Tag: New York

After a couple-week hiatus, I’m back to Episode 11 of my redistricting series! On tap for tonight’s episode: a magnolia founds the next world empire! Or, rather, I’ve paired two unlikely diary neighbors, New York and Mississippi.

There were a number of people who earlier asked me why I hadn’t yet covered New York, one of the obvious choices for an early redistricting diary. The reason is that back in March I drew a map for NY that assumed Jim Tedisco would win NY-20 and be primed for elimination in 2012. Just tonight I redrew New York to, on the contrary, make the 20th more Democratic to help Murphy (though the news wasn’t all good, and I’ll get to that momentarily).

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

Diary 8: Indiana, Missouri, and Oregon

Diary 9: Alabama, Arizona, and Kentucky

Diary 10: Colorado and Minnesota

The chasm lies below…

Mississippi

With only four districts and a Democratic legislature offset by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, the goal here was simple: help Travis Childers and make his 1st District considerably more Democratic without noticeably diluting the 2nd (a VRA-protected black-majority district). Much like ArkDem’s Mississippi map from some time ago, mine keeps the 2nd solidly black-majority while moving the needle in the 1st several points in the Democrats’ favor. Unfortunately, there seems to be literally no way to prevent Gene Taylor’s 4th, in 2008 McCain’s strongest district in the state, from eventually flipping to the GOP. The Gulf Coast counties are just too absurdly Republican (little-known fact: Trent Lott represented the 4th not long before Taylor, who won a 1989 special election when Lott’s GOP successor died).

District 1 – Travis Childers (D-Booneville) — the overwhelming Republican nature of Mississippi’s northernmost counties prompted me to make a truly audacious move (hat tip to ArkDem on this) in removing DeSoto County, a major source of GOP votes, from this district and putting it instead with the mostly black, Delta-based 2nd. This district carefully grabs more marginally Republican counties that were previously with the 3rd and some black counties that were in the 2nd without, I think, overreaching. McCain would likely have still won here, but not with 62% as before (since my methods are so low-tech, I can only guesstimate, and I’ll say with only minimal knowledge that this variation of the 1st is probably about 55-57% McCain, enough to keep Childers solid and keep the district well in play for a future Democrat).

District 2 – Bennie Thompson (D-Bolton) — other than its two-county northern reach, this district is heavily Democratic and hopefully at least 60% black, with an Obama percentage somewhere around 63-65%.

District 3 – Gregg Harper (R-Pearl) — once I had set aside most available Democratic turf for Thompson or Childers, and drawn a logical Southern Mississippi seat for Taylor, this constitutes what was left over (hint: a lot of white Republicans, who easily overwhelm the significant minority of black Democrats).

District 4 – Gene Taylor (D-Bay St. Louis) — I hoped against hope that there was a way to bring the McCain share under 60%, even under 65%, but that’s impossible as far as I can tell. Consider this district a loan that can be deferred only as long as Taylor chooses to stay.

New York

Well, then…I had to eliminate one seat (it’s possible the Empire State will lose two, as in the last reapportionment, but all models currently project that its 28th slot will barely be saved). Murphy winning NY-20, much as it thrilled me, put a real monkey wrench in my plans and forced me to start over with the upstate districts, especially since there are a handful of upstate Democrats with marginal districts needing protection (damn all those votes being wasted in the city!). I started my do-over looking for a way to eliminate Pete King without jeopardizing shaky Democratic strength on Long Island…turns out, not a good idea. Population loss is mostly confined to upstate, so any NYC or Long Island seat elimination will cause havoc with the necessarily illogical lines. Simply put, the dropped seat will have to be upstate. If New York ends up dropping two, maybe King can be drawn out.

I tried drawing upstate a few different ways, each messier and more gerrymandered than the last, until deciding to try something a little controversial: put Mike Arcuri at risk. Of course, I started this process wanting to shore up Arcuri, just like Massa, Murphy, Maffei, and Hall, but eventually discovered that his district would be the most difficult to shore up based on pure geography. It’s not hard to move the 20th north, or put a little Rochester into Massa’s district, but with so many narrowly GOP-leaning and swing counties in the middle of the state, helping Arcuri would have been a lot tougher.

So I paired Arcuri with veteran Republican John McHugh in a relatively even-handed district. That may bode ill for Arcuri (whose first reelection in 2008 was shockingly close) against the longtime incumbent from up north, but with Obama likely to again command some coattails in 2012 New York, maybe he has a good shot. On the flip side, McHugh hasn’t faced a tough race in forever and may bow out rather than test his probably rusty survival skills. So my proposed 23rd is a tough call, and Democrats in the legislature might prefer to seek a certain GOP loss, but they’ll be forced to resort to some mighty contortions of mapmaking to derive that result.

Other than that risky move, my other choices were, I think, logically conceived and beneficial to the Democrats. Murphy and Massa are the big winners in this map, as are Hall and Maffei to a lesser degree. It was hard not to spread upstate Dem votes too thin, especially since upstate counties tend to be within 55% one way or the other (unlike the overwhelming Democratic margins in the city), but I think I may have pulled it off, at least as well as I could while equipped with such minimal redistricting tools.

You can’t easily see the urban districts, which is good because I wasn’t able to be very precise with them (what with only a calculator, Excel, and Paint to guide me). In fact, my changes to the NYC and Long Island districts were so minimal that there’s little point to addressing each district individually. Suffice to say that, other than maintaining VRA racial protections, the only “downstate” district I thought carefully about was the 13th, which in my map comprises all of Staten Island plus a small portion of Brooklyn. Beginning at the bottom of the Hudson Valley, then:

District 17 – Eliot Engel (D-Bronx) — stretches from the Bronx to Orange County. I diluted Democratic strength a little bit to help John Hall, but the 17th stays a safe seat.

