Tag: House

Diane Benson, Rep. Don Young’s foe in 2006, just released a new poll (PDF) today showing the scandal-plagued incumbent trailing both Benson and former state House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz, who are vying for the Democratic nomination.  Both Dems also lead Young’s Republican primary challenger, state Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux.

Craciun Research Group for Diane Benson (10/27-11/02):

Diane Benson (D): 45.3%

Don Young (R-inc): 36.7%

Undecided: 15.6%

Ethan Berkowitz (D): 49.7%

Don Young (R-inc): 35.1%

Undecided: 13.8%

Diane Benson (D): 45.0%

Gabrielle LeDoux (R): 12.3%

Undecided: 38.2%

Ethan Berkowitz (D): 49.0%

Gabrielle LeDoux (R):  13.8%

Undecided: 32.9%

(MoE: ±4.9%)

If this poll is remotely accurate, Young is screwed.  An earlier poll, conducted in August by Ivan Moore Research, showed Young trailing Berkowitz by nearly 6 points.  The environment hasn’t exactly improved for young since then, so who knows.

The poll also shows a reasonably close primary race between Benson and Berkowitz, with former Alaska Democratic Party Chair Jake Metcalfe in third:

Ethan Berkowitz (D): 28.6%

Diane Benson (D): 21.1%

Jake Metcalfe (D): 8.3%

Undecided: 33.8%

(MoE: ±5.7%)

Interestingly, 6% of respondents volunteered the name of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, who appears set to challenge Sen. Ted Stevens (R) next year.  Another Ivan Moore poll, released last month, showed Berkowitz leading Benson by a 26 point margin.

This is shaping up to be an explosive race.

PS: Check out Young’s new campaign website.  Get a load of his slogan: “No One Has Done More, No One Will Do More.”  Who does he think he is?  Superman?

We know money and several other factors have major effects on House races.  But after we account for these major factors, how much advantage does incumbency give a candidate?  A gerrymandered district?  Getting caught in a scandal?

Yesterday I showed some regressions for Republican performance in House races for the years 2002, 2004, and 2006 that take account of incumbent party, fundraising ratio, and district partisan makeup.

Using these, we can tell how well we expect a Republican to do given certain conditions.  However, the regressions are not perfect – the data don’t fall along the lines plotted.  There’s plenty of room for other factors to be involved.  We can use the differences between what we expect and what actually happened – the residuals – to tease out the effects of additional conditions.  Below, a pack of factors, from the most important – money, party, district – to the less important ones – incumbency, gerrymandering, longevity – to the more interesting ones – scandal and failure.

Cross posted at Open Left and Daily Kos

How do various factors affect a House candidate’s percentage of vote in the election?  All the following numbers relate to average effects.  Individual results may vary.

The first four are the variables used to predict the expected performance:

1.   High D/R Fundraising Ratio:  +15 points (about 5 points for every factor of 3 increase)

On average, challengers running for a seat currently held by the opposite party will gain 15 points if they outraise their opponent by a factor of three compared to if they raise only one tenth of their opponent’s money, if all other factors are equal.  Note that the D/R Fundraising Ratio is fairly closely correlated to absolute amount of money raised by the challenger, so we can also say that challengers will greatly improve their performance if they raise a great deal of money, regardless of the incumbent’s fundraising.

2.  Running as incumbent party:  +10 points

Candidates running for a seat currently held by their own party (incumbents or open seat candidates) will gain, on average, 10 points compared to if they were running for a seat currently held by the opposite party, if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same.

3.  Running in a more favorable district:  +10 points (1 point for every 3 point change in Bush’s vote in the district)

Democrats running in the most liberal Republican-held districts (Bush vote 40-45%) will gain 10 points compared to Democrats running in the most conservative Republican-held districts (Bush vote 65-75%), if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same.  Democrats running in the moderately liberal Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 30-35%) will gain about 10 points compared to those running in the most conservative Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 60-65%).  

4.  Political climate:  +6 points

On average, Democratic challengers did 6 points better against Republican incumbents in 2006 compared to 2002 (4 points better than 2004) when accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio and district partisan makeup.  Republican challengers did 4 points worse in 2006 compared to 2002.  In other words, Republican money was worth less in 2006 than in 2004 or 2002.  They had to raise more relative to their Democratic opponent to get the same result.

