in certain states (IL, MD, AR, WV, OR, CO, NY…) to have some success after the current redistricting process.

The diary is focused to see the most direct potential or likely effects of the redistricting process.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I’m not optimistic about this group of states because the Republicans never lose a chance for take advantage. The Republicans will have full control of the redistricting process in many states, and I will go state by state.

Utah

One new district for the Republicans.

UT-02 J Matheson (D) surely will run in a R+20+ the next time and without part of the current basis that send him to the house now.

Wyoming

No effect.

Oklahoma

OK-02 D Boren (D) surely will run in a R+20+ district. The same as J Matheson.

Alabama

No chance for B Bright to return.

Alaska

The Alaska Redistricting Board (Commission) is in Republican hands.

No changes.

Nebraska

NE-02 will be surely safer for the Republicans. There is no chance Obama wins again this electoral vote.

Kansas

KS-03 safer for the Republicans.

Louisiana

Thanks to some party switches, the Republicans have control of both state chambers and because of this they will have control of the redistricting process. But Louisiana will lose one seat and that cannot be LA-02 thanks to the Voting Rights Act. That means the Republicans will lose one district here.

No chance for C Melancon to return.

LA-03 seems the district that would disappear.

North Dakota

No effect.

Texas

Here I do not expect gains for the Democrats. As a maximum, one if we recover TX-23 and TX-27, but I think it is very difficult. If there are not a law requiring the creation of new VRA districts, the Republicans will create none. Finally, there are 36 districts for Texas, I would expect 7 D+, 3 R+low approximately and 26R+10 or higher, but things still can be worse. The three “swing” districts can likely be the successors of TX-28, TX-27 and TX-23. These would be again the districts to fight.

Four new districts for the Republicans.

TX-25 L Doggett (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district or against one of the neighboring democratic incumbents.

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) can likely run in a R+low district.

South Dakota

No effect.

Tennessee

No chance for L Davis to return.

TN-05 J Cooper (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district. The same as L Doggett.

South Carolina

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Spratt to return.

Georgia

If I’m not wrong the Republicans can decrease the percentage of African-Americans in GA-02 and GA-12 because there are districts with a white majority (over 50% white) and would have less VRA protection. That means these will be new R+ districts.

One new district for the Republicans.

No chance for J Marshall to return.

GA-02 S Bishop (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

GA-12 J Barrow (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Indiana

If the Republicans wish they can draw all the districts with R+6 rating. If they keep one Democratic seat (likely IN-01), they can draw all the other districts with R+8 rating. If they keep two Democratic seats (likely IN-01 and IN-07), they can draw all the other districts with R+10 rating. Looking at the recent history of IN-08 and IN-09 districts, I think they will want the safest seats, so I think they will keep IN-01 and IN-07 as Democratic seats.

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) will need to run for a R+10+ district or will need to run a primary against P Visclosky.

North Carolina

The Republicans have full control of the redistricting process here. They will take advantage of this, but North Carolina is a swing state with a strong tradition of moderate to conservative Democrats. The most competitive district that the Republicans won in 2008 was R+11. First they need to protect NC-02. And later I think they will bid to make NC-08, NC-07 and NC-11 enough Republican to try to defeat the Democratic incumbents. It is more likely they will go after these seats because the Democrats here can be more dangerous for them for statewide races. NC-01, NC-12, NC-13 and NC-04 would keep D+ rating. NC-01 in the North East, NC-12 in Charlotte, NC-13 in Raleigh-Durham, and NC-04 in the area of Fayetteville toward Chapel Hil toward Greensboro. D Price may get out his NC-04.

NC-08 L Kissell (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

NC-11 H Shuler (D) can likely run in a R+10+ district.

Florida

The current redistricting of Florida is very pro-Republican and the new procedure for redistricting will not change it. All the current swing districts are in Republican hands and the legislature (Republican majority) will not approve a map that does not protect their incumbents in 2012. FL-22 surely will become a R+low district. Florida will have some R+low districts that the Democrats can fight for.

Two new R+ seats for the Republicans.

Ohio

Despite having full control of the redistricting process, including the trifecta and the commissions that draw the legislative maps, the Republicans do not have a chance of improving in Ohio. The Republicans have enough work to keep the incumbents, including their gains of 2010 (5 seats) and surely it will not be possible they win more. They will lose at least one district, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating, including OH-01, OH-12 and OH-15.

OH-13 B Sutton (D) surely will get out of the game.

One Republican seat will disappear too. Maybe OH-06.

New Hampshire

No changes.

Pennsylvania

The Republicans control the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission that draws the state legislative districts and the state legislature that draws the congressional map. But redistricting Pennsylvania is more difficult than Ohio for the Republicans. They have enough work protecting incumbents, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating. I expect 5 D+ safe districts (PA-01, PA-02, PA-13, PA-14 and PA-17). T Holden does not seem vulnerable and surely the Republicans will give to his district a D+ rating. PA-11, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 can be R+ low in 2012. And here there are two Democratic incumbents in R+ districts that can have trouble.

PA-12 M Critz (D) surely will be without his own district and surely will need to run against a Republican incumbent, but the district will likely have R+low rating.

PA-04 J Altmire (D) will likely run in a R+10+ district.

Wisconsin

After winning full control of the redistricting process, I think the Republicans will work to keep their incumbents in 2012. Surely WI-07 will be a R+low district. Because of it, all the Republican incumbents will be in swing districts. The recall can affect the process giving, some chance to the Democrats.

Michigan

Again the same. The Republicans have more than enough work keeping their incumbents, and surely MI-06 and MI-11 will end as R+low districts. Michigan must lose one district and will likely be MI-09.

MI-09 G Peeters (D) can likely get out the game. Surely G Peeters will need to run against other incumbent, maybe against S Levin (D).

RECOUNT

+22 new R+ districts

-18 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

+1 – +2 Utah (1 new and maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

=0 – +1 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

– 1 – – 1 Louisiana (1 seat less LA-03)

=0 – =0 North Dakota

+4 – +6 Texas * (4 new and maybe TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

=0 – +1 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

+1 – +1 South Carolina (1 new)

+1 – +3 Georgia (1 new and maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

=0 – +1 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

=0 – +3 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

+2 – +2 Florida * (2 new seats)

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-06)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

=0 – +1 Pennsylvania * (maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

=0 – =0 Michigan *

———–

+7 – +19 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Utah (maybe UT-02)

=0 – =0 Wyoming

– 1 – =0 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)

=0 – =0 Alabama

=0 – =0 Alaska

=0 – =0 Nebraska

=0 – =0 Kansas

=0 – =0 Louisiana

=0 – =0 North Dakota

– 2 – =0 Texas * (maybe lose TX-25 and TX-28)

=0 – =0 South Dakota

– 1 – =0 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)

=0 – =0 South Carolina

– 2 – =0 Georgia (maybe GA-02 and GA-12)

– 1 – =0 Indiana (maybe IN-02)

– 3 – =0 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)

=0 – =0 Florida *

– 1 – – 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-13)

=0 – =0 New Hampshire *

– 2 – – 1 Pennsylvania * (1 seat less PA-12 and maybe PA-04)

=0 – =0 Wisconsin *

– 1 – – 1 Michigan * (1 seat less MI-09)

———–

– 15 – – 3 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

STATES WITH BIPARTISAN OR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS AND STATES WITH CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

COMMISSION

Idaho (R majority ID Supreme Court)

No effect. Maybe ID-01 be a little more Republican.