District 18 – Nita Lowey (D-Harrison) — entirely within Westchester County, safely Democratic.

District 19 – John Hall (D-Dover Plains) — 91% of Dutchess, 28% of Orange, all of Putnam, and 23% of Westchester = Dem-leaning and more clearly Dem-trending suburban/exurban district.

District 20 – Scott Murphy (D-Glens Falls) — altered not just to become more Democratic (and it obviously is, in this iteration) but specifically to strengthen Murphy, by grabbing more of the rural north and dropping most of Saratoga. Perhaps Murphy will do well in Saratoga in 2010, without a regional pol as his opponent, but since Obama’s numbers were stronger up north than in Saratoga anyway, this seemed like a sensible choice.

District 21 – Paul Tonko (D-Albany) — a bit less Democratic, this district still includes all of Albany County but also all of Schenectady and 79% of Saratoga. Tonko would represent three major upstate towns under my map, which may present occasional conflicts of interest, but certainly appeases the “geographical compactness” fetishists.

District 22 – Maurice Hinchey (D-Hurley) — sheds a few Democrats to help Arcuri and Massa, but stays Dem-leaning and reasonably compact. The toughest pill to swallow for Hinchey would be ceding liberal Tompkins County (Ithaca) to Arcuri/McHugh while picking up some moderate Republican turf in the Hudson Valley. This is what I mean about having to balance the interests of different Democrats upstate. Hinchey, and a future Democrat, should still be just fine here.

District 23 – John McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) vs. Mike Arcuri (D-Utica) — combines some of McHugh’s rural northern counties (the more Democratic of which were given to Murphy) with Arcuri’s Oneida County base and some overwhelmingly Arcuri-friendly territory down in Ithaca. Knowing McHugh’s moderate reputation, popularity with military interests, and seniority advantage, I went out of my way to give Arcuri a fighting chance. For whatever it’s worth, this district would have voted for Obama, as did both of the current districts — Arcuri’s 24th and McHugh’s 23rd.

District 24 – Dan Maffei (D-Syracuse) — what was involved with this district was more tinkering than careful strategy, as any reasonable take on Maffei’s district will result in something Onondaga County-heavy and Dem-leaning.

District 25 – Chris Lee (R-Clarence) — a true “leftovers” district after I had done everything within reason to put Massa’s 28th in the Obama column while keeping Slaughter and Higgins rock-solid. Other than Chautauqua County and some Buffalo-area neighborhoods, this district should be plenty Republican. And yes, I know some of you would have liked me to eliminate Lee, but there are enough GOP votes in this part of New York that Massa (or Higgins) would have been doomed for defeat under that plan.

District 26 – Brian Higgins (D-Buffalo) — literally stretches from Buffalo to Niagara Falls, for a Rust Belt-ish industrial and Democratic-leaning district.

District 27 – Louise Slaughter (D-Fairport) — much like its current form, this covers most of the “lakeshore curve” in Western New York, stretching east from Niagara Falls to Rochester (about 2/3 of Monroe County is here, with the other third given to Massa, who definitely could use the electoral aid, while Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter is safe as can be).

District 28 – Eric Massa (D-Corning) — if this district were a tourism ad, its slogan would be “where West and Central meet”. The Rochester portion of the district likely puts Massa in a much more advantageous position and results in a slightly Obama-supporting district (the current 29th voted for McCain). Monroe County is easily the largest population source, with Ontario, Steuben, Chemung, and Cayuga (88% of which is here) rounding out the top five. Though it’s far from a Democratic stronghold, this district may be my most effective upstate seat in terms of the overall change in its partisan composition.

Overall, this map does what we’d all like in somewhat solidifying a three-seat ceiling for the Republicans (a very bad year might result in defeats for Massa and either Hall or Murphy, but the average year would preserve at least 25 Democratic seats out of 28), one of which is quite vulnerable. More sophisticated technology would doubtlessly allow me to create more precise boundaries and more accurately estimate the partisan dynamics of each district, but given the limited resources I have, I think I did pretty okay.

Thoughts on either state? What else do you want to see from this redistricting series?

(Cross posted from 21st Century Democrats)

You can search this nation far and wide and still wind up with very few elected moderate Republicans. As I've discussed before, the Republican tent is shrinking: those who don't subscribe to a narrow set of backward ideas are pushed out. Some have reacted courageously, like the trio of Republican moderates who voted for the stimulus bill. Some however, take the convenient route. Case in point: New York congressman Peter King, who represents the moderate 3rd district, was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2003. This was back when President Bush was certain to veto the bill if it passed, so King hopped on board, appeased the unions in his home district, and kept everyone content. Now that we have a President who supports the measure, King has jumped off the wagon. From his official statement:

“I do not, however, intend to support EFCA in this Congress. Our country is facing its most severe economic crisis in 75 years. It is a crisis different from previous recessions in that it includes restricted credit, massive job loss, a plunging stock market and increased foreclosures and bankruptcies. Virtually every component of our economy is suffering. While I am confident we will recover, I believe the road ahead will be long and difficult. Under these conditions, I have concluded that the Employee Free Choice Act would be too severe a shock to our economy at this time and would be counterproductive.“

 He concludes the statement with a telling sentence: “I will continue, of course, to monitor the situation but that is my current thinking.” From that statement, you might actually think that Congressman King is going to monitor the economic situation. However, what he's really going to be watching are his chances to defeat Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Senate race (Gillibrand is a 21st Century Democrats endorsee and a strong Employee Free Choice supporter). As we've heard, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is reaching back in time for his 2010 candidates, and he seems to have his sights set on former-Governor George Pataki. If Peter King wants Party money for his Senate bid, he needs to look like the “better Republican.” It'll be Pataki vs. King in a beauty contest of conservatism. He can't be doing things like – gasp – protecting the rights of working people. It would be so un-Republican of him. And while we're at it, let's talk about the idea that the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be a “shock” to our economy in these troubled times. Look, the economy is already shocked; working families are shocked by the $2,000 on average that disappeared from their income between 2001 and 2007. The bill does NOT get rid of the option for the NRLB secret ballot election, even though the current election system is rife with flaws. And despite popular belief, when management and labor bargain on equal terms, it helps the workers as well as the management. Just ask this group of 40 leading economists, including two Nobel laureates, who put a full page ad in the Washington Post last month supporting the bill.