The following comparisons are made by comparing actual performance to calculated performance, accounting for the four factors above: D/R Fundraising Ratio, district composition, incumbent party, and political climate.  The numbers given are average residuals of the regressions.  

5.  Raising more than $2 million as a challenger: +3 points

Remember, this is after accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio.  If both candidates raise the same amount of money, dollar-for-dollar, then the more money a challenger raises, the better the challenger does.  A challenger who raises more than $2 million (and whose opponent also raises more than $2 million) increases performance by about 3 points compared to one who only raises $100,000 (and whose opponent also raises only $100,000).  In other words, high-spending races with fundraising parity are generally to the advantage of the challenger.  (This leads to the strange corollary that the more an incumbent raises given fundraising parity, the worse the incumbent does!) Let me note again, when we do not control for D/R Fundraising Ratio, a challenger who raises a large amount of money will do far, far better than one who raises little money.

6.  Running as an incumbent:  + 2 points

The inherent incumbent advantage after accounting for money, party, district, and climate is not large.  This doesn’t mean running against an incumbent is just as easy as running for an open seat.   However, the incumbency advantage may reside mainly in the ability to scare off opponents and scare off opponents’ donors and supporters.  If a challenger can manage to raise as much money as an incumbent, then the challenger has almost as good a shot as if the challenger were running for an open seat.  However, 2 points is still an important amount.

7.  Running against a first-termer: +1 point

First term incumbents are not much more inherently vulnerable than other incumbents, if at all.  Even those who are in a seat that switched parties.  This doesn’t mean first-termers are safe, because they are more likely to attract high quality opponents with strong fundraising.  When they do, however, they perform only slightly worse than a long-time incumbent under the same circumstances, on average.

8.  Running against a self-funded candidate:  +1 point

On average, running against a self-funded candidate might give a slight advantage.  However, out of the 18 cases I found over the past three cycles, four showed the self-funded candidate underperforming by a massive 8-10 points.  There may be a risk of completely blowing it by self-funding.

9.  Running against a Republican incumbent in a Republican-gerrymandered district: +0 points

Looking at some states that were recently redistricted by Republicans in a partisan manner – FL, PA, MI, OH, VA, TX – there has been no benefit in performance for the Republicans.  There may have been a slight benefit the first cycle after redistricting, followed by a slight underperformance later.  The gerrymandering may have scared off opponents and their donors, however, which would certainly have been an overall benefit for the Republicans.

The following comparisons are specific to a just a few races, so we run into the problem of the statistics of small numbers, and can’t really say what the average effect is.  Also, in many of these races, the incumbent was tangled in more than one variety of misdeed.

10.  Third party candidates:  0 to -15 points

In 2006 there were 16 House races where third party candidates garnered more than 4.5 percent of the vote.  In 11 of these races the Republican underperformed by 4 or more points; in 6 races (2 in MN) the Democratic candidate underperformed by 4 or more points.

11.  The Abramoff scandals:  -1 to -12 points  

Republicans in districts with links to the Abramoff scandal all underperformed: TX-22 (-1),  FL-24 (-3), CA-4 (-4), AK-AL (-6), CA-11 (-7), and OH-18 (-12).

12.  Alleged domestic abuse:  -5 to -6 points

PA-10 (-6), NY-20 (-5):  Not the good kind of press.  

13.  Threatenting your opponent:  -5 points

WY-AL (-5), where Barbara Cubin told an opponent she’d slap him in the face if he weren’t in a wheelchair.  Cubin wasn’t well liked anyway though.

14.  The Delay scandal:  +5 to -6 points

TX-22 (-1), AZ-1 (-2), NC-8 (-6), PA-6 (+5).  Districts related to the Delay scandal don’t seem to have been affected too much, although the Delay scandal certainly affected the national climate.

15.  The Foley scandal:  +1 to -3 points

IL-14 (-2), IL-19 (+1), FL-16 (0), NY-26 (-3).  Again, no obvious severe penalty for those most closely related to the scandal or Foley’s replacement on the ballot, but the scandal contributed to the national political climate.

Overall, these numbers seem to validate the strategy of supporting strong candidates in every district, against every incumbent.  While it is certainly much more difficult for Democratic challengers to win against an incumbent in a conservative district, it is not impossible.  It appears that with enough money, such races will often be competitive or near competitive in the current political climate.  Another way to put it is that the competitive races in conservative districts in 2006 -WY-AL for example- were not simply flukes or outliers, but rather part of a larger pattern that is likely to be repeated in 2008.  