Montana (D majority MT Supreme Court)

No effect.

Arizona (R majority AZ Supreme Court)

Arizona will win one house seat that can go to the Republicans and in exchange the Democrats will seek to protect AZ-08 until they have a D+5+ district.

New district for the Republicans.

Iowa (R majority IA Supreme Court)

Iowa will lose one seat. Yesterday was published the first draft of the Commission for redistricting. I think the first map will be rejected. Two of the current incumbents must run at least in the same district. Likely one Democrat and one Republican but the rest would keep their own district. Surely the most likely option is L Boswell (D) and T Latham running in something like a merger of the current IA-03 and IA-04 that can be very close to EVEN rating. I would not accept anything worse. Surely a merger of the current IA-01 and IA-04 would be more favorable for the Democrats but the Republicans would reject this.

New Jersey (D majority NJ Supreme Court)

The commission in this state is keeping one of the most pro-Republican maps in all the bluest states. This year the prospect is favorable because the Democrats are a little favored in the control of the process for drawing new maps, but still the final map can keep pro-Republican details. The state will lose one US House seat and the first candidate can be NJ-03 if they are not open seats. It seems none of the Republican representatives would challenge R Menendez before losing his US House seat in the redistricting process. Later surely the damaged Republican will challenge him. I think NJ-02 can become also R+.

Maine (D majority ME Supreme Court)

Maybe ME-02 becomes a little safer.

Washington (D majority WA Supreme Court)

There will be a new district likely in the north of King County that can go Democratic, while WA-03 can be R+low district, but WA-08 would countinue as D+low. I hope WA-02 also becomes a little safer district, while other Democratic seats do not get weaker.

California (R majority CA Supreme Court)

I’m so skeptical about the result of the new system for redistricting California. I think we have lost an opportunity of drawing a good map having the trifecta (the governor and the majority in both state chambers). At least, CA-11 should become a D+ district, but the redistricting in California is the most unpredictable process (with Texas), and we can have surprises here.

New York (R majority NY Court of Appeals but D CJ)

The first goal for the Democrats must be up to D+5+ level NY-02, NY-27, NY-01 and NY-23. NY-25 surely will be the first district that gets out the game. The Democratic votes of Syracuse can help making safer the NY-23. Still I think the Democrats must find more here. I think the Democratic members of the legislature must want the Republicans to lose a second seat. I would select NY-13, but if there is some trouble about Staten Island, the next option would be NY-03. This still would leave 6 R+low swing districts in New York. This is little improvement. I think the little advantage of the Republicans in the state senate should not be enough to stop these improvements and maybe more.

Vermont (D majority VT Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

Hawaii (D majority HI Supreme Court but R CJ)

No effect.

RECOUNT

– 2 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

+1 – +1 Arizona * (1 new seat)

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-04)

– 1 – – 1 New Jersey * (1 seat less)

=0 – =0 Maine

=0 – =0 Washington *

=0 – =0 California *

– 2 – – 2 New York * (2 seats less)

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———-

– 3 – – 2 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Idaho

=0 – =0 Montana

=0 – =0 Arizona *

– 1 – =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-03)

=0 – =0 New Jersey *

=0 – =0 Maine

+1 – +1 Washington * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 California *

=0 – =0 New York *

=0 – =0 Vermont

=0 – =0 Hawaii

———–

=0 – +1 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the democrats can win in Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, California, and New York in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. The effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

Some people think the “independent” commissions are the right procedure for redistricting, but the Republicans have an advantage here because these commissions keep some pro-Republican maps and contribute to the advantage that the Republicans have in other states where they work with full control.

In the R+ states working with commissions, the Democrats only have 2 Hispanic representatives in Hispanic majority districts, and 1 (G Giffords) in a R+ district. While, in the EVEN or D+ states working with commissions, the Republicans have 39 representatives.

CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

Kentucky (R majority KY Supreme Court)

No important changes. The Republicans will block every improvement for the Democratic representatives.

Mississippi (R majority MS Supreme Court)

No changes.

No chance for T Childers or G Taylor to return.

Missouri (D majority MO Supreme Court but R CJ)

Missouri will lose one seat and that will give trouble to both parties. There are very few options for keeping the current MO-01 as an African-American majority district, so little discussion about the borders of this distric. For the rest, I think the most likely scenario can be a merger of MO-03 (D+7 R Carnahan) and MO-02 (R+9 T Akin) in a district that surely can not be EVEN, but can be R+1 approximately. Another option would be a merger of MO-05 (D+10 E Cleaver) and MO-06 (R+7 S Graves), but I think the Democrats will dislike losing the balance between St Louis and Kansas City and the Republicans will dislike leaving some Democratic votes to MO-04, endangering a second seat, or giving to the new seat from the merger a D+ rate.

MO-02/03 R Carnahan (D) can need to run in a R+1 seat against T Akin (R) if the Republican does not run for senate.

Virginia (R majority VA Supreme Court)

The Democrats will seek to protect VA-11 and the Republicans some of their districts. Still this state will have some swing district with R+low rating.

Colorado (D majority CO Supreme Court)

Here the Republicans have a very weak majority in the state house (32D-33R) but the redistricting is made by a commission where the Democrats can have the control thanks to the three members appointed by the governor, who has veto power. At a minimum I think the Democrats can be successful with a 3D-3R-1S map that gives EVEN or little better rating to the current CO-03. Nothing to lose here.

Nevada (D majority NV Supreme Court)

Nevada will have a new district. Surely NV-03 will be a R+low district while the new district will be a D+low.

Minnesota (R majority MN Supreme Court)

I think the Republicans can find MN-03 and MN-08 become R+ while the Democrats can find MN-01 and MN-07 become D+.

New Mexico (D majority NM Supreme Court)

Here I do not expect big changes. I think the Democrats can have some advantage making NM-02 a little less Republican.