Peter King isn't watching the economic situation. He's watching John Cornyn and George Pataki, and he's watching Senator Gillibrand's poll numbers to see if he has a shot at her seat.Meanwhile, Politico reports that numerous Freshman Democrats are voting for the bill despite their electoral vulnerability. There's something to be said for political courage: not everyone has it.

by Doug Foote

On Election Night, I stood by while State Senator-elect Joe Addabbo gave his acceptance speech. I turned to a girl I met that night who worked on his campaign and was close to Malcolm Smith, the incoming majority leader.

“Looks like we control the State Senate” I said

“No, not really.” she explained, “Only Joe and Brian Foley won.”

“But that’s 32 seats, that’s a majority.” I said

She only rolled her eyes at me and walked away.

We didn’t really win the New York State Senate. We won it in name only. In votes, we may be able to get through progressive economic policies, but thanks to socially conservative Democrats. Unfortunately, and I said this as someone who supported, worked for and donated to LGBT causes in New York, the LGBT community is going to find itself under a bus…again…and there’s nothing we can do about until 2010.

I knew Diaz would threaten to bolt in February when I was working for PBS. Malcolm Smith told one of our producers in June that he needed four or more wins in the State Senate for marriage equality. On Monday, I spoke with a friend of mine in Albany who tells me Smith only has 28 votes for marriage equality; No Republicans are on our side. Four Democrats also opposed. I dind’t get their names (though three names are obvious) but I was told they’re all from the city. Ironic, huh?

If we go into these districts in the Bronx and argue that we need Democrats who will vote with us on gay rights, we WILL lose. Trust me on this, I’ve been there. In 2007, I canvassed the neighborhood as part of a local LGBT activist community. The response I got in these heavily Democratic neighborhood was disgusting and scary (more than one young Democrat used the “f” word and there were threats of violence)

Don’t think this is an ethnicity thing either. When marriage equality came up for a vote in 2007, we lost Democrats in Italian-American communities in Brooklyn, Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn and African-American communities in Brooklyn and Queens. Here too, constituencies do not tow the progressive line on gay rights.

Diaz and Esparada will probably vote with us on economic issues. They won’t survive in their districts if they don’t. That’s really more important right now.

They can be anti-gay and survive there.  

Malcolm Smith is a good man. I spoke with him thoroughly about marriage equality and he is a full-fledged supporter. I am willing to bet my bank account on it. If he knew he could get it through despite Diaz and Esparada, he would do it. Let’s face it, what would’ve been the response if Smith told Diaz and Esparada, “Nope, I’m bringing marriage equality to the floor” and they bolted for the GOP? Would we be hailing Smith as a hero? Or a moron for giving up our majority in the middle of an economic crisis for a bill that was never going to pass this session anyway?

How do we get around this? Well, for starters, we reach out to these Bronx communities and try to beat these thugs in primaries in 2010…but also, head upstate and out to Long Island and fight for progressives. We nearly picked up seats in Nassau County (Kristen McElroy) and another in Queens (Jim Gennaro) that would have made Diaz/Esparada’s bigotry moot. If we can elect a black man President of the United States, then by God we can elect a progressive Democrat to represent Rochester in the State Senate.

Time to check in on the state legislatures one more time before the election (I did a more detailed summary two weeks ago).

This week, the New York Times and the AP both had long pieces that provide good overviews of where the competitive chambers are. Interestingly, both pieces stopped to dwell on the Maine Senate, where, although Obama is poised to dominate at the top of the ticket, Democratic control (by a current 18-17 margin) could be lost. The whole chamber turns on one Dem-held open seat in York County, and public anger over a new alcoholic beverage tax. (Although doesn’t everyone in that part of the state just go get their licka in New Hampshire?)

The biggest prize, and the only state where we’ve seen actual public polling of legislative races, is still the New York Senate. There aren’t any more polls to report here, but one story of note is that Dennis Delano, the one Republican to present a serious challenge to any Democratic-held senate seat, is apparently running for office in violation of the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits municipal employees from running for partisan office (in this case, Delano is currently suspended from the Buffalo PD, but still receiving pay).

Our friends at the Burnt Orange Report have been closely following the Texas House race, which has provided the Democrats with an outside shot of flipping the chamber (Dems are currently down 79-71). They previously highlighted four GOP-held seats that were Lean Dem or Tossup, giving Democrats a route to a tied chamber. Recently, they upgraded one other race to Tossup: Carol Kent vs. Rep. Tony Goolsby in HD-102 in north Dallas. Although retaking the Texas House has been considered a two-cycle project, a table-running here would get it done this year. They also listed a number of Lean Republican seats that could flip with a strong-enough gale (HD-55, HD-101, HD-133, and Sherrie Matula in HD-129, whom I know has a few boosters at this site).

The Ballot Box blog at Governing Magazine has been profiling various legislatures in the past few months, and recently featured a few more, including the Ohio House. This is another one that initially seemed like a two-cycle project needing to be accomplished before 2010 redistricting, but this article seems surprisingly sanguine on a Democratic takeover, giving that a 50-50 shot. (Republicans currently control it 53-46, so four seats need to flip.) Two factors are seen at work: the Democrats’ overall advantages in the ground game here, and the disproportionate impact of term limits on the Republicans, leaving 20 GOP seats open to only 6 Democratic seats open, with particularly strong possibilities in the Democratic-trending Columbus area.

