SSP Daily Digest: 3/5

FL-Sen: Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio has formed an exploratory committee for the Senate seat that Mel Martinez is vacating. However, if Crist runs, Rubio will bail to run for Governor, instead. (J)

NY-Sen-B: This would be pretty serious. Long Island Democratic Congressman Steve Israel is said to be considering a primary run against Kirsten Gillibrand, according to the NY Times. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Rep. Carolyn Maloney are also openly mulling the race. (J)

KS-Gov: Looks like Kansas Dems are back to the drawing board not just in terms of the senate seat but also the governor’s mansion. Lt. Gov Mark Parkinson, who will be taking over for soon-to-be-ex-Governor Kathleen Sebelius, has reaffirmed his earlier statement that he wouldn’t seek the governor’s seat in 2010.

PA-Sen: Glen Meakem, a Pittsburgh-area right-wing internet entrepreneur, was one of the fallback options for a conservative primary challenge to Arlen Specter. He’s backed out of the fray, apparently deferring to Pat Toomey’s renewed interest in the race. (You may remember Meakem as the guy who personally financed those internal “polls” showing John Murtha neck-and-neck with his defrauder challenger last year.)

RNC: The RNC is transferring $1 million each to the NRSC and NRCC to help them dig out from under the 2008 debt and get back on the offensive. In other RNC news, one of the RNC’s three African-American members, Dr. Ada Fisher of North Carolina, is calling on RNC chair Michael Steele to step down in the face of his increasing, well, ridiculousness.

Census: Incoming Commerce Sec. Gary Locke says the Census will stay a part of his portfolio at Commerce. It also looks that sampling, which is the real methodological sticking point that’s the source of the political squabble over census management, won’t be used aggressively; Locke said that sampling will be used “minimally, as an accuracy check.”

NH-St. Sen.: It’s all but official: former Rep. Jeb Bradley is downshifting his career, to say the least. Tomorrow he’ll announce his candidacy for the New Hampshire state senate in SD-3. This will be an open seat vacated by a Republican, so it’s not even a potential GOP pickup. (Trivia time: I can think of at least two other ex-Representatives who are currently state senators. Can anybody name them?)

SSP Daily Digest: 2/26

We’re going to try out a new feature for weekday afternoons here at Swing State Project: four or five links to various items that we want to get out there but don’t feel like investing a diary’s worth of effort on. Enjoy the bullet points! (We encourage you to add your own bullet points in the comments, and otherwise treat this as an open thread.)

UT-Sen: Daily Kos polls the 2010 Utah Senate race, where the action appears to be in the primary, but Bob Bennett looks safe for another 6 years. Bennett beats David Leavitt 44-23 in the primary, and, in the general, manhandles Rep. Jim Matheson 55-32 and Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings 57-21, not that we should expect either of them to run.

OH-Sen: A third Dem has jumped into the primary field for the 2010 Senate race: state representative Tyrone Yates. He doesn’t have the stature of Fisher or Brunner, but as the only African-American and only Cincinnati-area candidate, he may well complicate things.

WA-08: The first Dem challenger has announced, and it’s another wealthy ex-Microsoft executive, Suzan DelBene. Don’t look for her to have the field to herself this time, though.

MN-Sen: In an indication that the Coleman camp has exhausted every possible legal argument that can win in court, he’s moved onto arguing that it was basically a tie so let’s just have a do-over election. Not the kind of thing that someone who has a hope of winning in court ever says.

Census: The Congressional Black Caucus is pushing the White House to keep the Census within its portfolio even though reliable Dem Gary Locke will now be taking over at Commerce.

Blogospheria: Blogger brainpower (including Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, and Nate Silver) and union bucks come together in the new Accountability Now PAC. The goal is to pressure (and where there’s a good target, primary) bad Dems and create more space for good Dems to maneuver on the left.

RI-01: Republican state representative John Loughlin is strongly considering a suicide mission against challenge to Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy got 69% against no-names in his last two elections, but apparently his approval ratings are softening.

HI-01: In another district where you might be surprised to know there’s an elected Republican, Honolulu city councilor Charles Djou has announced his candidacy for HI-01, which is expected to be vacated by Neil Abercrombie as he goes for governor. Djou claims the endorsement of every Republican in Hawaii’s legislature (all 7 of them).