Oregon (D majority OR Supreme Court)

I think the Democrats can be able to make safer OR-04 and OR-05. I would like to see a 5-0 map here and I think it would be possible. Despite the tie in the state house, the Republicans have a very weak prospect because if the state legislature fails drawing the maps, the Secretary of State (Democrat) would draw the maps of the state house and the state senate seats.

Connecticut (R majority CT Supreme Court)

The current map only needs a little mix of the current CT-05 and CT-01. A bipartisan commission will draw the paps that need the approval of 2/3 of both chambers. The Republicans are now just over 1/3 in both chambers.

RECOUNT

=0 new R+ districts

=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

– 1 – =0 Colorado * (maybe lose CO-03)

=0 – =0 Nevada *

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———-

– 2 – =0 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – =0 Kentucky

=0 – =0 Mississippi

– 1 – =0 Missouri

=0 – =0 Virginia *

=0 – +1 Colorado * (maybe win CO-03)

+1 – +1 Nevada * (1 new seat)

=0 – =0 Minnesota *

=0 – =0 New Mexico *

=0 – =0 Oregon

=0 – =0 Connecticut

———–

=0 – +2 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota and New Mexico in 2012, despite the Republican full control of the redistricting process in these states. Again, the effect of this would be fewer gains to the Republicans and would be fewer losses for the Democrats (maybe some net gain).

This would be the recount until now:

+20 new R+ house seats

– 18 new D+ or EVEN house seats

(+2,+17) range for Republican gains *

(- 15,=0) range for Democratic gains *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistricting. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in many states (emphasized with *). But the large majority of these districts would be R+low districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

NH-01, NH-02, WA-08 and CO-03 are the only Republican districts in all these 43 states that surely would be EVEN or D+ after the redistricting process. The Republicans have a low chance of making or keeping these districts as R+, so these districts should be obvious targets for the Democrats in 2012 from now on.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

From this group of states must come the improvements that balance the gains of the Republicans. I think the Democrats must find here the necessary gains to balance the Republican gains in other states. And just I will find it for this group (less to preview or predict and more to propose where is possible).

Arkansas

The Democrats have the control of the Board of Apportionment (Commission) that draws the state legislature districts and also control the state legislature that draws the congressional districts. The best way to keep the Democratic congressional delegation from Arkansas in the long-term would be to have a black district protected by the Voting Rights Act. Surely this is the last chance to make a black district in Arkansas protected by the VRA. If the Democrats from this state do not do this, the Republicans will have a 0D 4R map the first chance they have. It is possible to create a district with more African-American population than white, but for me the goal would be a D+ (D+5?) district that keeps the white population under 50%, to draw a R+5 district district for M Ross (including parts of Washington County, and to leave two R+20+ for the Republicans, approximately.

West Virginia

I think the Democrats will want to protect N Rahall (WV-03) and endanger WV-01. My goal would be both districts become R+5-. If it is necessary breaking the county borders.

Delaware

No effect.

Illinois

Illinois will lose a house seat too. The Democrats from Illinois surely can put every Republican incumbent running in a D+5+ district for 2012. I hope they do it. It is necessary. The redistricting in Illinois is key in this cycle for the Democratic Party for balancing the Republican gains in other states.

IL-06 seems the most likely district to disappear.

Maryland

I think the Democrats from Maryland will make MD-01 and MD-06 D+5+ districts, winning two seats for the Democratic side. The Democrats of the rest of the country need it to balance the Republican gains in other states.

Rhode Island

No effect.

Massachusetts

MA-10 W Keating (D) This state will lose one district after the redistricting process. I think we will not have open seats for 2012 here, and because of this MA-10 would be the most likely seat to disappear.

RECOUNT

– 3 to – 11 new R+ districts

+1 to +9 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the Republican gains after redistricting:

– 1 – =0 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

– 1 – =0 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

– 11 – – 1 Illinois

– 2 – =0 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

=0 – =0 Massachusetts

———-

– 15 – – 1 Total Republican gains for these states *

And the range for the Democratic gains after redistricting:

=0 – +1 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)

=0 – +1 West Virginia

=0 – =0 Delaware

=0 – +10 Illinois

=0 – +2 Maryland

=0 – =0 Rhode Island

– 1 – – 1 Massachusetts

———–

– 1 – +13 Total Democratic gains for these states *

* = This diary looks at the most likely direct effects of the redistictring. I have not counted the swing districts that are not strongly affected by the redistricting process and that the Democrats can win in 2012. They are not in this group of states.

This would be the total recount without including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+17 new R+ house seats

– 17 new D+ or EVEN house seats

183 D+ seats

3 EVEN seats (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

249 R+ seats

(- 3,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+3) range for Democratic gains *

This would be the total recount including the effect of a gerrymandered redistricting of Illinois:

+9 new R+ house seats

– 9 new D+ or EVEN house seats

191 D+ seats

3 EVEN seat (maybe IA-03/04, CO-03 and NH-01)

241 R+ seats

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains *

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains *

* = This does not include many swing districts in Republican hands in many states (emphasized with *). But except NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01, all the other seats would be R+(low) districts. That means the Republicans have some advantage here.

California and Texas are the most difficult states to predict and can give the biggest surprises. California can give likely some good surprise, but Texas can give a likely worse result.

Gerrymandering Illinois can be the alone way to keep the current number of D+ seats in the US House and to balance the likely Republican gains that the redistricting process in other states will give to them.

——————————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————————-

RESUME

1 THE NEW DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTS TO DISAPPEAR

Republican safe gains = 10

UT-04 (new)

TX-33 (new)

TX-34 (new)

TX-35 (new)

TX-36 (new)

SC-07 (new)

GA-14 (new)

AZ-09 (new)

FL-26 (new)

FL-27 (new)

Democratic safe gains = 2

NV-04 (new)

WA-10 (new)

Republican safe losses that can not be Democratic gains = 6

LA-03 (disappear)

OH-06 (disappear)

IL-06 (disappear)

NJ-03 (disappear)

NY-25 (disappear)

NY-13 (disappear)

Democratic safe losses that can not be Republican gains = 4

OH-13 B Sutton (D) (disappear)

PA-12 M Critz (D) (disappear)

MI-09 G Peeters (D) (disappear)

MA-10 W Keating (D) (disappear)

In the middle = 2

MO-02/03

IA-03/04

From this group the Republicans will gain 2 to 4 seats (only 2 if L Boswell and R Carnahan can keep the districts).

