Tag: Missouri

Okay, so as my first diary, I’m sure this is overly long, but I wanted to add a lot of data and analysis as I could because I am relentlessly geeky.

So read on, if you dare…

Shout-out: Dave’s Redistricting App.

Missouri Congressional districts Post-2010 Census

With Missouri most likely dropping a seat and with the redistricting authority evenly split between the Democratic Governor and Republican Legislature, incumbency protection and relatively even numbers of safe and swing districts should be considered priorities. Plus, with the political battles likely to be intense enough to be settled by an independent-ish panel, I figured that drawing geographically-sensical boundaries would also be important.

Therefore, I tried to keep each county in the same district (which I did successfully, barring the expected biggies–Kansas City’s Jackson and St. Louis city and county). This was done as a proxy for the “communities of interest” standard that seems to crop up when redistricting time rolls around, but I ain’t a lawyer and don’t know about no redistrictin’.  

An added bonus of this map is that each area is contiguous and geographically-sensible. Finally, in terms of population, each of the 8 districts clocks in around 739,000 using the awesome Dave App’s “Use New Pop Est” feature. The biggest variance is less than 5,000 + or – and I figure some changes from the estimate are to be expected, so some tussling around the edges should be expected. The counties of Gasconade, Crawford, Phelps, Dent, Iron, St. Francois, Montgomery and St. Clair could all be shifted between at least 3 Congressional districts to equalize populations and still be a part of pretty sensible, contiguous districts. So what I’m trying for is a good working template for starting negotiations.

Relevant recent races:

Governor – 2008 — Democrat Jay Nixon vs. Republican Kenny Hulshof 58.4-39.5

Longtime Attorney General Jay Nixon stomped the lackluster Hulshof (after Sarah Steelman weakened him severely in the primary). I use this as a sort of shorthand for what a reasonably strong Democrat could potentially do. (although some Congressmen like Ike Skelton defy the odds even further once they’re entrenched incumbents). Basically, a solid, local but new-to-a-seat Democrat could outpoll Nixon by a few points, perhaps, but not much more.

President – 2008 — Democrat Barack Obama vs. Republican John McCain 50-50

Missouri’s bellweather status ended when McCain took a 4,000 vote victory over Obama out of almost 3 million ballots cast (ftr, national average was 53-47-ish). It’s an interesting shorthand for outsiders, but its variance from the Nixon numbers is an important insight into the actual voters of a county.

With that, here we go….

St. Louis Close-Up

———–

Blue-District 1: Rep. Clay, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old Cook PVI: D+27

Gains: much of the city of St. Charles, plus that county’s eastern reaches

Loses: fairly small parts of St. Louis county & St. Louis proper

Keeps: Half of St. Louis proper, northeast chunk of St. Louis county

Analysis: As drawn, the massively-Dem PVI will shrink, but only modestly, probably to around D+16 or so. I would expect neighborhood tweaks because STL is the most densely-populated part of the state. Instead of black-majority, this district will be almost evenly matched, about 51% white to 42% black according to the app, but I’m going out on a limb and saying that shifts in population (ie-the inner suburbs getting more racially-mixed) will make this really, really close by the time the Census is held.

Effectively, St. Charles may tip the racial balance, but likely not the political one. Clay, one of MO’s two African-American Congressmen, should definitely be safe in this district, whatever its racial makeup. If the Voting Rights Act requires a black district, it should be easy enough to shift a few precincts on the margins (ie-losing parts of St. Charles, adding parts of STL) to bump it up to 50% black.

———————-

Green-District 2: Todd Akin, R

Old PVI: R+9

Residence: Town & Country

Gains: Montgomery County (pop. 12,000), Warren Co. (30,000), Franklin (100,000), Crawford (23,000), Washington (23,000), Iron (10,000), southwestern St. Charles county

Loses: Lincoln county (pop. 51,500), eastern St. Charles county

Keeps: Most of St. Charles county (though not St. Charles itself) and southwest St. Louis county

Franklin:   Obama-McCain 43-55, Nixon-Hulshof 51-47

Warren: Obama-McCain 43-56, Nixon-Hulshof 49-49

Washington:  Obama-McCain tie (5-vote margin), Nixon vs. Hulshof 67-31

Crawford: Obama-McCain 40-60, Nixon-Hulshof 52-46

Iron: Nixon-Hulshof 64-33, Obama-McCain 50-47

Analysis: Akin keeps most of his base in the western and southern sections of St. Louis county, but he loses part of St. Charles and picks up a set of rural-ish counties in return. Those rural-ish counties aren’t quite as Republican-friendly as he’d like–Obama won Washington & Iron, and stayed competitive in the rest, while Dem Gov. Nixon did very well in all of them.

The rural counties provide about 200,000 residents, while suburbanites (read: most of Akin’s base) make up the rest of this district. Akin is weakened, but only slightly. This should count as a “safe Republican” seat, especially because most of the St. Charles areas I removed are the swingiest parts of the county.

————

Purple-District 3: Russ Carnahan, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old PVI: D+7

Gains: A few more bits of St. Louis, plus St. Francois & Perry counties

–St. Francois county, pop. 63,000

Nixon-Hulshof 64-35

McCain-Obama won 51.5-47

–Perry county, pop. 18,800

Hulshof-Nixon 52-46

McCain-Obama 64-35

Loses: Not too much–a few St. Louis county and city neighborhoods where borders were tweaked.

Keeps: The aforementioned, Ste. Genevieve, Jefferson, southeastern bits of St. Louis county, roughly half of St. Louis proper

Analysis: The bits of urban St. Louis added to this district keep it from leaning too far right, and St. Francois is actually fairly moderate–Jay Nixon outperformed his statewide average here. Conservative Perry County is too small to have much effect. Carnahan should be able to hold this district.  