They also profile the Michigan House, which Democrats currently control by a narrow 58-52 margin. The Republicans had early hopes to flip it, what with the unpopular Granholm administration and recall efforts against some representatives including Speaker Andy Dillon. However, the same dynamic in Ohio is playing out in Michigan, on perhaps an even bigger scale: Republicans are hurt by term limits, with 29 GOP open seats compared to 16 Democratic vacancies. And the GOP is reeling from the McCain campaign’s abandonment of the state, leaving downballot operations in a vacuum.

Got any other information or predictions to share about a state legislature near you? Please chip in in the comments.

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about state legislatures, so here are some bits and pieces on where we stand right now (if you need a primer on where the most hotly contested chambers are and what the margin of seats held is, see my previous diary here). New York remains the big prize, with Democrats within one flipped seat of a tied State Senate and two seats away from taking control. This is the only state I know of where individual races have been polled; over the past month Siena has polled 10 of the 62 races, and with one GOP-held open seat poised to fall to the Democrats, one Dem incumbent trailing a GOP challenger, and one GOP incumbent tied with his Democratic challenger, the outcome is too close to call.

In Texas, the House is possibly the next juiciest legislative target after the NY Senate, which looks more like a two-cycle project but might actually get done this year. Republicans currently hold the House 79-71. Burnt Orange Report recently put together an impressive set of projections, and it seems like a 75-75 split is possible if Dems run the table on the closest races.

They peg two Democratic challengers, Diana Maldonado (open seat in HD-52 in Austin’s northern suburbs) and Chris Turner (against incumbent Bill Zedler in HD-96 in Ft. Worth’s southern suburbs), as “Lean Dem,” with two more potential Democratic pickups at the “Tossup” level (Joe Moody in an open seat in HD-78 in El Paso and Joel Redmond in an open seat in HD-144 in Houston’s eastern suburbs). A Houston Chronicle article from yesterday seems to support this analysis; while it doesn’t delve in to specific seats, it looks at fundraising and general mood to conclude “Climate is ripe for Texas House takeover.”

There’s more over the flip…

Governing Magazine’s Ballot Box blog has, in the last month profiled some of the other most hotly contested state legislature races. One race recently profiled that presents the GOP with a takeover opportunity in an unlikely place: the Maine Senate, based on the Dems’ narrow 18-17 lead and, in an example of all politics being local, an unpopular tax on alcoholic beverages intended to pay for improved health care access. The swingiest district seems to be the 1st district in the state’s southernmost tip, matching a freshman Dem against his GOP predecessor.

The Nevada Senate is another prime pickup opportunity for the Democrats, as the GOP currently controls it by an 11-10 margin. As they point out, this turns on only two races, both involving endangered GOP incumbents, Bob Beers and Joe Heck in the suburbs of Las Vegas. Beers and Heck, if they survive, are both considered possible gubernatorial candidates, seeing as how embattled Jim Gibbons isn’t likely to try again… however, first they have to survive Gibbons’ unpopularity.

One of the Democrats’ toughest holds this year is the Indiana House, where the Dems have a 51-49 edge. This race is hard to handicap because it’s likely the Republicans will pick up a few open seats in rural areas left open by Dem retirements (including ones in West Lafayette and the rural area near Evansville), while Dems pick up a few GOP-held but Dem-heavy seats in Indianapolis (including the seat held by Jon Elrod, whom you might remember getting demolished by Andre Carson in the IN-07 special election).

The Oklahoma Senate is the closest in the nation, as it’s a 24-24 tie, although Democrats maintain control because of the Lt. Governor. Democrats face big trouble in a Dem-held open seat in Stillwater, where a former president of Oklahoma State University is the GOP nominee. However, they feel they have several possible pickups elsewhere, including in the Oklahoma Panhandle, one of the most conservative places in the country but where they’re running a professional bull rider by the name of Bowdy Peach who seems uniquely suited to the district.

In the New Hampshire Senate, Democrats hold a 14-10 edge and are likely to hold on to that. They may even add to that, starting with the seat being vacated by Joe Kenney, the GOP sad sack currently losing the New Hampshire governor’s race by a margin of about 70-10; the Union-Leader projects this seat as “Lean Democratic.”

Both chambers in Florida are heavily Republican right now, but Democrats are optimistic they might pick up a few seats in each, especially a Republican-held open senate seat near Sarasota. However, Florida Dems sound more focused on 2010, when term limits will turf out 21 House Republicans and 8 Senate Republicans.

The Tennessee Senate is one place where the Republicans may take over (despite a 16-16-1 tie, they effectively wield control already; the one independent, who claims to belong to the “NASCAR Party,” generally votes Republican). Several retirements in rural seats held by Democrats may lead to GOP pickups, such as the seat in rural areas just east of Memphis held by long-time Senate leader John Wilder since 1966.

Louis Jacobson at Stateline.org is apparently the only prognosticator who goes so far as to try to assign state legislatures to the “tossup/lean/likely” framework; he published his newest ratings yesterday. They’re mostly in line with what we’ve seen discussed above, and movements that he’s made lately have generally been in the Democratic direction. He forecasts two currently Republican-held chambers, the New York Senate and Delaware House, as being Lean Democratic. He also forecasts seven Republican-held chambers (Alaska Senate, Nevada Senate, North Dakota Senate, Arizona House, Montana House, Ohio House, and Wisconsin Assembly) as being Tossups. He forecasts one Democrat-held chamber, the Montana Senate, as being Lean Republican, and four Democrat-held chambers (Maine Senate, New Hampshire Senate, Indiana House, and Pennsylvania House) as Tossups. Finally, he forecasts the Tennessee Senate and Oklahoma Senate (both tied) as ending up in Republican hands. Some of these choices (NH Senate?) seem to turn merely on the small number of seats needed to flip the chamber, rather than broader trends in each state, but it’s an interesting starting point.