Thanks to Open Secrets, fundraising data is readily available for all House candidates.  This diary sorts through all the House races from the last three cycles to show the effects of money, incumbency, political climate, and party on the elections.  

While money was clearly the most important factor, the big surprise was that once money was accounted for, running against an incumbent was only a little more difficult that running for an open seat, on average.

The effect of relative fundraising strength (the D/R Fundraising Ratio, Democratic $$ raised divided by Republican $$ raised) for all 2006 races is below:

Click to enlarge.

On the far left, when the Democrat raises very little money compared to the Republican (D/R Fundraising Ratio < 0.1), the Republican always wins.  On the far right (D/R Fundraising Ratio > 10), the opposite case.  Much much more below…  

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Open Left.

Sorting Through the Data

First, notice the scale on the bottom of the graph above (and all of the ones to follow) is not linear (1, 2, 3,….) but rather logarithmic (1, 10, 100…).  This is a way of showing a very large range of values on one plot.  The line on the plot above is a smooth curve through the data.  Notice that the curve flattens out at either end – these are the areas where one opponent basically has diddle squat.  It doesn’t make much difference whether you have diddle squat or diddle squat times ten, you still can’t run a very effective campaign (although intriguingly there appears to be some effect).

But wait – is the shape of this curve influenced by the distribution of the partisan makeup of districts?  There is an imbalance in district distributions – far more are very liberal than are very conservative.  So, let’s look at only districts where 50-55% of voters chose Bush in 2000, a particularly large group.  

Click to enlarge.

It’s still a pretty nice curve.  A little lopsided though – so should it really be just one curve?  Let’s plot the data by party of the incumbent:

Click to enlarge.

Party makes a pretty big difference.  

Finally, that flat part – out where somebody is raising diddle squat – just isn’t very interesting if we want to know about the effect of money in competitive or near-competitive races.  Let’s narrow things down to a range that appears to be relatively linear on these plots:

Click to enlarge.

Now we can put up some regressions, instead of just smooth curves.  And, if we add open seats formerly held by Republicans, we see something interesting:  open seats look pretty similar to seats with incumbents in their behavior.  More on this in a minute.

So we see this:  the more money a challenger raises compared to the incumbent, the better the challenger does.  Not shocking, but we have a chicken-and-egg problem:  Do challengers raise more money against some incumbents simply because the incumbents are more unpopular?  In which case, would it be because the incumbents are more unpopular that they are doing worse, not because the challengers are raising more money?

Are Popular Incumbents Vulnerable to Well-Funded Opponents?

To check this, I tried to find Republican incumbents with decent challenges in 2006, who were nonetheless considered to be popular or relatively safe in their districts, and who did not have a strong challenger in either 2002 or 2004.  I used some advice from a couple House experts, polls, and local news sources to choose the following districts:  DE-AL, IA-2, MN-1, MI-8, OH-1, PA-4, VA-10, MT-AL, CO-6, CA-2, KY-2, IN-3.  I could have chosen poorly on some of them but hopefully not all of them.  Here’s a plot of the Republican performance in all these districts over three cycles, adjusted for the national mood (more on that later):

Click to enlarge.

If all the popular incumbents were truly Teflon-coated, then we would expect all the points for all years to fall on a flat line.  Instead, they Republican performance decreases with increasing D/R Fundraising Ratio, just like all the other seats.  Plotted individually, this is also the case for 10 out of the 12 districts (3, randomly chosen, shown here).  In other words, a popular incumbent can be defeated with enough money, just like anybody else.  It is getting the money and the candidate that is the hard part.  

The 2006 Election

So then, let’s look at the 2006 data for Republicans in the competitive range I defined above, divided into categories based on Bush’s support in the district in 2000:

Click to enlarge.

As you can see, in each case there is a decent trend, but it’s not very tight.  In other words, after accounting for the D/R Fundraising Ratio and the partisan makeup of the district, there’s still plenty of room for other factors, including, quite simply, the quality of the candidates.  

It’s also pretty clear that the open seats (which were not included in the regressions) aren’t too different from the seats with incumbents after accounting for the effect of money.  We also see, of course, that the open seat contests are far more likely to have fundraising parity (D/R Fundraising Ratio = 1) or better, which explains (mostly) why they are far more likely to change parties.  In other words, incumbency matters for getting money and chasing off opponents and opponents’ supporters, but if a well-funded opponent shows up anyway, that opponent has nearly as a good a chance (on average) as if they were running for an open seat.