————-

Red-District 4: Ike Skelton, D

Residence: Lexington (Lafayette County)

Old PVI: R+14 (Obama 38-McCain 61)

Gains: Howard, Cooper, Boone, Callaway, Osage, Maries, Phelps, Gasconade, plus the south & eastern suburbs of Jackson County (Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Lone Jack)

Loses: Barton, Vernon, Dade, Cedar, part of Polk, Dallas, Webster, Laclede, Pulaski, Camden, Ray

Keeps: Lafayette, Johnson, Henry, Pettis, Saline, Morgan, Moniteau, Cole

Analysis: This district sees some big changes to make it the probably the most swing-tastic of the new map. While Skelton can easily hold the old MO-4, it’s unlikely another Democrat could. The new MO-4 changes that to an extent, refocusing the district on the mid-section of Missouri, linking the Kansas City suburbs to Columbia and Jefferson City. In terms of community interests, it could be the “River District”, as it roughly follows the outline of the Missouri River through the middle of Missouri. But notice what else it is–an education/govt/services district. Behold….

Boone County (155,000): O-Mc 55-43, Nix-Hul 55-43  –>Columbia (MU, 30,000 students)

Cole (70,000): O-Mc 36-63, Nix-Hul 49-50  —> Jeff City (state capitol)

Johnson (50,000): O-Mc 43-55, Nix-Hul 54-43   —> Warrensburg (UCM, formerly CMSU, 10,000 students)

Phelps (43,000): O-Mc 38-60, Nix-Hul 53-44  —> Rolla (6500 students)

Pettis (40,000): O-Mc 38-60.5, Nix-Hul 55-43   —> Sedalia, state fair/services

Callaway (40,000): O-Mc 40-59, Nix-Hul 49-50 —> Fulton? Jeff City suburbs

Saline (24,000): O-Mc 48-50, Nix-Hul 57-33  —> Marshall, Missouri Valley College, 1500-ish students

Morgan (21,000): Nix-Hul 50-48

Cooper (17,000): Nix-Hul 46-52

Gasconade (15,000)

Moniteau (15,000)

Howard (10,000)

Maries (9,000)

——-

Yellow-District 5: Emanuel Cleaver

Residence: Kansas City

Old PVI: D+10

Gains: most of Cass county, all of Bates

Loses: Modest bits of southeastern suburbs of KC, like Lee’s Summit

Keeps: Most of Jackson County (Kansas City)

Analysis: Lost suburban bits compensated by swaps from northern suburbs, and the overwhelming urban tilt cancels the Cass/Bates suburban/rural tinge–no huge changes here and geographically it’s pretty similar, with mostly changes at the margins. Remains an urban district, perhaps now a smidge more conservative for a left-ish Dem like Cleaver, the former mayor of Kansas City, but still a pretty safe Dem seat.

Population centers: urban Kansas City, which went for Obama 78-21, is the majority of this district.

Cass County: Mc-O 60-40, Nix-Hul 52-46

Bates County: Mc-O 58-40, Nix-Hul 55-42

————

District 6: Sam Graves

Residence: Tarkio

Old PVI: R+7 (Bush-Kerry 57-43)

Gains: Practically every county in northern Missouri

Loses: Some Kansas City suburbs- wealthy Blue Springs and the closer-in Clay county districts

New PVI: Much more heavily Republican, probably R+15-20

Analysis: It’s the northern Missouri exurban-rural district, stretching from the northern Kansas City suburbs all the way to the outskirts of St. Louis. It becomes a blood-red district … Sam Graves is safe here as long as he wants. It’s perhaps not quite as ironclad as numbers might suggest–Nixon won a number of these counties, especially the ones that have higher populations (Buchanan, Platte, Clay). But the northeast is especially Republican and Sam Graves or a competent Republican should have no trouble holding this heavily-stacked district.

Main population centers: St. Joseph, Kansas City suburbs (Platte/Clay), rural northern Missouri

————

District 7: Roy Blunt (until the next election)

Old PVI: R+17

Gains: Barton, Vernon, Cedar, Dade, half of Taney

Loses: Polk

New PVI: Probably about the same, still heavily Republican

Analysis: It may not technically have the highest number of Republicans in terms of percentage of registered voters, but southwest Missouri is full of religious conservatives and this district will be safely, probably wingnuttily-Republican. But then again, it pretty much was before, so no major changes here. The borders expand modestly, but the flavor remains the same.

Main population centers are Joplin, Springfield and Branson (whose county, Taney, is now entirely in the 7th).

——–

District 8: Jo Ann Emerson, R

Residence:

Old PVI: R+15

Gains: Webster, Dallas, Polk, Hickory, Laclede, Benton, Camden, Miller, Pulaski, St. Clair

Loses: (other) Half of Taney, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, Perry, Phelps

Analysis: Jo Ann should like her new district–she loses the most Democrat-friendly parts (Washington, Iron, St. Francois) and picks up a slew of more conservative counties in south-central Missouri, stretching her district into the Ozarks. Although Emerson has been drifting gently toward the center (which basically means support stem cell research and uh…) since being elected in 1998, she’s still definitely conservative enough to represent this new district–after all, a lot of her new counties would be used to voting for Democrat Ike Skelton, so a center-right, but not far-right representative should do the trick.

“Main population centers” are…Cape Girardeau? Poplar Bluff?

Southern MO map:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4…

———

District 9: Blaine Lueketmeyer

Residence: St. Elizabeth, Miller County

Old PVI: R+9

Disappeared!

His district is eaten by several others, and he now lives in Jo Ann Emerson’s new 8th. He has little chance to defeat her in primary as her base makes up the vast majority of this district.

But his previous district is now split between the new ones of Skelton, Akin and Carnahan, wi

So why would Republicans sacrifice ole Blaine?

Blaine will lose because he has the least seniority, other than whoever Blunt’s replacement is. But Blunt’s district makes sense–southwest Missouri–as opposed to Blaine’s crazy-shaped current 9th (“Little Dixie” …yeah, good try).

Why else dump Blaine? Because Republicans get a lot in return. Three totally safe districts, one mostly safe one, and they have a chance on at least one, if not two, of the “Democratic” districts. Democrats will like it because it’s a better balance and they may have a chance with Akin in the future. And with Skelton unlikely to make it another decade in Congress (though I hope and pray to God he does) they’re gonna lose one forever if they don’t agree to act now. Basically, you can gerrymander Missouri a lot worse.

Overall, despite its 2008 performance, Missouri is still the ultimate swing state, and having a 4-4 delegation (with one seat that could go to Republicans) seems right.

———

Other Missouri redistricting maps:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Source:

MO Gov Race – http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrMaps/…  (MO Sec. of State’s office)

The following are my thoughts on redistricting each of the Midwestern states-from Iowa and Missouri to Western Pennsylvania. I think in general, things look good for Dems right now, with the exceptions of Indiana and Missouri. But read on and tell me what you think.