That’s a lot of information to digest… still wondering what to do? Well, the DLCC maintains its own blog, which has been, over the last few weeks, rounding up dozen of Essential Races, focusing on up-and-coming candidates in key races. You can learn more about our Democratic bench as we build it, and there are links for contributions, too.

Legislative Body	Composition
OK-Senate TN-Senate PA-House IN-House MT-House ME-Senate NY-Senate OR-House MT-Senate NV-Senate WI-Assembly TX-House MI-House IA-House OH-House TN-House DE-House WI-Senate AZ-House AK-Senate IL-House	24-24 16-16-1 102-101 51-49 50-49-1 18-17 32-30 31-29 26-24 11-10 52-47 79-71 58-52 53-47 53-46 53-46 22-19 18-15 33-27 11-9 67-51

We’re going to try something new here at Swing State Project: a list of competitive state legislature races for 2008. However, we aren’t breaking them down into the tossup/lean/likely framework that you’re familiar with. Unlike Senate and House races, where there is abundant polling and fundraising information to help us make informed decisions, state legislatures are jigsaws made up of hundreds of different races, most of which we know precious little about. Therefore, we’re simply listing the closest legislative bodies, starting with the ones that are tied and working downward based on percentage of seats held by the majority party.

There are a few legislative bodies that are close enough to be on this list, but aren’t included because they’re elected in off-years (Louisiana House, 53 D/49 R/1 I/2 V) or everyone gets elected all together in 2010 (Michigan Senate, 17 D/21 R).

This list makes a few of these legislative bodies look to be at more risk of flipping than they actually are. For instance, the Tennessee Senate isn’t likely to flip back to us this year, as we’re facing the potential loss of Democratic held open seats in GOP-leaning rural areas due to retirement. Conversely, Democrats in the Oregon House are likely to strengthen their position because of Republican retirements in suburban Dem-leaning seats. Indiana Democrats also seem optimistic about their ability to hold the razor-close Indiana House.

Likewise, there are chambers where reality might place them a little higher on the list. Most prognosticators, for instance, would agree that the New York Senate flipping to Democratic control is all but a done deal at this point, what with Majority Leader Joe Bruno already having hit the eject button and several GOP old-timers in strongly Democratic seats running on fumes. Similarly, there’s a lot of optimism about retaking the Wisconsin Assembly.

Also, there is a handful of states where the number of seats needed to flip, and the small number of constituents per seat, make it possible that anything can happen. (Consider the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2006. The GOP controlled 62% of the seats, making it look safe. The Democrats flipped 90 seats (out of 400… NH has by far the largest state legislature) to take firm control. No one saw that coming, proof that anything can happen at this level.)

Alaska may be a prime example, where Dems only need to flip two seats to take control of the Senate… and with indictments cutting a swath through the Republican caucus in the Senate, the popular Governor now facing a mini-scandal of her own, and potentially big Obama coattails, it may be the year to make it happen. The Senates in both North and South Dakota also need only a few flipped seats to change hands, and, again, with Obama coattails, it’s possible; the same applies to the perpetually-close Montana House.

As stated during last month’s state legislature overview, though, useful links about state legislatures are few and far between in the blogosphere, so we need our readers to help be our eyes and ears. If you have any further insights into any of these races or helpful links, please share in the comments.

I know that it’s easy here at Swing State Project to get seduced by all the glitz and glamour of U.S. House races. (That sounds hilarious when you think about how incredibly nerdy it sounds, but, well, there’s a kernel of truth there.) Bear with me for a minute, though, as we drop down to the real meat and potatoes of American politics: state legislatures. I’ll try to keep everyone updated in future months about developments in some of the biggest contests, but here’s a primer to start with.

Here are some reasons why you should very much care. First, the states are often the crucibles for experimentation with progressive policy. That’s especially been the case over the last few decades of Republican domination at the national level, although hopefully that will change once we actually have a progressive trifecta in Washington.

Consider where the movement toward civil rights and marriage or civil union rights for gays and lesbians has occurred: it’s been purely at the state level. If and when truly universal health care happens, given the difficulty of getting it through Congress, it’s most likely to happen in some of the states (and the some of the boldest moves in that direction have already occurred in the states, such as in Vermont and Oregon… and not coincidentally, back when they had MDs for governors).

Also, the state legislatures are our bench for federal office. The GOP may be the party of wealthy self-funders popping out of nowhere, but the Democrats are largely a meritocratic bunch and many of our best have stints in the state legislature on their resume, where they honed their skills and built their networks. Just as one example, consider what the guy who, four years ago today, was representing the 13th District of the Illinois State Senate is up to now.

Finally, in most states, the state legislatures control the redistricting process, not just for themselves but for U.S. House districts as well. The entire shape and terrain of the nationwide electoral battlefield for the entire 2010s will be determined by who has control of the legislature in key states following the 2010 election. This is partly why we were so hosed during the early 2000s: GOP-held legislatures in states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan drew remarkably GOP-favorable maps. And even when the blue wave came in 2006, the pro-GOP gerrymanders probably saved them the loss of even more seats.

Some GOP-held legislatures are ready to flip now; others have the Democrats in a somewhat deeper hole, but a sustained push over two electoral cycles can have the Democrats in control in 2010. Let’s take a look at the key playing fields for this year and the next few years, starting with Republican-held legislatures that are within striking distance. (The rank order is mostly gut-level, although I did use some informal metrics involving the size of the state, how close the gap between the two parties is, and how much is at stake for that state with 2010 redistricting.)