2 THE DISTRICTS STRONGLY AFFECTED BY THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

Democratic seats that can be Republican gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 12

TX-25 L Doggett (D) as R+10+

IN-02 J Donnelly (D) as R+10+

GA-02 S Bishop (D) as R+10+

TN-05 J Cooper (D) as R+10+

NC-08 L Kissell (D) as R+10+

UT-02 J Matheson (D) as R+20+

GA-12 J Barrow (D) as R+10+

PA-04 J Altmire (D) as R+10+

NC-07 M McIntyre (D) as R+10+

NC-11 H Shuler (D) as R+10+

OK-02 D Boren (D) as R+20+

TX-28 H Cuellar (D) as R+low

Republican seats that can be Democratic gains as a consequence of important changes in the redistricting process = 15

MD-01 as D+5+

IL-08 as D+5+

MD-06 as D+5+

IL-14 as D+5+

CO-03 as EVEN

WV-01 as R+5-

AR-02 as D+5+

IL-17 as D+5+

IL-10 as D+6+

IL-11 as D+5+

IL-15 as D+5+

IL-19 as D+5+

IL-13 as D+5+

IL-16 as D+5+

IL-18 as D+5+

The order goes from the most vulnerable to the less vulnerable to the change for every party.

After the two groups the range for both parties (if Illinois is gerrymandered) would be:

(- 13,+16) range for Republican gains

(- 16,+13) range for Democratic gains

3 THE REST

Other Democratic endangered seats = 0

Only KY-06, WV-03 and AR-04 would have R+ rating.

Other Republican endangered seats = ?

Only NH-02, WA-08 and NH-01 would have D+ or EVEN rating.

A good number of swing R+low districts.

If the Democrats work well in group 2, other possible gains would help to reduce the Republican majority in the US House. If the Democrats do not work enough in group 2, some possible gains would help to balance the Republican advantage after the redistricting but not to gain new seats. It is very important to do a good work in the redistricting process.

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

The time has come for many in the Republican Party to begin seriously considering the 2012 presidential election. By this time last year, President Barack Obama had just announced his candidacy. Soon the shadow campaign will begin in earnest, and then the real campaign several months after that, just before the Iowa primary.

Here are three of the strongest Republicans who could challenge Mr. Obama:

More below.

1) Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts

Mr. Brown may be the single most politically skilled individual in the entire Republican Party. He pulled a shocking upset over Democrat Martha Coakley, continues to retain extremely strong favorables, and looks likely to run a very competitive Senate race in 2012. All this while being many times more conservative than the average person in one of America’s most liberal states.

That takes skill.

Indeed, if this Republican ran for president, he’d probably have a decent chance of winning Massachusetts. Mr. Brown is a hero to Tea Partiers; at the same time there has been nothing so far that cuts against him negatively. And, in an era where looking good matters more than ever, Mr. Brown – as his Cosmopolitan photo shoot implies – certainly has the looks nailed down (he’s certainly going to need them, going against a man who can do this).

2) Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey

Mr. Christie is the popular governor of New Jersey, applauded by many Republicans for cutting spending and taking the fight full-hilt to the teacher’s unions. Media coverage of his agenda has been extremely positive so far, and his aggressive, blunt answers at town halls have draw much support on Youtube.

Compared to individuals such as Mr. Romney or Ms. Palin (or Mr. Brown, for that matter), the governor’s established record is far superior.

Mr. Christie’s weakness might lie in the realm of political skills. He was expected to win beat Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial race by double-digits; in the end Mr. Corzine made it quite close. While popular in New Jersey, the governor is hated by liberals and Democrats. And he doesn’t look presidential – or, to put it less nicely, he’s too fat.

3) Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Mr. Rubio made an explosive rise in 2010. Starting out as a literal nobody, he succeeded in forcing out heavy favorite Charlie Crist in the Republican primary – and then winning a three-person senatorial race with ease.

The senator’s Hispanic origins help in the diversity realm, and he tells a great story about his immigrant parents. Moreover, Mr. Rubio has the rare ability to make people on opposite sides of an issue believe that he is with them and against the other side. He would be a formidable candidate.

__________________

There is one similarity between each of these candidates: they bear a strong resemblance to Mr. Obama, whatever their political differences.

Many in the Republican Party look at their current field  and do not see much. Each candidate – Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike  Huckabee, Haley Barbour – has serious weaknesses. None excites as Mr.  Obama does.

But these Republicans are thinking too narrowly. The  Republican Party has plenty of young, attractive, and politically savvy  politicians. It’s just that most pundits haven’t imagined them running  for president.

Perhaps Republicans ought to do a non-conservative thing: start looking outside the box.

This is a pretty amazing story – and not the kind of thing you want to see happen during the final weekend of your campaign:

Former Democratic Gov. Patrick Lucey is withdrawing his support for incumbent Justice David Prosser for Wisconsin Supreme Court and is throwing it to Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Lucey released a statement to the media Thursday evening saying the campaign has revealed what he called “a disturbing distemper and lack of civility” in Prosser, though he did not cite specifics.

“I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman,” Lucey said in the statement. “I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice-as for any judge-even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.”

Lucey, age 93, served as governor of Wisconsin in the 1970s and was also the running mate of independent presidentical candidate John Anderson in 1980. Lucey may have declined to cite any examples of Prosser’s behavior, but I sure will:

• He bellowed that a fellow justice was a “bitch” and vowed to “destroy her” – then blamed her for his outburst
• He claimed that the same justice and another female colleague “ganged up” on him in an attempt to make him look bad
• He confided to Republicans and right-wing allies that they could be sure how he’d rule on topics like redistricting and abortion rights – all but prejudging cases in advance

And those are just a few examples of Prosser’s lack of a proper judicial temperament. I haven’t even touched upon the fact that he promised he’d be a “complement” to Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature, on account of the fact that his views “closely mirror” theirs. Lucey’s critique of Prosser aligns very much with the case Kloppenburg and her supporters have been presenting all along, and it helps ensure that this will be topic #1 for the campaign’s final days. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos/SEIU (3/24-27, Hawaii voters, no trendlines):

Ed Case (D): 52

Linda Lingle (R): 35

Undecided: 12

Colleen Hanabusa (D): 51

Linda Lingle (R): 40

Undecided: 9

Mufi Hannemann (D): 47

Linda Lingle (R): 40

Undecided: 14

Mazie Hirono (D): 52

Linda Lingle (R): 40

Undecided: 9

Ed Case (D): 50

Duke Aiona (R): 35

Undecided: 15

Colleen Hanabusa (D): 48

Duke Aiona (R): 43

Undecided: 9

Mufi Hannemann (D): 42

Duke Aiona (R): 42

Undecided: 16

Mazie Hirono (D): 49

Duke Aiona (R): 42

Undecided: 10

Ed Case (D): 53

Charles Djou (R): 35

Undecided: 12

Colleen Hanabusa (D): 50

Charles Djou (R): 40

Undecided: 10

Mufi Hannemann (D): 46

Charles Djou (R): 40

Undecided: 14

Mazie Hirono (D): 51

Charles Djou (R): 40

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±3.3%)

In the wake of Sen. Dan Akaka’s retirement announcement, Beltway pundits started talking up the chances of Linda Lingle, the recently termed-out Republican governor. This chatter ignored quite a few things: the fact that Lingle left office pretty unpopular after eight years (41-56 job approvals); that 2010’s massive red tide failed to wash up on Hawaii’s shores (GOP Rep. Charles Djou lost to Colleen Hanabusa; Dem Neil Abercrombie won the gubernatorial race over then-Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona in a landslide); and that a dude named Barack Obama would be on the top of the ticket next year (the native son won by 45 points in 2008).