Another interesting thing is that the plots don’t look too different from each other.  

The Last Three Cycles

Let’s look at all the regressions for Republican incumbents, and add in the Democrats, for 2002, 2004, and 2006:

Click to enlarge.

It’s hard to tell the lines apart in the graphs, but that is my point.  There is surprisingly little difference between the regressions!  Some of the lines are a little funny looking, but they are the ones based on only a small number of points (especially the ones for the most liberal districts).  Republicans in very conservative districts perform better than those in moderate districts, given the same D/R Fundraising Ratio, but not 30 points better.

We can also see a difference between the years.  The regressions generally shifted down in 2006 compared to 2002 or 2004.  This means that the Democrats’ money was more effective in 2006, and the Republicans’ money was less effective.  This is why predicting electoral success based on fundraising alone, extrapolated from 2002 and 2004 results, failed.

And, of course, the party of the current occupant makes a difference.  If both candidates in a race raise the same amount of money, a Republican incumbent, or a Republican contestant in a Republican-held open seat, will (on average) score a good deal higher than a Republican challenger in a district with a similar partisan makeup.

Conclusions

Tomorrow, I will continue looking at the House races by exploring 15 factors and how they affected candidate performance between 2002 and 2006.  In the meantime, we can say the following:



1.  Money matters a great deal.  

2.  Safe incumbents are not really safe if a well-funded challenger runs against them.

3.  Voters have a habit of voting for the party of the current representative, whether the incumbent is running or not.

4.  The partisan make-up of the district matters, but not as much as one might have expected.

5.  The national political mood matters, and right now, it is still surging against Republicans.

Just when the GOP is starting to catch some small breaks in the Senate, the situation in the House is rapidly deteriorating. As many had predicted, a growing number of Republican representatives do not find the prospect of life in the minority appealing and are calling it quits. Unfortunately for Republicans, a large majority of them represent competitive districts. The latest retirement were particularly shocking because they were completely unexpected — especially Rep. Ferguson’s in NJ-07. Democrats have golden opportunities to pick-up all of these seats, especially if the environment continues to favor them. But this also means Republicans will be forced to play defense and will not be able to contest that many Democratic-held seats, no matter how vulnerable they might be.

The situation is made much worse for Republicans by the awful financial situation they are in. As of the end of October, the NRCC is still a million in debt, while the DCCC has 27 million dollars. That’s nearly a 30 million dollar gap, which will have a significant impact on next year’s results. The RNC will have to concentrate on the presidential elections and will have a limited ability to help the NRCC out. This means that the DCCC has the ability to play offense in many seats, expand the map, and protect its own seats — while the Republicans will probably end up having to concede some of their open seat and choose which select Democratic seats they are going after.

As a result, many of the freshmen Democrats who looked very vulnerable last year are likely to survive, though the GOP will no doubt be able to claim some of its very conservative seats back, starting with FL-16 and TX-22; they also got some good news this month when the Democratic challenger in MT-AL withdrew, as unpopular Rep. Cubin retired in Wyoming, and as they made Indiana’s 7th district much more competitive. But six of the seven race that are rated more vulnerable this month are Republican, underscoring the steady stream of bad news for the GOP.

I have only written full descriptions of seats that have made news over the past month. For detailed descriptions of the other races, check last month’s rankings. Only a few seats saw their rating change in the past month. I indicated upgraded or downgraded next to them to indicate whether they became more vulnerable or less vulnerable for the incumbent party. Here is the quick run-down:

• Less vulnerable: CT-2, NY-19, WY-AL
  
• More vulnerable: AK-AL, IL-06, IL-11, IN-07, KY-02, NJ-07, OH-05
  

Outlook: Democrats pick-up 7-12 seats.

The October ratings are available here.

Republican seats, Lean take-over (5)

• AZ-1 (Open)
  
• CA-4 (Rep. Doolittle): Republicans might finally be getting what they want here, as some rumors are starting to circulate that ethically (very) challenged Doolittle might be finally ready to announce his retirement. If he does, this race will significantly drop down the rankings; but if Doolittle stays in the race, this is a sure a pick-up for the Democrats’ Brown.
  