Democratic offense

1) New York Senate

30 Democrats, 32 Republicans (62 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip (Republicans would sort-of break the tie, as Joe Bruno is both Senate Majority Leader and Acting Lt. Governor because of David Paterson having become Governor, although he still gets only one vote)

Two-year terms, no term limits

Constituents per seat: 311,000

I think most prognosticators would agree with me that this is one is currently the big enchilada. The Republican edge in the Senate, resulting from the long-term presence of GOP lifers in seats that Dem-leaning areas (seriously… 7 of the GOP senators have been in place since the 1970s), has allowed Joe Bruno to single-handedly act as a brake on implementing the progressive agenda in New York.

Moreover, the opportunity for a Democratic trifecta in Albany (Dems currently control the Governor’s seat, and the Assembly by a wide margin) in 2010 would mean complete control over the redistricting process, and an opportunity to dislodge any remaining GOP Congressmen in New York. (Although it’s looking likely that there won’t be more than two or three left after the 2008 election!) New York is predicted to lose two house seats after the 2010 census, and the blow can be softened by making sure both are GOP-held seats.

We’ve edged two seats closer to takeover since the 2006 election via two special elections (in SD-7 on Long Island and SD-48 in far north Upstate). All 62 seats are up this year; unlike most other Senates, in New York, Senators serve two-year terms and are up for re-election every cycle. Robert Harding at the Albany Report has begun an ongoing series handicapping the competitive Senate races, and also started an excellent series of diaries profiling each of the Senate districts.

Of Harding’s most competitive seats, 8 of the 10 are currently GOP-held; the top two are SD-15 and S-11, two seats in heavily Democratic Queens held by GOP oldsters (Serphin Maltese and Frank Padavan). While polling of individual districts hasn’t begun, a Quinnipiac poll released yesterday found that, statewide, voters prefer a Democratic State Senate to a Republican one by a margin of 51 to 35.

2) Texas House

71 Democrats, 79 Republicans (150 total)

4 to tie, 5 to flip

Two-year terms, no term limits

Constituents per seat: 157,000

The Texas House has been controlled by Republicans since 2003. As you probably recall, their first order of business was to engage in the mid-decade DeLay-mander that led to the Dems’ electoral wipeout in 2004 (although several victims of that wipeout have managed to claw their way back into the House). Texas is predicted to gain as many as four seats in the U.S. House through 2010 reapportionment, and given the Texas GOP’s skill at creating bizarre tapeworm-shaped districts, it’s possible that, if we don’t have a seat at the redistricting table, all four of those seats could wind up GOP-leaning. (Given how close the House is, that seat is much likelier to come there than via the Governor or the Senate, where we’re in a deeper hole at 11 D/20 R.)

In addition, in terms of implementing policy, the House Speaker (currently Tom Craddick) is basically the most powerful person in Texas politics, much more so than the Governor. Four seats may seem a little steep – and this may wind up being a two-cycle project, although given the stakes, it’s critically important to follow through – but given the rapid demographic changes occurring in Texas (the same ones that are suddenly putting TX-07 and TX-10 within reach) it’s doable.

3) Pennsylvania Senate

21 Democrats, 29 Republicans (50 total)

4 to tie, 5 to flip (Lt. Governor, currently Dem, breaks tie)

Four-year terms, limit of two terms, half elected each election

Constituents per seat: 249,000

The Pennsylvania Senate is definitely a two-cycle project, as only half of the 50 seats are up for election in 2008, and it’ll be hard to turn more than one or two this year. I’m listing this as high as #3 because Pennsylvania is, after New York, the largest blue state where one of the legislative bodies is Republican-controlled. Like New York, this is because of old-school Republicans hanging on in areas that have long since gone Democratic, at least at the presidential level (Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties in particular). A prominent example is Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, who represents part of Delaware County.

In addition, Pennsylvania is projected to lose another seat in the U.S. House in 2010, so control of the redistricting process will be key. (Hellish redistricting in 2000 managed to turn their U.S. House delegation from 11 R-10 D in 2000 to 12 R-7 D in 2002. Of course, spreading the seats as thin as they did wasn’t that wise, as we got the last laugh in 2006, flipping four seats.)

4) Nevada Senate

10 Democrats, 11 Republicans (21 total)

1 to flip

Four-year terms, limit of three terms, half elected each election

Constituents per seat: 119,000 (except for two multi-member seats)

Nevada is a smallish state, but it ranks high on this list because it’s so closely divided (only one seat needs to change hands to flip control to the Democrats). The Democrats already control the state Assembly by a safe 27-15 margin, and given Jim Gibbons’ problems, may well take back the Governor’s seat in 2010, in which case flipping the Senate would give them the trifecta.

Nevada is also important from a redistricting standpoint, as it will be gaining a seat in 2010. We have a good shot to create three Dem-leaning seats in Clark County, each of which contain part Las Vegas and part suburbs, so, again, control of the redistricting process is key.

5) Tennessee Senate

16 Democrats, 16 Republicans, 1 Independent (Speaker is R)

1 to flip

Four-year terms, half elected every election

Constituents per seat: 183,000

Tennessee’s Senate is one of two tied legislative bodies right now (Oklahoma’s Senate is the other one), but the Republicans currently control the Speaker’s seat (Ron Ramsey won the Speaker vote 18-15, including the support of one Dem). This is on the list because a shift of one seat would give the Democrats control (assuming that Rosalind Kurita, the Dem who flipped would vote for a Democratic speaker in the event of a clear Democratic majority). Democrats already control the House and the Governorship.