NC-Sen: Former state treasurer, and gubernatorial primary loser, Richard Moore won’t be getting involved in the Dem primary to take on Richard Burr in 2010. The field looks clearer for AG Roy Cooper.

Census Taken Out of Gregg’s Hands

When Judd Gregg’s head first reared up over White House airspace in consideration for the spot at Commerce, my first concern wasn’t about the musical chairs in New Hampshire or about the perception vs. reality of ‘bipartisanship…’ it was about the fact that we were putting the Census Bureau in the hands of a conservative Republican. I assumed I was the one of few people with this rather arcane concern, but some serious pushback started coming in the last few days, from people like Rep. Barbara Lee… particularly in view of Gregg’s vote against providing emergency funding for the 2000 census.

Today, it was revealed that in the Obama administration, the Census Bureau director would be reporting directly to the White House (or more specifically, to Rahm Emanuel) rather than to Gregg. This provoked a furious reaction from House Republicans (and you gotta wonder if they would have said boo if Obama had decided to take, say, Bill Richardson out of the Census Bureau’s line of command):

“Any attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the census process for their political benefit will be met with fierce opposition as this ill-conceived proposal undermines a constitutionally obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy,” said California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the committee.

You wouldn’t necessarily think the Census Bureau would be such a political football, but, well, spend some time at a data-driven site like SSP and you’ll know why. Census data is the basis for House redistricting and allotting electoral votes… the very building blocks of getting and maintaining political power. The 2000 census is a case in point: left poorly funded by a Republican Congress (meaning not enough enumerators to perform adequate follow-up counts), and unable to use oversampling methods thanks to a US Supreme Court ruling, the 2000 census probably left millions of Americans undercounted.

Unsurprisingly, the undercounted tend to be the people who are both the hardest to reach (undocumented persons avoiding contact with government representatives, homeless people with no particular address) and the most vulnerable. The catch-22 is, to provide social services to these populations, they need to be counted by the Census in order to determine the magnitude of the need and to secure the proper funding. Already-strapped cities and counties lose billions of dollars in potential federal and state aid because of undercounted residents. Connect the dots, and you can see why it’s imperative to keep the Census properly funded and out of Republican hands.

An Absurdly Early Look at the 2012 House Races in Iowa

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

The U.S. Census Bureau confirmed this week that Iowa will lose a Congressional district following the 2010 census unless we experience unprecedented (for Iowa) population growth in the next two years:

During the past eight years, Iowa has gained as many people – about 76,000 – as states like South Carolina and Virginia gained between 2007 and 2008 alone.

To retain the congressional seat, the state would have to gain nearly twice that number by 2010, according to projections by Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that analyzes the impact of demographics on politics.

So, Iowa will be left with four Congressional districts. No one knows what the new map will look like, but it’s likely that the 2012 race in the new third district will determine whether Iowa Democrats (who now hold a 3-2 edge in U.S. House seats) gain a 3-1 advantage or have to settle for a 2-2 split.  

Note: A non-partisan commission draws up the new Congressional map after each census in Iowa, so Democratic gerrymanders will not take place, even if Governor Chet Culver wins re-election in 2010 and Democrats hold their majorities in the state House and Senate.

However, if the Democrats maintain control of the legislature, they have the option of rejecting the first and/or second map produced by the non-partisan commission. Republicans in the Iowa legislature rejected the first map proposed after the last census.

Most of what’s now the fifth district, represented by Republican incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King, is likely to become the new fourth district. It makes no difference whether the new counties added to IA-04 come from the current third or fourth districts–that is going to be a safe Republican seat.

Given the voting trends in eastern Iowa, I assume the new first and second Congressional districts will still be relatively safe for Democrats. (Remember, fewer than 10 Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any kind of Democratic partisan lean.) Either Bruce Braley or Dave Loebsack may need to move if the new map throws Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the same district as Mount Vernon (Linn County), but that should not present much of a problem.

The big question mark is what happens to IA-03. Polk County will remain the largest county in the district, but it won’t be as dominant in the new district as it is now. A majority of the votes in the current third district come from the county containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.

In which direction will IA-03 expand? If the counties added to it come mostly from the southwest, Republicans will have a better chance of winning the district. One reason Greg Ganske beat longtime incumbent Neal Smith in the 1994 landslide was that Smith’s fourth district had lost Story and Jasper counties, and gained a lot of southwestern Iowa counties, following the 1990 census.