In alphabetical order

Iowa

I think that in some ways, Iowa is the most predictable state because of the way they redraw their lines. You know that there will be a Democratic leaning 1st District in the northeast, a stronger Democratic 2nd in the southeast part, a Polk County/Des Moines based 3rd, and Steve King’s wingnut friendly 4th in the Western part of the state.

Indiana

With the GOP likely to run remap here, the consensus is that they’ll target Baron Hill by stripping him of Bloomington. I think that’s potentially dangerous, as neither Buyer or Burton are good campaigners. Furthermore, I think Baron Hill would be a great candidate for Governor, so the Indiana GOP better be careful what it wishes for……

Illinois

Two thoughts: if Kirk runs for Senate and we win his 10th (or if we win it outright), I’m guessing the ultimate target would be Judy Biggert, who’s older and less politically talented than Roskam. The best bet might be to pair them together in an ultra GOP DuPage based district and use the Dem leftovers with parts of say, the 9th to create a new Dem district.

Now my evil little thought: I wonder if we could create a Democratic leaning monstrosity with the most Democratic friendly parts of Rockford, Peoria, Champaign/Urbana, and Springfield. Yeah it’d be ugly, but so is Phil Hare’s 17th…..

Michigan

In Michigan, if Dems run remap, there are several ways to go with it. My guess is that they would draw Thad McCotter into an Ann Arbor based district that he couldn’t win-that’s by far the easiest. I also think they’ll. The other thing they should do is draw a Lansing based Democratic District drawn for Virg Bernero and give the GOP parts of the 8th to Candice Miller and pack all of the GOP’s Southeast strongholds into a single district. I suppose there’s also the outside possibility of a Dem Western district that combines the city of Grand Rapids with some of the Dem leaning counties on Lake Michigan, but I’m not sure Vern Ehlers wouldn’t win that anyways….

Minnesota

Regardless of whether the state ends up with 7 or 8 CDs, the objective of Minnesota’s redistricting plan (if Dems control, and I think they will) will be to get rid of Michele Bachmann. The only difference being how you do it. If there are 8 CDs, you simply draw a 6th that is is close to even and friendly to State Senator Tarryl Clark. If there are 7, slam her into an uber-GOP (Sherburne, Wright, Carver,Scott and the most GOP friendly parts of Dakota, Anoka, and Hennepin)  district with John Kline.

The big question here in either case is whether the DFL goes after the 3rd by swapping some of the more Democratic suburbs like St. Louis Park and Hopkins for GOP friendly stuff like Edina.

Missouri

Dems have to pray that Missouri holds onto its 9th CD so they can simply play incumbent protection and draw a more friendly 4th CD along the I-70 corridor from KC to Boone County. If Missouri goes to 8, I’m almost certain that Skelton’s district is toast.

Ohio

If Dems control redistricting and Ohio loses 2 seats, here’s some possibilities

-The basic premise is to pack the GOPers into 4 ultra GOP districts: the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th while creating a Dem Dayton district, cracking the 14th into 3, and the 2nd into 3 parts plus creating a Democratic leaning mashup of the 18th and 12th designed for Zack Space.

-Create a Democratic 3rd by combining Montgomery County with Oxford and the most Dem friendly turf you can find in Greene.

-Eliminate Jean Schmidt’s 2nd with the Dem parts of Hamilton going to the 1st, the GOP suburban stuff splitting between the 7th and 8th CDs and the Dem leaning Ohio River Counties into the 6th.

-Drop the GOP parts of the 15th into the 4th, 5th, and 7th and pick up Dem friendly turf in Franklin. However be careful because….

-To protect Zack Space, try and take what’s left of Franklin and mate it to the friendliest portions of the 18th while dropping as much of the GOP stuff into the 7th as possible.

-Finally, crack Steve LaTourette’s 14th into 3 between Marcia Fudge’s 10th (as much of Geauga  as you can get away with), Tim Ryan’s new district (which would be something like half of Lake and what’s left of Geauga, Astabula, Trumbull and the most Dem parts of Mahoning with some Dem strength going to Boccieri in the 16th), Finally, put the other half of Lake into Kucinich’s 10th by connecting it along Lake Erie.

Pennsylvania

As I remarked in another diary, Tim Murphy is almost certainly toast because the map is likely to be redrawn by a judge due to the split in the state legislature. Flat out, there is no way that any sane judge would draw something similar to Murphy’s one step short of fictitious 18th CD that he has now. He’ll either wind up running against Murtha (and will lose) or will end up in something similar to Frank Mascara’s old 20th (which he’d lose as well).

Wisconsin

I think the best target for Wisconsin Dems, should they control the trifecta, would be to go after Paul Ryan rather than Tom Petri-its much easier to play mix and match with the heavily Democratic 2nd and 4th than it is with Petri’s 6th. Ryan’s also waaaay to conservative for his district as it is, and Petri is something of an institution in his district anyways, even if on paper it is slightly more Democratic.

This time, we’ve got an internet application to play with.

The task of dividing Missouri into 8 districts with the population estimates is still a nightmare.

When it comes down to it, the best possible deal for an 8 district map is a 4/4 delegation split. Best possible, without a gerrymander. Currently the delegation is 5 Republicans/4 Democrats.

With all the momentum of under two hours of work, here’s an attempt to split the state into 8 districts with a 4/4 split.

First, the STL districts.

The 1st district (Blue): 738926 people, 45% white, 49% African-American

The 2nd district (Green): 738908 people

The 1st district walks a balance between helping the 2nd, and also keeping the legislators in that area happy enough to actually approve such a map. The 1st moves west into Maryland Heights and south in the city of St. Louis. Ideally, the district would still go 2 to 1 for Democrats, at the very least. A drop from 3 to 1, but still a good solid district. Here’s a before/after of the lines. Most of the tracts moving from the 1st to 2nd were coincidences from the tractpoking that was done to form the district.

The 2nd district includes the homes of Todd Akin and Russ Carnahan. The district also includes a chunk of Akin’s STL county district (except for Chesterfield). As well, a part of Jefferson County, and Russ’ South County district are in the district unsplit. Ideally the district would be 50/50.