Now, to imagine Lingle might be competitive, there’s one more piece of evidence that will have to get ignored: this poll. With her underwater 41-51 favorable rating, she can’t crack 40% against any Democrat, even the least popular among them, former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann (39-48 favorables). And indeed Hanabusa, Rep. Mazie Hirono, and ex-Rep. Ed Case all clear 50 against her. If Lingle’s own internal polls are showing markedly different numbers, then I think she’s deluding herself. Of course, Aiona fares only slightly better, while Djou does no better than Lingle, but if Hawaii Republicans want to take on a hopeless suicide mission, they’re welcome to do so.

One final note: If you weren’t familiar with Hawaii politics, you might take a look at these numbers and say, “Wow! Who is this Ed Case guy? He performs the best of all the Dems, and does really well among independent voters!” These things are true, but don’t be fooled: Ed Case has a long conservative pedigree as scion of the (now-defunct) Democratic Leadership Committee, the same corporatist outfit which more or less gave Joe Lieberman a reason for being. I won’t spill a lot of electrons on him right now, but I’m sure commenters will regale you with his greatest hits. I am somewhat surprised to see his favorables are so strong (51-30), despite running in a nasty special election last year which tarnished both Djou (40-47) and Hanabusa (45-41).

But while these numbers might offer Case an “electability” argument, all Dems are clearly capable of winning – and what’s more, Case would have to make it out of a primary first. So it’s important to look at each Dem’s favorables among members of their own party:

Hirono: 72-16

Hanabusa: 65-19

Case: 50-30

Hannemann: 44-44

That’s going to be tough for Case to pull off (and Hannemann, too – his negative primary against Abercrombie last year seems to be hurting him). But Hirono and Hanabusa should talk, though, and figure out which of them ought to run, because in a multi-way race, Case could definitely sneak through, and we definitely do not want that.

Senate:

• AZ-Sen: Jeff Flake then:

That’s the difficulty of a campaign. I mean, it’s easy to just say, “Seal the border and enforce the law.” What does that really mean? What does that entail? And when you’re able to explain it, then they’re alright. And I think for those who don’t agree with my position-think that it ought to be something different-at least I think they give me a little credit for sticking with my position because I’ve always believed this is what we need and I continue to believe regardless of the political environment.

Jeff Flake now:

In the past I have supported a broad approach to immigration reform – increased border security coupled with a temporary worker program. I no longer do. I’ve been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable, given the current leadership.

In other AZ news, the subscription-only Arizona Guardian says that ex-Rep. Matt Salmon may endorse Rep. Trent Franks, rather than his old buddy Flake (who succeeded him in Congress when he unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2002), something they characterize as a “snub” on their home page. Franks of course hasn’t announced a run yet, but Dave Catanese claims he’ll do so this Saturday. Just hope whoever told Dave this is more truthful than the dipshit who dissembled about Connie Mack last week. (And I still maintain that Dave had every right-if not an obligation-to burn that source.)

• FL-Sen: Adam Hasner has to be feeling pretty good about himself these days. Rep. Connie Mack inartfully bowed out of the race, and Mike Haridopolos has already scored a few own-goals. So the former state House Majority Leader took to his Facebook to declare that “this election still needs a proven limited government leader, who is solid across the board on the conservative principles.” Why golly, that sounds just like Hasner, doesn’t it?

• IN-Sen, IN-02: Rep. Joe Donnelly sure sounds like he’s interested in running for Senate. He told Robert Annis, a reporter for the Indianapolis Star, that he thinks his “experience is best served in the Senate.” Annis also characterized Donnelly as “leaning toward” a run. A different reporter at the same event characterized him as “leaning strongly toward” a Senate bid if the GOP makes his current district redder.

• MI-Sen: PPP has the remainders from their Michigan poll last week, a kitchen sink GOP primary:

Pete Hoekstra is the clear first choice of Republicans in the state for who they’d like as their nominee to take on Debbie Stabenow next year. 38% say he’d be their pick compared to 18% for Terri Lynn Land. No one else cracks double digits, with Saul Anuzis at 5%, Justin Amash, Randy Hekman, and Tim Walberg at 4%, Chad Dewey at 3%, and Tim Leuliette with the big egg at 0%.

Speaking of The Hook, he said he’ll decide whether to challenge Stabenow in two weeks. In an amusing side note, Hoekstra admitted he got all butthurt when MI GOP chair Bobby Schostak said in a recent interview that he expects a candidate to emerge who is ” head and shoulders” above the current crop of potentials-a group which obviously includes Hoekstra. Of course, Schostak also said of this mystery candidates: “I don’t know who it is. They haven’t met with me yet, if they’re out there.” We don’t know who they are either!

• NV-Sen: Rep. Dean Heller, presumably trying to scare off would-be primary opponents, raised a pretty massive $125K in a single event in Vegas on Monday night.

• OH-Sen, OH-12: This is… getting strange. Top-tier Ohio Republicans have all pretty much taken a pass on challenging Sherrod Brown, or at least seem to be leaning against a run. But one guy all of a sudden put his name into the hopper: Rep. Pat Tiberi, who sits in the very swingish 12th CD. Tiberi’s spokesman made sure to remind Dave Catanese that he’s on Ways & Means, though, so that’s a pretty tasty perch to give up. Catanese also notes that state Sen. Kevin Coughlin is preparing a run.

• RI-Sen: I guess rich guy Barry Hinckley is running against Sheldon Whitehouse? The founder of a software company called Bullhorn (“the global leader in On Demand, integrated front office software for the staffing and recruiting industry”), Hinckley is apparently trying to burnish his Republican credentials by holding some fundraisers at California yacht clubs. (Not joking about that.)

Gubernatorial:

• LA-Gov: 2010 Lt. Gov. nominee Caroline Fayard is starting to sound very much like a gubernatorial candidate… that is, if you can hear her over her foot-stuffed-in-mouth. She didn’t do much to help her cause by declaring at a recent even that she “hates Republicans” because they are “cruel” and “eat their young.” (Uh, I talk a lot of shit about the GOP, but what does “eat their young” even mean?) Fayard later tried to wiggle her way out of this by claiming “I’m against the president, but I don’t need to see his birth certificate.” So she’s managed to kill her crossover vote and her support among African Americans in one fell swoop. Well, uh, she sure is getting some free media out of this. (Hat tip: Daily Kingfish)

House:

• CT-05: I guess I thought that former state Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D) had already announced she was running for Chris Murphy’s seat, but apparently she’s only just formed an exploratory committee.