• IL-11 (Open, upgraded): The filing deadline has already passed in Illinois (it’s the first in the country), and Republicans did not manage to recruit a top-tier candidate. They are fielding the Mayor of New Lenox and an ex-Bush White House official; both could be good candidates and make the race competitive, but Democrats have to be considered slightly favored since they convinced a reluctant Debbie Halvorson, the State Majority Leader, to run.
  
• NM-1 (Open): 2006 nominee Patricia Madrid announced she would not run again, making Albuquerque councilman Heinrich the likely Democratic nominee. Republicans are confident that their nominee, sheriff White, is strong and will run much stronger than other Republicans would. If that is confirmed by independent indicators and polls, the race will be downgraded, but the fact that the district is naturally competitive (it narrowly went for Kerry in 2004) combined with the sour national environment for Republicans makes Heinrich the early favorite.
  
• OH-15 (Open): The GOP finally got some much needed good news in this race. Democrats had united behind their 2006 nominee Mary Jo Kilroy, but all Republicans who might have made this race competitive declined to run one after another, making this the top pick-up opportunity in the country for Democrats. But the GOP finally convinced a strong candidate who had initially passed on the race to get in: state Senator Steve Strivers. They ensured that the race remains competitive; but given that OH-15 is very tight in the first place, that the environment is toxic for the GOP and that Kilroy came within a few thousand votes of unsitting an entranced incumbent in 2006, Democrats are still favored.
  

Democratic seats, Lean take-over (1)

• FL-16 (Rep. Mahoney)

Republican seats, Toss-up (14)

• AK-AL (Rep. Young, upgraded): A new poll shows just how disastrous Young’s approval rating has become as he is involved in a corruption probe that has claimed many other Republican congressmen. Democrats have a few candidates, and an October poll showed former state Senator Ethan Berkowitz leading Young.
  
• CO-4 (Rep. Musgrave)
  
• CT-4 (Rep. Shays)
  
• IL-10 (Rep. Kirk): A recent primary poll has Dan Seals crushing Footlik in the Democratic primary for the right to take on Republican Kirk, who sits on a  very competitive district. Seals got 47% in 2006 with the national party paying little attention, but he will receive lots of help from the DCCC this time.
  
• MN-03 (Open):
  
• NC-8 (Rep. Hayes)
• NJ-03 (open): In the first New Jersey surprise, Rep. Saxton announced he would not run for re-election in early November giving a major opening to Democrats in a district that Bush won by only 3% in 2004. Democrats were already excited about this race before Saxton’s retirement, and they believe that state Senator John Adler is a very strong candidate who will carry the district. Republicans do have a solid bench here though, and are looking to get state Senator Diane Allen in.
  
• NJ-07 (open): Rep. Ferguson’s retirement was perhaps the biggest surprise of this year’s House cycle. He opens up a very competitive district that Bush won with 49% in 2000 and 53% in 2004. Democrats appear united behind state Assemblywoman Linda Stender who came within a point of beating Ferguson in 2006. The GOP is having a harder time at recruitment, as its three top choices (especially Tom Kean Jr.) announced they would not run within a few days of Ferguson’s retirement. Republicans better find a good candidate fast, or they will be looking at a certain Democratic pick-up.
  
• OH-1 (Rep. Chabot)
  
• OH-16 (Open):
  
• NY-25 (Rep. Walsh)
  
• PA-6 (Rep. Gerlach)
• VA-11 (Rep. Davis): Whether or not Tom Davis retires, this race is sure to be very competitive. Davis’s wife Jeannemarie massively lost a re-election race to the state Senate last month in a contest that cost millions of dollars, proving that Davis will have a very tough fight on his hand next year if he runs again in a region that has been rapidly trending their way. If Davis retires (and he was supposed to run for Senate and leave the seat open until about a month ago), this will automatically jump up to the top of the Democratic pick-up list. Does his wife’s loss make him more or less likely to run again?
  
• WA-8 (Rep. Reichert): Democrats are clearly confident they can take Reichert down in a rematch of the 2006 race against Demcorat Burner. They recently filed an FEC complaint over Reichert’s fundraising, hoping to get the incumbent in ethical trouble. They did not manage to tie him quite enough with the GOP brand in 2006.
  