If IA-03 includes more counties from the southeast, Democrats would be better positioned to hold the seat, although it’s worth remembering that Ottumwa resident Mariannette Miller-Meeks carried seven southern counties in her unsuccessful challenge to Loebsack in IA-02 this year.

Speaking at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines last month, Miller-Meeks said she was leaving her ophthalmology practice at the end of 2008. She strongly suggested that she will run for office again. Whether that means another bid for Congress or a run for the state legislature was unclear.

Miller-Meeks has little chance of winning a district as strongly Democratic as IA-02, but I could easily see her taking on Leonard Boswell if Wapello County ends up in IA-03 after the next census. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Boswell’s challengers before and would back any credible Republican opponent against him.

The Republicans’ best chance in a third district stretching to the south, though, would be to run someone with strong Polk County connections to keep down the Democratic margins there. I don’t have any idea which Republicans have their eye on this race.

If IA-03 expands to the north, it’s good news and bad news for Democrats. Story County and Marshall County are reasonably strong territory for the party. On the down side, current fourth district incumbent Tom Latham lives in Story County. Latham is a mediocre Republican back-bencher; what else can you say about a seven-term incumbent whose big achievement on health care, according to his own campaign, was co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee?

However, Latham has obviously used his position on the Appropriations Committee to build up a lot of goodwill in the district. He just won re-election by 21 points in a district Barack Obama carried by 8 percent, and he even carried Story County.

I don’t care to run Boswell or a non-incumbent Democrat (in the event of Boswell’s retirement) against Latham in a redrawn IA-03. I’m not saying Democrats couldn’t hold the seat in those circumstances, but I feel it would be a tough hold.

We would be better off electing a new, ambitious Democrat to Iowa’s third district in 2010, so we can run a rising star in the majority party against Latham, if it comes to that. Actually, we’d have been better off if Boswell had retired in 2008, allowing someone new to compete for this seat as a two-term Democratic incumbent in 2012. But what’s done is done.

Anyone think there’s a chance Boswell will reconsider his promise to run for re-election in 2010?

If Democrats still control the state legislature after 2010, should they reject the first new Congressional map suggested by the non-partisan commission if that map puts Story County in IA-03?

What kind of map would give Democrats the best chance of holding the third district?

I look forward to reading your absurdly early speculation about the 2012 races in the comments.

For those who are interested in the national implications of the post-census reapportionment, DavidNYC created a chart showing which states are likely to gain or lose Congressional districts.

Chris Bowers has already created a 2012 electoral college map, and even with one fewer electoral vote, Iowa will remain important to Obama’s re-election chances. You should click over and read the whole post yourself, but the good news is that Obama has a clear path to 270 electoral votes in 2012 even if he loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.

UPDATE: Iowa blogger John Deeth looked ahead to the 2012 Iowa races in this post last week. He concluded that in order to win three out of the four Congressional districts, Iowa Democrats will need to 1) beat Latham in 2010, and 2) get Boswell to retire in 2012. Click over to read how he reached that conclusion.  

New Re-Apportionment Study: NY to Lose Only One Seat

Election Data Services has updated its projections (PDF) for Congressional re-apportionment after the 2010 census, taking into account population changes over the past year. (You can find a summary of EDS’s 2007 findings here.) The news is good in particular for the state of New York.

This time, EDS offers five different models for projecting every state’s population two years hence. The column headers indicate the range of time used to come up with each projection.


















































































































































































State 2000-2008 2004-2008 2005-2008 2006-2008 2007-2008
Arizona 2 2 2 2 2
California 0 -1 -1 -1 0
Florida 2 2 1 1 1
Georgia 1 1 1 1 1
Illinois -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Iowa -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Louisiana -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Massachusetts -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Michigan -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Minnesota -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Missouri -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Nevada 1 1 1 1 1
New Jersey -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
New York -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
North Carolina 0 0 1 1 0
Ohio -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Oregon 0 1 1 1 1
Pennsylvania -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
South Carolina 1 1 1 1 1
Texas 4 4 4 4 4
Utah 1 1 1 1 1

As you can see, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the models. Only four states aren’t uniform across the board: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. CA & OR apparently have seen a recent uptick in relative growth while FL and NC have experienced the opposite.