• MN-06: It’s not particularly meaningful, since the funds can be transferred to another federal account, but Michele Bachmann did just file to run for re-election yesterday.

• NY-25, VA-02: Dan Maffei apparently says he’ll decide on a rematch “in the next two months,” while Glenn Nye (I’d forgotten he was still considering) will wait until “sometime in the summer.” (That’s how The Hill phrased it in both cases.)

• RI-01: With the city of Providence’s finances imploding, freshman Rep. David Cicilline is taking a beating over his stewardship of the city he used to be mayor of. Among other things, a new Brown University poll finds him with a statewide approval rating of just 17-49. Could Cicilline be vulnerable in the general election? I doubt it, but he could underperform annoyingly and require help that could best be expended elsewhere, like a Paul Kanjorski. I think he might be more at risk in a primary.

Other Races:

• Wisconsin Recall: In just the last two months, the Wisconsin Democratic Party reports raising $1.4 million-or, a quarter million more than it did in all of 2010. In other news, a coordinator of the petition drive against Randy Hopper seems to have gone off-message with his intimation that volunteers would have “closer to 30,000 than 15,000” signatures by Tuesday (a month before the deadline). 15,269 sigs are needed for the recall to happen, but a spokesperson for the Democratic Party told the Journal Sentinel that these figures (such as they are) “are not accurate” and wouldn’t say more. Quite understandably, t’s pretty much been the policy of the party not to talk about where things stand.

• Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: JoAnne Kloppenburg is out with TV and radio ads that tout her independence.

Remainders:

• WATN?: Artur Davis, douchebag from beyond the grave. This is actually the same link as the NY-25/VA-02 item above; Davis did an event with Maffei and Nye at which he said that President Obama would bear the brunt of the blame for any government shutdown. Davis’s claim: “I think that voters always focus on the executive as the responsible officer.” That’s why Bill Clinton lost so badly in 1996, right?

In other WATN? news, I’m guessing that ex-Rep. Bart Gordon (D) is probably ruling out a run for the seat he voluntarily gave up last year (TN-06), or a Senate bid – he just took a job at the law firm of K&L Gates. (The “Gates” is Bill Gates, Sr., the Microsoft founder’s dad, who is now retired.)

Redistricting Roundup:

• Indiana: Have an idea for an Indiana state Senate map? Sen. Tim Lane (D) wants to hear from you! (Seriously!) Contact information is at the link.

• Louisiana: Even though he had said he’d stay out of it, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s been weighing in on the redistricting process-and Dems, as you might guess, aren’t happy about it. Click through the article to learn more about the exact nature of the dispute. Ultimately, though, it sounds as though Jindal will get his way, which more or less preserves the status quo.

• Funnymanders: What happens when a very careful redistricting job blows up in your face because the state Senate Majority Leader’s son being groomed for the new seat tells the media he can’t even remember being arrested for getting into a dispute over chicken fingers at Applebee’s? Well, I’m calling that a funnymander. Nathan Gonzales has the details on that story, and a few other anecdotes as well, about redistricting gone awry.

• Dark Money: On the darker side of redistricting is all the unregulated cash flooding into various coffers, which Politico takes a look at. A big reason is an FEC decision last year which allowed members of Congress to raise unlimited soft money for redistricting groups, and both Dems and Republicans are, of course, going at it full bore.

AZ-01 (Gosar): 57% White, 21% Native American, 18% Hispanic, 1% Black, 1% Asian – leans Republican but is winnable for Democrats

AZ-02 (Franks): 65% White, 28% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Native American (connects Prescott with Yuma) – Safe Republican

AZ-03 (Quayle): 75% White, 16% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Black, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

AZ-04 (Pastor): 56% Hispanic, 31% White, 6% Black, 3% Asian, 2% Native American (Hispanic VRA district) – Safe Democratic

AZ-05 (Schweikert): 49% White, 35% Hispanic, 6% Black, 4% Asian, 3% Native American (Tempe; connects a small Indian reservation with liberal whites) – Lean to Likely Democratic I think

AZ-06 (Flake): 81% White, 12% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% Black, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

AZ-07 (Grijalva): 53% Hispanic, 33% White, 5% Black, 5% Native American, 2% Asian (VRA District) – probably safe Democratic

AZ-08 (Giffords): 66% White, 25% Hispanic, 3% Black, 3% Asian, 1% Native American  – Safe for Giffords if she runs again; if she doesn’t the Republicans have a good chance of picking this seat up

AZ-09 (New Seat): 69% White, 20% Hispanic, 3.5% Black 2.5% Asian, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

Phoenix close-up (AZ-01 – Gray, AZ-02 – Light Pink, AZ-03 – Purple, AZ-04 – Light Gray, AZ-05 – Yellow, AZ-06 – Green, AZ-07 – Blue, AZ-08 – Neon Green, AZ-09 – Rose)

Tucson close-up

Senate:

• FL-Sen: I was pretty bored with reading the George LeMieux tea leaves even before his cuppa began brewing, but in case you’re not me, the very-short-tenured former senator has been busy attending Lincoln Day dinners and meeting with GOP activists and potential donors. In beltway land, I think this upgrades him from “Lean Run” to “Likely Run.”

• IN-Sen: Treasurer Richard Mourdock is trying to cause some trouble by saying that Gov. Mitch Daniels encouraged him to run against Dick Lugar in the GOP primary, while a Daniels spokesperson said the governor did no such thing. Daniels previously said he’d vote for Lugar, but didn’t exactly endorse him. In other news, Mourdock says he expects to show $125K raised for his race in just a month of campaigning.

Gubernatorial:

• KY-Gov: Dem Gov. Steve Beshear just punked his top opposition in this year’s gubernatorial race, state Senate President David Williams, hard. Williams had insisted on broad spending cuts (including to education) as part of a Medicaid budget bill; the Democratic-controlled House had no interest in these cuts, but Williams refused any possible compromise. So House Dems (and rebellious House Republicans) passed the Williams bill anyway… I know, hang on … but full-well expecting Beshear to use his line-item veto to strike the cuts. Then they adjourned, so that the vetoes couldn’t get over-ridden. And that’s exactly what happened, handing Williams a humiliating defeat.