Democratic seats, Toss-up (11)

• CA-11 (Rep. McNerney)
• GA-8 (Rep. Marshall)
• IL-8 (Rep. Bean)
• IN-7 (Rep. Carson, upgraded): This is a very Democratic district, that Kerry carried with 58%. But Rep. Carson has had health problems and has rarely been in the House in the past few years — nor has she campaigned very actively. Her 2006 re-election was surprisingly narrow, and Republicans have recruited state Rep. Jon Elrod, who they believe will be the ideal candidate to take down Carson. This race could be an unlikely pick-up for the GOP if Carson runs for re-election; if she retires, it could be easier for Democrats to hold.
  
• IN-09 (Rep. Hill): Rep. Hill and Republican Sodrel are running against each other for the fourth straight time. Voters know both of them at this point, and there is little they can do this early to change the dynamics.
  
• KS-2 (Rep. Boyda)
  
• NH-1 (Rep. Shea-Porter): Republicans are preparing for a primary between ousted 2006 congressman Bradley and the former HHS commissioner; but if Shea-Porter won last year with no money and no national attention, how vulnerable could she be now as an incumbent.
  
• OH-18 (Rep. Space)
  
• PA-4 (Rep. Altmire)
  
• PA-10 (Rep. Carney)
  
• TX-22 (Rep. Lampson): This race is deemed by many the most vulnerable seat held by a Democrat. But the strongest Republicans passed on the race, giving at least some pause to those who have long predicted Lampson is a one-timer. They might very well be right, but we shall wait until the GOP field yields its nominee to reassess the situation.

The race of the rankings, including all the “lean retention” and “potentially competitive” rated seats, is available here, at Campaign Diaries.

The DCCC and the NRCC have filed their monthly financial reports with the FEC, and the news is still bleak for House Republicans. The GOP must like their favorite color quite a bit, because their House committee is still stuck in the red:

Committee	Raised	Spent	Cash on Hand	Debt
DCCC	$4.1M	$3.2M	$29.2M	$2.1M
NRCC	$3.6M	$2.6M	$2.6M	$3.6M

Jon Singer over at MyDD has more numbers, including the 2-to-1 cash-on-hand edge that the DSCC is enjoying over the NRSC.

(From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

I’ll start by showing the Permanent Republican Majority in its current form in the House – the distribution of seats according to the percent of the vote Bush had in 2000 in each district.  I’ve added a smooth curve through the data:

Click to enlarge.

Here’s the distribution of Democratic House seats:

Click to enlarge.

The Blue Wave of the Democrats is clearly eroding that red cliff.  And there’s a good 60 or so Republicans – some in oh-so-carefully gerrymandered districts – teetering right on the edge.  it looks like a couple dozen have fallen in. 

Below, the evolution of the House from 1993 to today, and a bit about redistricting. 

Cross posted at Open Left and Daily Kos.

Here’s both parties together, represented just by the curves:

Click to enlarge.

Here’s a little animation showing the distribution of House seats from 1993 to now:

Click to animate.

Here’s each year separately: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005.

There is a problem with these charts, and that is the ideological composition of the districts is not static.  Populations change.  From 1990-2000, though, only 10% of counties had a change in population of more than 30%, so we’re probably pretty safe extending the use of 2000 data seven years forward and back.  As far as where people fall on the political spectrum, let’s assume for now that nobody changes their minds about their values.  Furthermore, we’ll use the 2000 vote as a proxy for the conservative/liberal spectrum; in this case, we have good numbers from the 2000 exit polls showing 80% of liberals voted for Gore and 81% of conservatives voted for Bush.

The most striking thing is to watch the evolution of the Republican party as it narrows to a right-wing faction.  In 1993, the country had a center/right party (Republicans) and a center/left/urban party (Democrats).  Democrats and Republicans were both ‘big tent’ parties, for better or for worse (Democrats had a few bugs in the tent lining).  In 1994, the Republicans made gains deep into moderate territory.  From 1996 to 2004, the parties generally poached seats held by the other party in their own turf, followed by Democrats consolidating seats below 50% and pushing into Republican territory in 2006.  Now, Democrats have a slightly smaller tent with some dogs tied to the outside, but Republicans only have a lean-to, albeit a tall lean-to.  Democrats still manage to elect Representatives from nearly the entire spectrum of districts in the country, which certainly helps explain why it is so difficult for Democrats to govern.  Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, are nearly extinct.  The overlap between the two parties has grown smaller as well over the years, which is probably linked to the increase in partisanship.