As for the third district (pop. 738910)

Officially, this district is open. It combines Boone County, one of the emerging Democratic votegetting counties, with the rapidly blueing St. Charles county. Along with the I70 corridor and some other counties in the area.

Cole County is split with Jeff City in the 3rd and the rest of the county in the new 4th district. Franklin County’s split puts the northern part of the county in the 3rd and the southern in the 8th.

As for the 4th district.. it’s a sign of the ridiculous nature of the 4th that you can’t fit it into an image on the minimum zoom.

Yes, really. The realities of the corridor district kind of makes this district ridiculous. As well, Sam Graves and Blaine Luetkemeyer both live in this district. The population in the new 4th is 738858. The only split in it not already covered is two tracts in Camden County near Osage Beach (which are in the 9th district, instead of the 4th). Unfortunately for candidates, this district is huge, covers multiple TV markets. As well, we can only break it down by region. Buchanan and Platte should be Dem friendly, the Northwest Corner is more Republican, North Central Missouri is a fusion of co-ops and Republican voting, the Northeast corner of Missouri could be a good Dem area. The Northeast part of the district between Kirksville and Moberly could also produce a good showing for Dems. But a lot of this depends on who the candidates are, and if they’re great at exhaustive campaigning. 44 counties in one Congressional district might be a record for this state.

The 5th district (pop. 739048) is slightly more compact.

The temptation to put some of the Republican parts of Jackson County somewhere else is still there. But when the county is 60/40 blue, then it’s not a huge pain to have to put up with parts of EJC, or with Cass County. Cass County kind of got cut up in the quest to get within 100 of the ideal district population.

As for the 6th district (pop. 738852), it’ll be more competitive when it’s opened up by retirement. But it’s a challenge.

The district obviously adds Clay County. It loses a sliver of Jackson County, along with Webster County and parts of Cass County. The district also gains ground in Polk, Camden and Phelps Counties. Ideally, the combination of traditionally Democratic areas in West Central Missouri and Clay County could outmuscle the traditionally Republican lean of the rest of the district.

My apologies to Phelps Countians for the splitting of their county.

The 4th and 6th could switch numbers on this map so that Ike Skelton is the incumbent in the 4th, Sam Graves is the incumbent in the 6th, and they won’t have to order cards with new district numbers on them.

As for the 7th (pop. 738989).. it is what you think it is

It picks up the rest of Taney County, Webster County, a tract in Wright county, and Ozark County. It loses part of Polk County. It’s still very Republican.

How about the 8th district (pop. 739114)?

The eighth loses it’s portion of Taney County, loses part of Phelps and Wright counties, loses Ozark County. It picks up Southern Franklin and Southern Jefferson Counties, along with Crawford and Ste. Genevieve counties. As to how the 8th splits when a non-Emerson is on the ballot, i’m not particularly sure. But when the two biggest counties in the 8th are strong Republican (Cape and Butler), then that’s a lot of votes to start with.

When it comes to redistricting, barring a great compromise, the map will be drawn or approved by a panel of Federal Judges. But the Republican plan will be closer to 6/2 if they act as how they usually act. They’ll keep the 4th as is and wait. They’ll put Southern Clay County in the 5th. They’ll stack Democrats in the 1st. Russ Carnahan’s house will end up in a Republican 2nd or the 8th.

Basically.. redistricting will be very unpleasant this year unless something unexpected occurs.

But until we get the real numbers, we’re left to mess with an online application in an attempt to see how many counties can fit into one Congressional district. When the real numbers come out, then the computers hidden in the basement of the Capital will be put to work with all the electoral and socioeconomic stats to form the ‘perfect map’

Which will then be exposed within several cycles.

But it’s raining in the KC area. So why not have a diversion for a bit?

This, Episode 8 of my never-ending redistricting series, is a diary of firsts. It is the first time I have covered three states instead of the customary two (the reason being that I was pairing a larger state with a smaller one, and this diary covers three mid-sized states), and the first time I have covered a state not expected to either gain or lose seats in the next reapportionment (Indiana, which should hold even at 9 seats).

Previous efforts:

Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas

Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada

Diary 3: Iowa and Ohio

Diary 4: Georgia and New Jersey

Diary 5: Florida and Louisiana

Diary 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

Diary 7: Illinois and South Carolina

Jump below!

First, why these three states? Well, they are three states of contrast. Number-crunchers anticipate that Oregon will gain a seat, Missouri lose one, and Indiana hold even after the 2010 Census and resulting reapportionment. (I should note that Oregon and Missouri are both on the fringes; a slowdown of Midwest-West migration in the next year could easily keep both at their current sizes, preventing Oregon from hitting 6 seats and saving Missouri from dropping its 9th spot). Further, the map in Oregon is likely to be drawn by Democrats, in Indiana by Republicans, and in Missouri through bipartisan negotiation (Republicans dominate the legislature, but the Governor is Democrat Jay Nixon, and his veto authority should force a relatively incumbent-friendly map).

First, Indiana

As if the redistricting process weren’t already enough of an ego-driven, virulently partisan power grab in most states, Indiana makes it worse; even though the Democrats run the state House, Republicans are almost assured to ram through a GOP-friendly gerrymander. This is because Indiana gives the legislature two ways to go about drawing maps: the chambers can work together to pass a consensus map (since the Senate is in GOP hands and the House under Dem control, this would likely mean incumbent protection), or if one party has both the governor’s mansion and one chamber of the legislature, that party has the power to draw the maps regardless of who runs the other chamber. This is a unique provision, from what I can tell, and not one of which I particularly approve (why have two chambers if one of them can bypass the other by dealing with its own party’s governor?). But at least you can’t accuse the Republicans alone of abusing it; Democrats rammed through their own map in 2001, which a large part of why Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth are now in Congress. Since GOP leaders in the Senate are unlikely to want a feel-good compromise after seeing the Dems get their way last round, I’m counting on the most aggressive possible GOP map in the state.

The good news is this: the Democrats have three marginal districts, and because of trends in the state, I believe the Republicans can only dismantle two. Who are the unlucky two? As I see things, they are Donnelly and Baron Hill. (I don’t remember which poster here on SwingStateProject originally suggested such a situation to me, but whoever you are, I now think you’re 100% right!)