• WI-Gov: I’m wondering which pollster will finally have the courage to report numbers to the THOUSANDTHS of a percent. For now, we’ll have to content ourselves with Republican-affiliated pollster We Ask America, which bravely ignores all rules about significant digits and goes all the way to hundredths. They show what other polls are showing: that Scott Walker (like other loser Midwestern Republican governors) has crappy job approval ratings, in this case 43.71 to 54.87. YES DECIMALS.

• WV-Gov: The AP has a good run-down on which groups are endorsing whom in the gubernatorial race. On the Dem side, we’ve noted several of the big union heavy hitters, most of whom are backing state House Speaker Rick Thompson. But some important labor groups are supporting other candidates, like state Sen. Jeff Kessler (Fraternal Order of Police, nurses) and Treasurer John Perdue (teamsters, state troopers). Meanwhile, EMILY’s List has endorsed SoS Natalie Tenant. The AP also tried to get candidates to cough up estimates of their fundraising figures (final reports are due Friday), but only acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin responded, saying he’d pulled in about a million bucks.

And speaking of Thompson, he’s apparently the first on TV, with an ad touting his hardscrabble upbringing. By the way, SSP Southern Correspondent Trent Thompson notes that the soundtrack you hear is a Baptist hymn, which seems to be popular among Southern Dems (Bobby Bright featured this sort of thing in his advertising). (UPDATE: Actually, it’s an actually an old Hank Williams gospel song that’s commonly sung in churches.)

House:

• CA-36: It looks like we have the final list of candidate filings for the special election. I count ten Democrats, six Republicans, five “nonpartisan,” two Libertarians (splitter!), and one “Peace and Freedom” candidate. Also, Howard Dean just endorsed Debra Bowen, which is not too surprising given that his former organization, Democracy for America (run by Howard’s brother Jim), also recently endorsed.

• CA-51: Apparently there had been vague rumors that Dem Rep. Bob Filner might run for mayor of San Diego… and now apparently Filner just went and announced he was in fact doing so in a totally off-hand remark after a screening of the film Freedom Riders. (Filner himself was one of the Mississippi Freedom Riders.) There’s been some dispute over whether Filner’s remarks were accurately conveyed, but oddly, Filner’s office has refused to either confirm or deny the statement. Note that the race is in June of next year, so I believe Filner gets a free shot while keeping his House seat.

• TX-23: Not so fast, Quico! Gary Martin of the Houston Chronicle says that Dems are looking at a few potential challengers to freshman GOPer Quico Canseco, including state Rep. Joaquin Castro and Pete Gallego, and state Sen. Carlos Uresti. Ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez is also apparently weighing a rematch. While the borders of the 23rd will undoubtedly shift somewhat, it probably can’t change a whole lot thanks to the VRA (it’s 66% Hispanic), so this race could heat up earlier than many others.

• WI-01: Food service company owner and Kenosha County Supervisor Rob Zerban is apparently interested in challenging GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. Despite his leadership post and his inflexible conservatism, Ryan sits in a very swingish district that can’t really be improved in redistricting for a variety of reasons.

Other Races:

• ME-St. Sen.: The Maine SoS has set May 10th as the date for a special election to fill the seat of state Sen. Larry Bliss (D). The reason for Bliss’s resignation was certainly unusual and quite poignant: He couldn’t find a job in Maine. State legislators work part-time and are only paid $13,000 a year. Bliss said that in the absence of other work, he’d been working as a “full-time” legislator and was really enjoying his job, but he could only find employment in California, prompting his resignation. Of course, this story really isn’t that unusual at all, given how many people are still out of work and struggling terribly. Also of note: Bliss was one of only a handful of openly LGBT state legislators nationwide.

• PA-AG: Longtime Philly DA Lynne Abraham (D), who left office just last year, said she’s considering a run for state AG, despite being 70 years old. (Devoted Swingnuts will recall that ex-Rep. Patrick Murphy is also thinking about a run.) Believe it or not, no Democrat has won the AG’s office since it became an elected position in 1980.

• Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: Unnamed sources tell the National Review they’ve seen polling showing the race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg “near even.”

Remainders:

• Census: Like in NYC, pols in Atlanta are wondering why the new Census numbers for their city are so much lower than expected – 420K vs. a projected 540K. Jacob Alperin-Sherrif (better known to you as DemocraticLuntz) has an excellent post comparing Census projections with actual numbers for cities between 100K and 1 million people. You need to click through for his must-see scatterplot. There is one massive outlier: Atlanta, which is more than six standard deviations away from the mean.

Redistricting Roundup:

• Indiana: Despite total Republican control over the process, it’s starting to look like the Indiana legislature won’t finish their congressional map before the body adjourns on April 29th, largely because of a walk-out by Democrats which ground most work to a halt. But the Democrats just reached what they’re saying is a favorable a deal with the Republicans, so perhaps the process will pick up again soon.

• Iowa: The state’s independent redistricting panel will release the first draft of a new congressional map at 8:15 am local time on Thursday morning.

• Virginia: New maps for Congress, the state House and the state Senate could be released by the legislature today. Stay alert!

Senate:

• HI-Sen: Ex-Rep. Ed Case said he expects to decide by “mid-April” whether he’ll seek Hawaii’s open Senate seat. Case also says that the Merriman River Group took a poll for him and claims he kicked ass in both the primary and general-but he’s only released a couple of selected toplines (click the link if you want them). PPP will have an HI-Sen general election poll out on behalf of Daily Kos/SEIU in the next couple of days.

• ME-Sen: Democrat Hannah Pingree, former Speaker of the state House and daughter of 1st CD Rep. Chellie Pingree, left the state legislature earlier this year. Only 34, she’s lately been managing the family’s inn & restaurant and serving on a local school board, so she seems like a good potential candidate to run for office once again-perhaps even to challenge Sen. Olympia Snowe. But Pingree just gave birth to her first child a week ago, which probably makes her less likely to get back into the game this year.

• MI-Sen: A GOP operative passes along word to Dave Catanese that Pete Hoekstra is turning down the chance to appear at some Lincoln Day dinners-which this source thinks is a sign that Hoekstra isn’t planning to run for Senate. Hoekstra’s would-be pollster (the same guy who was basically spinning lies about PPP last week) vociferously disputes this interpretation. We’ll see, but I personally think Hoekstra is going to tell us he plans to spend more time building turtle fences with his family.

• MT-Sen: Activist Melinda Gopher says she is contemplating a primary challenge to Dem Sen. Jon Tester. She explains her reasoning here. She received 21% of the vote and finished third in the Dem primary for MT-AL last year. I could not find any FEC reports for her.

• ND-Sen, ND-AL: Another good catch by Greg Giroux: ex-Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) just closed his federal campaign account. While it’s not dispositive, of course, this probably means he’s not interested in seeking his old seat, or the retiring Kent Conrad’s spot in the Senate. Note that Pomeroy didn’t completely slam the door on a gubernatorial run, but I’m guessing that’s not terribly likely, either.