There is quite a change in 2002 as a result of redistricting.  Let’s look at the total distribution of seats, Republican and Democrat, before and after redistricting:

Click to enlarge.

Wow!  What an ? interesting change.  Prior to the 2000 census redistricting, we see a distribution that is common for all sorts of measurements – similar to the well-known bell curve, but skewed to one side – plus a little bump at the left for urban districts.  There are no districts that come anywhere near to being as far to the right as the urban core districts are to the left.  Even if you squeeze all the most conservative counties in the country into a few districts, you could only create two or three districts with an 80-90% level of support for Bush in 2000.  If we judge by the range of districts, then, the nation’s middle is at 45% – squarely captured by Democrats.  We represent moderation. 

Then came the redistricting.  The strategy of Republicans is clear:  push as many seats as possible just over the 50% line.  Now we have a strange distribution that looks like a camel that was swallowed by a snake.  This should have worked perfectly to ensure a Permanent Republican Majority.  Right?

Clearly not.  From the animation above, we see the Blue Wave washing right over the 50% line and sweeping seats into the sea.  The question is, was this a one-time event, or a first step?  Current conditions indicate the wave is still there today.  Next year – who knows?

Once Republicans were safely ensconced in their supposedly safe districts, did the party calculate that it could shift even further to the right without penalty?  Did it figure it could ditch the party moderates and pick up the remaining districts that voted for Bush?  Based on the hubris of Karl “The Math” Rove, it very may well have.  And that may have been part of its undoing. 

Inspired by this comment thread, and attempted only half in jest.

1) has been elected to some office with a constituency larger than 30,000 people, AND did not disgrace him/herself

OR

2) has been appointed to some office with a constituency larger than 100,000 people, AND did not disgrace him/herself

OR

3) has been in a top-three leadership position in a medium-size or larger private business, AND did not disgrace him/herself

OR

4) has been in a top-twelve leadership position in a HUGE well-connected private business, AND did not disgrace him/herself

OR

5) has been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan AND can speak in complete sentences

OR

6) has been a “glamour working class” person such as high school teacher (male only), firefighter, high-ranking cop, non-deployed military, doctor,  etc AND is extremely hardworking OR is charismatic with a rich buddy in the background

OR

7) is really fucking rich, AND not certifiably insane (inherited wealth ok)

OR

8) is not really fucking rich, and has no obvious qualifications at all, but has a coterie of really fucking rich buddies (see: Newsom, Gavin)

OR

9) has no obviously significant qualifications, AND no pre-existing social connections to the ruling class, BUT seems dumb enough to be malleable AND belongs to electorally significant demographic group

OR

10) is the kid of anyone who has ever been elected to federal or statewide office, ever

OR

11) is married to anyone who has ever been elected to federal or statewide office, ever

OR

12) was the chief-of-staff, finance director, political director, communications director, or (if exceptionally attractive) legislative director of anyone elected to federal or statewide office, ever

OR

13) worked in the DAs office and knows exactly who is laundering the drug money, and how

OR

14) has been in grassroots/outsider politics long enough to really know what the fuck they’re doing

OR

15) works at one of the super-juiced NGOs/nonprofits in a top-three position, AND did not disgrace him/herself

OR

16) held an obnoxiously high position in the executive (or, if absolutely necessary, judicial) branch, especially the White House or Pentagon

………AND (to all of the above)

people who are involved in politics in your county should probably know who the fuck you are already.

Extra points to candidates in any category for:

A) being attractive
B) being articulate
C) having a beautiful family
D) divorce records sealed
E) not having obvious unsavory associates
F) no one has any pictures of you smoking dope
G) you know the county judge and can get that DWI record sealed
H) membership in electorally significant demographic group, ideally one without a populous enemy group in-district
I) you have pictures of Rahm Emanuel smoking dope
J) you’re willing to hire whatever super-juiced political consultant the powers-that-be tell you to hire, and you’re willing to say whatever the hell that consultant tells you to say, no matter how obviously inane or off-point
K) you can smile convincingly and play outraged compellingly while doing J

——————

I think that algorithm covers almost everyone who’s ever been elected in a non-fluke election, as well as a bunch of the obviously unelectable people whom we’ve been forced to pretend are “credible.”

That was a lot of fun.

Comments?