This is a bit lower on the list because Tennessee is expected to retain nine House seats in 2010. Changes around the margins, however, could either work toward making existing Democratic seats safer, or else trying to make TN-07 competitive.

Others to watch

The Michigan Senate would be near the top of the list, as we’re down 17 D-21 R and only need to pick up two seats to tie it (where the Dem Lt. Gov. would break the tie). Michigan has one of the most pro-GOP gerrymanders in the nation, which will need to be undone in 2010. However, we can’t do anything about it yet because no Senators are up for election in 2008; all 38 stand in 2010.

The Virginia House of Delegates is a ripe target, especially in view of having just taken over the Virginia Senate. We’re down 45 D-53 R-2 I (the Independents both caucus GOP), so a swing of six would give us the trifecta. This election, however, won’t happen until 2009.

As I mentioned, the Oklahoma Senate is also tied, split 24-24. We maintain functional control over the Senate because of the Democratic Lt. Governor, however (although a power-sharing agreement gives the Republicans control during the month of July, believe it or not).

Wisconsin’s Assembly is within reach, with Dems down 47 D-52 R. And both chambers in Arizona are close (13 D-17 R in the Senate, and 27 D-33 R in the House); Arizona is set to gain two seats in 2010, but redistricting control isn’t at issue as the decisions are up to a nonpartisan commission.

Democratic defense

Now let’s take a look at legislatures where we’re going to have to play defense. I don’t foresee this being a cause for alarm, given broader Democratic strengths this cycle, but the fact that we currently control 57 legislatures to the GOP’s 39 means that we do need to watch our backs.

1) Pennsylvania House

102 Democrats, 101 Republicans (203 total)

1 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 61,000

A strong gust could tip the Pennsylvania House back to Republican control (especially considering that, although the Democrats control the chamber, they elected a Republican as speaker in a compromise). Looking at the sheer numbers of Republicans left in the Dem-leaning Philly burbs, the general trends point in our direction, but at only 61,000 constituents per seat, local-level dynamics can make all the difference.

2) Michigan House

58 Democrats, 52 Republicans (110 total)

3 to tie, 4 to flip

Two-year terms, limit of three terms

Constituents per seat: 92,000

In Michigan, the Dems hold the House and the Governorship, although both somewhat tenuously. Controlling the trifecta in 2010 is extremely important, as the pro-GOP gerrymander in the U.S. House seats needs to be undone (the split went from 9 D-7 R in 2000 to 9 R-6 D in 2002, where it persists today). Michigan is predicted to lose one more seat in 2010.

3) Indiana House

51 Democrats, 49 Republicans (100 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 63,000

The Democratic margin is Indiana is very narrow, and the only thing keeping the GOP from controlling the trifecta (the GOP has solid control over the Senate, at 33 R-17 D). Indiana is not predicted to lose a U.S. House seat in 2010, but a GOP gerrymander could make life much more difficult for the three Dem House members representing red districts in Indiana.

4) Oregon House

31 Democrats, 29 Republicans (60 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 62,000

Democrats in Oregon finally took back the House in 2006, giving them the trifecta (they have solid control over the Senate, at 19 D-11 R). This is on the list mostly by virtue of how close it is on paper, but the disparity wasn’t much of an impediment on Speaker Jeff Merkley’s ability to push through progressive legislation. With strong Obama coattails and the Republicans defending several suburban open seats, look for the Democrats to gain a few seats (as Skywaker9 at Daily Kos has thoroughly detailed). However, Oregon is set to gain a House seat in 2010, with the possibility of a 5-1 delegation if the Dems divvy up Portland correctly, so holding the trifecta through 2010 is important.

5) Illinois House

67 Democrats, 51 Republicans (118 total)

8 to tie, 9 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 109,000

Illinois doesn’t actually seem in that much danger this year, with a decent-sized cushion and major Obama coattails. The main reason this is on the list as opposed to a chamber with smaller margins is that Illinois is set to lose a U.S. House seat in 2010, and although we currently control the trifecta, we don’t want the GOP anywhere near the redistricting table.

A few other bodies are worth mentioning: the Virginia Senate (21 D-19 R), Louisiana House (53 D-49 R-1 I-2 V), and Mississippi Senate (27 D-25 R) are all very close, but these are all off-year elections and won’t be an issue until 2009.

(You might be wondering what our safest chamber is. I’d say it’s the Hawaii Senate, which we control 22 D-3 R.)

“Moneyball” opportunities

Finally, I wanted to turn my attention to several more pickup possibilities, which I’m calling the “moneyball” states. These tend to be the smallest states, where redistricting isn’t an issue because each one only gets one U.S. House seat, so they aren’t high priorities for us. On the other hand, these are the chambers that can be flipped for the smallest possible investment. I calculated this simply by multiplying the number of seats needed to flip by the number of constituents per seat (and thus the presumed expense of flipping a seat). Two of these cases (Delaware and Montana) would actually give the Dems the trifecta in those states.

1) Montana House

49 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 1 Constitution Party (100 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Constituents per seat: 9,000

Moneyball number: 18,000

2) Delaware House

19 Democrats, 22 Republicans (41 total)

2 to flip

Constituents per seat: 21,000

Moneyball number: 42,000

3) North Dakota Senate

21 Democrats, 26 Republicans (47 total)

3 to flip

Constituents per seat: 14,000

Moneyball number: 42,000

4) South Dakota Senate

15 Democrats, 20 Republicans (35 total)

3 to flip

Constituents per seat: 22,000

Moneyball number: 66,000

5) Alaska House

17 Democrats, 23 Republicans (40 total)

3 to tie, 4 to flip

Constituents per seat: 17,000

Moneyball number: 68,000

There’s a real shortage of information out there at the national level about individual state legislature races, so if anyone of you out there know of any blogs or individual diarists that excel at handicapping state legislature races, please let us know in the comments and we’ll be sure and keep up with them as we approach November.