• NM-Sen: New Mexico’s Republican Lt. Gov., John Sanchez, sounded very much like a candidate on a recent trip to DC. He spent some time slagging ex-Rep. Heather Wilson (the only declared candidate so far) in an interview with The Hill, criticizing her moderate credentials, but also being careful to try to put a little daylight between himself and the teabaggers. Sanchez indicated he’d decide “in the spring,” and perhaps hinted he’d announce on or around April 15th… because it’s totally not teabaggish to make a fetish out of Tax Day. He also says he’ll be back in Washington next week to meet with the NRSC (this trip was occasioned by a gathering of the all-important National Lieutenant Governors Association).

House:

• FL-22: Ex-Rep. Ron Klein (D) definitively slammed the door on a rematch this cycle, saying he’s “looking forward to the private sector” (he’s taking a job with the law firm of Holland & Knight). But he did hold out the possibility he might return to office some day (he’s only 53). The same article also mentions a new possible Democratic candidate (despite the entrance of West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel in recent days): state Rep. Joseph Abruzzo, who says he’s keeping his options open. (Abruzzo, hardly alone among Democrats, backed Charlie Crist over Kendrick Meek in last year’s Senate race.)

In other news, a firm called Viewpoint Florida released a very questionable poll pitting Rep. Allen West against Frankel. Really, the only reason you’d put out a survey of a district which is guaranteed to get reshaped is because you’re hoping to set a narrative among people who don’t know better (like, say, the tradmed… this piece doesn’t even mention the word “redistricting”). In addition, the poll is way too Republican, and also purports to be of “likely” voters, about one billion years before election day.

• MI-09 (?): The question mark is there because who knows what districts are going to look like, or where state Rep. Marty Knollenberg-who says he’s considering a run for Congress-will wind up when all is said and done. That name ought to sound familiar: Marty’s dad is, of course, George McFly ex-Rep. Joe Knollenberg, who lost to current 9th CD Rep. (and potential redistricting victim) Gary Peters in 2008. Of note, Marty sits on a redistricting committee in the state lege, so maybe a House race is his… density.

• NY-25: This is the kind of news I like to hear! Dan Maffei, who lost a heart-breaker last year, sent an email to supporters saying that he is “strongly considering running again” for his old seat. Maffei was always a great vote and a strong progressive voice, despite his decision to take a job after the election with the annoying “moderate” group Third Way. (I don’t begrudge the guy needing to eat, though, and the market was pretty saturated with one-term Democratic ex-Congressmen in need of a job.) We don’t know how this district will wind up, of course, but I’d be surprised if there were nowhere for Maffei to run.

• NY-26: Teabagger David Bellavia looks pretty doomed-despite having enough signatures (in theory), he failed to file a key piece of paperwork with the Board of Elections, which will probably terminate his candidacy. It’s all the more poignant because, according to this article, the other campaigns said they would not challenge his signatures-and seeing as he submitted just 100 more than the 3,500 target, it’s a good bet he was in the danger zone. (Is it really true that Republican Jane Corwin said this, though?)

Speaking of Corwin, she’s got a third ad out, once again returning to small business themes (as she did in her first spot), rather than the negative attacks in her second ad.

• PA-17: Tim Holden could be in that rare bucket of Democrats who might not actually benefit from their seats being made bluer in redistricting. The conservative Holden could have Lackawanna County added to his district, according to a possible GOP plan, which might open him up to a primary challenge from the left. It would also move a couple of ambitious pols from the county into his district, including Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien (who attempted to primary ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski last year) and Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty. PoliticsPA also says that Holden’s 2010 primary challenger, activist Sheila Dow-Ford, is “rumored” to be considering another run. (Dow-Ford lost 65-35 in a race fueled in large part by Holden’s vote against healthcare reform.)

• VA-05: Last cycle, few establishment figures were as absolutely hated by the teabaggers as now-Rep. Robert Hurt. He won his primary with just 48%, against a typically fractured People’s Front of Judea/Judean People’s Front field. (We really need an acronym for that. PFJJPF, anyone?) The teabaggers have now taken to protesting Hurt’s votes in favor of continuing budget resolutions outside of his district office, but given their feeble efforts to unite around a standard-bearer last time, I’m skeptical that they have the organizational power to threaten Hurt next year.

Other Races:

• Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: The Greater Wisconsin Committee is running a very negative new ad against Republican Justice David Prosser, accusing him of refusing to prosecute a child-molesting priest back when he was a D.A.-and explaining that the same priest went on to molest other kids after a parish transfer.

Remainders:

• Census: New York City pols, led by His Bloomberginess, got wiggy almost immediately after seeing the Census Bureau’s largely stagnant new population figures for the city. Pretty much everyone is convinced that NYC grew by more than 2.1%, because, they say, the bureau undercounted immigrants. And here’s a pretty good supporting piece of data: The city added 170,000 new homes over the last decade, so how could it grow by only 166,000 people? (There are no huge swaths of abandoned properties in New York, though the Census does claim vacancies increased.) As a result, city officials are planning to challenge the figures (which they think should be about a quarter million higher). But it’s worth noting that a similar challenge 20 years ago wound up failing.

• Votes: The New York Times is getting into the party unity score game, finding that (according to their methodology) 14 Dems have voted with Team Blue less than 70% of the time this Congress. It’s pretty much just a list of the remaining white conservative Blue Dogs who sit in red districts, though three names from bluer districts stand out: Dennis Cardoza (CA-18); Jim Costa (CA-20); and Gary Peters (MI-09).

Redistricting Roundup:

• Louisiana: A state Senate committee passed a plan for redistricting its own lines last Thursday; a vote by the full body could come this week. Notably, the new map increases the number of majority-minority districts from 10 to 11. Things are delayed on the House side, though.

• Virginia: A teachable moment in Virginia: Democrats in the state Senate adopted a rule that would limit the population variance in any new maps to no more than ±2%, while Republicans in the state House are using a ±1% standard. This issue often comes up in comments, but it’s simple: For state legislatures, courts have said that a 10% total deviation is an acceptable rule of thumb-that is, if the difference in population between the largest district and the smallest district is no more than ±5% of the size of an ideal district, then you’re okay. However, at least one map which tried to egregiously take advantage of this guideline (total deviation of 9.98%) was nonetheless invalidated, so while the “ten percent rule” is still probably a reasonable safe harbor, it may not be a sure thing. For congressional maps, it’s even simpler: Districts have to be perfectly equipopulous unless the state can justify the difference as necessary to achieve legitimate state policy. (For instance, Iowa state law forbids splitting counties to draw a federal map; this is considered an acceptable goal by the courts, so Iowa’s districts have slight variances.)