Matching people up to the parameters, or finding candidates who don’t fit any of them, can be a lot of fun.  Give it a whirl.  Play with candidates or suggest parameters that I obviously missed.

Wow, this would be huge:

Multiple sources in Western New York politics have confirmed that there is a strong possibility that Cong. Tom Reynolds (R-Erie) will not run for a sixth term next year, opening up a race for the seat by State Sen. George Maziarz (R-Niagara), thus placing Maziarz’ seat up for grabs.

Rumors of a potential Reynolds departure and a Maziarz play for a congressional seat have been flying around political circles in Buffalo and Niagara Falls for months, though Reynolds spokesman L.D. Platt denies the rumors and says the congressman will run again.

Tom Reynolds?  He wasn’t even on the watch list!  I suppose barely winning a House race against a total crank last year amid news that he covered up for Mark Foley, all while losing the House under his tenure at the NRCC could be enough to seriously take the wind out of his sails.

This seat leans Republican on the Presidential level, with a PVI of R+3.5, but Democrats already have a challenger ready to go, Iraq Vet Jon Powers.  With Reynolds out of the picture, Powers would have an immediate (if perhaps temporary) fundraising advantage over the GOP successor, and spread the NRCC’s defenses even thinner.

Stay tuned.

(H/T: The Albany Project)

Last month, we wrote about the DCCC’s efforts to recruit challengers for the south Florida districts represented by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the infamous Diaz-Balart brothers (Mario and Lincoln).  Democrats are looking to line up former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez to take on Lincoln, and he is supposed to make a decision sometime this month on the race.

But what of the other two districts?  I have yet to hear a rumored candidate to take on Ros-Lehtinen, but there is one name floating around to take on Mario Diaz-Balart: Joe García, former executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation and current Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair.  (You can read more about him here and here.)  Garcia has been working to recruit strong challengers in these districts, but even went so far as to suggest that he could step up to the plate in a recent interview:

Miami-Dade County Democratic Party Chairman Joe Garcia and other Miami Democrats insist the hard-line approach to Cuba taken by Diaz-Balart is wearing thin, while GOP strategists say those policies remain popular.

Garcia is seeking candidates who are well-respected in the Cuban community but who disagree with the hard-line approach taken by the three Republican incumbents on key issues related to Cuba, such as their support for travel restrictions imposed by the Bush administration that allow Cuban-Americans to visit close relatives in Cuba once every three years. […]

Garcia himself is thought to be a potential candidate, and in an interview said he’d consider a race if his party asks him.

Well, it looks like people are starting to ask him.

I think this could be a fun race, and I don’t think that the GOP is well-situated to appeal to the Cuban community in the long term, where the Iraq War and S-CHIP are as big of a set of concerns as they are everywhere else.  And, let’s face it, the GOP’s Latino outreach hasn’t been exactly spectacular in recent years.

Will Joe give it a go?

Race Tracker: FL-25

Club For Growth nutcase Bill Sali has another Democratic challenger on his hands: businessman Walt Minnick, a former Senate candidate who lost by 16% to Larry Craig in 1996.  For those keeping score, that’s not a bad performance considering that Bill Clinton won less than 34% of the state’s Presidential vote that year.  Minnick will join ’06 nominee Larry Grant and army vet Rand Lewis in the Democratic primary.

At his announcement speech today, Minnick was joined by former Gov. Cecil Andrus, the last meaningful Democratic figure to hold office in Idaho:

“This is a man who can win in the fall; a man I trust and can be elected in November as Congressman from the first district,” said former Idaho governor and Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus.

Andrus was introducing Walt Minnick, candidate for the Democratic nomination to the House of Representatives, in front of supporters and press this morning in front of the Idaho Historical Museum in downtown Boise.

Minnick’s entry and Andrus’ endorsement comes with this as a backdrop:

After Grant lost to Sali, Idaho Statesman political columnist Dan Popkey quoted a few Idaho Democrats who were angry with Larry Grant for running a lackluster campaign, squandering goodwill with unreturned phone calls and offers of help, not listening to campaign advisors and declining to campaign aggressively against Sali’s far-right philosophies.

Some Democrats think Popkey’s column opened the door for party members to talk about their disappointment with Grant, leaving room for a challenge primary.

While the ripest year to beat Sali was 2006, it’s certainly a change of pace to see a three-way primary for a House seat in Idaho.  Perhaps this race could get interesting later down the line.