“What?”, the astute SSP junkie is thinking. “Obama won IN-02 easily and tied in IN-09…why wouldn’t they go after Ellsworth, whose district McCain won by a modest margin?”

The answer is two-pronged: first, wrecking Donnelly’s seat is not that hard, even if Northern Indiana does lean Democratic nowadays. Dem votes can easily be packed into Pete Visclosky’s already-safe and very slow-growing district, leaving the 2nd District a lot more Republican and small town/rural-dominated. But in Southern Indiana, there is enough Democratic support between the 8th and 9th Districts that both cannot reasonably be cracked. Between Obama nearly winning the 9th, and doing respectably in the 8th, an effective gerrymander will ruin Dem chances in one seat while packing blue-leaning counties into the other. The reason for solidifying Ellsworth and targeting Hill? Ellsworth has a proven track record of hugely over-performing the Democratic base vote, while Hill’s bipartisan popularity is less established. That, and many of the Dem-friendly cities in the region (Terre Haute, Evansville, Bloomington) fit better geographically in the 8th. I believe Republicans see Ellsworth as more capable of surviving an unfriendly map than Hill, which is why they will do the unthinkable by effectively ceding (for the next few cycles, anyway, or as long as Indiana remains a closely-divided state) the famed Bloody 8th to the Democrats.

Here’s what I see in the cards:

District 1 – Pete Visclosky (D-Merrillville) — with all of Lake and Porter Counties, and nearly half of LaPorte, this is a quintessential Democratic seat along the lakeshore.

District 2 – Joe Donnelly (D-Granger) — outside of Dem-leaning St. Joseph County being intact, there’s little for Donnelly to like about this district. The Obama vote is still probably in the mid-40s here, but no doubt this is would be a Republican seat in most election cycles. Donnelly should take a serious look at statewide office if he gets dealt a hand like this.

District 3 – Mark Souder (R-Fort Wayne) — solid GOP seat centered on Allen County.

District 4 – Steve Buyer (R-Monticello) — I thought of diluting this hyper-GOP district a bit to hurt Ellsworth but realized that the lines would start to get bizarre and that, as mentioned in the intro, there are too many Democrats in western and southern Indiana to be cracked up without influencing at least one district.

District 5 – Dan Burton (R-Indianapolis) — I think the current lines in this district are silly and prefer my more compact version, still safely Republican but not so “stretchy”.

District 6 – Mike Pence (R-Columbus) — to help the odious Pence just a tad (he doesn’t need much), I gave Obama-supporting Madison County to Burton to split up the swingy/moderately Dem-friendly Anderson/Muncie/Richmond area between two GOP districts.

District 7 – André Carson (D-Indianapolis) — entirely within Marion County, as before, and still strongly Democratic.

District 8 – Brad Ellsworth (D-Evansville) — all Ellsworth seems to need to win easily is the combined electoral power of Terre Haute and Evansville, so putting on my bizarro world GOP thinking cap, knowing that it would be easier to dislodge Hill, I attempted to give Ellsworth an actual Democratic seat, one that would have voted for Obama. The coup de grâce, both for packing the 8th with Democrats and for cracking the 9th, was the addition of Monroe County (Bloomington) with its Obama-crazed college students. For a Republican mapmaker, making Ellsworth Congressman-for-life is a small price to pay for winning back the 9th (possibly with Mr. Déjà Vu himself, Mike Sodrel).

District 9 – Baron Hill (D-Seymour) — He is likely toast as these lines are drawn, since his tougher battles (2002, 2004, 2006) were all made or broken by Dem GOTV in Bloomington. While the district lacked Bloomington back in its 1990s iteration, southeast Indiana was also very accustomed to Lee Hamilton back then, and Hill was clearly the beneficiary of some lingering Hamilton popularity both in 1998 and 2000. As for this take on the 9th, a couple of its Ohio River counties are traditionally Democratic, but the district is more rural and conservative than ever before, so conditions would be just right for Sodrel to finally triumph after losing three of his last four races against the venerable Hill. With a district this unfriendly, Hill might also consider statewide office. He ran respectably against Dan Coats in 1990…and Richard Lugar will be 80 years old in 2012. I’m just saying!

While this map is bad from a Dem standpoint, its worst possible scenario is a 6-3 GOP edge, not as bad as the 7-2 delegation seen between 2004 and 2006. Back then we fretted about the real possibility of 8-1, given Julia Carson’s repeated underwhelming performance in the 7th…thanks to Indianapolis turning deep blue and most of southern Indiana moving into swing territory (with some clear Democratic strongholds), 6-3 seems bad in the context of Indiana circa 2009. So, from a broad perspective, Obama genuinely changed the game for the Democratic Party in Hoosierland. And who knows…by 2012, maybe even this unfriendly version of the 2nd District could be held.

Missouri

With a GOP legislature and a Dem Governor, this is an entirely different story. The Show Me State should shed a seat if projections are accurate, but actually surprised demographers a bit by growing sufficiently between 2007 and 2008 to regain a notional loss from 2006. So it wouldn’t be too odd if Missouri rebounded enough before the 2010 Census to barely hang on to that 9th seat, possibly depriving a state like Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, or Texas from adding another.

The real question for me was which districts to combine. With power balanced between the parties, it was obvious that one Republican and one Democrat had to face off in a “fair fight” district, leading to an obvious solution: a suburban St. Louis seat forcing Todd Akin (R) and Russ Carnahan (D) together. I tried to draw a district that would be as close to 50-50 as possible for this purpose, knowing the legislature won’t draw anything too friendly for Carnahan’s south-of-the-city base, and that Gov. Nixon would balk at a map too heavy in Akin’s northern suburbs.

The other problem in Missouri was what to do with Ike Skelton’s (D) heavily Republican district spanning the rural areas between Kansas City and Columbia. I figured that a bipartisan plan means incumbent protection, and the Democrats know Skelton will be 81 when the 113th Congress convenes and is not far from retirement. I thus drew a swing district stretching from the close-in Kansas City suburbs to college town Columbia that would not only easily reelect Skelton, but provide a future Dem with a decent shot at holding the 4th District.

I do have one question, though, about this: Missouri redistricting authority was split in 2001, with a Democratic Governor and House, and a narrowly GOP-controlled Senate. Bipartisan plans almost always help incumbents; why on earth didn’t Skelton get a stronger district then? Perhaps mapmakers knew he would be around for the duration of the decade, and didn’t care to gerrymander more friendly territory for future insurance?