The bigger deal, though, are the changes compared to last year’s survey. The previous version of this study used three models rather than five, but all of them showed NY losing two seats. Now, all five EDS projections show NY losing just one seat. This might hardly seem like something to cheer about for a state which had 45 House seats just half a century ago, but I for one am glad.

So where does this seat probably come from? As it happens, it’s a state known for its sizable ex-New Yorker population. Three of the five current models (and all of them the shortest-term) show Florida dropping a seat while only one of three did in 2007. Meanwhile, Minnesota now looks pretty certain to lose a seat while South Carolina appears set to gain one.

Things could of course still change over the next two years. As EDS notes, the economic crisis has already reduced migration rates to their lowest level since the 1940s (when the government first started tracking this information). A worsening recession could cause even more people to stay put, changing these numbers yet again. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Election Data Services Releases New Re-Apportionment Study

A company called Election Data Services has published a new study (PDF) of Congressional re-apportionment, based on newly-released Census data. EDS used three different models to project likely re-apportionment figures, which they explain as follows:

First, there is a “long-term” trend model that reflects the overall change that has occurred so far this decade; that is from 2000 to 2007, and projects it to 2010. Second, a “midterm” trend model uses the population change that has occurred from 2005 to 2007. Finally, a “short-term” trend model incorporates the change that has occurred in just the past year, from 2006 to 2007, and carries that rate of change forward to 2010.

The results:




































































State Long-Term Mid-Term Short-Term
Arizona 2 2 2
California 0 -1 0
Florida 2 2 1
Georgia 1 1 1
Illinois -1 -1 -1
Iowa -1 -1 -1
Louisiana -1 -1 -1
Massachusetts -1 -1 -1
Michigan -1 -1 -1
Minnesota 0 -1 -1
Missouri -1 -1 -1
Nevada 1 1 1
New Jersey -1 -1 -1
New York -2 -2 -2
North Carolina 0 1 1
Ohio -2 -2 -2
Oregon 1 1 1
Pennsylvania -1 -1 -1
South Carolina 0 1 1
Texas 4 4 4
Utah 1 1 1

When it comes to matters of re-apportionment and re-districting, I know that Swing State readers don’t need any commentary from me about what this all might mean. So have at it!

2010 Census: Who Gains, Who Loses

The battle for redistricting and the reapportionment of House seats has been a hot topic at the Swing State Project for a while. A few days ago, we took a look at the fastest and slowest-growing House districts in the nation. It might be time to follow that up with Polidata’s projections (based on ’06 estimates) for the states that stand to gain and lose House seats after the 2010 Census:





































































































State Delegation Change
Arizona 4R, 4D +2
Florida 16R, 9D +2
Georgia 7R, 6D +1
Illinois 10D, 9R -1
Iowa 3D, 2R -1
Louisiana 5R, 2D -1
Massachusetts 10D -1
Michigan 9R, 6D -1
Minnesota 5D, 3R -1
Missouri 5R, 4D -1
Nevada 2R, 1D +1
New Jersey 7D, 6R -1
New York 23D, 6R -2
Ohio 11R, 7D -2
Oregon 4D, 1R +1
Pennsylvania 11D, 8R -1
Texas 19R, 13D +4
Utah 2R, 1D +1
Washington 6D, 3R +1

To recap, while many of the states that stand to lose seats are of a bluish hue, the net effect of these changes will be decided mostly by the Democrats’ strength at the redistricting table. The redistricting process varies from state to state, but the DLCC has an extremely handy chart here detailing how it’s done in all 50 states, along with the balance of power in each state legislature. (Note: this chart is not updated to reflect the Democratic gain of the Mississippi and Virginia state senates.)


With some artful redistricting, Illinois should be able to rid itself of a few GOP House incumbents, for instance. Michigan’s delegation is also out of whack, but the Dems will need to reclaim the state senate in order to get a total edge in the process. Republicans have already done some amazingly twisted things with the Texas map this decade, so it’ll be hard to see how they could squeeze four more pick-ups out of their new bounty. I have to imagine that one or possibly two of those new seats will be Latino-dominated.


Any other thoughts from our crack team of redistricting fans in the comments?