Hello to all my fellow denizens of the Swing State Project!  I’m Ari, better known as the Caped Composer.  For the record, I really am a composer (and a female one at that!  How many female composers do you know?  For that matter, how many female Ari’s do you know?  I’m a double rarity!)  Regarding the “caped” part of my name, I’ve only worn a cape once in my life, when some friends dared me to wear one to a college football game.  That incident gave rise to the nickname.

I am not trained in political science– my degrees are both in music, as a matter of fact.  During my adolescence, I had no inclination toward political activism at all.  That all changed with the election of 2000, the first presidential election in which I was old enough to vote.  The debacle in my native South Florida splashed cold water on me, so to speak, and I have grown increasingly active in left-leaning politics ever since.

In 2004, I was living in Chicago (I went to graduate school there,) and I am proud to say that I spent election day in Wisconsin, getting out the vote for Kerry in the crucial suburban districts outside Milwaukee.  Many other Chicagoans also participated in this manner, and I believe that it was our efforts that gave Kerry the razor-thin victory over Bush in Wisconsin.

Since that time, I moved to New York, but have kept my fingers on the pulse of congressional and senate races across the country.  2006 was an invigorating and ultimately rewarding time; I spent a great number of hours calling voters in swing districts all over the place!  

My greatest hope for 2008 is that we can significantly increase our majority in the senate, and, furthermore, elect genuine progressives to both houses of congress.  Donna Edwards’ victory over Al Wynn earlier this week was, I hope, a sign of good things to come.

So, with that . . . I conclude my introduction.  I can’t wait to blog about more and more congressional races!

NY-26 Democratic candidate Jon Powers issued a press release today outlining his fundraising figures from the 4th quarter of 2007 and his overall totals to date.

From an e-mailed press release:

Jon Powers, Iraq war veteran, former U.S. Army Captain and Democratic candidate for Congress in New York’s 26th congressional district announced today that his campaign raised over $369,000 in 2007, with $139,000 raised in the 4th quarter.  This brings his cash on hand to a healthy $261,000 heading into the election year.

“Traveling across western New York and listening to so many families and small business owners having to make great sacrifices to make ends meet each month, you can’t help but notice the deep insecurities that come with feeling left behind by leadership that puts special interests before working families,” Powers said.  “To see them rally to our campaign with their ideas, time, and hard-earned paychecks is such an honor.”

The campaign’s 4th quarter filing will reflect $139,323 from over 500 individual donors.

Online fundraising has gone exceptionally well, indicating the buzz surrounding Jon’s campaign is continuing.  68% of Jon’s total donations were received online, putting his campaign among the national leaders when it comes to online fundraising.

The campaigns’ grassroots efforts are being well received: 61% of donations were $50 and under, with 87% of contributions coming from individuals.

This building momentum speaks to Powers’ support in the district and shows that people are ready for a leader who will fight to change course in Iraq, fight for better paying jobs at home, and a brand of leadership that puts hardworking middle class families first instead of special interest groups.  This quarter,  Jon Powers has also received endorsements from Livingston, Genesee, and Orleans counties Democratic committees.

“If we’re going to see change in Washington that impacts the working families here at home, we need to change the people we send to Washington,” Powers said.  “I’m running for Congress to be a voice for families in western New York, finally putting their kitchen table concerns ahead of the special interests.”

That’s right. Powers raised $139,323 in the fourth quarter, for a total of over $369,000 raised in 2007. He also has over $261,000 cash on hand.  

Pretty impressive. I know the Powers campaign has been working very hard and Jon has worked very hard to raise money and to reach out to possible donors and current donors as well.

Jon has the momentum. In nine months, we hope to have Jon elected into Congress in New York’s 26th congressional district.

On the web:

Contribute to Jon Powers for Congress

Jon Powers for Congress

Club 26

NY-26 Democratic candidate Jon Powers had a great week in his race for Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds’ House seat.

It all started with a fundraiser in Buffalo. Rep. Steve Israel from New York’s 2nd District attended the fundraiser to show his strong support for Powers.

Israel touted Jon’s military record, as well as his message of leadership by example. Following Israel, Powers spoke about the concerns of Western New Yorkers. Powers said that WNYers’ first concern is jobs. The second concern is jobs and probably the third is jobs as well. The jobs issue is an important one for people in the 26th district.  

But the week was far from over for Jon. Wednesday night, just hours after Rep. Israel’s support, Jon received the Livingston County Democratic Committee’s endorsement. At their committee meeting, the Livingston County Dems heard from not only Jon, but Alice Kryzan as well. After listening to both candidates message, the Livingston County Dems overwhelmingly endorsed Jon in his run to unseat Reynolds.

It was the third county Democratic endorsement Jon has received. Previously, the Orleans County Dems endorsed Jon and the Genesee County Democratic Committee was the first to endorse Jon. He’s also received endorsements from Sen. Bob Kerrey and Gen. Wesley Clark.

Speaking of Orleans County, Jon came to Orleans County for a house party on Sunday. (Note: I’m from Orleans County.) That was a great event and just from the feeling I got from everyone (about 35-40 people) in the room, he will have a lot of support in the rural areas of this district, including Orleans County.

Then last night, Jon capped off the last week by receiving the Town of Clarence Democratic Committee endorsement. Again, he went head-to-head with Kryzan and Clarence took Jon. Jon is from Clarence, so he had the home-field advantage and a clear message.

Jon is a great all-around candidate. I will write often about the news from his campaign. It should be a great 9 1/2 months.

Links:

Powers For Congress

Contribute to Jon Powers for Congress

Join Club 26