Anyway, other than eliminating a St. Louis seat and shoring up the 4th, this map doesn’t do a lot else of interest. As a result of Blaine Luetkemeyer’s inconvenient choice of residence in Miller County, and Ike Skelton’s wholesale capture of Boone County, the 6th is unaesthetic, but the other districts are reasonably shaped.

District 1 – William “Lacy” Clay, Jr. (D-St. Louis) — all of the city of St. Louis as well as 39% of St. Louis County. VRA-protected as a black-majority seat, so if my lines don’t fit those guidelines, ignore them and assume I preserved an African-American majority here.

District 2 – Todd Akin (R-Town and Country) vs. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis) — I realize Carnahan lives in St. Louis itself, but compactness suggests keeping the city whole in District 1, so he’d do well to move to the county. The remaining 61% of decidedly Democratic St. Louis County is here, along with 37% of Akin-friendly St. Charles, so clearly I was aiming for a swing seat either man could win.

District 3 – Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-St. Elizabeth) — the loss of Dem-leaning Boone County is counteracted by the addition of most of Jefferson County, but overall the district favors a Republican, ideally from the greater St. Louis area.

District 4 – Ike Skelton (D-Lexington) — you can’t imagine what it took to get a swing seat out of this territory without violating population equality laws! I don’t know why legislators didn’t try to protect the 4th for future Democrats back in 2001, but with Skelton’s exit from Capitol Hill just a cycle or two away, now is the time to dramatically reshape the 4th’s boundaries, whether the rurally inclined Armed Services chairman likes it or not. Between the competitive counties north of Kansas City and the Dem base in Columbia, this district could actually be held when Skelton retires, unlike the current Charlie Stenholm-like rural monstrosity he represents. If Skelton announces his retirement ahead of redistricting in 2011-12, there’s actually a good chance the district will be eliminated entirely, but without that foresight I had to attempt a genuine shoring-up.

District 5 – Emanuel Cleaver (D-Kansas City) — I’m proud that I was able to help “blueify” the 4th while respecting the ideal of compactness in putting Jackson County whole in the 5th. It would have been a lazy solution to split Kansas City itself between the districts, and so I did otherwise, while still moving the 4th’s PVI a good 10 points more Democratic.

District 6 – Sam Graves (R-Tarkio) — because Skelton picks up its Kansas City burbs, this is now a big blob of rural Missouri goodness, as heavily Republican as ever.

District 7 – Roy Blunt (R-Strafford) or his 2010 replacement — still the heavily evangelical southwest Missouri seat, the most conservative district in the state.

District 8 – Jo Ann Emerson (R-Cape Girardeau) — other than a couple exurban St. Louis-area counties, this district is dominated by small towns and is safely Republican.

So there would be four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, and two swing seats (one of them safe for an incumbent Democrat as long as he chooses to run). Believe it or not, this is probably the closest thing to a Dem-friendly map one could get from today’s Missouri legislature.

Finally, Oregon

While Democrats must defend the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature in 2010, observers tend to agree that they have the upper hand to retain the monopoly heading into redistricting, giving them the opportunity to decide how to configure the state’s likely new seat. The only problem is that Dem strength is already more or less maximized, with a lopsided 4-1 delegation in a 57-40 Obama state.

Is it realistic to try for 5-1, or should Democrats aim to protect what they have and concede a likely 4-2 split? I initially thought that the latter solution was inescapable, but upon crunching the numbers myself, concluded that it was possible (if risky) to carve five Dem-leaning seats and one ultra-Republican district.

Under my plan, one of the five seats could, however, easily switch to the GOP in an unfriendly election cycle. In a downright terrible year like 1994, two easily would. But in a generic stalemate election year, a 1998 or 2000 sort of situation, and certainly in a Democratic wave year like 2006 or 2008, 5-1 would be the expected outcome.

I weakened both Portland incumbents, David Wu and Earl Blumenauer, to help Kurt Schrader and allow for the creation of a new Dem (or swing, at worst) seat based in Washington County. As notanothersonofabush pointed out, diluting Blumenauer’s district may not have been the greatest idea considering his staunchly liberal voting record, but with a strong Portland base mostly intact, he should be okay under my map.

While Greg Walden would probably choose to run in the über-Republican 2nd I drew, I did choose to mess with him a bit too by putting his home, in heavily Democratic Hood River County, in Blumenauer’s 3rd. All in a day’s work…

District 1 – David Wu (D-Portland) — The 37% of Multnomah County included dominates, with 50% of Marion County serving as a secondary population anchor. I wanted to give Wu as diluted a Dem-leaning district as possible given the need to milk every last precinct in Oregon redistricting.

District 2 – Greg Walden (R-Hood River) — Move, Congressman, and get yourself life tenure in Congress under my plan. Medford/Ashland is the only obvious source of Democratic strength anywhere in this vast rural seat.

District 3 – Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland) — I’m actually a little worried about Blumenauer, one of my personal favorites in Congress, in this map. With 31% of Multnomah along with Hood River and Wasco Counties, he should have enough of a Dem base to win, but might he be too progressive for this district? Splitting Portland three ways was meant to “spread the love” and help Schrader, while splitting the more conservative areas around Salem was meant to do the opposite (“share the pain” to lessen its influence), but have I diluted Democratic numbers out of Multnomah too much to give them power in all three districts?

District 4 – Pete DeFazio (D-Springfield) — Lane County is intact and the conservative reaches of southern Oregon are gone; even the solid liberal that seeks to succeed DeFazio some years down the road will be safe here.

District 5 – Kurt Schrader (D-Canby) — oddly, I probably made it safer than Blumenauer’s district by drawing a district for Schrader that stretches from Lincoln County/Corvallis to Portland. Knowing what I know now, I might not have gone so out of my way to shore up the 5th and instead work to prevent extreme dilution of the 3rd and its Portland base.

And the new District 6 – Washington County and 27% of Clackamas — this is designed to elect a moderate Washington County Democrat; it should be the swingiest of the five Dem seats, but with a narrow yet distinct lean akin to the 3rd’s. Oregonians will be more familiar with the local bench than I.

At the very least, this admittedly flawed map creates five districts that voted for Obama and one that packs McCain votes. But Obama performance does not necessarily equate to Democratic performance at the congressional level. The 3rd, and especially the 6th, could be disposed to a charismatic, moderate Republican in certain cases. The good news is that the entire West Coast from Puget Sound to San Diego has been trending liberal for the past 20 or so years and is getting less and less tolerant of even the most likable Republican candidates. Thus time is working against the viability of GOP candidates in traditional “swing districts” in a state like Oregon, and assuming Democrats retain control of the redistricting process, they will have an unprecedented chance to get aggressive in the Beaver State (even if the legislature deadlocks with the governor on forming a plan, the Secretary of State, Democrat Kate Brown, is authorized to draw her own map). So before too long, even my arguably marginal 3rd and 6th Districts should be out of reach for GOP contenders.

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

The 2010 saga continues as Roy Blunt confirms what we have only suspected for 2 weeks or so. And he even has a reason to be running, to be an irrelevant roadblock.

Because Democrats are within two seats of holding a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, “there’s more focus on the fight in the Senate because the minority in the Senate has a bigger voice in the Senate than the minority in the House.”

“That’s a reason to go,” Blunt said of running a campaign to keep Bond’s seat in Republican hands.

It’s a fitting reason, considering Roy Blunt’s main achievement as a Congressman was getting into the leadership and presiding over giving George W. Bush whatever he wanted on a variety of topics.

Many Missouri political observers believe if Roy Blunt were to run for the seat, he would clear the field of possible Republican candidates to avoid a contentious primary.

Out of the candidates mentioned (Blunt, Kinder, Talent, Steelman, and Sam Graves), Blunt is the most likely to successfully nudge others out of the race. Although what you believe may not come to be. Out of the five mentioned, I could see a Blunt/Graves or Blunt/Steelman primary. In both cases, Blunt is the early favorite. But then again, Graves and Steelman have shown their willingness to use large blunt objects on their opponents.

As for a race for the open 7th District. Term-limited Senator Gary Nodler is a reasonable pick to run for the seat since he lost primaries for the seat in 1988 and 1996. Several Southwest Missouri House members are also term limited (such as Jim Viebrock, Ron Richard, Jay Wasson, Bob Dixon). Also, the Springfield media market makes up 3/4ths to 4/5ths of the voters so the safe bet is to bet on Springfield holding the seat. But if a Joplin candidate is nominated, the odds of picking up Greene County would be slightly better (don’t laugh, we’ve won Greene County in MO-7 before).

So in conclusion, should be a heck of an election season.

The 2008 gubernatorial races were never meant to be the cycle’s most suspenseful contests, but my March ratings found that the top four races had gotten unexpectedly more competitive, with three making their way to the toss-up rating. Yet, things have quieted down over the past few months. For one, heated Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina were resolved and it will take some time before the general election in these states reaches full speed. Meanwhile, Missouri’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon is expanding his lead over his two potential opponents in what is looking like it could be a runaway race.

As a result, only one contest remains a toss-up in this month’s ratings — but what a toss-up it is! Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory’s victory in the GOP primary guarantees that North Carolina will host three crucial and competitive statewide elections this fall: Obama’s success at putting the state in play will determine whether he can hope to win a landslide election, the Hagan-Dole race is key for Democratic hopes to reach a 60 seat majority (the seat is at the top of the second-tier of Senate races which were not supposed to be endangered and its loss could open the floodgates of a blue tsunami) and the GOP will try to score its fourth gubernatorial victory since the 19th century. And remember that this is the state that sunk Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambition: North Carolina will have played quite a role in 2008.

The previous gubernatorial ratings, written in March, are available here. For descriptions of the races that have no description here and that are rated “Safe”, check the first gubernatorial ratings, written back in September.

Lean take-over (1 R)

1. Missouri (Open; Previous rating: Toss-up)

The contested Republican primary will not be resolved until August 5th. Rep. Kenny Hulshof and state Treasurer Sarah Steelman are running to become their party’s nominee, and the former looks to have lined up much of the party’s establishment behind him. But the result of their contest might not matter much as Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon has been campaigning for four years now. This cycle’s Democratic environment might be too much for his opponents to overcome, and Nixon has opened up a huge lead against either of his opponents in the latest polls. Democrats hope that this election will be a repeat of Colorado’s 2006 gubernatorial race and Minnesota’s 2006 senatorial race, both open races that were supposed to remain competitive but in which the Democratic candidate rode  the GOP malaise to an early lead and never relinquished it.

Toss-up (1R, 1D)

2. North Carolina (Open; Previous rating: Toss-up)

Both parties settled contested primaries on May 6th. On the Democratic side, Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue survived a strong challenge by state Treasurer Richard Moore, who aired negative ads in the closing weeks of the campaign. On the Republican side, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory prevailed in a primary that was less nasty — and this is the sort of difference that can impact a general election. Since the primary, both candidates have been gearing up for the general election… and McCrory has received the help of George Bush who joined his party’s candidate for a fundraiser in Raleigh. No joint photograph of the two men was authorized, but the state Democratic party is already hitting McCrory for his ties to Bush, highlighting the dismal state of the Republican brand, even in a Southern state.

McCrory is a much stronger contender than Republicans were hoping to get just a few months ago, and this race looks to be the most suspenseful gubernatorial contest of the cycle (which isn’t saying a lot). Early polls suggest that neither candidate has the advantage but that McCrory might be able to peel away the support of independent-minded voters and conservative Democrats who have been critical to a string of state-level Democratic successes. In fact, how competitive the presidential election becomes could impact the result of the Perdue-McCrory contest. If there is a boost in black turnout as some are predicting, it would make it difficult for Republicans to pick up the governor’s mansion.

Lean Retention (1 D)

3. Indiana (Gov. Daniels; Previous rating: Toss-up)

The Democratic primary between Jill Long Thompson and architect Schellinger (favored by the state’s establishment) was even tighter than the state’s crucial Clinton-Obama contest, with results delayed by Lake County and Long Thompson triumphing by 0.6%. Now in a quest to become the state’s first female governor, Long Thompson first has to ensure financial viability. While polls showed no electability difference between the two Democrats, Schellinger was more successful at fundraising. Seeking to attract some attention in a dull campaign period, Long Thompson announced her running-mate and she benefited from glowing headlines after her speech at the state convention for “making history’ as the first female candidate.

Yet, three polls taken in the past two months find Daniels settling in a narrow but consistent lead — leading me to downgrade the race to lean retention for the first time. But the race remains competitive: however much Daniels has improved his popularity over the past two years, he remains very vulnerable and Obama’s decision to invest resources in Indiana will help Long Thompson get out the vote.

4. Washington (Gov. Gregoire; Previous rating: Lean retention)

In a neutral environment, this race would be the ultimate toss-up. The rematch of a 2004 race which ended in grotesque cacophony, Dino Rossi’s challenge to Gregoire is hurt by the year’s pro-Democratic bent. News that Rossi is shying away from his party label reveals the disadvantage he has to overcome. New election rules allow candidates to choose what party label will appear next to their name, and Rossi chose “GOP party” rather than “Republican” (note that the Republican candidate for insurance commissioner is running with no party label at all). However, polls find that the race remains very tight and there is every indication that it will be very nasty as well: A recent controversy over whether Democrats were playing the “Italian card” against Rossi by using the Soprano music in an ad against him confirms that there is little chance that the 2004 bitterness can be overcome.

Full rankings of all 11 races on my governor’s page.

Cross-posted from Show Me Progress:

There are endorsements and then there are ENDORSEMENTS. If a state rep endorses Mike Garman (running for the Democratic nomination in Todd Akin’s district), that’s nice. If the Missouri AFL-CIO endorses Garman–in May!–that’s huge. For several reasons.

First, an endorsement during a primary race is unprecedented. One St. Charles Democratic official with ties to labor told me that he can’t remember the AFL-CIO endorsing in a primary contest. But it happened. The Missouri AFL-CIO’s Executive Council and its president, Hugh McVey, have announced their endorsements in Missouri’s federal races: Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, Ike Skelton (no surprises so far), Kay Barnes (also not a surprise) and … Mike Garman.

Now that the endorsement is in place, money from the international union in D.C. might follow. The Missouri chapter of the AFL-CIO can write letters of recommendation urging the parent union to lend support to any of the endorsed Missouri candidates.

And finally, the state AFL-CIO will send out 2-5 mailers to let its members know who it’s endorsing. In St. Charles County, 35 percent of the voters are union members. Presumably, that percentage would be considerably higher among Democratic voters. Lots of those union Dems will note Garman’s name on a mailer and vote for him.

When I talked to Mike last night, he was elated with the news. He feels that people in St. Charles County respect him as a hard worker who knows first-hand the problems they face. He pointed out that for months now he’s been working a forty-hour a week job running the ambulance service in one of the St. Charles ambulance districts, then campaigning sixty hours a week and getting four hours of sleep a night. A few nights back, he knocked on 300 doors–in pouring rain.

Sheer doggedness has made Mike a serious contender in this race, and this endorsement can’t do anything but help his chances.

By the way, I wrote about Mike in December here and here, in case you want to know more about him.

Missouri’s most endangered Republican, Governor Matt Blunt just got served!

A lawsuit that is, by Scott Eckersley, his former deputy legal counsel, who is suing Blunt and four current and former aides.

From the Kansas CIty Star:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. | Gov. Matt Blunt ducked questions Thursday about a lawsuit alleging his office intentionally deleted e-mails in violation of open-records laws but defended the firing of the former staff attorney who sued him. A whistleblower and defamation lawsuit filed Wednesday by former Blunt attorney Scott Eckersley claims that top Blunt aides directed staff in his office and other agencies to destroy e-mails to avoid providing information sought under public records requests.

The real question is, “What are they trying to hide?” Looks like the deletions are just the tip of the iceberg!

Here’s Blunt’s approval numbers: 46% approve, 48% disapprove. The crosstabs show 36% of the sample were Democrats, 29% Republicans, and 28% Independents. If that’s how party affiliation is lining up in Missouri, we’re in very good shape.

Democratic AG Jay Nixon is running strong – last I heard he was up 51% to 42%. I’m betting we can paint this one as “Democrat Favored”.

The last time we checked in with Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), his candidacy for the University of Missouri presidency apparently hit a brick wall after another candidate was offered the gig, ending our brief dreams of an off-year special election here.

Hulshof’s district is not a typical Democratic target.  Its PVI (R+6.5) and its 18-point margin for Bush in 2004, coupled with the incumbent’s uncontroversial tenure would have most analysts slotting this district in the “safe” column.  But while the GOP can’t even recruit top challengers to defend GOP seats lately (see: NJ-03), Democrats are shooting for the fences, even in red districts like this one.

Earlier this fall, the DCCC put Hulshof on its SCHIP hit list, and targeted the incumbent with radio ads slamming him for his cold-shouldered vote against America’s poorest kids.  

Now, it looks like Hulshof may finally get an opponent in state Rep. Judy Baker, who filed her papers to form an exploratory committee and begin raising money for a congressional campaign.  A Baker candidacy would be a big step up for local Democrats, who haven’t fielded a candidate with elected experience against Hulshof since 2000.

For Baker, her gut is telling her that now is the time to run:

Baker said she’s done some “initial analysis” and says there is opportunity to run in the Ninth this year. She cited significant anxiety over the status quo in Washington and “a very strong swing toward doing something different.”

“I think I am able to fill that gap,” Baker said. “But it’s also for me – I feel like I can’t do anything else. I keep trying to say, ‘No, this is not the time, this is not the year, this is not the race.’ But it kind of grabs me and won’t let me go. Because I feel that the issues are so critical at such a critical juncture that I feel like the whole thing won’t even let me go.”

Hulshof’s vote against SCHIP would likely be a key campaign issue for Baker, should she make her bid official:

Most recently, she has been critical of Hulshof for voting against expansion and reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“That is going to be a huge issue for the next two decades,” Baker said. “We need someone who’ll stand up for people who need health care and not just say ‘we’re not going to supply it.’ … There are numerous other issues and it’s not just health care — economy, the war, health care – all of these add up to people wanting a new perspective and new set of eyes to look at our problems and move us forward.”

This would be a challenging district for any Democrat, especially against an incumbent.  But any opportunity to make the GOP sweat should be seized upon.  And you never know — perhaps Hulshof isn’t that thrilled with his job and might jump ship for another opportunity.  We know that he’s been looking for an easy out already.